For sure, we have port delays at my work too which is making a lot of 'higher ups' angry.
Good luck with compiling and editing the upcoming Kenneth Grant correspondence volumes!
Received my copy yesterday, opened the package this morning.
I spent breakfast starting my read of the book. I took a break to copy the first page of The Bennu-Bird from Plate 18 into some composing software I use. Here's an MP3 of the music,
Have you ever heard a synthesized choir, before? I would have sung it myself, but I don't have a passable microphone.
Once I finish reading, I might write a review with my own ideas on Achad's work and the Aeon of Maat.
Here's an MP3 of the music
Reminds me of this Zelda tune:
I was leafing through some of my Egyptological texts to elucidate a few of the notes I took while reading The Incoming of The Aeon of Maat today, and I was met with an archaeological fact which I think is worth a small, interim post. I'm sure I've read this before, but only today did its significance really hit me.
To my knowledge, there is only one Temple to Maat (though some texts speak of a couple other temples that didn't survive to the present day, or are hidden from us).
Where built was this lonely temple?
Inside the precinct of the temple to Montu at Karnak, the temple in which Ankhefenkhonsu served!
There was no priesthood of Maat or cult of Maat, to the best of our knowledge -- though magistrates and other officials who meted out judgements were sometimes called the "Priests of Maat." Maat's theological importance lay more in theurgic ritual than traditional cultic worship (which I won't get anymore into until I review the book), and the only purpose our science supports for her temple was the holding of special courts. So who knows why it was built, much less why there, in the precinct of Montu Temple?
So who knows why it was built, much less why there, in the precinct of Montu Temple?
I do. Montu was a political entity. The Priests of Maat were The Deep State of Ancient AEgypt. After all, they made the decisions.
“ Montu was a political entity. The Priests of Maat were The Deep State of Ancient AEgypt. After all, they made the decisions. “
Was it a predetermined sorcery in which a Real existence was given to a soulless objective existence and insignificant phenomenon populating space; in order to spark up the Joint ? Or to herd a decisive formation and guarantee an unanimated nature ?
Was it a predetermined sorcery in which a Real existence was given to a soulless objective
Yeah. The conspiracy was already in motion.
However, I find this subject (historical Maatism in Ancient AEgypt) interesting.
The "Hall of Maat" is incorporated into the "Judgment Hall of Osiris" to form one chamber in the Tuat ... I have heard that the Osiris Judgment Scene only appears in one papyrus. The other versions don't have it. Can anyone confirm or deny this.
I have always found this (^) scene of great interest, it being a prime historical example of how Jesus gets to hold court at "The Last Judgment."
Note that in the archetypal image of the second initiation (2=9), above, we may examine it and exclaim, "Why lookit this, the gang's all here! "
(No, Set is missing. Unless he's the croc-dog-thing).
(No, Set is missing. Unless he's the croc-dog-thing).
I think that crocdog is Sebek, to whom the heart gets tossed as food if it is too heavy for the deceased to pass further on?
I like that painting a lot. I have a hand painted facsimile on papyrus from Egypt that was gifted to me.
Inside the precinct of the temple to Montu at Karnak, the temple in which Ankhefenkhonsu served!
Mentu/Montu is a bull headed/bull god is he not?
And also god of war?
Does any one see the connection between Mars being tied to the city of Cairo where Liber AL was received?
Mentu/Montu is a bull headed/bull god is he not?
The interesting thing about Montu, looking from the Hermetic tradition, is that he was depicted as: A falcon-headed man, a bull-headed man (see also: Buchis), and a griffon (an lion/eagle).
So, the four forms through which Montu found manifestation were: Lion, Bull, Man, Eagle/Falcon. The four kerubim.
The true nature of Ma'at adds the final piece to the puzzle, but I'll leave my musings on that for my review of the book.
Mentu/Montu is a bull headed/bull god is he not?
I don't know about the bovine stuff, but I thought the key was mon, as in Montu, Amon. Amoun ... which is Jupiterian/political ... ?
To start, a short, sweet review, which I've tried to write so that it goes against the grain,
The Incoming of the Aeon of Maat is more than the Jonesian Epistles; it is a map to the interplay of personalities, to the human condition and its haunting of high minded purpose. It is the rare record of a prophet’s death and the dispersal of his acolytes (a recurrent event in history usually typified by few or no personal accounts). It is a historical document which presents firsthand the weltschmerz of a post World War II Occident, and the furtive hopes of those who would change it all.
The Incoming of the Aeon of Maat possesses value beyond the niche of history, magic and religion. Its teaching reaches into the naturalistic and existential: what it means to have human relationships and to partake of a society, secret or otherwise.
...
Now, my thoughts on the magical subject. This is more-or-less just a collection of the notes I took while reading, spackled together with some ideas of mine.
MANIO - OMNIA - AMNIO
Aether - All - Egg
"Omnia" being "All" needs no explanation.
"Amnio" being "Egg" seems extraneous, considering Achad's qabalistic work with MANIO, but I'll go into it anyway.
"Amnio-" is a prefix derived from the Latin "Amnion," which refers to the membranes surrounding a fetus. I conflate the amnion with the egg not as "ovum" or the female gamete, but the vessel which protects and nourishes the embryo.
We should note the Latin "Amnion" comes from the Greek "Amnion," which meant, “a bowl in which blood is caught,” and, “a little lamb.” The bowl which catches blood we can identify with Binah, as per The Chalice of Ecstasy, which lends credence to a later point I'll make. The little lamb I will leave to the reader’s discretion.
