Talk:Thelema

FlagsofScarlet's revisions

User: FlagsofScarlet has been attempting on a couple of occasions to edit this article to suit their own POV, specifically removing mentions of religion, and attempting to downgrade the status of O.T.O. First time around I assumed Good Faith, and tried to work within their edits to improve the article, but this time the edits are so bad, both factually and stylistically, that I've been forced to simply revert, which is not something I like to have to do. FoS, please stop vandalising the article like this - please note that it has already attatined Good Article status, and we would like to keep it that way. If you disagree with the way the article is presented, please discuss proposed changes here before charging in again, ok? That way we can work together to keep things getting better instead of falling into a change/revert cycle. Thanks --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Shri Gurudev Mahendranath

Hmm. It looks like this source has been officially deemed non-notable, and the references to the source in the article seem kind of... irrelevant. Is it just me? Mind if I go ahead and clean this up? --71.236.167.39 (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my login expired. The above was: --Thiebes (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had seen that Mahendranath discussion earlier - he's absolutely notable in my opinion. However the reference given in this article wasn't good, I've corrected it now. I think the corrected version should stay, it's important for people to know that Thelema has historical precedents. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether he is notable does not seem to be a matter of purely opinion, but of written standards. If he is not notable according to WP standards, then I question whether he can be considered a reliable source, and whether his opinion is noteworthy enough to be included in an article of this sort. I am not a wikipedia policy and standards expert so I am asking for input from the group on this. --Thiebes (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he does meet notability standards in that he has produced a body of work that has received significant secondary commentary by experts in the field, most notably via the work of Mike Magee. Nevertheless, his notability-worthiness of having a Wikipedia article or not does not really impact whether he is worth quoting here. In the context that he was one of Crowley's direct pupils who also happened to be an initiated Indian guru I think his comments are valuable here. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Have just noticed Thiebes has added credibility tags to Mahendranath's quote. That quote was translated and reproduced by Mike Magee, a well-known authority on Tantra, who has been translating tantric works for over 30 years. There is no question about Mike's authority - a quick look at any good modern tantric bibliography should verify his credibility more than adequately. For example see [1] or [2] Mike is also a highly respected professional journalist in the UK.. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The question of credibility was not cast on Mike Magee, but rather on Mahendranath. Is Mahendranath an expert in the field, worthy of quoting here? In fact, there is a complete absence of reliable, third-party, published sources and no significant coverage and reliable sources independent of the subject, according to the AfD. The fact that a journalist (respectable though he may be) translated some of Mahendranath's words does not mean the substance of those words consists of expertise, nor does it establish the expertise or relevance of Mahendranath on the topic of Thelema. Can you provide a reliable source explicitly and directly indicating Mahendranath's expertise in the field? --Thiebes (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thiebes, please stop quoting the AfD as if it's a source. If I had known that AfD was happening I certainly would have objected to its deletion. There are numerous reliable third-party sources on Mahendranath, not least Magee's own Tantra Magick, which is considered fairly seminal - see the links I gave above. I strongly suggest you read it, or at the very least, read some of the work at [3]. Personally I don't see why you have such a bee in your bonnet about Mahendranath. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are numerous reliable third-party sources demonstrating that Mahendranath was an expert and worthy of quotation here, then cite those sources. If you would have argued in the AfD that Mahendranath is notable, then produce the citations which demonstrate that he is notable and an expert on Thelema. The website links you provided above are not reliable sources per WP standards as far as I can tell. I do not have a 'bee in my bonnet' and I would appreciate not making this personal; I simply have not seen any evidence that Mahendranaath meets the standards of WP for reliable sources. --Thiebes (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I have written above again: I cited Magee's Tantra Magick which is a reliable source published by a well-established specialist third-party publisher (Mandrake). A quick look at Magee's bibliography will show that he is a notable translator and expert on Tantra, and his writings on the work of Mahendranath are extensive and authoritive. Continually stating that "there are no sources, I can't hear you, lalalalala" does not change that fact. Just because you haven't read them doesn't mean that they do not exist. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that your source, a former student of Mahendranath, says or implies that Mahendranath is an expert on Thelema in Tantra Magick? I wonder because the word Thelema does not appear through the whole text, and Crowley's name appears only twice, to describe an alleged brief meeting between Mahendranath and Crowley. Where does this source indicate that Mahendranath's opinion about Thelema is notable in the least?

Also, is Mahendranath generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the history of the Nath? Since he is quoted here on the subject of thousands of years of history, we should establish that his opinion of that history is indeed notable.

Finally, is Magee generally regarded as trustworthy and authoritative in relation to Thelema? If he is making the claim that Mahendranath had something notable to say about Thelema, then we need to establish that Magee knows what he is talking about with respect to Thelema, not Tantra.

