(Untitled)

[saintbryan]

“If we are to reach real peace in this world and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with children; and if they grow up in their natural innocence, we won’t have to struggle; we won’t have to pass fruitless, idle resolutions, but we shall go from love to love and peace to peace until at last all the corners of the

Comments

[iamsquid]

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but based on my observation of children "natural innocence" would not be part of my description.

[saintbryan]

Perhaps I'm just naive, but I think that most of the out-of-balance aggressiveness, manipulativeness, insecurity and whathaveyou that we encounter in children is due to growing in a social environment which suppresses their individual needs. I might not use the same words as gandhi, there, but I think that what he's basically saying there is that if we allow our children to grow up following their true wills, this aeon will come into maturity without much struggle. It'll grow from the ground up.

[iamsquid]

Thelema is excellent at empowering the individual, but it falls apart on a macroscopic level. The idea that a Thelemic society would be a land of milk and honey is dubious.

Yes, I imagine I would be happier in a world in which people were more prone to respecting and enocuraging others in the pursuit of their true Wills, but I strongly doubt it will bring peace, cure disease, feed the hungry, etc.

[saintbryan]

I disagree that Thelema falls apart on a macroscopic level. Just for clarity, I'm referring to the greater 93 current, not just to the particular manifestation of the current which we call "Thelema". A lot of Thelemites approach Thelema in a fashion that tends to emphasize the microcosm over the macrocosm, but I think that the 93 current itself, by it's nature works equally on the micro and macro scales.

But I do agree that this Aeon will not cure all diseases, or end the pain that is necessarily part of the experience of life. I think a world of the Child would have about as much peace and pain as, say, a rainforest. Things end, die, are born, consume each other, hunger, love, fear, and so on. But I think that insofar as a system (be it a person, a society, a biosphere, or a solar system) is following its true will, there is necessarily an elimination of all unnecessary restrictions. Liberation.

Not that I would know what a liberated humanity would look like- I'm not sure its ever happened before.

[iamsquid]

The only way I imagine the greater 93 current not falling apart on a macroscopic level is if it's everybody's Will to be nice to eachother, help eachother out, and never interfere with anyone. Is there another answer that I'm overlooking?

[saintbryan]

It doesn't seem unlikely to me that the true will of every person leads to a state in which the desire to interfere with another's will disappears. (By "interference" I think we both mean unnecessary restriction). I say "leads to a state" because I think it is certainly part of the structure of everyone's true will to pass through various ordeals, which may manifest as restrictive behavior. But I have found that a lot of those ordeals (at least in the first stages of the path) basically ammount to the process of smoothing out psychological complexes. Psychological complexes which could be prevented in the first place by raising a child in a fashion that best suits that child's needs.

[iamsquid]

I really want to agree with yoo. Anybody who has spent a significant amount of time meditating or doing certain psychoactive substances has experienced a desire for non-interference and a profound feeling of oneness. Here is why I feel yoo are mistaken:

#1 - Not everybody is born a tabula rasa. Further, depending on how yoo want to define it, I would argue that nobody is a born a tabula rasa.

#2 - I don't buy into the idea that the Will is formed independently from the individual (including the idea that everybody has pretty much the same Will). Wills can differ radically. As such, I can imagine how it may be a person's Will to be wantonly cruel to other people

[saintbryan]

I am in agreement with you on most of these points. I think each person is born with a unique set of proclivities and potentials. Will, or at least (as far as I know) its expression in the world is highly dependent upon the individual's-relationsihp-with-the-whole (I count this as one thing that includes the individual and the whole). Each relationship is nondual: unique, AND inseparable from the whole. Because of this, everything we do effects everyone else, however, I would not say everything we do harms somebody. Everything we do changes things- and insofar as systems prefer to remain what they are, these changes may be considered to be "harmful". It's a matter of opinion. Nobody can avoid pain or contributing to the Greater System which perpetuates (among all other things) pain

[iamsquid]

I do not, however, think that pain or change are detriments

This is a good observation and I don't mean to sound as if I think that help and harm are black and white. In fact, I believe that although we percieve things to be good or bad, nothing is actually good or bad. When I told people about a chronic illness that used to really interfere with my life (while I still technicly have it, it is now negligible in most situations), many people were confused that I thought of it as a good thing - however, that doesn't change the fact that it was very harmful to my health and if I could just snap my fingers and have it disappear, I would have.

Likely not none, but probably less.

I agree with this but I'm uncertain just how much less it will be.

[saintbryan]

The primary reason why I believe that peace/love do not contradict change/pain is due to my meditations on the nature of Heruraha. Both Ra-Hoor-Kuit and Hoor-Paar-Kraat at once.