Talk:Thelema/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Thelema. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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?

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^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.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^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.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^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.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^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.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^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. — ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^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 [1] --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)

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 [2] or [3] 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 [4]. 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 [5] 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)

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.^[1]^[2] (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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

“rather than their egoic desires”

Thelema isn't quite like the other hermitic religions. Personally, I equate Thelema with Crowley for the most part, and you know what Crowley was like, but some or most Thelemites don't, so here's what the good Book says about the whole thing—AL II, 18, 19, 20, 21, sealing these with “It is a lie, this folly against self” (II:22)—and that's just something to start with. The words quoted in the title may be misleading. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (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)

Believe me, there are many variants. See?: They-LEE-mah, They-LEH-mah, thuh-LEE-muh, theh-LAY-muh, THEY-lee-mah, THEY-leh-mah, theh-LEE-mah, teh-LAY-mah. Actually, there are so many of them that the current written version is incomplete. Instead, I suggest that we either don't prescribe any pronounciation or reach on a consensus as to which it should be: considering such factors as common preference, Crowley's preference and our own preference. For the time being, I'll remove it; it can be brought back at any time. If we decide to return it, I suggest that we use the IPA alphabet and/or a reference to a note toward the bottom of the article. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The naturally forming English pronunciation is thuh-LEE-muh. The original, however, is ancient Greek; probably Koine Greek, being the variant familiar to Rabelais. The solution I offer is to include both pronunciations (e.g., as in the Arnold Schwarzenegger article). There may be a better option. EIN (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Anagrams - Original Research or Not?

After the constant removal of mention of the evident perfect anagram in AL 1,7 - "Aiwass the Minister" = "I sin, I was the Master" then I've asked an editor to clarify whether an evident perfect anagram in a text constitutes original research or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Please_clarify_that_anagrams_are_not_regarded_as_original_research.3F

Dara Allarah (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's original research unless you can cite a valid reference from somewhere else. You have spent many months repeatedly trying to insert your own original research into this article, please stop. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Second-hand rituals.

I rewrote a section on second-hand books not being sold due to copyright (dif). As far as I know, merely being second-hand doesn't allow copyright to be invoked to prevent a book from being sold. If the books were found to be stolen, or printed as a copyright infringement or something... but that's very different from what the article said. I don't have the printed source, but the online source is about copyright and trademark issues that don't seem to have anything to do with second-hand books. It seems like the gist of the section is that OTA and A∴A∴ protect their rituals and attempt to keep them somewhat private. That's probably true, but it should be better explained or better sourced. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2014 (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)

It's obvious that Thelema in a more general sense is a philosophy, but that when the philosophy is adopted by religious bodies such as the OTO then it becomes central to their religion. The 'Gods' are a mere literary convenience according to Crowley. Thelema is foremost a philosophy then, and only secondarily a religion when it is espoused by institutional bodies or groups such as churches - and I think they have no business trying to tell Thelemites that are not members of their church that they are practising a religion. Dara Allarah (talk) A .'. —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care about what may or may not be "obvious" - what counts are academic sources, which overwhelmingly treat Thelema as a religion. The Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR) have dealt with Thelema as a religion at most of their conferences, and they are pretty much the authority on new religious movements. See Martin P. STARR (Chicago, Illinois): “Thelema in Sicily: A Portrait in Black and White” (CESNUR 2005), The Birth of the New Aeon: Magick and Mysticism of Thelema from the perspective of Postmodern A/Theology by Gordan Djurdjevic (CESNUR 2008) and many other papers. It's ironic that those who have been arguing that Thelema is not a religion seem to have a religious objection to the term. Please produce citations or desist. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You want citations? OK.

Richard Kaczynski refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his Book "Perdurabo: The Life of Aleister Crowley." - pages 128, 263 & 639.

The "Journal for the Academic Study of Magic 2", edited by Dave Evans refers to Thelema as a Philosophy on page 17.

The Sacred Texts archive refers to Thelema as a Philosophy.

John ’Ash‘ Bowie refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his writings at Hermetic.com.

William A. Borst Ph.D. refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his book "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." (page unnumbered on google books).

Nevill Drury refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his book "Stealing Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Modern Western Magic." - page 85.

