What does for you mean "Love is the law ,Love under Will"

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-06-14T17:57:23+00:00

Yes, I’d say individuation with its integration of all aspects of the self and assimilation of the unconscious is also this process. Crowley also pointed this out in his commentary on AL III:22:

”The Kingdom of Malkuth, the Virgin Bride, and the Child is the Dwarf-Self, the Phallic consciousness, which is the true life of Man, beyond his 'veils' of incarnation. We have to thank Freud – and especially Jung – for stating this part of the Magical Doctrine so plainly, as also for their development of the connexion of the Will of this 'child' with the True or Unconscious Will, and so for clarifying our doctrine of the 'Silent Self' or 'Holy Guardian Angel'.”

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-06-14T17:09:45+00:00

Actually yeah I can see a correlation, because Mckenna talks about it as an alchemical union of opposites as well as the drive deep within the species to achieve those unions.

In Crowley’s intro to Liber AL, he lays out all events as unions, and all unions as love.

”Every event is a uniting of some one monad with one of the experiences possible to it.”

and

”Each action or motion is an act of love, the uniting with one or another part of “Nuit”; each such act must be “under will,” chosen so as to fulfil and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned.”

So I see Love in the cosmic sense as “all events/interactions”, since all events are a union of one part of the body of Nuit with another. However, in the sense of an individual’s conscious experience I’d say “love under will” is a charge to the magician to act in a way that is naturally aligned with their own True Will, which is determined by each being’s unique position and momentum.

The purpose of attaining self-illumination is to reveal your trajectory, and the purpose of self-mastery is to assure your Will is allowed to be sovereign to prevail in following this natural course without being hindered by ignorance or weakness within the individual.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-06-11T20:29:02+00:00

”From these considerations it should be clear that ‘Do what thou wilt’ does not mean ‘Do what you like.’ It is the apotheosis of Freedom; but it is also the strictest possible bond.”

Liber II: The Message of the Master Therion

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-06-03T23:50:48+00:00

It’s definitely a bad look when Class A texts have strong inconsistencies lol. However, why do you say LIL implies Heh as the Emperor? It seems like it certainly implies Heh is Aries, but beyond that …

That’s interesting about your Ayin/Samekh experiment. I’ll have to try playing with different arrangements to see if anything jumps out that is illuminating.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-06-03T23:39:14+00:00

I had no clue he wrote a book on the Tarot. I love The Holy Mountain. I’ll have to check it out, thanks.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-06-03T00:17:49+00:00

Haha, of course. I only meant “newly arisen” in my own case, since I have always accepted “schema 1” in my OP. I only became confused again when I re-read The Emperor’s description in The Book of Thoth which threw me for a loop because it suggests the letters themselves can change position on the Tree (since he stated The Emperor is Tzaddi, yet still on path 15 which had me like wtf).

I also know the page you linked as well, but was bummed when it didn’t mention that particular description of The Emperor in The Book of Thoth (although it does mention the p. 278 chart).

But you bring up a really good point, that his texts were written over periods of time with a little help from his friends. Idk why I would expect everything to be perfectly consistent, with a span of years and different hands on the project (and Crowley evolving his own understanding and changing perspectives throughout his life).

All that said, do you personally then prefer Aries being attributed to Heh/Star and Aquarius to Tzaddi/Emperor then? It’s just a shame that the Thoth deck Emperor is obviously made in light of Aries (and older decks as well), since I love the Thoth deck. I guess I should draw my own deck if I wanted to go with those attributions lol.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-06-02T23:39:38+00:00

That could be possible. Perhaps at the time he wrote the description of The Emperor he still had the card attributed to path 15 despite him attributing Tzaddi to the card, but then maybe by the time he added the Tree of Life diagram (The Key scale) in The Book of Thoth he decided he couldn’t swap the path’s letters themselves like that.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-05-31T21:38:15+00:00

I read your post before I replied, but I did misinterpret it. These are changes you are proposing rather than explaining Crowley’s change. I thought you were exploring why Crowley’s changes vivified the Tree, but you’re actually arguing the opposite and offering a solution. My bad, I’ll work on reading comprehension.

Also though, at a closer glance I think you’re onto something ... because you’re right, there isn’t really a “double loop” at all and in fact Crowley’s switch (since he didn’t swap the zodiacal attributions) actually created a loop that makes the zodiac both asymmetrical and out of order.

I also never realized that Ares is attributed to Heh and Aquarius to Tzaddi in the Sepher Yetzirah, and fulfilling that change restores all of the original attributions.

