@dom

I don’t think Spare ever spoke about karma in relation to his magic sigil spells. Is he considered to be a black magician therefore?

Considered by whom? Why do you consider that him not speaking about "karma" in connection with his sigillisation means that he is thereby a "black magician"? I just don't understand your thinking in that respect.

In his early days Spare used the term "karma" to denote archetypes or primal designs. There is a bookwork from 1905 which illustrates this, and which was published a few years ago in the book Two Grimoires (Starfire Publishing Ltd., London, 2011).

Is his “atavistic” consciousness really Leary’s circuit 6 elevation?

No. The core of Spare's work is the Zos-Kia Cultus. The Kia is everything, the entire gamut of existence; atavisms surface from the Kia. So far as I understand it, the circuits are conceived as operating within the human nervous system. The range of the Kia, being everything, is far wider.

KIA 20+10+1 = 31.

I just don’t understand your thinking in that respect.

Well he seemed to give himself free reign to do what he wants without recourse to his HGA. That is AC's definition of black magic isn't it?

In his early days Spare used the term “karma” to denote archetypes or primal designs.

So he didn't know about the Hindustani concept of karma? What you're saying has nothing to do with karmic penalties.

No. The core of Spare’s work is the Zos-Kia Cultus. The Kia is everything, the entire gamut of existence; atavisms surface from the Kia. So far as I understand it, the circuits are conceived as operating within the human nervous system. The range of the Kia, being everything, is far wider.

Ok.

@dom

Well he seemed to give himself free reign to do what he wants without recourse to his HGA. That is AC’s definition of black magic isn’t it?

Zos-Kia Cultus has no concept of a Holy Guardian Angel. Spare wouldn't have had "recourse to his HGA"; I can't recall coming across anything remotely like it in Spare's work. Therefore Crowley's "definition of black magic" is just completely irrelevent here. Just because Crowley says that it is so, doesn't mean that it is indeed so

You might as well say that Ramana Maharshi was a black magician because he acted "without recourse to his HGA". Since many spiritual systems across the world seem to get along quite happily without a concept of the HGA, and thus without recourse to it, there's clearly a hell of a lot of black magicians about.

So he didn’t know about the Hindustani concept of karma? What you’re saying has nothing to do with karmic penalties.

I know it doesn't; I merely mentioned that use of the term 'karma' as a metter of interest. I'm sure that he would have come across the use of the term 'karma' in the sense of 'karmic penalties'; I can't, though, recall offhand where he used the term in the sense you mean.

I know it doesn’t; I merely mentioned that use of the term ‘karma’ as a metter of interest. I’m sure that he would have come across the use of the term ‘karma’ in the sense of ‘karmic penalties’; I can’t, though, recall offhand where he used the term in the sense you mean.

Yes that's what I was asking. Thanks.

By the way do you think Peter Carroll's Psychonaut book is the best intro to Spare's magical ideas?

@dom

By the way do you think Peter Carroll’s Psychonaut book is the best intro to Spare’s magical ideas?

No, I don't. I think that Images & Oracles of Austin Osman Spare by Kenneth Grant is the best introduction. Grant came across Spare's work in the early 1940s, met him in 1949, was his friend and collaborator until Spare's death in 1956, discussed Spare's work with him, typed up Spare's manuscripts of his later work - work that was subsequently published in Zos Speaks!, and was left those manuscripts by Spare in his Will.

In addition there are two excellent chapters in The Magical Revival, based on material from Grant's unpublished study of Spare, 'The Zoëtic Grimoire of Zos', which he completed whilst Spare was still alive, and which Spare is on record as liking.

D: You might as well say that Ramana Maharshi was a black magician because he acted “without recourse to his HGA”.

It's a funny thing, but a lot of those Oriental systems (including Buddhism, and probably Maharshism, don't have the concept of an HGA or of a Higher Personal Self (HPS). According to Ramana, one simply sees Atma and then latches on to Atma and never let's go.