Lynne Hume & Nevill Drury refer to Thelema as a Philosophy in their book "The Varieties of Magical Experience." page 140.

David Livingstone refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his book "Black Terror White Soldiers: Islam, Fascism and the New Age." - page 193.

Jimmy Page refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his book "Led Zeppelin and Philosophy: All Will Be Revealed." - 105.

Henrik Bogdan and Martin P. Starr eroneously calls Thelema a 'Religious Philosophy' in their book "Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism." Some people tend to believe the term "Religous Philosophy" refers to a blend of a religion and a philosophy, but actually it means a philosophy that is derived from a religion (check the dictionary) - so wiki editors should not rely on that source when it comes to this issue. It's not our business to cite work that is fundementally incorrect with it's use of terminology. However - ironically in the index of the book it lists 4 pages under 'Philosophy of Thelema' - and Martin P. Starr refers to Thelema as a Philosophy on the dust-jacket of his book "The Unknown God: W.T. Smith and the Thelemites."

Israel Regardie refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his book "A Garden of Pomegranates: Skrying on the Tree of Life." - page 18.

John Michael Greer refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his book "The New Encyclopedia of the Occult." - pae 349.

Richard Metzger refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his book "Book of Lies: The Disinformation Guide to Magick and the Occult."

Kenn Thomas refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his book "Cyberculture Counterconspiracy: A Steamshovel Web Reader, Volume 2." - page 112.

P. C. Tarantino refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his book "Tarot for the New Aeon: A Practical Guide to the Power and Wisdom of the Thoth Tarot." - page 254.

Richard Smoley & Jay Kinney refer to Thelema as a Philosophy in their book "Hidden Wisdom: A Guide to the Western Inner Traditions." - page 41.

Alan Richardson refers to Thelema as a Philosophy in his book "Aleister Crowley and Dion Fortune: The Logos of the Aeon and the Shakti of the Age." - page 20.

Finally - Crowley himself called Thelema a Philosophy and said that to call Thelema a Religion "might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief." 188.29.75.254 (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a list! I got here via "magical formula" articles like [IPSOS], which, like this article, don't really look like quality articles to me at 2nd glance. For the above case: it's been a deletion candidate and was kept as a promising stub -- but not much changed. I really am more confused than I am informed after reading some of either, while I'd also question encyclopaedic neutrality and relevance; also for 'religious practices' I find it unusual that there aren't more translations to other languages for some of the articles. Not sure how to proceed, but I guess I'll remark some unimproved ones to get the ball rolling again. 84.147.234.161 (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Unclear sentences

I don't want to do edits because I do not know anything about the topic as such, but it strikes me that the first line ("Thelema (/θəˈliːmə/) is a religion based on a philosophical law of the same name [...]") may be served by linking to an article that actually mentions it; otherwise the implication is that Thelema is part of a system of philosophical laws (as opposed to "a law, in the philosophical sense, called Thelema"). Moreover, the line is further confused by the suggestion of a separate system of philosophical laws ([...] a philosophical law of the same name [...]), one of which is called Thelema, which is also the name of the law this article describes, as well as the religion.

Unclear to the point of obfuscation.

Noumegnos (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Also the paragraph in Organizations starting "Centuries later a new founder for an organization called Oracion Tartoros..." made no sense to me. Plus didn't the whole thing start in the early 1900s from the top of the article, so how can anything be centuries later that relates to this topic? As with the above comment I don't know anything about the topic to correct it though. --87.242.189.106 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thelema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Universal hexagram upside down

This may have been addressed and I could be wrong, but the central 5 pointed portion of the universal hexagram should be with a single point up. The current version is essentially upside down to Crowley's diagrams. For example, the cover of the 1st edition of Magick: http://www.lawbright.com/logdos/magick1.jpg and this original illustration: http://www.lawbright.com/logdos/magick2.jpg I suggest it be rotated to the form Crowley himself used. --Solar (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Lon Milo DuQuette

JesseRafe; As per your request, I am respectfully responding on the talk page. What is the rationale for removing the sentence "Lon Milo DuQuette has written several books which analyze Crowley's system."? Many of the references in the article are from books he has written. That seems self-evident that he has written books "which analyze Crowley's system". You're not going to find a citation that says "DuQuette has written books analyzing Thelema" when the books themselves (and their titles) are evidence of that, and nearly anyone at all familiar with modern Thelema and the OTO is going to have heard of DuQuette. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed (specifically the part "Subject-specific common knowledge")

I'm not familiar with many of the people listed in the rest of what you removed, so fine, if you really feel that it should be removed, I don't have any real objection. Although I would think for much of it a citation, or alternatively a "citation needed" tag, would make more sense than deleting what many people would surely find as useful material, assuming that what is written is true.