Really, the important thing here is my equivalence of "Manio" with "Aether."
"Manio," if I were to etymologize it like a normal word, would be assumed to be a corrupted "Mania." We find the genesis of Mania in the proto-indo-european word mn̥yétor (which means, "to think"), whose root is men-, which is reconstructed to have implied “spiritual activity”. All the descendants of these words have to do with thought of some kind, action in the mental sphere.
I will not insult the reader by leading him through the familiar philological path of “mental activity” becoming “breath” becoming “spirit.”
The tattwa of the akasha, spirit, is the egg.
(The Hebrew word for breath, הבל, enumerates to 37, the lowest prime factor of 777.)
Finally, we know aether is that substance which is “breathed by the gods." Can you dig it?
Manio as aether, the breath of the gods, and its centrality of the Aeon of Maat is further evinced by the theology of Ma’at. Some Egyptian epithets of Ma’at: food of the gods, clothing of the gods, breath of the gods. “The gods live on Ma’at,” some of their texts relate to us.
But what is the importance of this?
To my mind, the Aeon of Maat is not the Aeonic Superposition -- the concurrent, combined configuration of all possible aeons -- but what the Chaldean Oracles called (and the Neoplatonists miniaturized as) the Hecatic Sphere, symbolized by the star of thirteen points. It is the self-fueling engine of Aeonic change. I believe some of Kenneth Grant’s writings on the Aeon of Maat in Outside the Circles of Time affirm this.
Consequently, the Ma Ion, as daughter of the mother, is not the extractor or realizer of a fully-formed aeon from the meta-aeon, but the catalysis of the meta-aeonic energy into an ever developing aeon. To put it simply, the Ma Ion is not the forever-future aeon, but the liminal flux between aeons, through which the meta-aeon, the Aeon of Maat, as a function of Ma'at, commutes itself.
The manifestation of Nuit is at an (aeon’s) end.
With this, we abandon the notion of causality in Aeonology, and enter the field of Quantum Aeonics. The Mysteries of Ma’at may be developed along these lines and into the applicable: aeon engineering, or aeongineering. Instead of receiving words, magi will be able to make their own.
This is Doom of Atlantis stuff, folks.
...
(Originally, this post was less cute, a lot longer and more substantial, but most of it had to do with Neoplatonism and the implications of its science applied to the Egyptian rituals that included the image of Ma’at, and what this meant in light of Achad’s and Grant’s work with the Aeon of Maat and the Amalantrah Working. But the Greek stuff does not seem to be well received here, so I cut it out.)
Anyway, with that, I consider the last of my obligations to this forum fulfilled, and I shall now withdraw from it. I decided a few weeks back that my review of this book would mark the end of my regular posting on LAShTAL. After some time, I might start popping in once every month or two, but don’t count on me reading every post.
(The astute may notice that the number constituted by the reversal of the date on which my copy arrived, 14/8 or 148, amounts in Hebrew to both, “scales,” a symbol of Ma’at, and, “retire,” what I intended to do once I had read the book.)
If any of you ever need help with Egyptian or hieroglyphs, y’know, for your middle school art project or whatever, or if you would like to correspond privately with me, email me at djedi167@gmail.com
But the Greek stuff does not seem to be well received here, so I cut it out.
I'd be very interested in seeing the excised Greek portion of the notes shared above. If you'd rather not publish it here you may send it to me directly. All at your discretion of course.
ae
The Incoming of the Aeon of Maat is more than the Jonesian Epistles; it is a map to the interplay of personalities, to the human condition and its haunting of high minded purpose. It is the rare record of a prophet’s death and the dispersal of his acolytes (a recurrent event in history usually typified by few or no personal accounts). It is a historical document which presents firsthand the weltschmerz of a post World War II Occident, and the furtive hopes of those who would change it all.
Many thanks, djedi, for your interesting review.
When I first read the Jones-Yorke correspondence, many years ago now, I was struck by just how much detail there was about events in Crowley's past, via the accounts of two men who had been close to him. And then, as you say, the correspondence occured a short time after Crowley's death and documents some of the events following that death. The extension of the correspondence to take in others such as Germer as Crowley's successor, and Symonds as laying the foundations of his biography, seemed natural in this context. It also seemed natural to include the 1936 correspondence between Jones and Crowley, since it seemed to foreshadow some of the themes which cropped up in the Yorke-Jones correspondence.
As for MANIO, thanks for your speculations. This Word is at the heart of Jones's work, and fascinates me. Unfortunately, due to the dispersal of Jones's papers after the death of the last Mahaguru of the Universal Brotherhood, information about how the Word was transmitted and received is hard to come by. Jones founded a Lodge in 1936 for the ritual transmission of MANIO; but again, information is hard to come by. For some time now I have been vibrating MANIO in the course of a magical working under way, and I'm sure there are others around the world doing likewise.
I finished the Introduction (lengthy! ) yesterday and was very impressed.
I really appreciate how the background material to the letters is woven together and explained, and I think there was even some new information in there too. Or at least things I hadn't recalled.
Very nice editing job.
Curious, if you have two editors, how do you decide who does what?
I really appreciate how the background material to the letters is woven together and explained, and I think there was even some new information in there too. Or at least things I hadn't recalled.
I'm glad you enjoyed it, Chris; thanks for your appreciative remarks.