I am not pretending that your source does not exist. I have now further explained that I do not find it sufficient to satisfy the WP standards as I understand them, and based on what I have seen, I do not agree that Magee or Mahendranath can be considered generally authoritative or trustworthy in relation to Thelema. If the source does meet the standards, it should be a relatively simple matter to explain. --Thiebes (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How long do we need to wait for someone to explain how Mahendranath's opinion is relevant in an article about Thelema? He is no expert on Thelema and there is not a single reliable source that says otherwise. Where do we go from here? --Thiebes (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As regards Magee being "authoritative or trustworthy in relation to Thelema", clearly you are too young to remember Sothis (very influential on the Thelemic scene in its time); however Magee is still going strong in the Thelemic world: see [4] although in recent years he has concentrated his energies on his tantrik work. However I can see that I am wasting my time discussing this. And, to be honest, I personally don't give a damn about Mahendranath or his opinion, I'm just trying to preserve a NPOV in the article as much as possible. So I shall gracefully bow out of this particular discussion. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, setting aside personal comments about age and what I may or may not personally remember, the problem as I see it is twofold: 1) that neither Magee or anyone else has apparently said or suggested anywhere that Mahendranath is an expert on Thelema or onthe history of the Nath. This is the biggest problem. Putting Mahendranath's opinion on this page requires that he be recognized as some sort of expert whose opinion is worth inclusion here. To give an analogy: Roger Ebert has recently written about his thoughts concerning quantum mechanics. These opinions do not appear on the quantum mechanics page, because well, Roger Ebert is not a recognized expert on the subject. So, we need to establish Mahendranath's expertise in some way, for his opinion here to be appropriate. 2) A secondary thing which only matters if Magee somewhere treated Mahendranath as an expert on Thelema, is that we need to establish that Magee is himself a reliable source for that information. Otherwise, how would Magee know who is and isn't an expert? You have asserted that Magee is an expert on Thelema, and that he has somehow treated Mahendranath as one too. However I do not see where he has so treated Mahendranath in the work you cited, and I do not know where we can find a reliable source indicating that Magee's opinion on any Thelemic subject is valuable. There is nothing NPOV about an article which includes opinion and sources just because some editor likes them, and Wikipedia isn't here to lend credibility to opinions. Everything needs to come from reliable sources. I'm just trying to find out if this does or does not come from reliable sources. If it does, and someone can cite those sources, I'd be more than happy to leave the information in the article. Lacking such sources though, I think that it is best to remove this apparently irrelevant section. Since you have withdrawn from disagreement without citing sources that back up your assertions, I will move forward with removal. Should anyone choose to dispute this I would be more than happy to revert this change and examine any sources that a person might care to cite. --Thiebes (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See now, the article has a lot to say about historical precedents (and rightly so) before it starts quoting Mahendranath. Mr. Gurudev goes further than that in promoting the view of the banned user who added him for this reason. He makes strong, disputed claims about Dashwood and the meaning of Thelema (I don't know about Asia). We've tried to fix this, but giving Mahendranath a section in "Historical use of the word Thelema" just doesn't work. Even the title in quotes there seems like a failed kludge, a valiant attempt to avoid taking a stand on who "Thelema" includes and who merely counts as a precedent, but an attempt that fails to describe the section under the title. And by the way, recent edits have inadvertently pushed the article even further in the banned user's direction by removing at least one credible alternate claim about Dashwood. (Though if we include the connection to Freemasonry, I think we have to add the Real True Masonic Lodge© disclaimer.) And is it just me, or does the paragraph break in Dashwood's section reduce the impact of the more scholarly and certain point about lack of evidence? Dan (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if any reference to Mahendranath remains in the article, it definitely needs to be changed in some way. --Thiebes (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Harsh Disagreements?

The following statement in the lead appears to be improper synthesis: "People have interpreted and applied Crowley’s work in widely different ways, sometimes leading to harsh disagreements." Sources do not appear to state this, but rather are used as examples of widely differing interpretations and of harsh disagreements. This appears to be improper synthesis or possibly original research. Article should not make claims that are not made by sources cited. --Thiebes (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If a source serves as a reliable "example of widely differing interpretations and of harsh disagreements", then this takes the "weasel" out of the words "people" (which people) and "sometimes" (how many is "some"), doesn't it? So if the sources are reliable, why would this be improper synthesis or OR?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  19:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am wondering about a) do the sources state there was a difference of interpretation, or did this claim originate here, and b) do the sources state that those interpretations were "widely different," or did that claim originate here, and c) do the sources make the statement that the alleged disagreements are "harsh", and d) are these sources indeed reliable after all? --Thiebes (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is improper synthesis - hell, looking at this Talk page shows plenty of evidence of disagreement. What I do think is a problem is that it's weasel words, and that one of the references cited is of no great authority. I'd like to see the entire sentence excised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneyorpheus (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not for us to look for evidence of disagreement, or to characterize disagreements, or to judge the harshness of disagreements. It is improper synthesis and original research because all of these things were done by an editor, rather than paraphrased from a secondary source. --Thiebes (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me Thiebes, I'm having some trouble synthesizing your statements. In your first paragraph above you indicate that you have read the sources. Then in your second paragraph you appear to indicate that you have not read the sources. If you have read the sources, then you would not have to wonder about what they state, correct? And yet, if you have not read the sources, then how do you know what they "appear" to say?

