Starman wrote: ›
Later on he speaks about "torturing" and "blood sacrifice", is this Crowley's dark sense of humour coming out? Or is the "blood" an important part of the ritual?

anpi wrote: › As Crowley mentions in the diary, it's kind of hard to scourge oneself while wearing a robe. .

Starman wrote: › One of them is.."received the mysteries of L.I.L in October (19)". Now wasn't L.I.L received in April?

gmugmble wrote: ›
You're thinking of L.L. (Liber Legis), which was received in April. The reference here is to the final vision in the Vision and the Voice, which is the aethyr called LIL.

uranus wrote: › Another secret of LIL are the initials LPD, which Gunther explains in his excellent "Initiation in the Aeon of the Child: The Inward Journey".

IAO131 wrote: ›

I would not recommend this book if my life depended on it. LPD is probably the only original thing in that book.

Wasserman's essay introducing the book mentioned above, I thought, was far better in quality content and especially in writing style.

IAO131

Gentian wrote: › Considering how crucial the magical diary is to any useful magickal practice

ianrons wrote: ›
I hear this statement being made frequently, yet I fail to see how the recording of practices like asana actually helps anyone. Sure, it's a good idea to record (e.g.) visions and so on, since obviously they contain information, but quite frankly the other stuff (including what one has had for lunch) is pointless drudgery. I don't think Moses, Buddha, St. John, Abraham of Worms, San Juan de la Cruz, et al. really suffered for not having kept such diaries.

(By the way, I kept a very detailed diary for many years -- I have stacks of A4 diary books in a cupboard -- before coming to this conclusion.)

ianrons wrote: › Yeah... I wouldn't even bother with recording rituals in detail unless one has some kind of result, shocking as that may seem! It's not "scientific" in any meaningful sense, and it's not going to convince anyone of anything.

uranus wrote: ›

And that is why it is called an opinion. Criticizing it for a "lack of originality" is either an admission of "I don't understand it therefore I don't like it" or missing the point which isn't "originality" but further exploration & development of the system of the A.'.A.'. as envisioned & developed by ALeister Crowley and G.C. Jones. He represents Orthodox Thelema in the same ways that Motta represented the conservative side & Grant the experimental & exotic side.

Gentian wrote: › I don't believe it needs to convince anyone of anything. 10,000 compelling and meticulously-kept magical diaries are unlikely to move a real die-hard skeptic about magic. But the point, really, is one's own growth, and the diary helps me with that. But, of course, do what thou wilt.

Walterfive wrote: › But it's entirely typical of the sort of the all-too predictable knee-jerk negativist reactionism that one can expect from certain quarters in this forum. If certain people praise it, they automatically pan it. *Yawn* The very *idea* of "Thelemic Orthodoxy" is enough to send them off on tirades about Gods know what next. Pay it no mind.

ianrons wrote: › Bear in mind AC wanted every A.'.A.'. recruit to write his/her diary for purposes which he said he wouldn't divulge (you'll know the quote) but also as a means towards remembering past lives (a la Thisarb) and perhaps most importantly as a basis for AC himself to criticise the student in a manner akin to psychotherapy -- without the rigour(!).

Quote: › None of these reasons are satisfactory; consider that AC wrote Thisarb before he had even attempted the practices therein, so he was certainly not qualified in any sense to be criticising anyone's magickal practice; and even if you think AC was a brilliant analyst, certainly no "A.'.A.'. Neophyte" I have ever met is qualified in that regard today. It sounds good and scientific to keep a magickal diary, but in practice it doesn't really help.

Gentian wrote: › I actually don't know that particular quote, but all of that sounds awfully cultish to me, from my 2010 perspective anyway.

Crowley wrote: › 1. It is absolutely necessary that all experiments should be recorded in detail during, or immediately after, their performance.
2. It is highly important to note the physical and mental condition of the experimenter or experimenters.
3. The time and place of all experiments must be noted; also the state of the weather, and generally all conditions which might conceivably have any result upon the experiment either as adjuvants to or causes of the result, or as inhibiting it, or as sources of error.
4. The A? A? will not take official notice of any experiments which are not thus properly recorded.
5. It is not necessary at this stage for us to declare fully the ultimate end of our researches; nor indeed would it be understood by those who have not become proficient in these elementary courses.
6. The experimenter is encouraged to use his own intelligence, and not to rely upon any other person or persons, however distinguished, even among ourselves.
7. The written record should be intelligently (WEH NOTE: EQUINOX I, 1 has "intelligibly".) prepared so that others may benefit from its study.
8. The Book John St. John published in the first number of the "Equinox" is an example of this kind of record by a very advanced student. It is not as simply written as we could wish, but will show the method.
9. The more scientific the record is, the better. Yet the emotions should be noted, as being some of the conditions.
Let then the record be written with sincerity and care; thus with practice it will be found more and more to approximate to the ideal.

Gentian wrote: › But when did our societal views about appropriate boundaries for a teacher/student relationship really form? For instance, even psychotherapy operated by different rules then, and was rife with behaviors between doctor and patient that we would view as intrusive or barbaric today.

And what is the line between psychological analysis and criticism of someone's spiritual/magickal development? The two are not the same thing, obviously, but if someone is psychologically immature, I believe that could block them from magical advancement in any number of ways.

Gentian wrote: › My understanding is that Crowley did try Thisharb eventually, though I don't know if he asked students to work with it before he tried it himself. I happen to have been dabbling in Thisharb myself recently and I find the method very awkward.