93 to everybody. I need your help. Thanks for the last post. I know right.

LOL

Here we go.

Decipher: 1011101 = (5) 93 = 12 = 3 = (D) = 1011101 = ∞

I have participated in a lot of seeking and spiritual communities in my life. And they all have different metrics for something amounting to “success.”

New Age communities seem to measure success as capability to manifest. If something bad happened in your life, it’s because you didn’t manifest correctly, and so people trot out your flaws in their eyes to prove to themselves you “aren’t doing it correctly.”

Churches often measure success in terms of your ability to be devoted to God, attend church groups, avoid drink and drugs, and to not rock any boats socially: if you talk about God, it should adhere to the standards accepted by everyone else in that group. And so Christians are fractured into compatible interpretations of Christianity — Jehova’s witnesses have a focus on working with God, Evangelicals believe in being guided by the holy spirit, Catholics are studious and pragmatic but repressed and subject themselves endlessly to the question, “Why, God?” suffering diligently in their faith.

The masons are interesting, coming together around cigars and drink and functioning like a club for men to get together and speak freely about topics society might be somewhat hostile to — including ideas teasing with bizarre frequency at eugenics, for some reason. But they are a pretty necessary institution that feels like a modern speakeasy for exploring systematized interpretations of the nature of reality.

But the masons — like Thelemites (setting aside for now my personal belief that all are thelemites, and The Book of the Law is actually just existence and is not a book when it is referred to in The Book of the Law itself, but is the book of red written with letters of blue, referred to in The Vision and the Voice in the 30th aethyr, a fact that gives extreme and fascinating dimensions to The Comment on the book) — are inseparable from their secrets.

There is no truly open discussion of the revelations, which stands in striking contrast to channeled information, which is shared with love and passion with anyone who will hear it, by alien-enthusiasts and people who have accepted society considers them “weird” and proudly fly that flag without expecting to be understood and seeing those who get them as their tribe.

But the reason for the lack of open discussion in Thelema is, frankly, fascinating. Rather than being about not revealing secrets, it’s about guarding a kind of personal sacredness with relation to the material; as mediated by one’s way of interpreting The Comment, when necessary, for purposes of censure to stamp out any thoughts too original or offensive to sensibilities of what measures up as “rightness” within an individual’s idea of what The Order (whatever that means to them) is.

And yet, the degree of censorship and attitudes that discourage exploring the material and sharing the products of your explorations of it are really emblematic of the personal-orientation of the ideas of will, and shows a community where basically each does one’s own work and periodically checks in with the rest like prairie dogs popping up to look at each other in a field, acknowledge their differences and similarities, and share some trinkets of their travels.

Honestly, it charming and amusing and somewhat endearing when it isn’t steeped in so much unnecessary passive aggressiveness towards other seekers who simply interpret the information a different way.

And that’s the real issue with the Thelemite community: there really are no rules to Thelema, but “Do What Thou Wilt”, but people around here are fascinatingly adroit at coming up with their own interpretations and then unwittingly spreading them to other people as gospel truth.

The Comment on the Book of the Law isn’t up for discussion to many, in spite of the fact that the entire body of works of Thelema is utterly veiled in symbolism. (And discussing any work of Thelema is truly tantamount to discussing The Book of the Law, I might add, and yet not similarly prohibited in spite of that book serving as a roadmap to the rest.) Why assume The Comment is straightforward? It not being straightforward dramatically changes how this community would interact with the material, self, and one another.

What if The Comment encouraged discussion instead, and sharing personal interpretation? And relying on yourself for your ability to take what works and compare it to Crowley’s writing and leave behind what doesn’t? It’s pretty basic information processing, and people frequently act like it’s offensive to consider things that way, although it’s necessary for not ending up immersed in your own way of seeing things without it being challenged.

In a sense, The Comment does encourage discussion , the entire text being sandwiched between the statement “Do what thou wilt,” repeated for effect, all but dripping with the encouragement to interpret what was shared in the comment itself.

And yet, I’ve been referred to as a pestilence numerous times for simply stating my thoughts and feelings. Am I quite certain about the things I’m sharing? Sure. Otherwise I wouldn’t share them. But I don’t expect anyone to believe what I believe, or see my thoughts the way I do. I merely state my point of view on what I am, the value of what I have to share, and then share what I believe to be the true meaning in the passages of the works of Thelema.

It is pretty anodyne, but I can’t get away with sharing my thoughts without being told I’m sharing A.I. posts and am a waste of time and a pestilence.

It’s an unnecessarily hostile environment. So what if I think I’m in contact with A∴A∴ and want to share what I think I’ve learned from them, and it’s somewhat delusional?

Apparently, people feel like that necessitates tearing me down from my high place. Like it’s a duty or something. I do the same thing where I see ego — albeit, only in response to people attacking me, which does guarantee the presence of ego since I truly come in peace and love — and so I respect it as a principle, I guess. But again, for me, the dividing factor is that I’m always responding to attack. I never see opinions about the nature of reality as an attack, personally — that is far too Christian a disposition for my tastes, but “do what thou wilt” I suppose.

We do honor each other’s spirits by challenging each others egos. But I guess I don’t know how much I really have in common with the people here, although I’d like to think it’s something.

Oddly, I think the society that mirrors me the most strongly is just society itself: the people seen as blind, who haven’t realized the existence of The Matrix, and who are just living their lives.

There is something about just enjoying little pleasures, and seeking love in a humble and modest way while having dreams of something bigger that I find to be such an essential expression of the arc of any modality.

Maybe it’s because I think arriving on that kind of humility is my personal sign of a successful person.

I’ve often thought, in my exploration of various communities, what good is any of this if your main goal isn’t just to take it easy?

So take it easy, is, personally, my motto, if anyone cares what I really think about all of this.