The statement about "harsh disagreements" does not appear to be incorrect synthesis nor original research. Nor do the words seem the least bit weaselly, as thought by Rodneyorpheus above. To me it's a true statement of the stark polarity of Crowley's interpretation with the interpretations of others who fail to realize that there are responsibilities, as well as accountabilty, that go hand-in-hand with the freedom of Thelema.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read some but not all of the sources cited. They appear to be being used as examples of disagreement rather than as citations stating that disagreements exist. Unless the sources state what is claimed in the paragraph in question, then I wonder who is making the claim -- secondary sources or a wikipedia editor? Provision of the relevant quotations will resolve this matter. --Thiebes (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You lost me again, Thiebes. If the sources are examples of disagreement, then why don't you think that they show that disagreements exist? You seem to want the source to come right out and say that disagreements exist in a scholarly fashion. However if the source is a reliable example of the existence of disagreement, does this not effectively "say" that disagreement exists? Perhaps you can find a source that actually states that harsh disagreements exist? If possible, that would certainly be better than removing the claim. After all, you still don't know the entire extent and content of the sources yet.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources cited in notes 11 and 12 do not make the claim that widely differing interpretations have led to harsh disagreements. The source for note 11 does not appear to have any bearing on the question of differing interpretations of Crowley's work whatsoever, and the source for note 12 appears to be an example of an apparent disagreement with an interpretation of Rabelais' work, not Crowley's as claimed in the article, nor is there any objective way to decide whether the apparent disagreement about Rabelais is "harsh." Furthermore I question whether the source cited in note 12 can really be considered reliable?

The source cited in note 10, I do not have a copy, but I will look it up soon unless someone with access to the text cares to quote the relevant passage here.

I am not aware of any reliable sources which make the claims made in the article. That's the problem. --Thiebes (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the book in #11 definitely talks about differing interpretations of Crowley, though I think someone has confused the issue by removing some of my page numbers at some point. The same book says roughly that many occultists consider the OTO evil -- that seems like a pretty harsh disagreement to me, and it seems related to those differing interpretations that the author mentions in the same chapter or anecdote (as well as earlier in the book). #10 deals in part with the identity of Aiwass but also with general disagreements among Thelemic orders. #12 deals with Crowley; it does try to minimize his role in the issue, but the writer says explicitly that "Rabelais is a convenient name to show that Crowley borrowed his ideas and was just one thread in much wider fabric." This work and the related speech from Sabazius (#32) state disagreements in what I'd call rather harsh terms (though still more politely than our banned friend Ek). Because of these latter points, I didn't think we needed much of a source for the clear existence of disagreement. Dan (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am persuaded by this. --Thiebes (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloodless Cakes

I propose removing the claim that the Cakes of Light used in public EGC celebrations of the Gnostic Mass sometimes do not contain blood. This is inaccurate. All cakes must contain either fresh animal blood or burned human blood. I do not have a public source to cite at this time, however, the citation currently provided points to the instructions on how to make cakes (which is already covered in linked the "Cakes of Light" article) without offering any backing of the claims about OTO's use of them. Removing the false and uncited claim leaves no purpose for the current citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrPangloss (talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, regardless of what may or may not be practiced in EGC, there is no source offered to support the claims made in the article on this point. The claim should be removed unless a reliable source can be found to support the claim, and I doubt such a source exists. --Thiebes (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that OTO is currently looking into the whole question themselves, so the entire comment is a bit moot. I actually don't see any reason for this section on the Cakes of Light to even be in the article. It's an issue of ritual performance, nothing to do with Thelema as a philosophy. I'd suggest simply excising that section. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The text does seem to wander rather far afield at that point. BrPangloss (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The reference source used appears reliable and gives a good description of the practice. The claim will stay in the article per WP:Preserve until and unless further discussion warrants removal.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

REF... AL III,24: "The best blood is of the moon, monthly: then the fresh blood of a child, or dropping from the host of heaven: then of enemies; then of the priest or of the worshippers: last of some beast, no matter what."

The source is very reliable. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with this section's claims made about OTO practice and policy. There is nothing in there that backs up the assertion that a) blood is optional or b) OTO bodies generally remove blood from cakes. Can you point to anything in that source (or in any other) that backs up those claims? Further, here is a source of very reliable authority--the head of OTO-USA--stating the contrary, that blood is not optional at EGC masses. This places the assertion in question more under WP:Burden than WP:Preserve.