I would have liked to have spent more time in exploring the Crowley-Jones relationship as it developed over the years, and especially in considering at greater length their correspondence of 1936. However, in order to have the extra space to do that, I would have had to remove some of the letters. Since in an ideal world I would have liked to have included more letters by Jones from the 1920s and 1930s to other members of the Universal Brotherhood that threw further light on the reception of MANIO, removing letters wasn't a course of action that enamoured itself to me.
Curious, if you have two editors, how do you decide who does what?
That was fairly easy. I started working with Michael Barham on this correspondence about ten years ago now. He had met Gerald Yorke a couple of times towards the end of Yorke's life, and due to his interest in Yorke he had accumulated a sound biographical knowledge. Although I had discussed Yorke with Kenneth and Steffi - they had been close friends in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, and in particular Kenneth and Gerald Yorke had collaborated in making typed copies of many of Crowley's papers before they were shipped to Germer - my own particular area of interest was in Jones. Thus Michael Barham and I didn't have to decide who did what; it just developed naturally. We each wrote "our" parts of the Introduction, and then edited it to produce a single Introduction.
So far as the footnoting goes, we each contributed footnotes, then each worked on the notes of the other. The final step was to standardise our efforts: Michael Barham is an acacademic and I'm not, so standardisation was an interesting exercise, but again I think it worked well.
So in summary, we didn't have to decide who did what; it just developed naturally. I think that a lot of collaboration is like this.
Thank you for the elucidation and prompt response.
I couldn't help but think, while reading, of all the mountains of carbon copy paper used...
I have a typewriter that I used to write poems on, a nice manual with its own suitcase if I feel like going off grid and still producing documents. And that is just a lot of 'stuff' to carry on, when they had to re-type/copy all of the Crowley correspondence etc.
This to everyone, not just Mick but:
Does anyone else get the vibe in reading this book (at least the first 100 or so pages between AC and Jones) that Achad has a kind of wheedling egotistical whine going on?
Crowley's letters are all succinct, to the point and sometimes funny.
Jones' letters to me have this tone of egotistical posturing and arrogance (I am announcing a new Aeon and be-damned with anything else) mixed with a pleading 'Look at me father! Please look what I have done!' tone. I don't much like him right now.
Did anyone else get this tone?
For future reference, on the first page of the introduction, 1916 is stated as the year Crowley adopted Jones as his magical son, which is incorrect: it was 1918.
For future reference, on the first page of the introduction, 1916 is stated as the year Crowley adopted Jones as his magical son, which is incorrect: it was 1918.
What is your source for it being 1918?
What is your source for it being 1918?
I meant to write 1919 as the year. From a pdf of Liber 31:
This manuscript was NOT delivered on date originally intended but
held until about September 3, 1919 when it was mailed to Therion from
Detroit. He was then in New York. Receipt was acknowledged in letter received
September 8, 1919.
Crowley would not have adopted Jones as his magical son until after reading Liber 31.
Jones was recognised as his Magical Son by Crowley in 1916. For instance, this account:
"Charles Stansfeld Jones (1886-1950), aka Frater Achad, was an Aspirant to the A.'.A.'.who took the Oath of the grade of Babe of the Abyss as a Neophyte, which is the right of the Neophyte to do. He also became an O.T.O. initiate, serving in a leadership capacity in British Columbia.
"Having been recruited through The Equinox in 1909, Jones was the twentieth person to join the A.'.A.'. under Aliester Crowley. Jones' motto as a Probationer was Vnvs in Omnibvs (V.I.O.), and his supervising Neophyte was J.F.C. Fuller (Per Ardua). When Fuller resigned from the order, Aleister Crowley took over as Jones' superior and advanced him to Neophyte, where he would take the motto Achad, and which unexpectedly opened several doors for Crowley.
"The news came as a profound revelation to Crowley. Nine months earlier he had been involved in a set of sex-magical operations with Soror Hilarion (Jeanne Foster) in an apparently unsuccessful effort to conceive a child. Crowley noted the nine-month interval and concluded that Jones' "birth" as a 'Babe of the Abyss' qualified him as the "magical child" of Crowley and Hilarion. He took Jones into the Supernal Triad, and declared him to be his Magickal Childe prophesied AL:I.55-56. As Crowley later wrote:
"What I had really done was therefore to beget a Magical Son [in a magical operation]. So, precisely nine months afterwards, that is, at the summer solstice of 1916, Frater O.I.V. (the name of C. Stansfeld Jones as a probationer) entirely without my knowledge became a Babe of the Abyss.
"Crowley goes on to cite a number of proofs, relying upon the expected child in The Book of the Law. 'It is further predicted,' Crowley goes on, that his 'Child' shall discover the Key of the interpretation of the Book itself, and this I was unable to do … in actual fact he did so discover that Key."
http://www.astronargon.us/Frater%20Achad.htm
Jones started writing Liber 31 in 1917, completed it in 1918, but didn't pass it to Crowley until 1919.
I'm curious why you think Jones started Liber 31 in 1917, when the opening journal entry is dated 9/22/1918.
Jones took the oath of the abyss on June 21st 1916; Crowley and Soror Hilarion performed the magical operation to conceive a magical child on July 8th 1916. Crowley states that it was nine months later that he learned of Jones taking the oath of the abyss, which caused him to consider the possibility that Jones was the magical child, but that could not have occurred before March 1917.
I'm curious why you think Jones started Liber 31 in 1917, when the opening journal entry is dated 9/22/1918.
I was speaking off the top of my head, as it were, and may have got that wrong. I'll check my copy of Liber 31 later today.