The part about "The Neverending Story", sure, I suppose that is reasonable to remove, as it wasn't especially written in an encyclopedic tone.

I'm not sure what anyone could possibly find controversial about my edit correcting a wording error. A word was clearly left out, as the sentence simply didn't make sense the way it was written, so I'm not sure why you reverted both of my edits and not just the first one. Vontheri (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Because it's a relatively vacuous sentence presented without context. I'm sure there's more meaningful ways to share that info, e.g. "DuQuette has written numerous books analyzing Thelema such as X, Y, Z, ref ref ref." I removed it along with the other listcruft not because it didn't source the sky is blue, but because it basically was saying "there is a sky". Welcome to re-add it encyclopedically rewritten. JesseRafe (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

JesseRafe; This is how I look at it: When I make an edit to an article, particularly one that is removing information, I primarily think of two things: is the edit, *overall*, improving the article or making it worse, and is the information that is being removed, even if it has issues and isn't perfect, information that a potential reader of the article would find useful? In my view, some of what you removed is information that some potential readers would find useful. I agree that there were definitely issues with the way it was written, issues that should be corrected; it was far from perfect. However, a better solution would be to either, preferably, change it so that those issues are corrected, or give it some sort of tag (citation needed, clarification needed, etc.) to alert other editors to correct the imperfections. (Obviously if it is information that you know, or at least highly suspect, to be factually incorrect, then it should certainly be removed) This way, the information is not lost, but can be perfected, consistent with the wikipedia philosophy of Eventualism. By deleting it, it is being relegated to the article's history page, and after some time will be buried under countless newer edits, and there is little chance of anyone ever going back and finding it to re-add it in a more encyclopedic way: the information, which some reader out there would surely find useful, being potentially lost from the article forever. You said yourself that there are better ways to present the information, which implies that you do see potential value to the information itself, just not the way it was written; so why delete it completely instead of improving it yourself or tagging it for another editor to improve? I hope you will at least consider my perspective. Vontheri (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. One main reason why I remove unsourced "and also"s when I come across them, is the slippery slope, because what usually happens is more people add more OR and tenuous examples and the article gets bloated and the good content gets lumped in with all the schlock. I think going for a clean and reputable presentation works better for the specific article and Wikipedia as a whole than wholesale wikia or TVTropes-style gushing and editorializing. My rationale is that if a few unsupported by sources works are mentioned in list notation, pretty soon someone is going to add a paragraph about some obscure manga and slowly rewrite the encyclopedia article until it is about that, instead of the proper topic. As that is exactly what happened, I took the course of action I did. We can reinstate what I removed, but with a CN after each item, and any items not cited after a period of time you chose, we delete. How about that? JesseRafe (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I certainly understand what you're saying. I agree that is an issue that can happen and should be avoided. All of the authors listed have wikipedia articles, so I'm assuming that if they are notable enough to have an article, there's a good chance that they are notable enough to include in the Thelema article, assuming books/essays/articles about Thelema are a major focus of their works.

What you proposed sounds reasonable. As for a time span, hard to say, I don't think this article gets an especially large amount of traffic, so maybe a few months? Four months, perhaps? What do you think? I can provide some citations for Lon Milo DuQuette; I have one of his books on the shelf next to me as I'm typing this, although I don't exactly find him anywhere near one of the best authors on Thelema, he is well-respected by a great number of people, and is probably the best-known of contemporary Thelemic authors, but I digress...

I don't see any reason to re-add the part about "The Neverending Story", as it's only perhaps of tertiary relevance at best.

Exactly what sort of citations/format would you deem acceptable? Just "John Smith wrote book x analyzing Thelema (citation), Steve Jones wrote book y analyzing Thelema (citation), etc.", or a whole paragraph for each author? Or what? The former might feel a bit cluttered, I don't know... I'm sure I could probably write enough for a whole paragraph about DuQuette.