However, the fact that Cakes of Light are part of EGC mass and that they contain blood is already well documented elsewhere (c.f. Cake of Light and Liber XV, The Gnostic Mass) and, as Rodneyorpheus points out, not particularly germane to the subject of this article. It ought to be stuck from the article, though that is far less important than the removal of the unsourced, erroneous claims. BrPangloss (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your OTO comments. I looked for hours and could not find a reliable source for blood as an optional ingredient. I did find this one, but I don't know how reliable it is, as the first two links on the page are broken. I've reworded that last paragraph in the section and re-sourced it. I also restored some of your other edits. And I still disagree as regards the paragraph's relevance to the article and to the section on magick and ritual.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  23:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your footwork and re-adding my edits. I still don't see the overall relevance of this to Thelema, but as I said before, that part doesn't terribly concern me. The more people know of Cakes of Light, the better, as far as I'm concerned. I'm just trying to keep the article topical.

I made a couple further adjustments to clarify the cakes' ingredients and to utilize the name by which the "Caliphate" OTO references itself.BrPangloss (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You have my concurrence and gratitude.  —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  21:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no such organization as the Caliphate OTO. The official name and trademark of the not-for-profit legal corporation as recorded with the state of California and the governments of the UK & Australia, as well as several others, is Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O) with no other prefix or suffix. Please see [5] --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the mention of the Gnostic Mass into the main paragraph on rituals, where I think it belongs, and trimmed out all the irrelevant fat. As others have mentioned, there's a link to the full Gnostic Mass article right there, and anyone interested in the GM can (and should) use that link. The entire section is now a lot clearer and more focused in my opinion. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Randi

I'm really not sure why the Randi "million dollar challenge" is mentioned in the article now. I have never considered his offer to be genuine, nor is it particularly relevant to the religion of Thelema - are we to insert this also into articles on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or every other religion that teaches that the divine can have a physical effect on the world? (As it happens, I once spent a day with James Randi, and it left me with major doubts about his sincerity, to say the least). --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article used to have a vague and un-cited claim that "There is still no scientific evidence of magick's effectiveness." My edit summary says add a better citation if you've got one. Dan (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it have to have anything like that in there at all? I don't see any section in the Christianity or Judiaism articles discussing whether praying to Jehovah actually works or not... --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. The article needs to mention Crowley's scientific aspirations, so one could make a case for this under NPOV. But I'm not particularly attached to Randi's view. Dan (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"But in the matter of external results, the James Randi Educational Foundation in 1996 offered US$1 million to anyone who can produce such by magical or "paranormal" means under scientific conditions, and more than a decade passed without anyone successfully claiming the prize. (After this point the Foundation added a requirement to reduce the number of claims needing examination.)"

I've gone ahead and removed the above sentences for now. I think a mention of Randi could be apt for a discussion of Crowley's Magick, but perhaps less so for its place in Thelema in general. Even if it does have a place in this article, the wording and integration with the rest of the writing could be a lot smoother. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving the Universal hexagaram

Hello to all concerned. I'd like to suggest that the image opf the Universal Hexagram be moved into the introductory paragraph, which I believe has several advantages; firstly it provides immediate visual interest for the reader, secondly it is the commonly held symbol of this religion, and such symbols are virtually unanimously used in the introductory paragraphs of pages on religion in Wikipedia, and it would have more relevence here than in the section that it is currently in. I just wanted to celar it by all you first. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Seems like a good suggestion to me. I think we should use Crowley's version of the symbol though, and list any variants in the Unicursal Hexagram article. I've taken the liberty to change the image to Crowley's version on the page, with the assumption that this is not likely to be objected to by anyone... --Thiebes (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Thelemic Literature

This section is useful but contains a list of names and publications of dubious legitimacy. In particular, several of the publications listed are Caliphate OTO lodge newsletters and, as such, are prone to heavy bias in favor of that particular brand of Thelema.

I propose that organizational newsletters listed in the article be only those officially sanctioned by the national or international headquarters of that particular organization. Without this stipulation what is to prevent every minor OTO body, HOOR temple, etc. from coming in here and listing their own publication for the sake of advertising their existence? Who will edit such content and will such edits appear to further promote bias? 24.119.74.180 (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the publications listed in the External Links section, only three of the nine links listed are to O.T.O. publications, which I don't consider excessive considering the importance of O.T.O. to Thelema both historically and currently. Scarlet Letter and Lion & Serpent have each been running for many years, and are highly regarded in the field; they also are available for free download online, so I think that their inclusion is a very good thing. They are certainly not "of dubious legitimacy". However I could happily live with dropping Doomsayer's Digest if other people think there are too many O.T.O. journals listed. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This section describes [Israel Regardie]] as a "thelemic writer", implying that he regarded himself as a thelemite. On the contrary, in The Eye in the Triangle Regardie expresses scepticism about the origins of the Book of the Law, stating the opinion that Aiwass was an unconscious expression of Crowley's personality. I think it would therefore be more appropriate to describe Regardie as a writer on Thelemic topics (among more general occult writings) rather than a "thelemic writer".--Smcg8374 (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardie was a writer who self-identified as a Thelemite in many, many places (see Suster's biography for examples), and wrote, edited and published many books on Thelema, so I think describing him as a "Thelemic writer" is quite reasonable. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Religion, eh?