Jones took the oath of the abyss on June 21st 1916; Crowley and Soror Hilarion performed the magical operation to conceive a magical child on July 8th 1916. Crowley states that it was nine months later that he learned of Jones taking the oath of the abyss, which caused him to consider the possibility that Jones was the magical child, but that could not have occurred before March 1917.
Personally I think your chronology is incorrect here, but again later today I'll check Crowley's account in The Confessions and post more on this.
I've perused my copy of Liber 31 (Level Press, 1974) and you are quite right. The entries are dates in 1918. My mistake.
However, I'm not mistaken re Crowley regarding Jones as his Magical Child prior to 1918 or even 1917. The following passage is from Crowley's diary entry for August 21 1916:
"An amazing discovery. The Opns to have a child by Hilarion July 8, 1916, on, seven in all, and one upon Helen Westley, ended Sept 12 and Sept 16 with three Opns at beginning and end of catamenia. These Opns are described as particularly good. On Sept 23, the Word of the Equinox was NEBULAE: i.e. the Babe of the Universe, as I now see it. This Equinox, the Word is SOL-OM-ON, the child of David’s adultery. Now O.I.V.V.I.O.was born on June 21, exactly nine months after the Libra Equinox. On conclusion of the Equinox Ceremony Hilarion had seduced me; and I had concentrated on the Word just obtained. It is really very remarkable that I did no Opn for a Child after this September 12-16. We were at Vancouver on Oct 19, I two or three days earlier. It is to be noted too, that Hilarion was the perfect Scarlet Woman as described in CCXX.III.44. Then O.I.V.V.I.O. may be the Child coming “from no expected house”, since I always thought of a material baby, and never tried for a spiritual son (CCXX.III.47) and yet the child of my bowels, since O.I.V.V.I.O. has Sagittarius on the Asc. and Sagittarius is on the cusp of my 6th House (Virgo, the bowels) and also because I did the IX Operations for him, upon the body of Hilarion."
This passage was published by Kenneth Grant in The Magical Revival (2010, pp.158-159) with some interpolations in square brackets. Knowing that some prefer their Crowley - like their turnips - as God intended, I have stripped out the interpolations, even though their only effect was to make the passage more readily comprehensible.
Thanks for the research and clarification. I was under the impression that Jones' role as the child began after Liber 31 was written.
Happy to clarify. The Jones-Crowley relationship was very complex, not to say tortuous. I would have liked to have examined it more deeply in the Introduction to The Incoming of the Aeon of Maat, but there wasn't the space, alas. I'll give it more attention in the future, I'm sure, because it's so interesting.
The book, the core of which is the correspondence between Gerald Yorke and Charles Stansfeld Jones (Frater Achad) in 1948 and 1949, was to have been published earlier this year, but has taken a lot longer to finish than I was anticipating. However, I am pleased to say that all is now ready to go to the printers early next week.
Aside from words received and numerological proofs what are the actual revolutionary features of the totally new incoming Aeon of Maat?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Aside from words received and numerological proofs what are the actual revolutionary features of the totally new incoming Aeon of Maat?
There's no "actual revolutionary features", and it's not "totally new"; Jones regarded the Aeon of Maat (a term he didn't like using in his last years) as being a continuation of that of Horus.
Jones didn't go into much detail about the principles of the new Aeon - or new phase of the existing Aeon - though he had been writing about a forthcoming Aeon of Truth and Justice since at least 1922, when it was mentioned in the Appendix to his QBL, or the Bride's Reception. However, given that by this time he was becoming increasingly involved with the Universal Brotherhood, the keynote of whose work was Integrality (the essence of things is entire, undivided), we can hazard a fairly good guess. Essentially, though, it is for each of us to arrive at our own understanding. So here is mine.
There isn't a multiplicity of True Wills. There is a universal will, with a multitude of refractions. The Greek word thelema reflects this, indicating the Divine Will (God's Will, if you like) rather than the will of an individual. This is reflected in the precept "Every man and every woman is a star". Stars don't generally go wandering around as the fancy takes them; their orbits are an integral part of a galaxy of stars, those galaxies part of a greater body, etc. For many years I have taken a great deal of interest in Advaita Vedanta, which I regard as fundamental to Thelema, and which I think is reflected in the first chapter of The Book of the Law.
Jones sometimes spoke of the more violent sentiments of The Book of the Law with distaste, as did Gerald Yorke in the published correspondence, as do some of us who identify ourselves as Thelemites. Jones saw this in terms of the Tetragrammaton, whereby The Aeon of Horus can be seen as the Vav or Son; Maat as the Heh final or Daughter, a feminine influence which would assuage the Force and Fire of Horus. Nor was Jones alone in this, of course; Jack Parsons saw the analogy with Tetragrammaton, the difference being that he characterised the tempering feminine force as Babalon, rather than Maat or Truth & Justice.
There's no "actual revolutionary features", and it's not "totally new"; Jones regarded the Aeon of Maat (a term he didn't like using in his last years) as being a continuation of that of Horus.
That's convenient.
Jones didn't go into much detail about the principles of the new Aeon -
That's even more convenient.
- though he had been writing about a forthcoming Aeon of Truth and Justice since at least 1922,
So he did go into detail....but he didn't really? I'm kinda confused here about this guy's views....or non-views.
Essentially, though, it is for each of us to arrive at our own understanding.
I'm beginning to sound like a parrot so I will not reply with how convenient that is that we all make up our own definitions about this new Aeon that isn't really an aeon but a continuation of the other aeon y'see. It just sounds like nonsense unless he made a statement, stuck to it and defined what he was actually talking about.
