Do what thou wilt?

[Joan Marie]

This famous phrase, the central theme of Thelema is so often truncated as "Do what thou wilt." or often at most, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

Because of the association with Crowley and his association with "Satanism" many assume this phrase to mean a license to debauch.

But there is more. The full saying is:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will.

This implies a serious underpinning to the will: Love.

But what does it mean?

Any ideas?

[Nemia]

I always read it as protest against the teachings of Christianity (the way Crowley understood, maybe misunderstood it). Conventional Christian teaching is: Do what God wants, that's the law.

(Actually it's much more complicated in Christianity, I'm reminded of Luther here who said: A Christian is a free man and nobody's servant. A Christian is anything but a free man is servant to everybody. My bad translation. But Christian education emphasized the servant part.)

Crowley, like Nietzsche, wanted to topple the principles of selfless charity, putting yourself last, crippling yourself with feelings of guilt and original sin and inescapable weakness. "A wretch like me".

He postulated liberty do one's own will, not God's will. But he tempered it with Love - benevolent will, not malevolent will. (There is a whole school of philosophers breaking their heads about volition and what it is and how we control or don't control our volition - German philosophers harped on this topic for generations, not only Nietzsche. And Christian educators believed that children were born with an evil tendency that had to be broken - my own father believed that that the aim of education was eradicating what he called "der böse Wille", i.e., the evil volition).

For Crowley, the purpose of life is not to do what others tell you, even if they claim to speak for God. Find out what you really want - and then do it. And I would add: Don't call what a person wants to do evil - and if you educate or teach others, accept that their will won't lead them onto the path you may have imagined. Keep your nose out of the business of others.

Finding out what one really wants is by no means easy. But each of us has his/her own path, and we can and should find it and then walk it. I guess we all know how alienating it feels to live a role we didn't choose, to live against our own nature and inner will.

I'm sure that a lot of Thelemites will find my interpretation much too simplistic but this is what I understand from Crowley's writing.

[chiscotheque]

in many ways, Do What Thou Wilt is a Gnostic idea. ironically, Gnostics make a strong argument that Paul - the Xtian lawmaker - was actually a closet Gnostic who essentially taught Do What Thou Wilt to those who were "in the know' (ie - Gnostic) but also taught the Law (ie - do what Yahweh said) to those who were only semi-enlightened or totally ignorant. the argument for why and how this is so is long and complex but can be found in Elaine Pagel's excellent (if dense) book The Gnostic Paul.

as to Crowley's phrase, the explanation is this: if one is enlightened, what one does will naturally be "good". just as when the apostles ask Jesus what they should say when they went evangelizing and Jesus says don't worry about it, just start talking and God will talk through you via the Holy Spirit. This is what the Love aspect of the phrase points to - if one recognizes God as Love, one doesn't need tenets and rules because one by default acts within the grace of God through the Paraclete. in fact, Gnostics - & even arguably Paul - would say that following the law rather than one's will (which is God's will) when one knows better - ie knows God and his/her own will - is committing a sin. Further, sins themselves are the stuff of those who aren't enlightened - those confined to knowing God's law but deprived of "gnosis". there are 3 levels of human spiritual existence: hylic, material beings entirely without spiritual awareness; psychic, people who are soulful and wish to follow God but don't experience God directly; and pneumatic, enlightened individuals who experience God intimately. Mosaic law and Christian tenets are for the first 2, while Do What Thou Wilt is for the 3rd.

Being something of a nihilist and a nebbish myself, i've always lived by the credo Wilt What Thou Do.

[Rachelcat]

If you think you're enlightened, then you're not. If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.

For the rest of us, there's morality. The Golden Rule might be a good place to start.

Religion is not necessary for a moral life. In many, many ways, it's a barrier to it. On the other hand, does anyone really think Nietzsche and Crowley are good role models? Or Paul, for that matter?

(This is not an attack on anyone here! I have strong feelings about all this, and it just comes out of me in short phrases. Carry on with the discussion!)

[chiscotheque]

Religion is not necessary for a moral life. In many, many ways, it's a barrier to it.

excellent point.

for what it's worth, many people think Paul, Crowley, and Nietzsche are good role models - maybe not the same people, but each has their proponents.

if the Golden Rule is a place to start, is there a place to end?

if you think you're enlightened you're not, and if you think you're not you're not - is anyone, then, enlightened? is there even such a thing? seen another way, almost everyone acts as though they are enlightened, at least on some level. for instance, those who follow the Golden Rule believe in the Golden Rule - that is, they are enlightened insofar as they feel the GR is a valid teaching. Same is true of any follower of any religion, or any atheist for that matter. when you really think about it, everyone acts as they see fit - whether they choose to follow Mosaic Law or not or their conscience or John Hagee or whatever - and so is the whole discussion moot? or is there actually, in a weird circuitous way, something to be said for the above-mentioned Gnostic stance?