Just chiming into the "religion" debate. I found the quote "Thelema is essentially a polytheistic religion" to be confusing for several reasons: (1) the Book of the Law seems to stress unity (2) practioners of Thelema do not approach their devotion like other polytheistic faiths and (3) I have no darned clue what "essentially" would mean in this sentence. Anyone agree that this sentence adds confusing rather than adding to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.155.233 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. "Polythieism" from Wikipedia does not match the discription set forth in the "Thelema" article. As far as Wikipedia defines polytheism it says "The deities of polytheistic religions are agents in mythology, where they are portrayed as complex personages of greater or lesser status, with individual skills, needs, desires and histories" as well as "contrasts with monotheism, the belief in a singular God. Polytheists do not always worship all the gods equally." (How many Thelemites have rituals JUST to one of the three "deities"? ...is there any foundation to assume that rituals to Hadit alone are done, or that conceptually that deity, or Nuit for that matter, functions on a singular basis like the deities in polytheistic religions?... how many myths only involve only one of the three Thelemic deities??) Excuse the step ahead, I mean no arrogant afront ("As brothers fight ye!" III:59) but I'm just going to go ahead and delete "polytheistic" if edits to the Thelema article are possible. (The three steps to the high altar are also NOT a good reason to call the ritual POLY-theim). If there is enough talk about adding it back in for good reasons, then please discuss and I trust it will be re-added into the Thelema article. Thanks to everyone contributing to this article, this article is genuinely informative. Love is the law, love under will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.155.233 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, one biased, non-academic book doesn't get to define religions, at least in Wikipedia. Care to find a source that explicitly notes it as such? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In general terms, Thelema has many of the hallmarks of a religion as opposed to simply a philosophy; it has theological aspects, as well as festivals, alonside an ethical code and of course a sacred book. I understand that many Thelemites (I myself am not one of their rank), may well prefer to consider it to be a philosophy in the way that I have known Buddhists and Muslims to both declare that their faiths are not religions but "philosophies" or a "way of life" but that does not make it so. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

Let's ask the guy who invented it:

To sum up, our system is a religion just so far as a religion means an enthusiastic putting-together of a series of doctrines, no one of which must in any way clash with Science or Magick. Call it a new religion, then, if it so please your Gracious Majesty; but I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by so doing, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief.

Crowley, Magick Without Tears.

CESNUR certainly treat Thelema as a new religion in numerous academic publications and conferences, for several examples see [6]. My personal opinion that that for encyclopedia purposes it fulfills all the standard criterion of being a religion and this page is not the place to be debating what and what is not a "religion". So I am strongly in favor is leaving it as such. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Crowley referred to Thelema as a new religion, or simply as a religion, literally dozens of times, including very late in his life after he had written the above. New religions at that time were something of a fad, and in the above quotation from Magick Without Tears (often cited by people unfamiliar with Crowley's other works), Crowley was likely cautioning his friend against getting caught up in the fad. --Thiebes (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some view it as religion, and some do not. I think this matter should be looked into. I remember seeing a couple outside sources that explained the arguments for Thelema's status as a religion (and arguments against Thelema being a religion). Personally, I think we should try somewhere to address both viewpoints without confusing readers. FUTURI (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Thelema on wikipedia is stated as a "religion"? Proposed edit: Thelema contains religious and philosophical systems, as originally conceived in the writings of Aleister Crowley and the Book of the Law (Liber AL vel Legis). There appears no one write way to describe someone who is a "Thelemite" I agree with Futuri directly above. Readers here PROBABLY know at least a FEW people in our lives who espouse enthusiasm for the Book of the Law in VASTLY different ways (some religious, some VERY NOT SO). Some Thelemites explicitly hold themselves out as promulgators of the Law of Thelema, yet these individuals have no religious affiliation, no organized doctrine, and blatantly declare that there is no divinity or doctrine or holy "Truth"! (I think we do no wrong in calling someone who has no religion a Thelemite, See Liber Al vel Legis, Book One, Verse 40... okay: vague enough for you!?). What's even better yet is that if you look at doxa and proaxis (belief and practice), many "Thelemites" look and act drastically different, very much as if these Thelemites do not SHARE A RELIGION. ARARITA lodge states on THEIR homepage: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law! Our mission is to effect and promote the doctrines and practices of the philosophical and religious system known as Thelema, with particular emphasis on cultivating the ideals of individual liberty, self-discipline, self-knowledge, and universal brotherhood..." I simply believe stating in this article that Thelema is a religion sets up the reader to quizically ask themselves, "Well, what do Thelemites bleiev if they all share one religion?" This steers readers down a confusing path because Thelemites are NOT sharing a religion. If we were sharing it, then we wouldn't be following our Duty and the True Will. Instead, I believe it is more accurate to state what Thelemites DO SHARE: certain systems of practice and certain goals, but not a religious belief NOR A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Love is the law, love under will. - ktb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.200.250 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten to the beating a dead horse stage, and there is really no point in bringing it back up. Academically Thelema fufils all functions of a religion and is treated as such. It's a waste of time and energy for adherents of that religion to argue with that in an encyclopedia. As always, it's irrelevant what you or I think, what counts is producing good third party citations. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dashwood & Hellfire Club