As another potential alternative, if you'd rather, either is fine with me, what about creating a totally new page, something like "List of Thelemic Authors" or "List of Contemporary Thelemic Authors", to avoid any potential cluttering of the Literature section of the Thelema article, with a link to the list added to the Literature section?

Thanks. Vontheri (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

JesseRafe, how do you want to proceed? Vontheri (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just in terms of keeping down listcruft as well as refbloat my rationale on lists like this if the work or the author have a page that discusses with references the relevance to the topic they are being listed at, it can simply be listed and linked here. If the author's page does not mention the topic and the work has no page, then I err on the side of it not being relevant here or included with a strong reference. So, for instance DuQuette, you mention he writes on the topic frequently, so it's probably mentioned on his article so in my eye that wouldn't need a ref, but "John Smith and Steve Jones have written about Thelema.refref" would work if they are blue links themselves but their Thelema-related works aren't. If they are, then I would certainly expect to see it on the works' pages. For instance, I wouldn't need a ref on a section of Elves in literature that says Tolkien wrote about elves. They're prominently listed on his page and on the pages of all of his works. I don't think it really needs a paragraph each, maybe the minor writers can be one list paragraph (with cites)? Don't care about the timeframe. Four months, sure. If the list goes get long and breaking it out to a new list page seems necessary, no strong opinion there either. Thanks! And sorry for the delay in response. JesseRafe (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This paragraph

Many Thelemites believe that, in one or more senses, Thelema is represented by at least one of these kinds of system, if not all or some combination thereof, insofar as it is expressed as a framework of ideas.

It reads awkwardly, IMHO, and is redundant anyway, as the previous paragraph adequately conveys the existence of a diversity of positions among Thelemites. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Junk?

I'm tempted to remove these paragraphs also, but I don't want to do so without consensus, as this edit would be more intrusive:

I understand the message that's trying to be conveyed, but I think this maybe can be re-worded into something more coherent. I think the sentiment of Thelema as a religion vs. philosophy is handled appropriately in the preceding paragraphs.

Numerous Thelemites also feel that, while essentially religious or spiritual, Thelema as a worldview may have meaningful implications for how its adherents view, relate to, and act with regard to culture, ethics, historiography, history, metaphysics, politics, psychology, psychospirituality, and society, including sociocultural or sociopolitical systems. Thelema is not monolithic: it has myriad, extremely diverse, and often conflicting interpretations, whether made by Thelemites themselves or non-adherents.

I think this addition was made by someone who is not a native English speaker, and that's OK, but these edits lack clarity and the language is confusing. It reads like something that has been translated from Mandarin into English. The use of the word "myriad" without being preceded by "a" is especially annoying. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Myriad can be used as a noun (requiring an article, "a myriad of views") or as an adjective (requiring no article, "myriad views").

Having taught English at a university for two years in China, I can tell you that the lines you're having trouble with were definitely not machine translated from Mandarin, much less composed by a non-native speaker.

My only real question is: what do sources say? Is this summarizing and/or paraphrasing a source? The lede summarizes the body, but the portion of the body that those lines are summarizing seem to be unsourced. Indeed, the majority of the Beliefs section is heavily dependent upon primary sources, and seems to have been written from a believer's perspective rather than an etic perspective. I suspect that's the principle production of the prose problems, they were written by someone more excited that they get to write about Thelema than focused on doing a good job of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Scientology

I am reverting the revert by JesseRafe. There was no opinion in my edit. As can be seen on the article Scientology and the occult, there is legitimate scholarly debate as to whether or not Scientology was influenced by Thelema. For example, that article states "Hugh B. Urban, a scholar on religion who has written much about Scientology, writes that while some writers, such as Jon Atack, assert that Crowley's ideas on magic are at the core of Scientology, others, including Roy Wallis and J. Gordon Melton, have dismissed the connection between occultism and the Church." Additionally, note this scholarly article, which is cited on the page Scientology and the occult: http://nr.ucpress.edu/content/15/3/91 it states: "While some critics argue that Crowley's magic lies at the very heart of Scientology, most scholars have dismissed any connection between the Church and occultism."

