Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 18:27:30 PDT

_Liber Practicus: The Sin of Practice_

By Frater (I) Nigris (666) 333
-------------------------------------------------------------

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction."

_The Book of the Law_, Ch.1, V. 40-1.


Is there a 'correct' interpretation of the words above?  It is
difficult to know.  While the liberty guaranteed in the first line
allows us to define them in any way we choose, the qualification of
the second seems to prohibit our assessing the definition we choose as
'correct'.

Those who then call upon 'reason' and 'logic' in order to ascertain
such a 'correct' interpretation, perhaps by placing them within the
context of the entirety of the book, or by comparing them with common
definitions given us by 'authorities' (Ankh-f-n-khonsu included) help
us little, for _The Book of the Law_ itself prohibits this in
subsequent verses, as the Priest of Princes describes in his
commentary upon them:

"32. 'Also reason is a lie...'
"It has been explained at length in a previous note that 'reason is a
lie' by nature.... What is more certain than that [reason's] laws are
only the conscious expression of the limits imposed upon us by our
animal nature; and that to attribute universal validity, or even
significance, to them is a logical fallacy, the raving of our
megalomania?  Experiment proves nothing; it is surely obvious that we
are obliged to correlate all observations with the physical and mental
structure whose truth we are trying to test.  "...Reason is no more
than a set of rules developed by the race; it takes no account of
anything beyond sensory impressions and their reactions to various
parts of our being.  There is no possible escape from the vicious
circle that we can register only the behavior of our own instrument.
We conclude from the fact that it behaves at all, that there must be
'a factor infinite and unknown' at work upon it.  This being the case,
we may be sure that our apparatus is inherently incapable of
discovering the truth about anything, even in part."

_The Law is for All_, Crowley, Regardie Ed., pgs. 202-3.


This passage, among others of a similar nature, at first seem
ridiculous. Are we to be convinced VIA reason of its fault?  Will we
accept a sequence of reasoned assertions which lead us to abandon the
acceptance of reason altogether?!  This makes no sense.  Yet, like
Godel's Theorem of Incompleteness and Heisenburg's Principle of
Uncertainty, perhaps Crowley is simply using mentation to point out
the limitations of the mind itself.  Perhaps what is being
distinguished here is the NATURE of the conclusions which may be
constructed using the tools of reason.

That truth is of a different order than reason and logic has been
suggested by clever theists from their first writings.  We are here,
however, not evaluating the remarks of a clever theist so much as a
clever magician; one for whom Science was a means to achieve and
reason a tool with which to derive these means.  What is also of
importance is that the very text which we might seek to understand via
reason claims that 'reason is a lie'.

One could, presumably, interpret this not as a description of reason
but as some other message, or as a temporary interruption in the
Master Therion's 'connection' at the time of transmission.  However,
this resembles the make-it-up-as-you-go justification system which so
many people enjoy using with their own holy tomes.  No, it would seem
that we must abandon reason in our search for any 'correct'
interpretation of these verses.

We could, therefore, rely on the interpretation of an 'authority', yet
who might represent for us the force of absolute truth?  Who might be
able to speak FOR the truth, putting into decisive and clear language
what we shall accept as the true interpretation?

None qualify for such a heavy responsibility, surely, and to place
such a load upon the shoulders of any individual would seem unfair.
Yet if nobody could speak FOR the truth, perhaps there are some who
might speak THEIR truth about its meaning, and who better to know
pertinent perspectives about these words than the very man who put the
verses to paper (albeit as receiver) and who therefore lived with
these words until death?  The Priest has much to say regarding the
lines in question.


Of the first...:

"'Do what thou wilt' need not only be interpreted as license or even
as liberty.  It may, for example, be taken to mean, Do what thou
(Ateh) wilt... The charge might then be read as a charge to
self-sacrifice or equilibrium.
"I only put forward this suggestion to exhibit the profundity of
thought required to deal even with so plain a passage.  "All meanings
are true, if only the interpreter be illuminated; but if not, they are
all false, even as he is false....