This section does not explain how it relates to the topic of the article. --Thiebes (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, I think it gives some background information about a further movement based off of Francois Rabelais. However, since it doesn't seem to have any relevance to Thelema itself, I'm actually thinking that this section should be deleted. FUTURI (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sacred

This Should NOT be on Wikiepedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.33.48 (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikiepedia, but it's certainly on Wikipedia, exactly where it belongs. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it permissible to delete this section of the talkpage? I think the original poster just posted this as talk page vandalism. FUTURI (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thelema and the UK Justice System

This new section was by me - John Mitchell - relating to my experiences in May of 2009, when I applied through the Court Officer of Lewes Crown Court to have Thelema recognised, as I – as a Thelemite, though not yet a member of the OTO - did not wish to take the Affirmation.

Below is an article I wrote for the Shemesh Lodge OTO publication, 'Sorath', which was published at the end of 2009, about my experiences.

Thelema in Court

During the last two weeks of May, 2009, I had the dubious honour of being picked for Jury Service by Her Majesty's Courts Service – it was originally set for last October, however being in Frankfurt on (my now ex) employer’s time setting up their book fair stand didn't really bode well so my service was deferred.

The paperwork sent to me put me onto the HMCS website, where besides all of the usual tedium of when to turn up and how the whole thing worked, there was the most unusual passage regarding the swearing of oaths: “When your turn comes you must either take an oath on a holy book of your choice, or affirm…” (http://juror.cjsonline.gov.uk/all-about-the-trial/being-sworn-in/)

I thought to myself that “a holy book of my choice” was leaving themselves wide open, would they let me use The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy? The Story of O? Watchmen? Time to be more realistic, Wicca hasn't got a holy book (the Book of Shadows is more of a cookbook, with collected rituals and the odd bit of politicking by Gerald Gardner or Doreen Valiente to suit the times, plus quite a bit of Crowley), neither has ‘Jedi’ (I'm really sure that the Timothy Zahn Star Wars books wouldn't count).

Sadly, the affirmation is the most tedious bit of fluff going, “I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence”, compared with the General Oath, “I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence" I thought that there must be some other way. At least the threat of being struck down by Almighty God might give Christians something to think about when finding someone guilty, so they make sure they’re making the right decision.

Personally, being Wiccan wouldn’t have got me anywhere – as I had already tried the argument of being a Wiccan High Priest, therefore a ‘Minister of Religion’ to get out of jury service, which failed miserably (someone at HMCS must have just laughed, as I got a ‘thank you for acknowledging your letter’ notice) – I would have just had to make the affirmation and lumped it, so after reading a book on the beginnings of Wicca and Crowley's part in it all, I thought I would try my luck with Thelema and in turn, get Liber Al recognised as a holy book.

I turned up at Court on my first day, with my copy of Liber Al stashed away in my rucksack with the relevant pages from the HMCS website and my query printed off. After the video I'd already sat through and my demeanour at the time, with my upcoming redundancy I went up to the court officer who had asked for any questions. I pointed out the relevant page and said (rather cheekily in the circumstances) that I was a Thelemite and asked if I could use The Book of the Law as a holy book to swear an oath upon. I was half expecting her to tell me to stop being so vexatious (the term used when someone’s trying to have the Prime Minister arrested for treason, for signing various EU treaties) and to sod off! However, surprisingly, she sounded interested in what I had to say. I explained all about Liber Al, Thelema and of course Aleister Crowley (from what limited knowledge I had, having read a fair bit but only recently coming into contact with Shemesh Lodge).

The first day on any jury service – unless you’re really unlucky and get picked for a case, which should have started the previous week – is lots of waiting around. None of the jurors know anyone so they don’t talk to each other. So I had plenty of opportunity to talk to the court staff. The court officer spent most of that day going back and forwards between one of the judges and me. Half way through the day, she asked if she could borrow Liber Al for the judge as he was really interested (it was good that the book has gold lettering and looks like a quality publication – well done OTO Publications!) Later, she asked if I could present some evidence on Thelema that could be put to the judge, while he had quite an interesting night, too.

That evening, I spent on the internet looking up everything I could on Thelema, Liber Al and the OTO. In the article, “Duty” by Crowley, one paragraph stood out, headed, Your Duty To Mankind:

“Crime being a direct spiritual violation of the Law of Thelema, it should not be tolerated in the community. Those who possess the instinct should be segregated in a settlement to build up a state of their own, so to learn the necessity of themselves imposing and maintaining rules of justice. All artificial crimes should be abolished. When fantastic restrictions disappear, the greater freedom of the individual will itself teach him to avoid acts, which really restrict natural rights. Thus real crime will diminish automatically.”