(Atma is the Universal Self, attributed to the Supernal Triad).

This is similar to the first stage of the Primary Clear Light (PCL) as depicted in The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Those who die (or take a pharmaceutical), and fail to grasp the PCL immediately upin its appearance must then settle for second best and engage the Secondary Clear Light (SCL) in a dialog ... this is the equivalent of the HGA. Those who miss the cosmic phone call then go to various forms of hallucination.

Anyway, some Eastern folks skip the mental plane and go directly to "GO," collecting 200 credits. After that, they can't tell anyone how to get there, and they recommend Bhakti Yoga (devotion).

The point is, some systems have no HGA involvement.

@Michael Staley

No, I don’t. I think that Images & Oracles of Austin Osman Spare by Kenneth Grant is the best introduction

I'm not talking about Spare's intricate philosophy. I mean his practical magickal ideas specifically the alphabet of desire, the dualisms and the sigil making and launching. Surely you agree that PJ Carrol has done more to spread Spare's ideas than anyone. Ok maybe he dumbed down/simplified and condensed Spare's magickal philosophy but his Psychonaut seems to be a great introduction for the novice. He uses Spare's idea of kia and basically appears to be Spare's self-appointed modern emissary.

@Shiva

very interesting the clear light of Tibetan Buddhism and their book of the dead and it's 'ring pass nots' for the unprepared dead. Obviously the Egyptian book of the dead is analogous but how similar are they notwithstanding the different pantheons represented?

Overall though (and with Jamie Barter's recent 'AC as black magician' thread in mind) I state again that Spare seems to be encouraging the dismantling of karmic moral responsibility within practical magic. PJ Carrol certainly followed that up with his "belief as a tool" nihilism.

@dom

I’m not talking about Spare’s philosophy. I mean his practical magickal ideas specifically the alphabet of desire, teh dualisms and the sigil making and launching. Surely you agree that PJ Carrol nailed that, maybe dumbed down and condensed Spare’s magickal philosophy into a great introduction for the novice in his his Psychonaut book?

In my view sigillation, the Sacred Alphabet, Spare's "practical magickal ideas", etc., cannot be viewed in isolation from the rest of his work. I've read some of Pete Carrol's work in the past, and it's not something that enthuses me. Hence my considered opinion that Grant's book is the best introduction. I don't agree that Carrol "nailed that", but if you think so then fine.

Overall though . . . I state again that Spare seems to be encouraging the dismantling of karmic moral responsibility within practical magic.

How so? Perhaps you could give some examples of Spare "encouraging the dismantling of karmic moral responsibility within practical magic"?

@Michael Staley

How so? Perhaps you could give some examples of Spare “encouraging the dismantling of karmic moral responsibility within practical magic”?

By Sigils I have endowed fools with wisdom, made the wise fools, giving health to the sick and weak, disease to the strong, etc. Now, if for some purpose, you wanted the strength of a tiger- you would make a sentence such as:- “This my wish to obtain the strength of a tiger.

~ The Book of Pleasure (self-love)

@dom

By Sigils I have endowed fools with wisdom, made the wise fools, giving health to the sick and weak, disease to the strong, etc. Now, if for some purpose, you wanted the strength of a tiger- you would make a sentence such as:- “This my wish to obtain the strength of a tiger.

OK, before continuing with this could you please clarify what you mean by "direct karmic responsibity" I think I know what you mean, but it's as well to be sure that we're on the same page, as they say.

OK, before continuing with this could you please clarify what you mean by “direct karmic responsibity” I think I know what you mean, but it’s as well to be sure that we’re on the same page, as they say.

Well AC espoused checking in with the HGA before we e.g. hurt another via magick. You were part of Jamie Barter's recent thread where AC's apparent selfish cursing was exposed as reneging upon his own advice. AOS in the recent quote I produced seems to espouse hurting people via sigils doesn't it? I'll repeat but he does not mention warnings about karma for such activity. What does that tell you/

For the record I think that AOS will someday be viewed as one of Britain's greatest artists ever.