...and of the second:

"The first paragraph... is a general statement of definition of sin
and error.  Anything whatsoever that binds the will, hinders it, or
diverts it, is sin.  That is, sin is the appearance of the dyad.  Sin
is impurity."

Ibid, pages 97-8.


Here we encounter a rather unclear statement that all interpretations
to 'the illuminated' are correct (!).  How can we determine who is
'illuminated' and who is not?  Do these lofty beings have limitations
on THEIR ability to interpret the verse?  This would seem foolish,
given that the 'illuminated' are generally thought to have a GREATER
capacity to posit alternatives based on increased understanding.

Crowley here suggests that the veracity of the interpretation does not
depend upon its form so much as upon who does the interpreting.  It is
less that one might interpret incorrectly than that one who is not
'illuminated' or, perhaps, 'mature' might interpret incompletely and
thus lock onto a false subset of all possible interpretations.  He
seems to say that there are no false interpretations of 'Do what thou
wilt'.  There are, thus, no 'correct' interpretations in isolation.


On the second phrase ('The word of Sin is Restriction') he is much
less clear.  Sin is that which hinders or diverts 'the will'.  We are
left to guess what, exactly, is meant by 'the will' in this context.
Yet other commentary on sin and will may help ...

"42.' ...thou has no right but to do thy will.'
"Interference with the will of another is the great sin, for it
predicates the existence of another.  In this duality sorrow exists.
I think that possibly the higher meaning is still attributed to will."

Ibid, pages 101-2.


Most confusing!  Additional material is necessary...

"51. ...'Also take your fill and will of love as ye will...'
"...It is also excluded from 'as ye will' to compromise the liberty of
another person indirectly, as by taking advantage of the ignorance or
good faith of another person to expose that person to the constraint
of sickness, poverty, social detriment, or childbearing, unless with
the well informed and uninfluenced free will of the person."

Ibid, page 110.


"It is not indicated here in the text, though it is elsewhere implied,
that only one symptom warns that you have mistaken your True Will, and
that is, if you should imagine that in pursuing your way you interfere
with that of another star."

Ibid, pages 125-6.


"To us, then, 'evil' is a relative term; it is 'that which hinders one
fulfilling his True Will."

Ibid, page 162.


"20. ... As soon as one realizes one's self as Hadit, one obtains all
His qualities.  It is all a question of doing one's will.  A flaming
Harlot, with red cap and sparking eyes, her foot on the neck of a dead
king, is just as much a star as her predecessor, simpering in his
arms.  But one must be a flaming Harlot - one must let oneself go,
whether one's star be twin with that of Shelley, or of Blake, or of
Titian, or of Beethoven. Beauty and strength come from doing one's
will; you have only to look at any one who is doing it to recognize
the glory of it."

Ibid, page 176.


"But also our Law teaches that a star often veils itself from its
nature. Thus the vast bulk of humanity is obsessed by an abject fear
of freedom; the principal objections hitherto urged against my Law
have been made by those who cannot bear to imagine the horrors which
would result if they were free to do their wills.  The sense of sin,
shame, self-distrust, this is what make folk cling to Christian
slavery."

Ibid, page 225.


"Consider also him that willeth to excel in Speed or in Battle, how,
he denieth himself the food he craveth, and all Pleasures natural to
him, putting himself under the harsh Order of the Trainer.  So by his
Bondage he hath, at the last, his Will.  "Now then the one, by
natural, and the other by voluntary, Restriction have come each to a
greater Liberty. [Liber Aleph]"

Ibid, page 251.


"49. 'I am in a secret four fold word, the blasphemy against all gods
of men.'
"The evident interpretation of this is to take the word to be 'Do what
thou wilt,' which is a secret word, because its meaning for every man
is his own inmost secret.  And it is the most profound blasphemy
possible against all 'gods of men,' because it makes every man his own
God."

Ibid, page 300.


