Restriction
Aum418: Really, I should have said ‘The highest Sin in Thelema is to restrict Will’ (including self as well as others).
This would indeed have been better, but I still don’t think it’s right.
“The word of Sin is Restriction” indeed, but there is nothing herein that suggests that “restriction” means “to restrict the will of others”. There is nothing within that quote itself which suggests it means “to restrict one’s own will”, either, but when considered together with the injunction “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” then it’s pretty clear to me that is what it means. (Also, note obviously “Do what thou wilt”, not “Let do what someone else wilt”).
That being said, the idea that “one should not restrict the will of another” is itself a restriction on one’s will, means that I find it completely impossible to get anything even remotely along the lines of “thou shalt not restrict the will of another” from that verse. What’s more, the rest of the verse, and the (say) ten verses either side of it contain absolutely no suggestion whatsoever of such a concept. Indeed, “Do that, and no other shall say nay” two verses later implies the exact opposite.
Aum418: “41, 42. Interference with the will of another is the great sin, for it predicates the existence of another. In this duality sorrow consists. I think that possibly the higher meaning is still attributed to will.”
This is from the “Old Comment” as you know. Let’s look back to the last time in Chapter I that restriction is mentioned:
AL I, 22: “Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.”
Compare this last sentence with “…it predicates the existence of another. In this duality sorrow consists”. They are two very similar ways of saying exactly the same thing.
What this is saying is that “interference with the will of another” is not “sinful”, in the sense that it is “bad” or “morally objectionable”, but that it is erroneous. The concept of “interference with the will of another” requires this predication of duality. Similarly, the idea that one can “interfere with the will of another” creates this predication of duality, and we are expressly told in I:22 not to do this. Therefore, to perpetuate the idea that one should not (or even that one can) interfere in the will of another is to perpetuate this idea of duality, which we are told not to do.
Therefore this statement that “Interference with the will of another is the great sin” does not mean that “[it is a] Sin in Thelema is to restrict the Will of another”, but that by “Binding nothing”, by accepting and contacting all impressions (“love under will”, again) and making “no difference…between any one thing & any other thing” then the “interference” disappears. It is the interference that is the “hurt that cometh thereby”.
In short, what this comment actually says is the the idea you should not “interfere” is itself a restriction and that this is the real “sin”. It does not support the idea that “The highest Sin in Thelema is to restrict the Will of another” – it directly contradicts it.
Note that Crowley specifically says “interference with the will”, not “restriction of the will”. This distinction is important. One definition of “interfere” is “to take part in the affairs of others; meddle”. Having a concern for the will of another is indeed “taking part in the affairs of others”. The use of the word “interference” suggests that it is not the simple conflict (or restriction) of another’s will that is “sin”, but the diversion from one’s own will in order to do it. When a boss fires an incompetent worker, he is not “interfering”, he is simply exercising his will (or the “will of the organisation”). But, if he fires a competent worker because that worker won’t submit to his sexual attentions, for instance, then he is “interfering”. Yet, in both cases, we can say that the will of the worker is being “restricted”. All this goes to support the case that it is the restriction of the will itself that is “sin”, not the restriction of another’s will, and that the idea that “it is sinful to restrict the will of another” is itself just such a restriction which we are to avoid.
If we do “bind nothing”, then this interference becomes impossible, since we are not conscious of the existence of “another thing” towards which we can turn away from our own will. Yet the will itself still gets done, and it there is conflict and restriction therein, there it remains.
Aum418: “The first paragraph is a general statement or definition of Sin or Error. Anything soever that binds the will, hinders it, or diverts it, is Sin. That is, Sin is the appearance of the Dyad. Sin is impurity.”
Indeed you will notice that the “new comment” to this verse is now wholly devoid of any suggestion that “restricting the will of others is sinful”. It is restricting “the will” that is “sin”, as discussed above. “Anything soever that binds the will….is Sin” This is very unequivocal. “Anything”. Including such moral injunctions implicit in your original phrasing.
Also, with reference to my previous argument, note the introduction of the equivalence of “Sin” with “Error”.
Aum418: Take this carefully; it seems to imply a theory that if every man and every woman did his and her will — the true Will — there would be no clashing. ‘Every man and every woman is a star.’, and each star moves in an appointed path without interference. There is plenty of room for all; it is only disorder that creates confusion.”
This really cannot be used to support such an argument. Crowley directly contradicts such a view many, many times. The “new comment” to I:41 which you quote above goes on to say:
“Physical constraint, up to a certain point, is not so seriously wrong; for it has its roots in the original sex-conflict which we see in animals, and has often the effect of exciting Love in his highest and noblest shape. Some of the most passionate and permanent attachments have begun with rape. Rome was actually founded thereon. Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, in a certain sense; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence. The collision of galaxies is a magnificent spectacle, after all. But there is nothing inspiring in a visit to one’s lawyer. Of course this is merely my personal view; a star who happened to be a lawyer might see things otherwise! Yet Nature’s unspeakable variety, though it admits cruelty and selfishness, offers us no example of the puritan and the prig!”
There is another interpretation. “The word of Sin is Restriction”. That is, the concept of Sin is Restriction. That is, it is restricting to believe in the existence of Sin.
As far as I can see, Liber AL in its entirely contains no hint at all that one should not restrict the will of another – only that one should not divert from (or restrict) one’s own will in order to do it (or in order to do anything else, for that matter). In fact, I think it goes out of its way to say the opposite.