@dom

Well AC espoused checking in with the HGA before we e.g. hurt another via magick.

How might one go about "checking in with the HGA"? What's your suggestion here to get approval or otherwise from the HGA?.

Assuming that Crowley had a method of "checking in with the HGA", how do you know whether or not he had a little chat with the old fella before his "apparent selfish cursing"? Your use of the term "exposed" implies it was proved that Crowley dispensed with his little chat with the old fella, or even worse - ignored his judgement. So how was that ascertained? Did someone beat a confession out of Crowley. Or did a trembling, remorseful Crowley leave a confession?

I might perform an act of apparent black magic. Let's say that I fancy someone's girlfriend, and thus by an act of magic I wipe him out, thu s leaving the field clear for me to exercise my irresistable charms. Thus far, then, the weight of my "direct karmic responsibility" is threatening to crush me. But wait! It later turns out that the man was a serial killer. So now, my "direct karmic responsibility" has not only been expunged, but I'm massively in credit. It's a funny old world.

An extreme example, I know, but it does illustrate a point, which is that actions breed reactions and subsequent actions in ways we can't imagine. An apparently "evil" act can have "good" consequences.

@dom

For the record I think that AOS will someday be viewed as one of Britain’s greatest artists ever.

Incidentally, I'm very pleased to read that, dom. So do I. I love his diversity of styles. My very favourites are the pastels from 1954 and 1955. Wonderfully imaginative, and the skill to express it so well.

MS: What’s your suggestion here to get approval or otherwise from the HGA?

http://HGA.gov or maybe http://www.HGA.edu ?

It has been my experience that the HGA will talk to the vehicle, and it will give direction. But I've never known the HGA (aka Solar Angel) to be immediately available for quick, check-in consultations. That's probably why AC was still consulting the Yi King in his later years.

@Shiva

It has been my experience that the HGA will talk to the vehicle, and it will give direction. But I’ve never known the HGA (aka Solar Angel) to be immediately available for quick, check-in consultations.

Indeedy. Crowley remarks in Liber Samekh that it's the Angel that approaches the Aspirant, not the other way around.

Doesn't really help, though, when you have someone in your sights and you're looking to your superior officer to say whether or not you should take the shot.

Nor do you see many in the Armed Response Unit consulting the Yi before opening fire.

@Michael Staley

Incidentally, I’m very pleased to read that, dom. So do I. I love his diversity of styles. My very favourites are the pastels from 1954 and 1955. Wonderfully imaginative, and the skill to express it so well.

This is a short interesting documentary on AOS and his work presented by Alan Moore with a lot of amazing paintings and so on;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlzEdlpigvk&t=117s

How might one go about “checking in with the HGA”? What’s your suggestion here to get approval or otherwise from the HGA?.

Thelema. Development in yoga and magick. The (warrior) path of inner intimacy with teh HGA.

Assuming that Crowley had a method of “checking in with the HGA”, how do you know whether or not he had a little chat with the old fella before his “apparent selfish cursing”?

We made a good analysis.

Your use of the term “exposed” implies it was proved that Crowley dispensed with his little chat with the old fella, or even worse – ignored his judgement. So how was that ascertained? Did someone beat a confession out of Crowley. Or did a trembling, remorseful Crowley leave a confession?

'Exposed' as in we looked at the definition of a circe and so on.

I might perform an act of apparent black magic. Let’s say that I fancy someone’s girlfriend, and thus by an act of magic I wipe him out, thu s leaving the field clear for me to exercise my irresistable charms. Thus far, then, the weight of my “direct karmic responsibility” is threatening to crush me. But wait! It later turns out that the man was a serial killer. So now, my “direct karmic responsibility” has not only been expunged, but I’m massively in credit. It’s a funny old world.

But you assume there that you never knew he was a serial killer, just some guy in your way, in the way of stupid lust.