"60. 'There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.'
"There are of course lesser laws than this, details, particular cases
of the Law.  But the whole of the Law is 'Do what thou wilt,' and
there is no other law beyond it....  "Far better, let him assume this
Law to be the universal key to every problem of life, and then apply
it to one particular case after another. As he comes by degrees to
understand it, he will be astounded at the simplification of the most
obscure questions which it furnishes.  Thus he will assimilate the Law
and make it the norm of his conscious being; this, by itself, will
suffice to initiate him, to dissolve his complexes, to unveil himself
to himself; and so shall he attain the Knowledge and Conversation of
his Holy Guardian Angel."

Ibid, page 320.


It would seem obvious from the foregoing, that 'sin' within the
special meaning Crowley has adopted for this term, involves
interfering in the affairs, business, doings of another where one has
no call, where our will does not hold within the Law of Thelema.

Thus, to say that 'sin is restriction' applies solely to the
restriction of ANOTHER.  In fact, positing ANOTHER to begin with is
sin.  Solipsism would seem, on a pragmatic level, a solution to such
ensnarements. To maintain to our own life, will and all, is all we
need to do to abide in this.


By this time the reader may perceptively be asking:  
'What has this to do with 'practice'?  How can sin be associated with
this?'  Regardless of one's definition for the term 'practice', it is
wise to remember Crowley's basis for a definition of sin as
restriction.  Where will is concerned, the interference with another
is considered sinful inasmuch as it POSITS ANOTHER.

It is not a social but a metaphysical support which is invoked
here. Nondualism as the basis for ethics is without parallel in both
obscurity and value.  Not to assume the Other is to consider oneself
continuous and identical with All.

With respect to Restriction, what we restrict is our own as well as
the All's essence and power by presuming to divide It so.  Thus, in
performing one's True Will one does not enter into the restriction of
dualism.  To maintain a 'practice' as if to prepare for 'life' or what
is 'real' - a getting-ready as opposed to a doing - is sinful.  This
assumes that one's life is NOT the manifestation of one's True Will,
when such an assumption participates in the duality of practice.
'Practice', in this sense, validates the original assumption that
one's life is NOT one's True Will.

'Do what thou wilt' may mean 'Do as you please' to those who realise
the truth of nonduality.  In restricting our efforts to our 'practice'
without infusing our will into and throughout our very lives, we
participate in the sin which we seek so mightily to escape.

There are those who shall be aided by entering into 'practice' as a
means to seeing past the duality which it involves.  This is called
'using dualism as a tool to pluck the dualism from one's mind'.  Yet
once this sliver has been extracted, once the will is united, the tool
of 'practice' is the only remnant of sin left with the aspirant.  It
must also be discarded if one is to manifest the Great Work.


This conclusion has far-reaching implications when applied within the
context of an Order of Kinship such as O.T.O.  What manners of
'practice' shall be REQUIRED of its members at any level?  Who shall
do this requiring and for what purpose?  If the goal of the Order is
to aid our kin in perfecting their True Will, shall we decide FOR them
what this Will is or whether they are engaging it?  How shall such an
evaluation be made and by whom?

The inference of these questions and the preceding essay are intended
to support my assertion that NO absolute practical requirements ought
EVER become installed as a condition of membership in O.T.O.  That
some majority of members practice 'ceremonial magick' or 'sex magick'
is an important facet of the Order's character, yet it would be a
mistake, which even the Order's prophet has warned against, to
institutionalize either specific forms of practice or practice itself.

For those who are done with said dualisms, this institution might
indeed turn them away.  This, eventually, would lead to a gradual
dissolution and disintegration of quality membership.  It is to our
benefit to see 'sin' not as a moral failing but as an ontological
ignorance.  Evaluation of another constitutes a perfect example of
this sin.

Let each evaluate their own needs and procure the structure and
practice which she desires.  In this way might the health of the Order
be preserved and the True Will of all be fostered, yea, let the health
of the Order be preserved.

--------------------------------------------------- 

Revised 9303.03 e.v.
Frater (I) Nigris (666) 333
Tyagi Nagasiva
(C) 1993
Tyagi@HouseOfKaOs.Abyss.com
871 Ironwood Drive
San Jose, CA 95125