It is documented fact that L. Ron Hubbard was involved with Thelema before starting Dianetics and Scientology. Whether or not he incorporated elements of Thelema and/or other occult philosophies into Scientology's doctrine is very much up for debate. Personally, I think it's quite obvious that aspects of Scientology were indeed influenced by Thelema, so if there is any opinion in my edit, it is an opinion contrary to my actual opinion! I feel that, in the interest of neutrality and presenting all legitimate viewpoints as held by scholars and experts on the subject, that it is necessary to add the word "arguably" to the last sentence of the introduction, because there definitely IS scholarly debate about this. Additionally, the article referenced (which was added by a previous edit of mine some number of months ago) does not explicitly state that Scientology was influenced by Thelema, but does go into great detail regarding L. Ron Hubbard's involvement with Thelema.

If you still have objection to my edit, what exactly is that objection? Is there anyone else who would care to weigh in on this, as well? 2600:1700:F640:4280:9D0A:FB18:E02F:5BA5 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Summarize it in one word as was afforded the other large branches of thought. We'll wait. 67.242.92.97 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Why not include Lord of the Rings on the Bible page? It is offensive and inappropriate to include one man's disputed research about this in the main summary of this page. It detracts significantly from an understanding of the rest of the article, and I have serious questions about the motives of anyone who would want Thelema associated with a cult like Scientology. Anyone who sees this referenced on the page should delete it unless these points are refuted. 74.70.156.130 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the LotR is not a religious text, while Thelema and Scientology are both broadly classified as religions.

The information is sourced to academic publishers -- that is sufficient reason for inclusion. Your accusations of bad faith toward anyone who would include it suggest fundamentalist censorship on your part. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The broader point of what a work inspires not receiving such a position in its own article, stands. This information belongs on the Scientology page, and it is clear that its inclusion, where it is, is part of an ongoing unresolved controversy that has nothing to do with Thelema. 74.70.156.130 (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That argument is nothing but a hypocritical lie considering you didn't remove Wicca, Chaos Magick, or Satanism. That line has to do with Thelema's influence on other religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should reiterate my basic concern then: Thelema, and those derivative "religions" (if you insist on seeing all of this as the same), are primarily centered on the empowerment of the self, which is fairly obviously not the case with Scientology. As was mentioned above, if it isn't an established fact to the point that you can simply include the word "Scientology" in that list, it really doesn't belong in the main description. 74.70.156.130 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Except that Scientologists do believe that they are empowering themselves, and the CoS does present itself to new converts as a way to unlock one's mind. While the CoS does indeed restrict the self, Thelemic organizations deny the self-hood of non-members and Crowley denied the self-hood of his followers in the Abbey of Thelema by requiring them to cut themselves with razors whenever they used the pronoun "I." Authoritarian elements were present in the O.T.O. and Crowley's philosophy from the beginning.

At any rate, you are moving the goalpost. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

New religious movement

For a long time the opening paragraph has only referred to Thelema as a philosophy, when, while it is a philosophy, it is primarily adhered to and practiced as a new religious movement. (NRM.) It is already a part of Wikiproject New Religious Movements and even Henrik Bogdan, a superior scholar of religions, among other scholars of religion and NRMs, refer to it as an NRM. (See Bogdan's discussion of it as an NRM in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements: Volume II, Ch. 4.) Therefore I added that it is an NRM in the opening paragraph.

Bodhisvaha5 (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

'The Book of the Law states, "there is no god but man"'