Dare I ask what 'Mannion' is? Sounds like a small-time Moss Side ecstasy-tablet dealer.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Dare I ask what 'Mannion' is? Sounds like a small-time Moss Side ecstasy-tablet dealer.
The word is MANIO, not "Mannion". If you're really that sloppy, please don't waste my time any further.
Dare I ask what 'Mannion' is? Sounds like a small-time Moss Side ecstasy-tablet dealer.
The word is MANIO, not "Mannion". If you're really that sloppy, please don't waste my time any further.
Manio! Now that really does sound like a Moss Side dealer. I don't care about the word anyway....yet ......unless you convince me that Jones was onto something. Thus far you're not doing that.
I spell his word wrong and you use it as an excuse to bail out of the analysis? C'mon.
What do we know about the aeons?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
What do we know about the aeons?
That's a very good question. What DO we know about the aeons?
In the first place, there are many systems of aeonology around the world. There is for instance the Hindu system of Yugas, each of which spans hundreds of thousands of years. Gnosticism has its own system of aeons. A Google search will throw up (no pun intended) many more. Not forgetting, of course, the Thelemic system of Isis, Osiris, and Horus.
Which of these are true? All? None? Might they all be conceptual divisions of time rather than objective facts? As a Thelemite, how do I know that a new aeon dawned in April, 1904?
Crowley said a very interesting thing in the Old Comment to AL.III.34, which appeared to foreshadow an aeon to come after that of Horus:
"Following him [Horus] will arise the Equinox of Ma, the Goddess of Justice, it may be a hundred or ten thousand years from now; for the Computation of Time is not here as There."
In his later work, Crowley tied the aeons to the astronomical phenomena of Precession, thus giving the aeons fixed lengths of time. It's not clear when nor indeed why Crowley moved to this later position, but it appears in the Introduction to the 1938 edition of The Book of the Law.
So yes, good question. What do we know about the aeons? Not a lot, I think, apart from the fact that different systems of aeonology appear to be a dime a dozen. Which of them is right? Perhaps they're all right? Perhaps none of them are right? Perhaps they are just conceptual divisions of time, having little relevance outside of the systems within which they hold sway?
I'm kinda confused here about this guy's views....or non-views.
I'm a bit confused about everything this morning. I read the Day-lee Gnus, and found all kinds of writers putting obvious spin on assorted topics. Then I drop in here and find strange questions and IHVH answers.
IHVH, the original, obscure tribal demon/deity, who had a vicious streak, can have his lettered name stretched out to overshadow the concept of a 4-lettered magical formula that can be demonstrated to include all kinds of things, including the progression of the so-called Aeons.
The application of this 4-stage cycle to modern times only gives us an 8,000+ timespan in which to orient ourselves. But a full cycle of the bigger gears is ~26,000 years. One of the more popular time-tracking orientation legends puts us (everybody) at the mid-way point in the Grand Cycle.
If you (anyone) goes and counts the numbers in the Yugas, a 26,000-year cycle becomes pennies compared to the hundred dollar/pound/euro notes that buy or sell progress on The Bigger Wheel. No wonder we get confused.
The confusion is greatest when applied to a blanket proposal that is applied externally. We are in the third phase of a four-phase cycle, and it includes everyone. Nonsense!
The un-confusing reality is that everyone is in their own stage of their own cycle. This cycle can be easily made up of 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, or nine stages, depending on which number is applied. I am confident that Ducks, or other birds, can find additional numbers. If we apply the number 4 (often presented as IHVH, and commonly traced back to a historical demon/god) we get down to the metaphorical subject now under discussion ... with confusion.
Applying this four-fold concept to the individual is the source of peace of mind. I thought we had come to a consensus a long time ago that these Aeons, or stages, only make sense when applied to the individual person or perp.
In Achad's case, he himself either slipped into the next stage, or he had pre-sentient (pre-conscious) awakenings that dribbled down as pieces of a larger puzzle. This larger puzzle will not be solved with numbers ... because the 4th stage/phase of a four-cycle engine, is based on intuition.
As soon as intuition, or understanding, or gnosis is introduced, there will be a mental confusion among the mentats (we see it almost daily when the threads are running hot), while those who have lost their minds in a balanced manner simple chuckle.
I'm beginning to sound like a parrot so I will not reply with how convenient that is that we all make up our own definitions
The "how convenient" intervention is a reflection of the mentat who does not get the chuckle.
Of course we all have to make up our own definitions. It is not convenient. it is mandatory if anyone is to be self-reliant.
The word is MANIO, not "Mannion". If you're really that sloppy, please don't waste my time any further.
Oh, you noticed.
...unless you convince me that Jones was onto something.
I'm sure that he (M.S.) will argue not, convert not, and not go on overmuch or overmore.
What do we know about the aeons?
This subject has been discussed, dragged out into detail, and delivered long ago, and even more recently too. You are presenting yourself as a rank freshman attending a PhD-level seminar. Maybe you really did follow the previous discussion(s) and are simply playing the role of Devil's Advocate?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
was it one of his jokes, tests or religionist moments...etc etc?
None of the above, except the et ceterae. The consensus, an obvious one, went (and still goes) something like this ...
In the beginning, AC had a conception of Aeons as stages, yet there was no number attached ...
"because time is not the same here as there."
Later, AC equated them (the Aeons) with the Zodiac (all those people and animals). Technically, this would be ~2,148 years. Figure in the transition periods on your own time, because nobody agrees with anybody about these (that I know of).