[Maskelyne]

As I understand it, Crowley Crowley believed that one must first determine what one's will truly is, and that love is the guide to finding it. As Lon Milo Duquette explained it

...the pure Will of every man and every woman is already in perfect harmony with the divine Will; in fact they are one and the same. It is the Magician's Great Work to endeavor to remove the obstacles that hinder his or her realization of that Will and then proceed to execute it.

[Pen]

I've always been uncomfortable with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", and as for the full saying re. love under will, fairly wide knowledge (obviously secondhand or further removed) concerning Crowley's life, learning and sources of belief and research, invests the whole saying with darkness rather than light. My feeling is that, brilliant as he was, perhaps he only loved himself.

At the risk of sounding fluffy, which I'm certainly not, the Wiccan Rede modification, 'An' it harm none, do what ye will', works well, in spite of the possibility of the unintentional and unforeseen consequences of one's actions (the butterfly's wings), even altruistic ones. Years and years ago I actually tried to work out my feelings on this possibility by writing a novel, which may have been both dark and fluffy, as I'd just discovered The Wiccan Rede and was a little in love with it.

[Rachelcat]

if you think you're enlightened you're not, and if you think you're not you're not - is anyone, then, enlightened? is there even such a thing? seen another way, almost everyone acts as though they are enlightened, at least on some level. for instance, those who follow the Golden Rule believe in the Golden Rule - that is, they are enlightened insofar as they feel the GR is a valid teaching. Same is true of any follower of any religion, or any atheist for that matter. when you really think about it, everyone acts as they see fit - whether they choose to follow Mosaic Law or not or their conscience or John Hagee or whatever - and so is the whole discussion moot? or is there actually, in a weird circuitous way, something to be said for the above-mentioned Gnostic stance?

Good point. We all believe in something and try to follow it, even if what we believe in is "I don't believe in anything." I guess I'm saying it's good to have a small and simple belief, along with a whole lot of humility!

(Practicing my humility here!) Even though many of their actions and some of their ideas are truly appalling, I am grateful to Paul, Nietzsche, and Crowley for leading the way toward the outward and inward spiritual freedom I now enjoy.

To talk about how horrible they were, among other things! Their sexism, disgusting racism, and casual cruelty were probably the least controversial of their ideas at their times! Everyone is a product of his culture, definitely including me.

[chiscotheque]

I guess I'm saying it's good to have a small and simple belief, along with a whole lot of humility!

Everyone is a product of his culture, definitely including me.

i think humility is key.

the difficulties one gets into when trying to nail down or simply get specific and "real" about a working ethos are endless and make one realize the allure of a "Golden Rule" one never second guesses or simply just a set of rules one hands personal responsibility over to.

everyone is indeed a product of his culture and time, but it shouldn't be forgotten that cultures and times are also products of everyone.

[dodalisque]

"Do what thou wilt." But who is this "thou"? There's the rub. If at our centre our true identity is co-identical with God - since "everything is God" and "God is love" - then complete selfishness is actually an act of love and the same thing as being true to God's will. Doesn't our soul instantly recognise something that has that quality - soulfulness - like a magnetic needle finding north? Sure, we make mistakes. We are not very good at hearing the quiet voice of our soul's intuition, if that is what we want to call it. Crowley would call it our Holy Guardian Angel. My own teacher sometimes uses the term Inner Pilot. But to refine our "sense of hearing" is why we follow a spiritual path.

Success isn't guaranteed of course - joining a path is more like a statement of intent that a promise of achievement - but choosing a particular teacher or religion is at the human level an act of trust, a "blind (i.e. unconscious) leap of faith". Something feels right somehow and we go for it. The annoying thing is that it's like falling in love. We can't MAKE it happen. I guess this is where the idea of God's grace comes in, or dumb luck. And of course it's very possible that you may have your open-hearted trust exploited by fakes or that your own spiritual needs change as you grow. You always have to be on the lookout for that and be honest with yourself. You don't have to completely surrender your intelligence right off the bat. You grow into complete surrender over many years. It feels good, very similar to a long-term relationship or marriage. But those go wrong more times than they go right too, so it's a gamble. And, as we can see, there is always the ever-present danger of becoming a crashing bore about it.

