Notifications
Clear all

Hadit Nogesh


 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

"Had! The Manifestation of Nuit, the unveiling of the company of heavens...Above the gemmed azure is the naked splendour of Nuit. She bends in ecstasy to kiss the secret ardours of Hadit. The winged globe, the starry blue, are mine, o Ankh-af-na-khonsu!...The key to rituals is in the secret word which I have given unto him. With the God and the Adorer I am NOTHING; they do not see me. They are as upon the Earth; I am Heaven, and there is no other God than Me, and My Lord Hadit. Now therefore I am know to thee by Name Nuit, and to him by a secret Name which I will give him when atleast he knoweth Me. Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, DO YE ALSO THUS--BIND NOTHING. Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing: for thereby there cometh hurt. But whosoever availeth in this, let him be the chief of all. I am Nuit, and MY WORD is SIX and FIFTY. Divide, Add, Multiply, and Understand."

"Six and Fifty" is "NU", from "NUIT" which is 69 (3 x 13) which refers to the three seasons (i.e., Akhet, Peret, and Shemu) and the 13 months (3 weeks x 13 months) for her creation and destuction of the gods (i.e., Osiris, Isis, Horus, Seth, Nebhet, and Ra). Her Father ShU (nv306) maintains her through each cycle, only allowing her cyclic couplation with her brother-husband Geb (i.e., once each month for the birth of the her chiildren, and one each year for the birth of her Grandfather the Sun Disk "Re"!) Her star is two-fold: Sirus (in Canis Minor, a 1.4 magitude star) whereby Re Himself lives and dies; and He whom is known by the Name "Lucifer" during the Day ("Tioumoutiri", "Day Venus") and Baphomet (atbash for "Sophia", "Quaiti", "Night Venus") during the Night. She is held is held in place by the "Prince of the Power of the Air" (i.e., "ShU") whose power is 30 Fold (i.e., the 30 Aethyrs)--"Lamed", which created "Libra", "Maznaiim"--"M-Y-Y-N-Z-A-M", nv158), the Primordial "Light" ("HaOR") which emerged in the midst of the Primordial ABYSS ("i.e., "Let there be Light, and Light Appeared", "Metatron" whom by his crown with 26 diadems created all things), HIMSELF represented by the "Shin" (nv300) as HE identifies endures 3 separate and distinct manifestations (i.e., "the Primordial", "the Enoch Translation", and "the Messiah"--"Ch-Y-Sh-M", nv358) whom is the vary embodiment of the Lamed which Created Libra, the embodiment of the 30-fold power behind Nuit's Father Shu, the "Shining" ("Nogah", "H-G-N", nv 58) one of Libra ("Maznaiim", "M-Y-Y-N-Z-M", nv 158) by the vary power of the "Shin" (nv 300)--HE WHOM, "out of the ABYSS of DARKNESS", both APPROACHES ("NiGaSh", "Sh-G-N", nv 303) and is APPROACHED, and is the BRIGHTNESS ("Nogah", "H-G-N", nv 58, "Venus") which, while could never be commanded to appear, nevertheless graceously agreed to appear ("Let light appear" is a request and not a command in Hebrew), bringing forth the Primordial LIGHT in the vary Presence of the DARKNESS of the ABYSS: NOTE: "NoGaH" ("H-G-N", nv 58) and "NiGaSh" ("Sh-G-N", nv353) are "ONE", even as YeHeShUaH--(nv 326 for "Shin" plus the Tetragrammaton--and his "Father" are "ONE", "Shema Israel Adonai Elohanu, Adonai ECHAD!"): "H-G-N" (nv 58) + "Sh-G-N" (nv 353) combine to form "Sh-G-G-N-N-H" (nv 391, curious! notice the "Z-K", "purity" connection=418) such that, by Hebraic grammatical transformation we have "Sh-(G-G)-(N-N)-H" simplifying to "Sh-G-N-H" (nv 358!)---"Ha NoGeSh"---"The {Egyptian] Overseer" whom is Chief over 10 Hebraic (Slave) Captains, which each one of the 10 Captains is, inturn, in charge of 10 Hebrew Slaves (in Egypt). "HaNoGeSh" refers to a specific "Egyptian Overseer", one whose manifestation follows the Sign of LIBRA (wherein occured the "Exodus" from Egypt), the Planet VENUS (whereby Baphomet/Sophia--Lucifer, is implied), and the star SIRUS in Canis Major )the forth brightest object in the sky after the Sun, the Moon, and Venus!). Who is this "HaNoGeSh"? **************