Then, much later, he wanted to reach the masses. So he made big numbers and large concepts as simple as could be. Two thousand (2,000) year Aeons. Twelve (12) of them ... all influenced by the Zodiiacal Sign that is synced with here-and-now, or shaded over other Aeons for comparison. He laid out a simple tale of how the Aeons succeed, like a fairy tale, for the simple minds.
As soon as we get the calculators out, we find this simplistic paradigm only holds up if one uses the "sort of" sign (~), or a +/- do-dad, or a circa (around, about) word, or just simply say "approximately." Sometimes things don't fit well. This is because the whole big concept (the Grand Equinox of ~25,772 years) is a mental concept.
No calendar has ever been exact, and there's always extra hour, or free days, or leap years. This is because
"time is not the same here as there."
Like the initiatory rituals, this (time stuff) is an attempt to capture the workings of the universe and portray it in an invention (a ritual, a calendar, a tree) in order to control it, or understand it, or make it work for us.
In the mundane realm, any calendar will work for daily or monthly or annual business ... as long as one remembers the extra day in leap-year.
I suspect that the 2000 year cycle has more to do with the lifespan of a prater-human than any correlating astrological phenomena. There is only so much manipulation of a DAF-2 gene that can be done to extend the final hour. I believe that it is connected to the Phoenix bird mythology.
... has more to do with the lifespan of a prater-human ...
That kind of thinking has a precedent , if anyone wants to take a Journey to the East ...
"Kali Yuga is the last of the four stages (or ages or yugas) the world goes through as part of a 'cycle of yugas'. The other ages are called Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, and Dvapara Yuga. The "Kali" of Kali Yuga means "strife", "discord", "quarrel" or "contention" and Kali Yuga is associated with the demon Kali (not to be confused with the goddess Kālī).
"According to Puranic sources, Krishna's departure [death] marks the end of Dvapara Yuga and the start of Kali Yuga, which is dated to 17/18 February 3102 BCE."
-Wikipedia
It is interesting that this 3102 date closely approximates The Beginning of Recorded History (TBRH) for our present phase of human existence on planet Earth.
TBRH is sort of like IHVH, but different.
Kali is a demon from Hindu mythology who is described as a being of great power and (in some sources) the origin of evil itself. He is the archenemy of Kalki, the tenth and final Avatar of Vishnu.
I guess this guy is a Bad Dude. Have you heard? Some folks say he's running things now.
Well, that makes sense.
The Aeon of Maat is a State of Mind. I would like to think that Achad had gained that state. Since Maat is Justice and Balance, we might assume that Horus and Set have stopped fighting. Hrumachis ("Horus on the Horizon" - the Horus Zone) indicates that Horus has won. The Setians and the Satanists might not like that part.
Technically, tuning in to Maat means one has surmounted his or her karmic battlefield on the causal plane (the higher or abstract mind) and is functioning in a state of gnosis, or intuition. See 8=3. Such "tuning ins" might be temporary ... but everyone has to start somewhere - - sometime.
Jones didn't go into much detail about the principles of the new Aeon - or new phase of the existing Aeon - though he had been writing about a forthcoming Aeon of Truth and Justice since at least 1922, when it was mentioned in the Appendix to his QBL, or the Bride's Reception. However, given that by this time he was becoming increasingly involved with the Universal Brotherhood, the keynote of whose work was Integrality (the essence of things is entire, undivided), we can hazard a fairly good guess. Essentially, though, it is for each of us to arrive at our own understanding. So here is mine.
There isn't a multiplicity of True Wills. There is a universal will, with a multitude of refractions. The Greek word thelema reflects this, indicating the Divine Will (God's Will, if you like) rather than the will of an individual. This is reflected in the precept "Every man and every woman is a star". Stars don't generally go wandering around as the fancy takes them; their orbits are an integral part of a galaxy of stars, those galaxies part of a greater body, etc. For many years I have taken a great deal of interest in Advaita Vedanta, which I regard as fundamental to Thelema, and which I think is reflected in the first chapter of The Book of the Law.
There are esoteric traditions in the Middle East with their own prophets and systems of aeons (though they obviously don't use that word) that have been living in their own aeon of Truth (literally) for many centuries already. Their understanding of the inner and the external world may have some resemblance as well to the "integrality" you mention. I don't think Achad had such traditions in mind for Maat, but the resemblance is worth noticing anyway.
There are esoteric traditions in the Middle East with their own prophets and systems of aeons (though they obviously don't use that word) that have been living in their own aeon of Truth (literally) for many centuries
Prophets can talk out of their ass though.
Thing with "aeons" is we don't have anything to compare it to in terms of astrophysics/astrobiology because there are no other life-forms anywhere else as far as we know...literally. Therefore what sort of law are we talking about? Laws pertaining to Physics or Biology or what? We look at our past, where we came from (primate things somewhere in present day Africa_) spreading around nomadically following animals and not even using sharpened stones to hunt with and then..... the rest is history. Modern men apply patterns to what was and what happened and call it "aeons" and New Age nutters swallow it like it's a given.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@dom We inevitabily give an inner meaning to events and history, which is necessarily influenced and might be subsumed into a particular culture or world view with definite patterns or frameworks of interpretation. There's no other way around, history is not a mere chronology of data or events, so the point is to find the most complete picture of when, where, and who you are, and natural sciences are not enough for this, which should be obvious but due to our modern culture it tends to be irreflexive gospel.