The article says: 'The Book of the Law states, "there is no god but man".' This quote is not from the Book of the Law, but from Liber OZ. I'm not sure whether Liber OZ was the first place to contain this sentence, but it certainly isn't from the Book of the Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGenesis (talk • contribs) 18:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The quote is from the "new comment" on III.60 in the Liber AL, which contains a section that is very similar, but not identical to, Liber OZ. I've corrected the attribution and added a citation, but the citation must be accessed through Wayback Machine and should be replaced with a better one if someone can find one. XenuTheSpacelord (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Thelema/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article was awarded GA status in 2008, back when Wikipedia's general standards were far beneath what they have since become. (The article was nominated by a German IP [7] while the editor who then gave it GA status, User:Jackturner3, has not edited since 2014.) Even at the time, its listing was controversial; User:Redblossom challenged the awarding of GA status at the Talk Page shortly after (archived here). Certainly, the article in its current form is nowhere close to GA quality. Large sections of it are completely unreferenced, and of the sources that are used, most appear to be primary, constituting either the writings of Crowley himself or of subsequent Thelemites. Virtually no academic publications are cited, despite the growing scholarly literature on this topic. All in all, this seems like a clear-cut case for de-listing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The article in question contains long passages devoid of citations, some of which make claims that really need to be cited. One example is, "The Book of the Law can be taken to imply a kind of pantheism or panentheism" from the "God, deity, and the divine" section. This needs a scholarly source, or to be removed. Other passages like, "Thelemites differ widely in their views of the divine, and these views are often tied to their personal paradigms, including their conceptions of what demarcates objective and subjective reality, as well as falsehood and truth: some hold unique, or otherwise very specific or complex views of the nature of divinity, that are not easily explained; many are supernaturalists, claiming that the supernatural or paranormal in some way exist, and incorporate these assumptions into their spiritual practices in some way; others are religious or spiritual naturalists, viewing the spiritual or sacred—or whatever they feel is, or may be, in reality, analogous to them, or their equivalents—as identical to the material, natural, or physical." are possibly anecdotal and need scholarly citations, and also need a great deal of formatting help. This selection is possibly the worst run-on sentence I've ever seen. Because of citation and formatting issues, the article ought to be stripped of its GA status until it meets the new standards. XenuTheSpacelord (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been over a week and no improvements, or prospect of improvement, has been forthcoming. Time to delist. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@XenuTheSpacelord and Midnightblueowl: Not sure if anyone is still paying attention to this (so pinging), but I've removed the uncited section and upgraded all the refs to be much more complete. Don't really suggest the article be relisted, as it still has some issues, especially the last section about organizations. It may be that all that info can be verified to the source at the very end of multiple paragraphs, but I'm dubious. I'll probably remove the section in a month or so if no improvement. Skyerise (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources

We don't need any more additions sourced only to primary sources - especially no more Crowley or Book of the Law quotations. That is not an improvement to the article, as the article needs more secondary sources. Please source all new material to secondary sources, such as those listed as such in the references. This article lost good article status because it got stuffed with that type of proselytizing, primary-sourced material. We need third-party observations and analyses, preferable academic, not more "in-universe" material.

Also, please follow the existing citation style. This article uses the {{sfnp}} citation system, not the <ref> citation style. Please learn to use it as additions with other referencing styles may be reverted. Skyerise (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Post-Crowley developments

I don't really like the wording of this heading but can't come up with anything I like better. Post-Crowleyan is definitely worse. Skyerise (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Two changes

I moved the right-facing image back to the left where I put it. It's standard design that people's portraits should not look out of the page, but rather into it. It's in the image use policy. And I removed that weaselly written Urban bit again... Some this and some that without saying who the some are. Needs to be rewritten in a non-weaselly way. I don't think it's really very important and we should really have two sources for it if Urban isn't any more specific than that. Pretty sure it means the OTO says one thing but non-OTO Thelemites think they are daft. If that's what he's saying, let's not beat around the bush. And if he was too chicken to be explicit, but just weasels around it, let's either find another source that actually says it or leave it out. Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: There's nothing explicit in the image use policy about portrait placement, but it does refer people to the MOS which says it "is often preferable", which implies exceptions, as opposed to "should" as the MOS typically states for stricter guidelines. Additionally, I'm fairly sure this suggestion is meant for portraits in which the subject is portrayed in profile (like the one on Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa), not for portraits where the subject is facing out at the reader at a slight angle. I think you're interpreting this guideline too strictly, to the detriment of the layout. Generally, left-aligned images are used when there's space to the right for text to go, but with the sidebar there the text gets crushed; I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it distracting when text is crushed between elements to the left and right like this. This is especially problematic for readers on lower-resolution displays, tablets, and mobile devices where screen space may be limited.