[Papageno]

I've always been uncomfortable with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", and as for the full saying re. love under will, fairly wide knowledge (obviously secondhand or further removed) concerning Crowley's life, learning and sources of belief and research, invests the whole saying with darkness rather than light. My feeling is that, brilliant as he was, perhaps he only loved himself.

let's see, how do I put this diplomatically.....

I've always been uncomfortable with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment.....IMHO, that philosophy was very conveniently self-serving.

Crowley certainly considered himself to be a brilliant individual, but I dispute that characterization as a whole, although he did have his moments.....episodically......and he was most certainly in love with himself.

and one may well ask....how does someone, such as myself, who owns five Thoth decks and other tarot decks influenced by the Thoth, come to these scathing conclusions.....

well....as I just stated.....there were periods of lucid, less self-indulgent moments......brief though they were, but just long enough
to collaborate with Lady Frieda Harris to create his Thoth Tarot....although in my mind, it will always be Lady Frieda's deck,
just as the Tabula Mundi will always be M. M. Meleen's deck....both of them, brilliant artistic achievements....the Tabula Mundi is IMHO mind blowing.

People put all sorts of stuff down on paper to get published.....I don't even think most of them really believe half the nonsense they write......but the truth......the real brilliance is revealed when pen and brush meet the paper.

Tarot ReVISIONed by Leigh J. McCloskey is a case in point....IMHO that's the problem with getting published in the tarot world,
people expect "profound" philosophical insights.....the Tarot ReVISIONed is artistically brilliant....I dispense with the "philosophy".

A painting, a sculpture or art installation in a museum speaks volumes on it's own....that's why I always list the artist first....not the author when I compile my list of decks.
All too often I find huge disparities between the philosophy and what is communicated by the visual medium......there ARE exceptions of course........but I suppose that's very subjective.

However....I digress, yet again.......but not too much.

[Merrick]

Crowley summed up the Thelemic philosophy as “Do what thou wilt” but like the joke of the Buddha ordering a hot dog from a street vendor and saying “Make me one with everything,” the pithy summation does not do justice to the nuance of the philosophy that spawned it. The Book of the Law is very short. I recommend anyone interested in understanding Thelema better read it, reflect it, and read it again. I’m not a Thelemite but I do believe the Book of the Law is a revealed text and not an original work of Crowley’s. As such I would urge people to view the Book of the Law as distinct from the man it was given to, and judge it on its own words and not through Crowley’s interpretation.

[Parzival]

It is significant that the Thelemic quintessential proclamation addresses the sacred "Thou" and not the ordinary "you." So, it's not really about you, but about your divine Self, or so I see it. This to me calls for some soul-searching through to just Who one essentially is before doing what One determines to do. Then there is at the end of the statement the word "Law"--isn't this in the Buddhist sense of Truth or the Way? How could One not take action along the Way without being true to Oneself? I suppose one could be ego-deceived. "To Thine own Self be true" precedes the Thelemic proclamation" along with "Do your duty Arjuna and fight"-- but Krishna also says, "Follow your duty, Arjuna, as your nature dictates it." Consider Socrates listening to his Daemon. And Emerson's essay on ""Self-reliance" powerfully proclaims that "No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature.... The only right is what is after my constitution....What I must do is all that concerns me, not what people think... What is the aboriginal Self, on which a universal reliance may be grounded?" I am only suggesting that there are prior statements that resonate with the Thelemic one. After all, if it speaks truth to us, it must be in us (in essence) to begin with.

[Who'sthis?]

It is significant that the Thelemic quintessential proclamation addresses the sacred "Thou" and not the ordinary "you." So, it's not really about you, but about your divine Self, or so I see it. This to me calls for some soul-searching through to just Who one essentially is before doing what One determines to do. Then there is at the end of the statement the word "Law"--isn't this in the Buddhist sense of Truth or the Way? How could One not take action along the Way without being true to Oneself? I suppose one could be ego-deceived. "To Thine own Self be true" precedes the Thelemic proclamation" along with "Do your duty Arjuna and fight"-- but Krishna also says, "Follow your duty, Arjuna, as your nature dictates it." Consider Socrates listening to his Daemon. And Emerson's essay on ""Self-reliance" powerfully proclaims that "No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature.... The only right is what is after my constitution....What I must do is all that concerns me, not what people think... What is the aboriginal Self, on which a universal reliance may be grounded?" I am only suggesting that there are prior statements that resonate with the Thelemic one. After all, if it speaks truth to us, it must be in us (in essence) to begin with.

What a delightful little post

Anyway ....