An extreme example, I know, but it does illustrate a point, which is that actions breed reactions and subsequent actions in ways we can’t imagine. An apparently “evil” act can have “good” consequences.

Not really it's about your intent and whether you were in full control of your lower elements i.e the guf, nefesh and ruach.

@dom

Thelema. Development in yoga and magick. The (warrior) path of inner intimacy with teh HGA.

So you've done this, have you, and as a result you can have a chat with your HGA whenever you need a decision from him, her, or it? When you want to know whether or not to take the shot, for instance?

We made a good analysis.

I remember the thread. You didn't make a good analysis; you just made some assertions. You can't possibly know whether or not Crowley ran his intended act past his HGA, since he doesn't tell us anywhere whether he did or didn't..

Not really it’s about your intent and whether you were in full control of your lower elements i.e the guf, nefesh and ruach.

Ah, it's my intent that determines my "direct karmic responsibility", not what actually happens. So if I have good intentions, but my bumbling idiocy leads to the death of thousands, that's OK in terms of "direct karmic responsibility". No, I don't think so. The death of those thousands would be my "direct karmic responsibility" because it arose from my actions.

"... would be my “direct karmic responsibility” because it arose from my actions."

Be careful now. You're giving away the secrets of cause and effect on a public forum.

So Michael you totally disagree with AC's warnings about black magic and your philosophy is ignore that because anything goes so satisfy all of your whims?

@dom

So Michael you totally disagree with AC’s warnings about black magic and your philosophy is ignore that because anything goes so satisfy all of your whims?

I totally disagree with your absurd caricature of it, that's for sure. I'd like to think that you were being satirical over the course of this thread.

I totally disagree with your absurd caricature of it, that’s for sure. I’d like to think that you were being satirical over the course of this thread.

No that's what I genuinely read from your posts.

Alas! ... and the seventy-seven Bodhisattvas.

@michaelstayley

I still haven't received an answer. If what I say is "a caricature" then show me an excerpt of AOS's writings where he talks about some sort of karmic responsibility regarding sigil launching.

The logic course has not helped a bit, we see, as david makes death defying leaps over the chasms of syllogistic reasoning.

Michael is being polite when he refers to your recent willful misrepresentation, or utter inability to read plain English, as a "caricature" of his views expressed here.

I used to accuse The Great And Powerful Los, 8=3, of being a computer-science Turing bot for his repetitive non sequitur style of "conversation".

In the same vein, i sometimes wonder if the david/dom posts are not written by a committee of bored, and/or drunk, students.

Creating a Sigil that has no effect .
Conjuring awareness of being without result .
hmm .

@ignant666

Michael is being polite when he refers to your recent willful misrepresentation, or utter inability to read plain English, as a “caricature” of his views expressed here

Please enlighten me on what I've missed. You Ignant said that AC did some shameful things presumably including the magic rite that Jamiebarter highlighted in the recent black magician thread. Instead of passing comments on my reading comprehension skills how about you stick to this OP and tell me whether you consider AOS to be an irresponsible black magician or not and why?

@michaelstayley

Ah, it’s my intent that determines my “direct karmic responsibility”, not what actually happens. So if I have good intentions, but my bumbling idiocy leads to the death of thousands, that’s OK in terms of “direct karmic responsibility”. No, I don’t think so. The death of those thousands would be my “direct karmic responsibility” because it arose from my actions.

So lets' say e.g. an altruistic-Christian doctor invents/discovers a cure for a killer disease-plague and spares thousands of lives, one of whom was Heinrich Himmler's or Joe Stalin's parent. Is that doctor responsible for the Stalinist/Himmlerian genocides to be?

I don't know enough about AOS to comment intelligently on this, which is why i've said nothing til now.

However, you are conflating what AOS may or may not say about karma and magick with what Michael has said about the same topic in this thread, which are not the same thing. Michael has said nothing that remotely indicates that he "totally disagree with AC’s warnings about black magic and [that his] philosophy is ignore that because anything goes so satisfy all of your whims".