If you don't agree, the compromise option is to place the sidebar after the lead so it appears beside the contents (the default placement used by topic-toc templates). Since there isn't much competition for space further down the page, even with the toc collapsed the sidebar shouldn't displace any images. It might look a bit odd though; usually images in the lead are aligned to the right. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I work at a newspaper. I know design. I'll move the navbar down. Skyerise (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved portrait

I moved the new portrait of Crowley so it was below the info box. I'm not certain where I placed it is necessarily an improvement though (it resulted in a bunch of white space) but I don't really know how to work with the picture elements so feel free to improve this. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Just leave it where it is. It belong above the infobox. Skyerise (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone completely removed it now. I prefer the previous portrait. 139.138.6.30 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Who cares what a random IP who doesn't bother to create an account thinks? Skyerise (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the IP was agreeing with you and I prefer the new portrait, FWIW. He looks pensive and scholarly. It just looked funny left-justified as it were. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valgrus Thunderaxe: Please get WP:CONSENSUS before reverting the article. I worked with another editor on this and decided to change the image. The other editor agreed and you are now editing against consensus. Please be aware that you can be WP:BLOCKED for WP:EDITWARRING if you continue to change it back.

OK, fair enough and I didn't mean to cause problems here! The current picture I think doesn't help one to understand Thelema though. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Introductory claims on principles

The claim that "every man and every woman is a star" refers to the "body of light," needs a citation, as well as the claim that Plato said that the "body of light" was composed of the same stuff as stars. Likewise, the particular interpretation of "Love is the law, love under will," is not universal in Thelema, and needs a citation. These two claims contradict the way Crowley himself explains these principles in the commentary on the Liber AL, which in and of itself is fine, but only so long as the particular interpretation written is noteworthy and cited. Writing here instead of editing the page in case citations for these claims do exist, and other editors consider them appropriate to the page. As it stands, these claims seem both unfounded and irrelevant to the page, so I recommend removing these claims if no citations are added, or if the citation sources are deemed irrelevant to the page, within some appropriate timeframe. XenuTheSpacelord (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@XenuTheSpacelord: easy-peasy for the first one. Your classical education is clearly lacking, else you'd not say that it contradicts Crowley, which it doesn't. It complements and elucidates Crowley, who assumed his followers had received a classical education similar to his own. Skyerise (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Now it's your turn. Please supply citations for "persons doing their Wills are thereby like stars in the universe: occupying a time and position in space, yet distinctly individual and having an independent nature largely without undue conflict with other stars" in that same sentence, and for "love itself is subsidiary to finding and manifesting one's authentic purpose or mission" in the next sentence. Oh, and please cite to an independent secondary source, not to Crowley. Skyerise (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The citation you've added is from a book not directly referencing Plato, but Proclus, who is in turn referencing Plato. Stating that Plato is speaking of the "body of light" requires more than a commentary by Proclus asserting that this is a good interpretation of the Timaeous. You might be able to assert that Proclus believed this, but you've not provided evidence that Plato believed it. I have not specifically read the Timaeous, so he very well may say this here, but a commentary by Proclus referenced in another book seems inadequate to prove this. I'm unsure if the book you've cited for the claim that Crowley associated "every man and every woman is a star" with the "body of light" is appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, but since most scholarship on Crowley is unfortunately not academic, I won't push on that. As for adding citations to the parts you've added, you are fully allowed to give primary sources for that by Wikipedia's rules. I wrote my section to bring attention to this part of the article, and to discuss it, because I'm not going to edit it at the moment. I want editors to talk about whether or not including claims from Proclus or Cornelius are appropriate to the article, not to fight over interpretations of Crowley's writing. If these are common interpretations, or noteworthy minority views, I have no trouble with them being included. Ad-hominem attacks about my "classical education" are inflammatory and solve nothing. XenuTheSpacelord (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

OMG. Sensitive Thelemite. LoL! Skyerise (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

James Lees

His association to Thelema and his invention of "English Qaballa" seems very dubious in this article. Infact, the James Lees section doesn't link him to Thelema or Crowley, at all. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

^ "The Write Factor" for 1 December 2009, Lindsey Mason writing for STV.tv.
^ Jeff Wagg and James Randi, Foundation's online FAQ for the challenge. Retrieved December 27, 2009.

[1] "The Write Factor" for 1 December 2009, Lindsey Mason writing for STV.tv.

[2] Jeff Wagg and James Randi, Foundation's online FAQ for the challenge. Retrieved December 27, 2009.

[1]

[2]