This, in itself is perfect as far as jury service is concerned as it gives the opinion that Thelemites give a damn as to what’s happening in the world.

About this time I’d just ventured onto Facebook and was seeing what all of the fuss was about when a friend request popped into my inbox from Lon Milo DuQuette (Facebook’s a funny thing!). I asked him what he thought of the subject – and if he saw Thelema as a religion, and he said, “As things are different over here, you’re best asking your lodge master”. So I did. Adrian said “go for it, as there’s nothing to stop you!”

On the second day I got some good feedback from the court officer – the Resident Judge (i.e. the Senior Circuit Judge, His Honour Judge Richard Brown) had agreed in principle, however, he still needed to see more evidence that Thelema was a religion (which of course, to some people, it is). I handed my research over. On the third day, I was called in for a case but by this time, firm plans hadn’t been sorted out so I – as I said I would originally – took the affirmation.

Day four beckoned, and I was handed a letter which said that if I got a case the week after, I could swear on Liber Al, providing I come up with a suitable oath. The oath had to involve deity otherwise it would not be recognised, so I came up with the following: “I swear upon Nuit and by my own True Will, that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence”. This oath was then taken by the court officer and typed up onto one of the proper laminated cards that is used in court for the swearing of oaths.

The second week dawned with quite a large snag. The court officer and usher were both on holiday that week. Luckily, their stand-ins had been briefed about my oath – so I thought anyway. Another case came up, we were all ushered into the courtroom and the fifteen people were reduced to twelve for the jury. I was handed a copy of my oath card, and started to read the oath when the QC for the Prosecution started to object, as neither he, his opposite number for the defence or the judge had been notified. A major legal argument ensued (with some much-needed amusement for the accused, as it took the heat off her for a bit) – about court procedure, etc. various old tomes were referred to on the matter. Luckily, the stand-in court officer had a copy of the letter from Mr Justice Brown to me, saying I could use the oath and swear on Liber Al. The sitting judge – Mr Justice Tain – ruled that if this is the case, HMCS should be notified so this sort of thing does not happen again to avoid any further embarrassment for Thelemites who are called up to jury service.

So there you have it… Liber Al, and Thelema (as well as Nuit) have been recognised by Her Majesty’s Court Service in our local area. I don’t know how it will work nationally, but surely what’s happened in Lewes – and Mr Justice Tain’s recommendation – should set a precedent in the rest of England and Wales. It remains to be seen. Of course, the only way it will get recognised nationally is if people use it and refer the court staff to Mr Justice Tain’s judgement (Lewes Crown Court, 27th May, 2009).

For a religion/philosophy that only came into existence in the early part of the twentieth century to be recognised by the courts is quite an achievement. Some people I’ve spoken to in the Order recognise what I’ve done as a worthwhile part of the Great Work. I’m more than happy with that.

© John Mitchell 78.147.154.8 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions: Since when does a Thelemite need the affirmation of a restrictive establishment? And why should Thelema be pushed on to the ignorant public has a "religion"? For all we know this could be perceived as the Caliphate OTO attempting to manipulate the legal process for its own political agenda. Just plain arrogance.

"i'm baack"....--86.162.107.247 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I personally find this section fascinating, it still has no references cited. Unless a good third party source can be cited it will have to be removed (unfortunately) --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently awaiting Her Majesty's Court Service to update their website. They have some difficulty clarifying their information at the best of times. As soon as it is up there, I'll make sure a link is posted in the references.

John Mitchell 4 January 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.227.130 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Have received word from Her Majesty's Court Service (10-1-2011) to say that they are looking into having a list of all recognised religions on their website for Jury purposes. Once this is done, I will be able to provide a reference. Otherwise, all I have is Sorath (the Journal of Shemesh Lodge OTO, 2010 edition). John. Mitchelljohn93 (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorath is a decent enough reference - can you add that please? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Done... will just need tweaking a tadge. Mitchelljohn93 (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Thelemic pantheon

93 Greetings to all! I would like to consult regarding this sentence: “Thelema is a religion that uses three deities adopted from Ancient Egyptian religion, namely Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.”

I don't know if it's what the author had in mind, but it sounds like an implication that they are the only Godforms of Thelema. It doesn't sound right to me. Consider Aiwass, Ankh-af-na-khonsu, Babalon, Baphomet, Chaos, Choronzon, Heru-ra-ha (composed of Ra-Hoor-Khuit & Hoor-paar-kraat), Horus, Isis, Ma'at, Osiris, Pan, Therion, and so forth.