(Liber Al 1:7) "Behold! It is revealed by Aiwass, the minister of Hoor-Paar-Kraat. He Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs. Worship then the Khabs and behold MY ("HADIT"s") LIGHT shed over you! Let MY servants be few and secret, they shall rule the many and the known. These are the fools that men adore; both their gods and their men are fools. Come forth O children, under the stars, and take your fill of love! I (HADIT) am above you and in you. MY esctasy is yours. MY joy is to see your joy. ABOVE THE GEMMED AZURE IS THE NAKED SPLENDOUR OF NUIT/. SHE BENDS IN ECSTASY TO KISS THE SECRET ARDOURS OF HADIT. THE WINGED GLOBE, THE STARRY BLUE ARE MINE (HADIT'S), O ANKH-AF-NA-KHONSU" Sincerely, Joe


Quote
Dis
 Dis
(@dis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 12
 

IBTL
🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Crowley wrote the Tunis Comment to prevent threads like this.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

Agreed.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

With all respects,
"DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW. (1) The study of this book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this book after the FIRST READING. Whoso disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire. THOSE WHO DISCUSS the CONTENTS of this BOOK are to be SHUNNED by all, as centres of pestilence. All questions of the LAW are to be DECIDED ONLY BY APPEAL TO MY WRITINGS, EACH FOR HIMSELF. THERE IS NO LAW BEYOND DO WHAT THOU WILT. LOVE IS THE LAW, LOVE UNDER WILL. THE PRIEST OF THE PRINCES, ANKH-F-N-KHONSU"

"After the FIRST READING"---BUT NOT AFTER THE SECOND! This 1925 Tunis warning was imposed by Crowley to prevent "THOSE WHO DISCUSS the CONTENTS of the BOOK are to be SHUNNED by ALL".

Liber Al (1:15) "They shall bring the glory of the stars into the hearts of men."
Liber Al (1:27) "That men shall not speak of Thee (Nuit) as ONE but as None; and let them speak NOT OF THEE AT ALL, since THOU ART CONTINUOUS!"
Liber Al (1:30) "This is the creation of the WORLD, that the PAIN of DIVISION is AS NOTHING, and the JOY OF DISSOLUTION ALL."
Liber Al (1:31) "For these fools of men and their woes care not thou at all! They FEEL LITTLE; WHAT IS, IS BALANCED by weak JOYS. But ye are my chosen ones."
Liber Al (1:32) "Obey my prophet! follow out the ordeals of my knowledge! seek me only! Then the JOYS of my love will redeem ye from all PAIN."
Liber Al (1:58) "I give unimaginable JOYS on earth; certainly not faith, while in life, upon death; PEACE unutterable, REST, ECSTASY; nor do I demand ought in sacrifice."
Liber Al (1:60) "Also I have a secret GLORY for them that LOVE me."
Liber Al (1:61) "BUT TO LOVE ME IS BETTER THAN ALL THINGS; IF UNDER THE NIGHT STARS IN THE DESERT THOU PRESENTLY BURNEST MINE INCENSE BEFORE ME, INVOKING ME WITH A PURE HEART, AND THE SERPENT FLAME THEREIN, THOU SHALT COME A LITTLE TO LIE IN MY BOSOM. FOR ONE KISS WILL THOU BE WILLING TO GIVE ALL...i CHARGE YOU EARNESTLY TO COME BEFORE ME IN A SINGLE ROBE, AND COVERED WITH A RICH HEADDRESS. I LOVE YOU! I LOVE YOU! PALE OR PURPLE, VEILDED OR VOLUPTUOUS, I WHO AM ALL PLEASURE AND PURPLE, AND DRUNKENNESS OF THE INNERMOST SENSE, DESIRE YOU. PUT ON THE WINGS, AND AROUSE THE COILED SPLENDOUR WITHIN YOU; COME UNTO ME!"
Liber Al (1:62) "AT ALL MY MEETINGS WITH YOU SHALL THE PRIESTESS SAY--AND HER EYES SHALL BURN WITH DESIRE AS SHE STANDS BARE AND REJOICING IN MY SECRET TEMPLE--TO ME! TO ME! CALLING FORTH THE FLAME OF THE HEARTS OF ALL IN HER LOVE CHANT.
Liber Al (1:63) "SING THE RAPTUROUS LOVE-SONG UNTO ME! BURN TO ME PERFUMES! WEAR TO ME JEWELS! DRINK TO ME, FOR I LOVE YOU! I LOVE YOU! I AM THE BLUE-LIDDED DAUGHTER OF SUNSET; I AM THE NAKED BRILLIANCE OF THE VOLUPTUOUS NIGHT-SKY. TO ME! TO ME!"
Liber Al (1:66) "THE MANIFESTATION OF NUIT IS AT AN END."