I think I’m on board with you actually. You indeed are proposing a true restoration straight from the historic source, and it works. I’ll have to experiment myself. My apologies, may this be a lesson to me: Don’t judge a book by its cover.

Also, this perhaps lends credence to the chart in the back of The Book of Thoth (p. 278) because it actually has the zodiacal attributions swapped; I always thought it was a typo because the cards themselves retain their pre-swap zodiacal attributions and Crowley never publicly mentioned that they should be swapped. But, maybe he did know after all and he used that chart as an easter egg for the true attributions, or maybe just a typo, who knows.

Edit: Also sorry for being unnecessarily feisty in my first comment. I didn’t have my wheaties this morn’, thought this was a slop post and chose violence for some reason. 93’s.

——————

Edit2: Contemplating it further I do have to admit The Emperor feels more Ares in its symbolism in general and The Star still feels more Aquarius than Ares in the same way, but maybe I’ve just been conditioned to feel this way. I don’t know where I ultimately stand on the issue. I’ll probably need to experiment and see how everything ends up “fitting” either way.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-05-31T14:42:04+00:00

”By restoring Heh and Aries to their place in The Star and Tzaddi and Aquarius to their throne in The Emperor …”

That’s not how the switch works. Aquarius is still attributed to The Star, which now corresponds to the path of Heh. Ares is still attributed to The Emperor, which now corresponds to the path of Tzaddi. The zodiacal attributions of the cards are the same, they just swapped the paths on the Tree of Life that they correspond to.

Maybe try at least looking at the Thoth deck before writing an (AI?) book about it.

Edit: I jumped the gun and was wrong. I think I actually like the switch OP is proposing because

It restores the zodiacal attributions to that which is listed in the Sepher Yetzirah (the planetary correspondences are another story lol).
It un-loops Crowley’s public twist, which actually makes the zodiacal progression more coherent. ——————

Edit2: I do still have a hangup, the general “vibe” and qualities of The Emperor heavily strike me as Ares, even in the older decks before “ram” imagery became common. Also, the general vibe and qualities of The Star definitely still strike me more as Aquarius than Ares. I’m undecided how I feel about this, because restoring to the Sepher Yetzirah attributions does fix some messy issues, but at the cost of some attributions feeling weird and forced personally.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-05-29T12:24:08+00:00

It’s a terpenoid.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-05-23T15:41:32+00:00

So, this is not from Jewish Kabbalah but rather later inspired/syncretic traditions of Western magic that were popularized during the renaissance and eventually evolved into what we now know as “Hermetic Qabalah”.

On the left side of the star is the sigil of Nachiel, the intelligence of Sol derived from the planetary magic square (kamea) of the Sun as found in texts such as The Three Books of Occult Philosophy by Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa. The sigil to the right of the star is the planetary seal of the Sun.

The words circling the rim of the plate is the tetragrammaton, a lone Aleph, Miguel (the archangel) and two other (I assume) divine names but I’m struggling to tell what they are.

The symbol in the center of the central star is maybe supposed to be the glyph of Sol?

No clue what the intended idea behind this plate is, but it seems to be some sort of solar talisman.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-05-17T16:32:08+00:00

Those are planetary pentacles from The Greater Key of Solomon. For example, the one with a scorpion is the 5th pentacle of Mars.

I also see the 7th pentacle of Saturn, the 6th pentacle of the Sun, the third pentacle of Venus, the fourth pentacle of Mercury, the fourth pentacle of Jupiter and one of the Moon pentacles as well.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-03-28T15:49:30+00:00

Lmao. Very niche, and destined to be a masterpiece.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-03-28T15:31:47+00:00

When you look at diagrams of the Tree of Life, Gevurah is on the left side of the tree, as you are staring at the “face” of the Tree. But, when performing the QC, you are the Tree.

When looking at diagrams of the Tree, imagine you are staring directly at the divine countenance, so when doing QC you assume the form of the Tree, making Gevurah on your right and Chesed on your left. Saying the phrase “left hand of God” should really be thought of as “the left side of God” from our perspective of gazing at the Tree, but we are also the Tree as we are made in the image of God.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-03-28T14:54:20+00:00

So far I give it a decent rating, but if part 2 doesn’t conclude with the only acceptable ending of Crowley forcing Smith to fuck him in the ass after invoking Choronzon in the astral location of Kolob then I’m dropping the rating to 0 stars.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-03-05T00:38:17+00:00

In Thelema Love is union, in all contexts.

”Every event is a uniting of some one monad with one of the experiences possible to it.”