"Thoth thread , I hereby resurrect you ! "




'Do what thou wilt. ' -always an interesting and 'diverse' topic . As I see above . I will not write my usual and varied , but hope to offer something different ( even for me )

Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law - but what is this Law ? Aside from parroting 'It's the Law of Thelema ' .... or something similar , I am going straight on to ; ' Love is the Law ' ( as the term 'Will' , here has a higher meaning , I am postulating that the term - and idea - of love is in its higher meaning as well ) .

Then, love is the law, love under will :

WILL
/
LOVE

What springs immediately to mind here is 'Will' is 'Wand' and Fire (elemental)
Love is Cup and Water .
That's the first two in the 'normal' elemental progression - The 'divine pairing' . What's next ?
Mind is Dagger and Air.
'Body' ( and all physical manifestations of the above, via 'self' ) is Pentacle and Earth .

Its the basic elemental formula and a guide as to how to manage and balance the psyche ( eg . Will/inspiration/fire 'ignites' , we have a 'flash' , idea . 'lightbulb moment. Next, we see how we feel about it , does it 'sit right' , what emotive content does it have and how does it effect our emotions . We may choose to immerse it in the watery world of the Unconscious - 'sleep on it ' . Next we 'analyse it , run it through our minds , does it make sense , is it logical , how do we bring it to manifestation ? Planning . Last we manifest it on the earth plane .

What is purpose and inspiration without the kindling of 'soul' ? It is the start of all ventures . Why do something your heart is not in and that you do not believe in . But balance all this with a developed and balanced mind . Is it practical , possible, sensible , crazy ? And last , what good is all of the above unless something comes from it , otherwise it will all be phantom and 'pipe dreams' .

So not only is Love under Will , MInd should be under Love - if you get my drift .

But Will and Love - their higher aspects, are little known and Man has crowned himself with his own mind .

[jobarghest]

My interpretation when I first heard the phrase was of things simply being the way they have to be- (somewhat like the notion of fate but far more organic and mutable. )

It shifted a little, partly influenced by Du Quette and similar, but not by much. When I saw the Love is the Law, Love Under Will, it gained the right resonance.

At no stage did I see it as 'do whatever you want', partly as it innately implied control as opposed to random selfindulgences. As a random soap-opera example, the difference between the two interpretations could be leaving someone because you feel like it, as a shallow indulgence, or doing so because the situation does not sit correctly in reality and isn't your authentic path. It's about integrity even if it breaks some moulds.

I think those interpretations come from assumptions about the character of Crowley. He was seen very much as a libertine and egotist. Let'[s face it, the guy wasn't devoid of ego, and was a jerk in many ways (for example regarding VIctor Neuberg's breakdown), but he did have an integrity of his own kind. I don't know about his prejudices as I haven't yet read about them- I would expect they were similar to the other jackass beliefs of the time.

There were certainly some aspects of integrity there- he founded the A: A: which prohibits accepting money in exchange for teaching. This is very different to the Hay House model of spirituality (I use this merely as a metaphor lol)....That integrity and discipline doesn't fit with a 'selfish' interpretation of his phrase. I think the phrase, separated from him, is amoral, in a sense, as it's beyond conventional morals which fluctuate anyway. The rightness, the calibration as it were, is powered by the love. It's not powered by morality. I think that's why people often dislike it. It insists that you define morals organically, for yourself. That takes considerably more work and responsibility, and you alone bear the blame if it fails. It also means that the moral parameters have to be rewritten each time, as they're personal to each form/organism.

I think that's why it's written so enigmatically, rather like a selfenclosed system.

When I learned more about Crowley's concept of love and of fulfilling your own true will, it made even more sense. He explicitly said the will can exist in many roles, and that the only real crime was one of falsity. That holds a lot of freedom within it, but also a kind of obligation. I like how much of his work is made up of paradox. Given he compares the individual to a star (so both impersonal and individual) conventional morals naturally don't apply. In the sense of the universe, outer space, morals are very flimsy as they are artificial constructions. Love is really all that is necessary and is organic, so it can survive in those circumstances without constraint. But the liberation is merely ego without the love. They are necessary to each other.

Crowley did love people, but it seems his ego, or something else, had a very destructive effect. It may have been his abusive childhood, his addictions, or any number of things (he warned against making bargains, as his early pledge of absolute renunciation destroyed his lovers, relationships and material stability.) Maybe his love extended only to his magical self-development, and hence didn't appear to manifest in the outside world.

I do like how the concept of love can be broadened out in this phrase. It seems not just personal and sentimental in that context, but wider and more powerful. I think the two separate joined phrases expand each other in an interesting way.

I love the observation that he uses 'Thou' as opposed to 'you'. It takes the whole thing into a different context...very different from the self-centred personal.