THIS IS THE WISDOM of the BOOK (Liber AL 1:61)--"FOR ONE KISS WILT THOU THEN BE WILLING TO GIVE ALL", even the risk of enduring the punishment of the COMMENT WARNING, "WHOSOEVER DISREGARDS THIS DOES SO AT HIS OWN RISK AND PERIL. THESE ARE MOST DIRE. THOSE WHO DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK ARE TO BE SHUNNED BY ALL, AS CENTRES OF PESTILENCE." Joe


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Joe - could you use less caps? They shout. Also - can you summerise the point you're trying to make by quoting Liber Al so extensively please? Thanx.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

In Short, (Liber Al 1:61), "For one kiss wilt thou be willing to give all?"This is the Wisdom of the Book Liber Al. Will one be perfectly willing to endure hardship and punishment for the opportunity to just embrace Nuit with even only a single kiss, even for only a single moment. The Tunis Commentary is quite familiar to almost any kabbalist or mason. The effect of the warning, however, is not really written as a discouragement but only as an adverse form of recommendation, with the consequences actually carrying some rather "dire" consequences. If one truly desires, with all his/her heart, to embrace Nuit, then (Liber Al 1:30), "...the pain of division is as nothing; and the joy of dissolution all." If one is perfectly willing to risk everything, being outcast, even the direst punishments imaginable, for the just even the chance to embrace Nuit with only a single kiss, even for only the tiniest fraction of a moment, then, by degree or comparison, what is the Tunis Warning? Joe


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Thank you Joe. For one brief second I had an image of the comment personified as a heckler on a cliff side shouting to a young man "Jump fool! Jump!" lol.

I recently had cause to read Erwin Hessle's reasonable and alternative interpretations to the commonly accepted dogma over the comment. He calls the dogmatic interpretation a narrow minded abomination actually.

http://www.erwinhessle.com/writings/comment.php

I personally feel that anyone suggestable enough to be made fearful or uneasy from 'the comment' could profit from spending some time examining that reaction - so that's another useful aspect of the comment.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

When I first read the Tunis Comment I also thought Crowley was taking the piss. But it is worth remembering the Tunis Comment is classified as Class A. He describes the circumstances behind its writing as follows:

What then about AL, III:40? This problem was solved only by achieving the task. In Paris [NB: it was actually Tunis, November 1925 - ed], in a mood of blank despair about it all, out came the Comment. Easy, yes, inspired, yes; it is, as printed, the exact wording required. No further cavilling and quibbling, and controversy and casuistry. All heresiarchs are smelt in advance for the rats that they are; they are seen brewing (their very vile small beer) in the air (the realm of Intellect - Swords) and they are accordingly nipped in the bud. (MWT, p. 316).

Heresiarchs are “centers of pestilence”, brewing in the air (realm of Intellect-Swords). Why? For it is the very nature of our intellect and thoughts, expounding on and on, a cacophony expanding in the Abyss, announcing the presence of Choronzon...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Why put the name Choronzon in bold letters? 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Would you prefer just Mr. Chorozon?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

🙂 People can be very dramatic about Mr. Chorozon and the abyss, and I don't believe this sensationalistic approach fosters a useful attitude about either. I blame TV. In Mr. Chorozons personified role as 'the Lord of illusion', he fulfils the same role as the Buddhist conception of Samsara, and I don't believe I'd ever met a Buddhist get hysterical about Samsara - personified or not.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Ah - look. I've misspelt his name again. I don't know why there is this strange subliminal association towards Spanish Sausage...