Has anyone got any any suggestions on what we should do about it? If no-one's got any objections, I'll probably edit the statement. Thank you for your attention. Frater Liberabit (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 93 93/93

Do what thous wilt shall be the whole of the Law. I agree. Edit away as you see fit. My suggestion is that Thelemic ritual of the Gnostic Mass focuses on the 3 deities, as does the book of the law. Thelemic cosmology focues primarily on the 3 deities, but also includes concepts of the other deities as you stated.  ?Perhaps that can be of use? (Ritual vs. Cosmology/World Map) I was just reading the wikipedia article for Hinduism and maybe the FORM should be changed as opposed to simply thinking about CONTENT. (i.e. The Hindu scriptures refer to celestial entities called Devas,... and the... are integral part of Hindu culture and are depicted in...). One could state that Thelema's sacred Book of the Law referes to the 3 deities, and the books 3 chapters form a three-fold concept of the universe or cosmology. Then state the use of other godforms as important to Thelemic practices (and some Thelema Holy Books... but your authority trumps mine brother). Just some suggestions, however, it seems as though to edit this one sentence really should require adding a substantial amount of language concerning deities. Heck, you could even speak to the ideas of duality in Thelemic thought as well as unity/theosis/etc. Love is the law, love under will. -KTB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.8.250 (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

93! "A SUGGESTION": In Thelemic religion (or "In Thelema as a religion") all forms of deity are subsumed into an ultimate source, or ultimate Deity, similar to henotheistic worship, (cite: Brandy Williams, "Feminist Thelema" in NOTOCON VI: Beauty and Strength, Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial National Ordo Templi Orientis Conference, 2009, page 167 ISBN 1-4392-4734-X), and thus is difficult to differentiate from Pantheism, Monism, and Monotheism. However, Thelemic religion may also be understood opposing monotheistic belief because the Thelemic tradition does not limit divine imagery to a single deity to the exclusion of all others. (Id, Pg. 168, "...Thelema includes a multiplicity of deities from multiple sources"). 93/93 (What I hope to put forth in this suggestion is that when it comes to describing a relgious tradition as polytheistic, or montheistic, I believe Thelema resists both interpretations. A lot of Thelema's tradition resembles Western Hermeticism which contains NeoPlatonic and Platonic ideas. Thelemic ritual, also is not strictly polytheistic, or even triune as there is the concepts of 4 qabalistic worlds creating the one universe, the panthiestic and alchemical idea of the divine being present in all matter. Also, one might dive into other "ism"s and describe Thelema as kathenotheism a.k.a. worshiping one God at a time. Thelema has a cosmology that involves elements of montheism, but in devotional practices Thelemites hold sacred the Book of the Law which depicts Deity as Triune, and worship other Godforms in their spiritual meditations and ritual.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.155.233 (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thelemic Holidays

I added this section today and have been working on it because I felt it should be here. I would like some opinions on it. I have the feeling it should be made a page all its own and put into the table of contents on the main Thelema page. However, I feel it may be a bit out of place on its own page. What do you think? FUTURI (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's good in here, no need for it to be an individual page. I just cleaned it up a bit and took out some stuff in there that didn't need to be there. I've been a Thelemite for 30 years, and never even heard of someone celebrating "Perdurabo Day", so I have no idea where that came from! So I've trimmed it to just being the ones mentioned in Liber AL, I think we can all agree on those being in there. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm very glad you cleaned it up. I think (if memory serves) that I noted that the other holidays were not mentioned in Liber Al vel Legis (and thus not something official). However, I do see your reasons in taking them out. I typed January in for the solstice. And I didn't catch that I wrote that until you pointed it out. My boyfriend's BIRTHDAY is on the real solstice, so I can't believe I screwed that one up. Proceeding to facepalm myself. Thanks for the cleanup. FUTURI (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No need for facepalming, am glad to help. I'm sure you'll be able to return the favour sometime when I screw up too :-) --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation

I hear many pronouncing 'Thelema' as 'thel uh muh', but in Greek the first 'e' is an epsilon & the second an eta; so shouldn't it be pronounced 'thuh lay muh' & Thelemite "Thuh lay might"? 74.209.54.156 (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Thelema is a word that has Greek roots, I believe the Greek pronunciation would technically be correct. However, as far as I've seen it, it depends on how one reads it in their head and interprets the sound. Accents and language barriers don't help. Personally, my accent causes me to put too much stress on the second 'e', so I end up saying "Thuh-lee-ma" a lot. It's a matter of habit. FUTURI (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Crowley's wife and 'the book of the law'.

In 'Portable Darkness', a collection of excerpts of Crowly edited by Scott Michaelson, Crowley says that Aiwass contacted him *through his wife* in Egypt. This is hardly alluded to at all in the wikipedia article, which seems a serious omission, as a skeptic, or indeed any non-Thelemite would have reason to believe her contribution was at least the qual of Crowley's in the making of the text, seeing as the words came out of her mouth!

I think this issue needs mentioning in the article, and more than mentioning, highlighting, in the interests of neutrality and completion. What do you think? - h.b. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.33.171 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)