@dom We inevitabily give an inner meaning to events and history, which is necessarily influenced and might be subsumed into a particular culture or world view with definite patterns or frameworks of interpretation. There's no other way around, history is not a mere chronology of data or events, so the point is to find the most complete picture of when, where, and who you are, and natural sciences are not enough for this, which should be obvious but due to our modern culture it tends to be irreflexive gospel.
But does Crowley treat "aeonics" as mere myth or as some sort of verifiable phenomena?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
We look at our past, where we came from (primate things somewhere in present day Africa_)
This is the modern, generally accepted, absolute fact of reality and human evolution. It does not account for why white vikings came from the north, polar bears are white, and the Tibetan Sasquach [sic?], the Yeti, is white.
There was life in Hyperborea (the continent "above the arctic circle") before anything else that resembled a primate was running around in Africa or California. The Out of Africa theorem may only be part of the puzzle.
Setting that aside, it does seem like we are all operating a primal (primate) vehicle.
Isis: It is widely recognized, in all forms of metaphysical literature, including the Libers [Liberae][Library], that the dork (the lower self, the first 4 circuits) has its own tendencies ... and that we (the individual) need to control these tendencies if we are to become liberated from them.
Osiris: In order to to control them, we invoke our higher self, or HGA, or INRI, or Solar Angel.. He/she/it resides on the causal plane [abstract mind][Tiph-Geb-Ches]. It only provides inspiration in the beginning, but later it comes to be the pilot in charge. This pilot is only an intermediary, but it helps one to sort out and tie up any loose ends that would prevent a permanent upgrade known as Liberation, or sometimes samadhi.
Horus: The bird-headed lord is associated with loss of personal self-awareness in the state(s) variously described in Liber AL. These are three specific samadhis [samahdae?] that have not really been widely recognized as such. They probably correspond to some weirdly-pronounced Hindu or Tibetan term. One is doing their Will, with no goal in mind, except for the perfection of the present moment ... which does not include the desires of the dork, but the dork can go along for the ride if he/she is under proper control and just riding along as a passenger. This also applies to the individual abstract mind and one's personal memory bank (ROM - "Read Only Memory"). One can remember, but the mind cannot recreate the experience ... except as a "dim memory." One learns to function in the wu-wei maneuver.
Maat: This state is perfectly balanced because it is perfectly clear. When the yin-yang scales of duality (known to the Jews and gentile Qabalists everywhere as Binah-Chokmah) align in this perfectly-balanced state, there is nothing left but some remaining aspect of nothing. Once that final concept {Atma - Universal Self}} is cleaned up, one enters the Clear Zone known as Rigpa, Tao, Wu-wei [permanent status], Adi. This is called sahaj samadhi, and it means "permanent" (no dork). The entrance to this palace, without jewels and the emblems of death or anything else, is called in Thelemic lingo, Ipsissimus.
Note: Achad had claimed Ip back when he and Therion were leading up to their original, big break-up.
The above is a simple rendering of how the Aeons apply to the individual. Those who call us Thelemites ... three grades. Those who call us Maniites may recognize a fourth.
But does Crowley treat "aeonics" as mere myth or as some sort of verifiable phenomena?
He lays it out from beginning to end with a strict timeline (that wobbles, depending on his age). The only joker in the deck was when he failed to omit/erase the phrase ...
"... for time is not the same here as it is there."
Oh darn, that undermines the whole strict aeon theorem, rendering it into an esoteric metaphor. This can be useful for teaching pigs and fishes (see: I Ching), but it is not found to be so precise when measuring it against reality.
the point is to find the most complete picture of when, where, and who you are
Right. Anyone dabbling in this area should at least be familiar with the yugas and the "great breath of Brahma." I think the "breath" is 440 trillion, or bigger, years, but my memory bank in that sector has been blanked. In any case, it's a really big number, and it provides a backdrop, or an overshadowing designed to include all lesser concepts, such as eras, aeons, eons, years, ages, and September 15.
"... for time is not the same here as it is there."
Oh darn, that undermines the whole strict aeon theorem, rendering it into an esoteric metaphor.
This is essential to "verify", from this perspective the world is like a drama in which parts of the plot are unfolding on an invisible stage, being revealed only to those whose inner eyes are opened. In the outer aspect, esoteric traditions have their own cognitive maps or notions of history by which the dark forces ruling the external world are defeated in that invisible stage of the drama, for example Horus or Maat eons in Thelema. If that's "verifiable" in some sense it's again a matter of the inner eye of the individual to determine, but in any case it's quite commonly accepted (not only among initiates in esotericism) that vectors of truth have always been present through history in some form or another. In my view the notion of a linear progress of aeons has a definite function in esoteric traditions, but little more.
But does Crowley treat "aeonics" as mere myth or as some sort of verifiable phenomena?
I doubt that it's "verifiable phenomena".
I doubt that it's "verifiable phenomena".
I believe the core key rests in the fact that AC was replacing Jesus of Nazareth, and even though only 1900 years had elapsed, 2,000 was such a round number. So there's a good veriier ... the only problem is, scholars disagree on the dates, but they are close enough to still call an "Aeon" starting in circa 0 BC/AD.
The problem is that Jesus may not have existed at all, except maybe as a composite figure of Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, etc ... although we might assume that there was an initiate, whose name I think was Emmanuel, not Jesus, upon whose memory was heaped all the sayings they could find.
This is further complicated by the verifiable fact that AC wrote about the "New Aeon" beginning in circa 500 BC, when he was Ankh, and that makes an Aeon 2400 years long!