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 155
 

Personally, I embrace the Tunis comment as a means of preserving the integrity of not only Liber Al, but also each individuals right and responsibility to tread their own path and do the work for themselves. Thelema is very personal and individual to me, and I think that looking ahead 1000 years, instead of just in ones own lifetime is where the value of the comment truly lies. I really feel that Crowley was serious, and not making some big "joke" or "blind" as I so often hear the comment reffered to. This probably goes back to one's opinion on whether Liber Al and the class A documents were divinely inspired though, and I believe them to be. As I believe the master Therion did. But of course "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Jokes and blinds are not external to or beyond the wit of the divine comedy.

All Class A documents are holy pranks.

Absolutely no value should be placed upon any of them, and spitting upon the Master Therion is encouraged!


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1983
 

All Class A documents are holy pranks.

Or at least the Classification thereof.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
 
"alrah" wrote:
🙂 People can be very dramatic about Mr. Chorozon and the abyss, and I don't believe this sensationalistic approach fosters a useful attitude about either. I blame TV. In Mr. Chorozons personified role as 'the Lord of illusion', he fulfils the same role as the Buddhist conception of Samsara, and I don't believe I'd ever met a Buddhist get hysterical about Samsara - personified or not.

You might have had in mind Mara, and not Samsara. Mara is the personification of mortality, and the Buddha meets him and his three daughters just before the final enlightenment. Samsara is just the world of life and death. On Tibetan tangkas' representations of the Wheel of Life, Mara is the demon holding in his claws the sixfold division of the universe.

As for the sensationalist approach to the Abyss I personally do not blame TV. I blame Mr. Crowley: the desert adventure reads like a horror story. Not that I don't trust him on his experience; I just don't think it is universally so. If I understand things correctly - and I don't say I do - to cross the Abyss means to get beyond one's ego, to shed off one's cherished sense of separate identity. Many other mystical / magical traditions urge their followers to do something comparable, and while nobody says it's easy, hardly anyone goes into the story of conquering the devil in the desert (except you know who). My current take on things anyway.


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 155
 

Ok then. You are of course entitled to that opinion. But I cannot say that I could personally ever view Liber Al and the Holy Books as merely "pranks" to be disregarded. Nor would I be here at all if I placed "Absolutely no value" on them.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Iskandar" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
🙂 People can be very dramatic about Mr. Chorozon and the abyss, and I don't believe this sensationalistic approach fosters a useful attitude about either. I blame TV. In Mr. Chorozons personified role as 'the Lord of illusion', he fulfils the same role as the Buddhist conception of Samsara, and I don't believe I'd ever met a Buddhist get hysterical about Samsara - personified or not.

You might have had in mind Mara, and not Samsara. Mara is the personification of mortality, and the Buddha meets him and his three daughters just before the final enlightenment. Samsara is just the world of life and death. On Tibetan tangkas' representations of the Wheel of Life, Mara is the demon holding in his claws the sixfold division of the universe.

As for the sensationalist approach to the Abyss I personally do not blame TV. I blame Mr. Crowley: the desert adventure reads like a horror story. Not that I don't trust him on his experience; I just don't think it is universally so. If I understand things correctly - and I don't say I do - to cross the Abyss means to get beyond one's ego, to shed off one's cherished sense of separate identity. Many other mystical / magical traditions urge their followers to do something comparable, and while nobody says it's easy, hardly anyone goes into the story of conquering the devil in the desert (except you know who). My current take on things anyway.

Samsara means the deluded cycle of endless existence, and not all Buddhist traditions include personifications of forces, Gods etc. as the Tibetans do. I wasn't thinking of a specific personification of Samsara in any tradition - as the characteristic of such a personification is fairly irrelevent to the practise of recognising Samsara in daily practise - in the moment.

However - for the purposes of Magick a certain amount of animism comes into play and the ordinary distinctions of the real are suspended in order to access the occluded aspects of ourselves and bring them to light and manifestation. Thus - while the initiatory phase of the abyss experience has a certain amount of woo woo associated with it (and not only due to Crowley) - the years of refinement and plodding through each attack to the various aspects of the self image and all attachment (here in the kingdom) once the process has sucessfully been initiated, are rather like being attacked with daily sandpaper, and - if not paying attention, like having the odd axe thrown at the head.