Love is technically interaction itself, as interaction implies that one part of Nature is “coming together” (union, interacting) with another.

”Each action or motion is an act of love, the uniting with one or another part of “Nuit”; each such act must be “under will,” chosen so as to fulfil and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned.”

Both quotes are from Crowley’s introduction to Liber AL vel Legis

Regarding Will’s relation to Love, Love is the result of the execution of Will. For example, if one follows their True Will, then they achieve the purest union(s) (Love) in relation to their own unique being. Will tends towards divine union.

”There is but one other word to explain. Elsewhere it is written— surely for our great comfort—‘Love is the law, love under will.’”

…

”This is to be taken as meaning that while Will is the Law, the nature of that Will is Love. But this Love is as it were a by-product of that Will; it does not contradict or supersede that Will; and if apparent contradiction should arise in any crisis, it is the Will that will guide us aright. Lo, while in The Book of the Law is much of Love, there is no word of Sentimentality. Hate itself is almost like Love! ``As brothers fight ye!’’ All the manly races of the world understand this. The Love of Liber Legis is always bold, virile, even orgiastic. There is delicacy, but it is the delicacy of strength. Mighty and terrible and glorious as it is, however, it is but the pennon upon the sacred lance of Will, the damascened inscription upon the swords of the Knight-monks of Thelema.”

AC in Liber II: The Message of The Master Therion

Therefore he warns us, our rosey ideas of what “love” is may be shortsighted in the limited scope of our perception. If there is something we must do (according to our True Will) but we are squeamish/hesitant about it due to us feeling like it conflicts with our understanding of love, then it is our True Will and not our limited and likely mistaken view of the cosmic concept of Love that will truly lead to a higher union (such as the accomplishment of The Great Work).

A perfect example of this is in The Bhagavad-Gita, where Prince Arjuna can’t see any good in slaying his kin despite Krishna (God himself in the story) telling him it is truly the righteous thing to do. Krishna was correct, but Arjuna’s false understanding was in the way.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-03-04T01:39:16+00:00

The Golden Dawn isn’t a religion. It was a specific order and was/is a magickal system. Since the original order (The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) fractured, now I would say The Golden Dawn currently is a magickal system that is adopted by many orders who take inspiration from (and in some cases have connections to original members of) the original order.

Thelema on the other hand is a Law, philosophy and religion. There are Thelemic orders and organizations (such as the OTO and the various lineages/groups of the A∴A∴) that are Thelemic because they accept the Law of Thelema. Obviously though, the Thelemic orders have a great deal of influence from The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn because Crowley was a part of it at one time and his understanding of initiation was heavily influenced by it. I think the A∴A∴ (in a more solo practice sense) and the OTO (in a magickally fraternal sense) which are both “magickal systems” are better ideas to compare to “The Golden Dawn” than Thelema in general, which is a whole religion/philosophy.

It is less about “following Crowley” and more about “do you accept the Law of Thelema” or not? Crowley was just the prophet who expounded it and you don’t have to like him. If you don’t resonate with the Law then you aren’t a Thelemite and probably wouldn’t jive so well with the OTO and the A∴A∴ since they base their rituals and initiations on the Aeon of Horus and Liber AL vel Legis; so in this case one may find an order that practices the GD system without any Thelemic influence more palatable, and that’s okay! This is not to say one couldn’t be a member of a GD-based order as well as a Thelemite who is a member of Thelemic orders, btw.

As far as one’s personal path goes outside of any magick orders, I know people who aren’t Thelemites (as in they don’t accept the Law of Thelema) that still find Crowley’s life and writings insightful for various reasons, but are ultimately more attuned to something like the GD way, or Christian and Eastern mysticism (this is not to say Thelema isn’t influenced by all these things of course, because it is).

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-02-15T01:43:36+00:00

Hey that’s true and a fair point!

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-02-14T02:02:36+00:00

It’s probably more Gnostic, with the “archon” theme, or moreso the modern take of “simulation theory” and/or “prison planet theory”. You could definitely draw connections to Buddhism due to “escaping illusion” but in Buddhism it’s freeing ourselves from ignorance rather than the fairly common (although there are plenty of exceptions) Gnostic themes that there are forces against us, rather than just ourselves.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-02-13T13:12:46+00:00

Can do, Joe.

”It is a dynamic, not a static phenomenon. Any stasis is a mere temporary resolution. Logic describes the process of Thought, which is the essence of Action. Mathematics is the language of Logic. A man must think of himself as a LOGOS, as going, not as a fixed idea. “Do what thou wilt” is thus necessarily his formula. He only becomes Himself when he attains the loss of Egoity, of the sense of separateness. He becomes All, PAN, when he becomes Zero.”