So we have plenty of verifiable phe-no-mena, but none of it lines up. Your doubt about the matter is verified. It seems like an "Aeon" is one of those subjective things that varies with the user and is subject to the spin he or she wants to put on the subject.
The un-confusing reality is that everyone is in their own stage of their own cycle. (...) Applying this four-fold concept to the individual is the source of peace of mind. I thought we had come to a consensus a long time ago that these Aeons, or stages, only make sense when applied to the individual person (...).
All right, I'll try to examine the programming/Aeons: as an example I am using a boy who's been born in late '60s, in some developing country .
1. Child (from a birth up to a teenager; "Isis"): a boy liked to draw, to play with cats, to imagine he is an Indian (not of India, the other one), & most of all he had liked to watch & listen the documentaries about the ancient Egypt: been fascinated with pyramids, mummies, & the names of gods & goddesses. He was told all the things proper & improper. (Thank goodness he was born & raised before PC - my note). Just a few examples: women are human beings; you cannot be an astronaut if you have even one bad tooth; you have to go to kindergarten/school - all children like to go to k/s (note: he didn't like); have to, don't, blah blah blah.
2. A child with a sex organ (teenager/adolescent, age 13-19, by definition; "Osiris"): it is an honour to die for your country; respect the tradition; you have to go to work; - to marry; - to have a children; you don't know to drink properly (he didn't - my note); one of the most funniest ever: "how you can say you won't to marry & to have a children? it is the natural thing to do."
3. Adult (age roughly 20-42; wartime; "Horus"): a future Initiate tries to achieve the self-programming; you all know this very well.
4. Ripe (roughly from 43 until death; "Maat"): best case scenario: one is at last free to go one's own way & to enjoy one's own samadhi-es.
(Note: I've tried to be sarcastic in a few places, although I am entirely out of practice & I've been unable to be sarcastic in a last 20 years or so. The numbering of the 4 stages has been provisional.)
I've tried to be sarcastic
Oh, Heavens to Betsy or Venus! You don't mean to say that you get angry or disillusioned instead? No, your sarcasm was noteworthy. The fact that you feel the need to call attention to it so we won't think you are being too holy shows that you are not comfortable with it (sacasm), however.
Furthermore, you have demonstrated the capacity to apply the four Aeon model to an individual Life.
The next question is ... Do people (yourself in this case, because how can you answer for people in general?) see things differently in each phase, and could this be forced without effort into seeing a correspondence between one's varying perceptions and the qualities of Isis, Osiris, Horus, and Maat?
Sarcasm is a shield against expressing anger and getting into fights. Ignant, for example, has no such restrictions in this area. It appears to be condescending at times, but it's not necessarily from a sense of superiority, but often just deflecting anger ... or disgust ... like telling a dirty joke about someone you don't like, or by saying clever, underhanded things about The Church of Scientist, study of..
This is the modern, generally accepted, absolute fact of reality and human evolution. It does not account for why white vikings came from the north, polar bears are white, and the Tibetan Sasquach [sic?], the Yeti, is white.
Someone asked me the other day whether they found the Sasquatch already?
My answer: Not yetti.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
You don't mean to say that you get angry or disillusioned instead?
Sorry, but I am neither angry nor disillusioned.
you are not comfortable with it (sarcasm)
Correct.
Do people (yourself in this case, because how can you answer for people in general?) see things differently in each phase (...) ?
Indeed, I do. I am 52, and I don't see things in a same way as I've seen them when I was 25, or 43; if I eventually mature one day I hope I'd be able to see better than I see now.
I see a correspondence you've asked about as largely artificial. I've just tried to make some sense out of it, in vain, but... as Mr.Korzybski used to say --- "I don't know. Let's see."
I cannot answer for people in general, of course, but I can observe some people: friends, relatives, acquaintances...
I see most people stay in the first four circuits for good. That is, in other words, they learn to live in the relative harmony with the "Mother Nature" (Isis) & with the authorities "above" them (the state, the religion, "the" male god, whatever...) (Osiris).
I see most people stay in the first four circuits for good. That is, in other words, they learn to live in the relative harmony with the "Mother Nature" (Isis) & with the authorities "above" them (the state, the religion, "the" male god, whatever...)
Yes, these have contemporary names like "muggles." Right now, showing on assorted external screens, we see the muggles being energized into protests against said States and Religions. Everywhere. All over the planet. Not omnipresent [nightmare scenario]. But there's a party booming in a place near almost every neighborhood.
Otherwise, they do not connect to the 5th circuit. It is estimated that a 4-5% harvest is quite good.
It can sometimes be demonstrated that the Aeons fit into a timeline matrix ...
0-27 Isis Learning. Growing.
28-54 Osiris Development, with ups & downs.
55-81 Horus Cleaning up the loose ends.
81 Maat Everybody dies.
or
81+ Maat Survivors enter a new zone.
I will be 81 in exactly 7 days. If you don't here from me, you'll know option 81 is correct. If 81+ engages, I'll try to let you know what the difference is, even if I have to channel it through some other poster.
Oh yeah, the bottom line: You are correct. The system is artificial. I have been trying to make that point about several sacred cows recently. ALL these models and systems are intellectually fabricated. They are found among the eight lesser vehicles of liberation. Shall I get out the soap box? No way. I am too discharged. A pic is worth a thousand wei ...
In this casw, a wei, by the way, is most closely translated as "item."
Only the ninth vehicle is pure and without concepts. In the pic above, it is found in the center, as a yin-yang symbol for the common folks, as a mirror for those who self-reflect, and as a crystal ball for Rigpa, the empty state.