2 Comments on “Restriction”
93 Erwin,
I thoroughly enjoyed this exchange and I think you bring up great points.
The Old Comment is: “Interference with the will of another is the great sin, for it predicates the existence of another. In this duality sorrow consists. I think that possibly the higher meaning is still attributed to will.”
This might be better interpreted as “The notion or appearance of interference with the will of another is the great sin, for it predicates the existence of another.” If we are not binding nothing and making no difference, then we are binding things and making differences, stuck in dualitistic notions of self/other, freedom/restriction, etc. I think this is still a valid interpretation.
The New Comment is: “The first paragraph is a general statement or definition of Sin or Error. Anything soever that binds the will, hinders it, or diverts it, is Sin. That is, Sin is the appearance of the Dyad. Sin is impurity.”
Then we come to see that the comments are saying the exact same thing twice in different language. Error is a better term (in my opinion) because Sin is connected with the thought-clusters of Christianity, Original sin, Judgment Day, etc. etc. He says Sin is impurity, as opposed to purity, or the “pure will” mentioned in AL I:44 that is unassuaged of purpose & delivered from lust of result. One who works in this fashion doesnt take heed of ‘interfering with others,’ because of the detachment (mentioned in Liber II).
I think it would be more accurate to write: “Anything that unnaturally binds the will, etc…” I may be splitting hairs (also with what is natural and what is not), but it is silly to think gravity, the nature of human bodily development, and the limits of human knowledge, etc. are all restrictions of the will, they are more influencing aspects of the Khu, just as much as one’s body, mind, conscious volition, etc. are. The entire nature of the Pillar of Severity is of contraction & restriction, but that is simply its nature and it is needed as a balance to expansion and freedom. In a practical sense, there are things that are avoidable and things that are not. Things that may be changed by “love under will,” and things that are simply factors of that formula’s application – the nature of time & space, etc. As said in an earlier post, there are aspects of both external & internal nature that are unavoidable – i.e. the nature of gravity & the structure of the unconscious – and also things that ARE ‘avoidable’ or ‘changeable’ – i.e. virtually all of our thoughts, emotions, actions, etc. and much of our physical environment with the right application of force.
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt, as you emphasize so often (and it is needed) and really it seems that much of the law allows one to come to terms with the reality of things, not a guide of conduct for ‘spiritual attainment’ (as you address in another post). In the same sense that Crowley says we are “Dark Stars” who are already doing the pure and perfect will, there are just an enormous amoutn of complexities obscuring this (which are, for the most part, quite easily washed away if seen correctly).
65 & 210,
IAO131
I think it would be more accurate to write: “Anything that unnaturally binds the will, etc…” I may be splitting hairs (also with what is natural and what is not), but it is silly to think gravity, the nature of human bodily development, and the limits of human knowledge, etc. are all restrictions of the will
I agree, some “constraints” serve to restrict the will, and others serve to define it. A resistor may restrict the flow of electrical current, but if those electrons are not compelled to move through a well-formed circuit in the first place then there will be no current at all, and nothing to restrict. The Eight of Wands is illustrative in this respect.
Naturally, this begs the question: “how are we to tell the difference between restricting constraints and defining constraints?”, to which, I am afraid, I have no better answer than “by observing them”. Constraints like gravity are easy to deal with, since we have no choice in the matter, and can therefore dispense with giving them any more thought. On the other hand, by sitting here and writing this reply I am restricted from doing any number of other things with these moments. I do not view this as a restriction, because that’s simply how I want to spend my time. In the unlikely event that continuing self-investigation leads me to suspect that I write replies like this in order to mask some deep-seated form of insecurity, then I might revise my views, but until that time I’m sticking with the explanation I gave.
Continuing self-knowledge is what it is ultimately about. If you viewed something as a defining constraint and not a restricting constraint forty years ago, and you still define it that way now, then you’re probably right about it. You don’t need to make any irrevocable judgments. If your analysis leads you to conclude that something is a defining constraint now, then accept that assumption and move on. If further analysis leads you to change your mind, then change your mind, and move on. A few stumbles along the way aren’t going to hurt you any; nobody needs to be worried about “getting it right” provided they treat knowledge as assumption and continue to apply themselves to observation. The chief danger is believing yourself to have arrived at a degree of truth, and skewing your development off at a tangent which may become impossible to see if you stop impartially observing. This is one good reason we must continue to strive for infinity since such absolute distinctions don’t exist there.
really it seems that much of the law allows one to come to terms with the reality of things, not a guide of conduct for ’spiritual attainment’
Yes. Look at AL II, 24, for instance:
“Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits. Now think not to find them in the forest or on the mountain; but in beds of purple, caressed by magnificent beasts of women with large limbs, and fire and light in their eyes, and masses of flaming hair about them. Ye shall see them at rule, at victorious armies, at all the joy; and there shall be in them a joy a million times greater than this.”
“Coming to terms with the reality of things” is “spiritual attainment”, in its proper sense. Nowhere in the Book of the Law does it tell you to sit in the dragon asana for four hours, or to construct elaborate Enochian tablets, or to “skry in the spirit vision”. If such things are done, they should be done as an end in themselves, and not as a means to an end (AL I, 44). Naturally, this is a statement of ideals; the aspirant always has to start somewhere.