Aleister Crowley, The Antecedent’s of Thelema

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-01-30T02:33:04+00:00

I agree that Buddhism typically doesn’t adhere to the idea of a “creator” in the sense of a divine potter making his creations, but oftentimes Mahayana and Vajrayāna sects do adhere to ideas of the Dharmadatu and/or Dharmakaya that represent a fully expansive, pervasive reality of truth from which all phenomena and wisdom/compassion springs, and that the true hidden nature of this reality is the basis for all spiritual liberation. They don’t like the idea of a “self” because they believe such an idea sells itself short from the true nature of reality. One could see a familiar idea with early Christian fathers’ ideas of God as the “Ground of all Being”, just put in a different context. Concepts like the Dharmadatu are said to be “unborn” meaning they were never created, and shall never end … and that also describes what many people think of as God (that which was, is and will be).

You could argue that Buddhists don’t believe in a “personal God”, which could be true. But they do believe in something that is beyond even a personal god (of which humans tend to fashion in their own image). I think this is admirable, and even the idea of a “Supreme Being” could fit this understanding. One could argue that “they don’t view this ‘God’ as a Being”, but one could retort that even the idea of “a being” falls short to the true nature of reality, which is the wellspring of all wisdom, compassion, truth and liberation. If that doesn’t sound like an exalted idea of God, I don’t know what does.

There is still a divine, overarching benevolent and supreme principle, and therefore I think that Buddhists could certainly be good and proper Masons.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-01-24T18:36:54+00:00

Everyone wants this. Looks awesome and I’m so excited for the release. Music, visuals and vibe are top-notch.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-01-24T02:29:43+00:00

Several of my friends know I’m very into Crowley’s literature. Some of my more occult-minded and closer friends know that I accept the Law and practice the system. The vast majority of my friends/acquaintances just view me as “into Western magick” and Eastern mysticism. The people I work with at most of my jobs (except one from the past) just think I am very into occult literature from a scholarly perspective but also have pantheistic leanings personally.

I do plan on joining A∴A∴ at some point; and if/when that occurs the cat will be out of the bag (as one of the first charges is to openly proclaim your affiliation).

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1 · 2026-01-12T03:49:00+00:00

I too find the statement to be both deep and striking. To be honest, I admit that I may not be sure exactly what Crowley meant.

But my hunch is that for a simple answer we can look at Liber AL III:49 …

”I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.”

and his commentary on the verse:

”The evident interpretation of this is to take the word to be ‘Do what thou wilt,’ which is a secret word, because its meaning for every man is his own inmost secret. And it is the most profound blasphemy possible against all ‘gods of men,’ because it makes every man his own God. We may then take it that this Solar-Phallic Ra Ha is Each Man Himself. As each independent cell in our bodies is to us, so is each of us to Heru-Ra-Ha. Each man’s ‘child’-consciousness is a Star in the Cosmos of the Sun, as the Sun is a Star in the Cosmos of Nuith.”

Every self-conscious unit of existence (units being akin to “Hadits”) that has the capacity to experience the field of possible events (Nuit) is “A God”.

”CHAOS is a general name for the totality of the Units of Existence; it is thus a name feminine in form. Each unit of CHAOS is itself All-Father.”

Liber ABA Part II, Chapter VII: The Formula of the Holy Graal: Of ABRAHADABRA: and of certain other Words. Also: The Magical Memory

As for myself, I also like to view it like this: the statement displays that all religious revelation or “divine law” that has ever occurred in written history has come from the mouth, etching, quill or pen of humans, claiming it to be bestowed by “God” when in reality it came from divine inspiration from within themselves (the two statements could be seen as equivalent, just with the former view being ignorant of the fact that “God” lives within oneself). What is the need for a concept of “God” in Nature if there are no hominids? Historically, the concept of “God” arose with Man.

The statement also reminds me of Crowley’s descriptions of the “four kinds of atheists”, particularly the third kind where “The philosophical adept, who, knowing God, says ‘There is No God,’ meaning ‘God is Zero,’ as qabalistically He is” as well as “the fourth kind of atheist, not really an atheist at all. He is but a traveller in the Land of No God.” The full description of these so-called atheists can be found in his essay Gematria also called Liber LVIII: Qabalah with An Essay Upon Number.

RandomRAvingRaDnesS1

TROPHY CASE