Battling with a Spanish Sausage on various drugs is not necessary to start the Abyss off. Attaining Ekaggatā and then swearing the oath in the utmost sincerity is enough to set things in motion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ozzzz666" wrote:
Ok then. You are of course entitled to that opinion. But I cannot say that I could personally ever view Liber Al and the Holy Books as merely "pranks" to be disregarded. Nor would I be here at all if I placed "Absolutely no value" on them.

Who is it that places value on them?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"alrah" wrote:
Battling with a Spanish Sausage on various drugs is not necessary to start the Abyss off. Attaining Ekaggatā and then swearing the oath in the utmost sincerity is enough to set things in motion.

Maybe not Spanish, but a sausage was involved. And a desert.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Maybe it was a spicy pepperami;-)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Iskandar" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
🙂 People can be very dramatic about Mr. Chorozon and the abyss, and I don't believe this sensationalistic approach fosters a useful attitude about either. I blame TV. In Mr. Chorozons personified role as 'the Lord of illusion', he fulfils the same role as the Buddhist conception of Samsara, and I don't believe I'd ever met a Buddhist get hysterical about Samsara - personified or not.

You might have had in mind Mara, and not Samsara. Mara is the personification of mortality, and the Buddha meets him and his three daughters just before the final enlightenment. Samsara is just the world of life and death. On Tibetan tangkas' representations of the Wheel of Life, Mara is the demon holding in his claws the sixfold division of the universe.

As for the sensationalist approach to the Abyss I personally do not blame TV. I blame Mr. Crowley: the desert adventure reads like a horror story. Not that I don't trust him on his experience; I just don't think it is universally so. If I understand things correctly - and I don't say I do - to cross the Abyss means to get beyond one's ego, to shed off one's cherished sense of separate identity. Many other mystical / magical traditions urge their followers to do something comparable, and while nobody says it's easy, hardly anyone goes into the story of conquering the devil in the desert (except you know who). My current take on things anyway.

We probably differ to some degree in our estimation of the Ordeal itself, Kyle, but I think that you make a good point in attributing to Crowley many of the colorful characteristics usually associated with it. I think that much of the process is determined by the degree of preparation that precedes it. It seems important to note that Crowley himself was not completely accomplished in his own initiatory system, including not being taught and tested as prescribed at some of its preliminary levels. He was a pioneer without benefit of significant precedent. His own level of preparation did not quite approximate his expectations of those who would follow him, in other words. As for those who did follow him to this Ordeal, some of these were much more poorly prepared, and some of these were also quite influential upon others who followed them later into this field of Magick. Anyone can 'take the plunge' at any time by positioning themselves and their momentum toward the point of access to this Abyss, but they do so at their own risk and peril. Cautionary tales abound in Crowley's writings and elsewhere. All in all, I think Crowley did quite well with it, compared to others whose marbles were never too easily kept track of afterwards.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"alrah" wrote:
Ah - look. I've misspelt his name again. I don't know why there is this strange subliminal association towards Spanish Sausage...

Crowley preferred the French version: "He did nothing more than shake the hand of a good friend faire gonfler son andouille."

Another of those AC lines I will always remember, but can't track down; can anyone remind me whom (and what incident) he was talking about there?

"Andouille" is defined by one culinary reference as a sausage which aspires to include "the entire gastrointestinal system of the pig". The euphemistic sense in which Crowley used it is also evidently well known; but I can't find his actual quote.

OP


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

I don't have access to my library, but wasn't this a phrase used by Russell?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"lashtal" wrote:
I don't have access to my library, but wasn't this a phrase used by Russell?

I think you're right. It does indeed appear to be a reference to some incident involving Cecil Frederick Russell (Frater Genesthai), but such extracts I can come up with online (eg Google Books) are frustratingly incomplete.

One seems to be on P 272 or thereabouts of King of the Shadow Realm, a biography of Crowley I swear I've never read.

No matter; it's a minor point.

OP


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Here's a fascinating occurrence of the phrase, surrounded by the names of Crowley, Russell, Cecil Maitland and Ninnette Shumway among others.

http://vookstock.narod.ru/megatherion.html

I frequently promise myself that some day I will learn Russian. I can read names and a few stock phrases, but that's all. Can anyone help with the passage?

OP


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I've outsourced it OP. And perhaps two seperated lovers (one east, one west) will come together again over Crowley and Sausage. 😀 Life is so much stranger than fiction ever dares.


ReplyQuote
Share: