Welcome to LAShTAL, Daniel.

Then we have one thing in common, namely living close to a coastline. According to http://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline , Eastbourne College in Eastbourne, East Sussex, which he attended January through July 1894, was the last academic institution which Aleister Crowley attended, before his Matriculation at Trinity College, at Cambridge University in Cambridge.

Welcome aboard.

Did KG tell you that story?

What story?

The story of Daniel in the Lion's den. 🙂

“We accept you, we accept you, one of us, one of us!”  Greetings and welcome Michael (you are welcome, welcomed and well come.) 

Is this the Tradition which is meant to be so incredibly, absolutely Secret no one is even sure whether it exists or not - a little bit like Fight Club & its rules, maybe? (Hush! ;))

If you have been following the forums particularly closely you might notice that is 111 years since the alleged reception of Liber AL!  (=It’s slightly less than this period if you are one of those who subscribe to the view that A.C. penned it all as an armchair magician - i.e. from the comfort of his armchair - up in his Highland lair at Boleskine House at a later date sometime between 1904 and 1907 which is still remaining to be proven.)

I suppose it depends on how we all interpret that “quite close”!  Though she wouldn’t have been one of his last Scarlet Women, I take it?  Would she perchance have left any brief recorded memoir on the subject?

As I’m sure you are aware Hastings, A.C.’s final resting place and retreat, is just down the road from Eastbourne and I have wondered whether A.C. in his final days at Netherwood may have paid a nostalgic visit there now & again to the scene of his youth.  Perhaps I might encounter you one day out & about in the town, as my children were also raised there & they and I occasionally still visit in what I’m sure they regard as being the vital hub of the universe (! ;))

I did enquire of somebody at Eastbourne College once, but received a blank stare.  Maybe it was the wrong person to ask, maybe they had nothing to do with the College at all but just happened to be "passing through", though happily I didn’t see them crossing themselves after I mentioned “those” words to them.

All the beAst,
Norma N Joy Conquest

Thanks Jamie for your greetings. 🙂

The term "Secret Tradition" comes from A E Waite, although I am sure that he was not the first to use it!

With reference to 1904. It really doesn't matter whether AL was written at a later date, or whether Crowley himself composed the work himself. If he did then he had access to knowledge that was certainly not available at the time. The important point from a qablaistic point of view is that it is fixed as 1904 because it connects with significant later dates one of these being 2015! 🙂

Because certain people are still alive, and they may not wish for this association to be know publicly, I can only say at this point that Crowley wrote what I would class as a mildly erotic poem about my grandmother and gave her a couple of gifts which are now in my possession.

I live quite close to Eastbourne College and pass it most days, and virtually every day I pass there are a pair of Jehovahs' Witnesses seated outside trying to recruit new members. Perhaps one day I should try and convert them to Thelema 🙂

148

Like what?

I can only say at this point that Crowley wrote what I would class as a mildly erotic poem about my grandmother and gave her a couple of gifts which are now in my possession.

That's pretty cool.

virtually every day I pass there are a pair of Jehovahs' Witnesses seated outside trying to recruit new members. Perhaps one day I should try and convert them to Thelema

I can't help but wonder what that conversation would sound like.

Like what?

AL I v 54. Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.

        37

I'd hardly consider that "knowledge." Am I demonstrating "knowledge unavailable at the time" when I tell people to turn off their cellphones at the beginning of my presentation and then a cellphone goes off partway through my talk?

I'd hardly consider that "knowledge." Am I demonstrating "knowledge unavailable at the time" when I tell people to turn off their cellphones at the beginning of my presentation and then a cellphone goes off partway through my talk?

The problem is that you like many people want to be spoon fed knowledge. You are bogged down by conceptual thinking and this is many people's problem in understand Liber AL. The Book, does contain knowledge, but it is not written out like a list of horse racing results. You have to be prepared to work with the Book, not against it.

148

No, you said the Book contains "knowledge that was certainly not available at the time." I asked you for an example, and you pointed to a passage that gives a prohibition, not a piece of knowledge.

Prohibitions are typically considered distinct from knowledge -- unless you consider announcing "Please turn off your cell phones while I'm speaking" to be knowledge, which would be a really weird usage of the word "knowledge."

I'm guessing that you think this passage is some kind of prophecy that there would one day be a controversy over a letter of the Book? And that's why you think this is "knowledge"? But that's ridiculous. A prohibition against changing a letter of the Book -- followed by someone changing a letter  -- is no more "prophecy" than "Please turn off your cell phones" followed by someone failing to do so.

Prohibitions are typically considered distinct from knowledge -- unless you consider announcing "Please turn off your cell phones while I'm speaking" to be knowledge, which would be a really weird usage of the word "knowledge."

Why can you not see beyond the surface meaning? You know people approach Liber Al, in exactly the same way as people approach The Bible. Ask yourself this question. Why would the Book insist on this prohibition? What is it that I can see that you can't? I am sorry to go on about this point but, we are all conditioned to think in a certain way, and I think now it seems to be getting worse. You have to unlearn. You know one of the great secrets, if you want to call it a secret of this Book, is that it does offer you the chance to think about a different reality, or an alternative way of thinking. All this Magick, ritual, quabalah are nothing more than devices to facilitate this.  Kenneth Grant has covered this fully, and I would recommend you read his trilogies if you haven't already done so.

94

Your mistake is thinking that you're "seeing" something that's actually there. You're not.

I'll spell it out for you (and no, this is not an attempt to be patronizing. I think you're actually missing this point, so I'm going to try to be clear): you have -- apparently -- formed an interpretation that this passage is a prophecy. [You haven't corrected this point in my other post, so I'm going to assume that my guess was correct until you inform me otherwise]

This interpretation of yours is a conclusion that you reached by applying reason to evidence (the evidence, in this case, being the text and the events surrounding the kill/fill controversy).

What I'm saying is that you have improperly applied reason and drawn a conclusion that is not justified by the evidence. What you've done is a practical example of what Liber AL means when it says, "There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason" (II:27).

The Book of the Law is warning us about the dangers of reason. It's not saying that reason isn't a good tool for drawing conclusions -- reason is, in fact, the only consistently reliable tool we have to draw factual conclusions about reality. Rather, the Book of the Law is saying that reason can easily mislead people who improperly apply it.

In this case, your reason is operating on evidence. There's this book that prohibits X. Some time later, someone does X. You interpret this as a prophecy, supporting your interpretation with an argument from ignorance ("Why would the Book insist on this prohibition?" with the implication that in the absence of another answer, your ridiculous interpretation stands).

But you're wrong. That something prohibits X and that someone later comes along and does X in no way suggest that the source doing the prohibition had any foreknowledge.

I realize that you've constructed a framework that allows you to dismiss any disagreement as nothing more than "conceptual thought," but this framework is simply a device your reason has built to enable you to avoid questioning your beliefs. It sounds like you think you have transcended reason, but you haven't -- you're its slave so long as you keep blinding yourself to the ways that you're misapplying it.

This is a practical illustration of the dangers of reason that the Book of the Law warns us about.

😮  As I said elsewhere ... "Lookout! There's another one loose amongst us." Another one to preach and tell us what "our problem" is. And it's a good thing too ... otherwise we'd never know what our problem is. Thank goodness there's somebody to straighten us out.

Ummm ... Praeter-human entities?  Angels?  Spirits?  The future?  Our problems?  The list of guesses is endless.

You have to unlearn.

No. You have to learn to stop telling people what to do. You will neither make friends nor influence people by being a know-it-all.

I'll spell it out for you (and no, this is not an attempt to be patronizing. I think you're actually missing this point, so I'm going to try to be clear): you have -- apparently -- formed an interpretation that this passage is a prophecy. [You haven't corrected this point in my other post, so I'm going to assume that my guess was correct until you inform me otherwise]

NO NO NO! I do not think this passage is a prophecy! Where did I say it is a prophecy? I gave you that verse as an example. Nothing more. I could have picked out a dozen others but I chose that one. I chose it because I wanted to look at it for yourself.   When I say, that it demonstrates knowledge not available at that time. I mean precisely that. You have got it completely around the wrong way. It has nothing to do with predictions or prophecies in the accepted meaning. It is more about what has already happened yet we are not yet aware of it. But there are some that are, Aiwass, for example because they are outside the circles of time.

I'll try to explain it in another way. Lets say you own an island. It's YOUR PERSONAL island and it belongs to YOU alone and no-one else. One day you decide to take a trip to your island and you find there are footprints all over it. Someone has been there before you. Now replace the island with YOUR FUTURE TIME and you will have some idea what I am trying to say and this is why Crowley was unable to utter a Word which he knew, but which only could exist in a future time.

94

No. You have to learn to stop telling people what to do. You will neither make friends nor influence people by being a know-it-all.

Firstly, I am not telling anyone what to do. People are free to take my points or leave them. Secondly, I am not here to make friends or influence people. I have no need to, and thirdly I don't need your advice on how to conduct a discussion. If you don't like what I have to say then go away and watch a reality TV show or something!

148

Oh, okay. Then disregard my post, I guess, but you can't blame me for thinking you meant something along those lines.

I gave you that verse as an example.

As an example of how the Book contains "knowledge that was certainly not available at the time." How do you mean that, then?

It has nothing to do with predictions or prophecies in the accepted meaning. It is more about what has already happened yet we are not yet aware of it.

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Obviously.

If you don't like what I have to say then go away ...

No, it doesn't work that way. If you say something and it's condescending or stupid, then I, or Los, or Jamie, or Belmurru, or anyone else is gonna call you on it. And when you start thrashing around like a bull in a chinashop, we're probably gonna say things just to pull your leg and make you look more silly because of your ego-centered way of telling people what their problem is. It's forbidden to call you caustic names or threaten you, and that's just common (guideline) courtesy, but you have not been given a soap box to carry on in a shrill, defensive voice while attacking our "conceptual, spoon-fed thinking." This is LAShTAL. Do you think the members here are idiots who need your counsel?

If I don't like what you have to say then I'll not just go away ... and let you rant and rave. Welcome to the Octagon.

No, it doesn't work that way. If you say something and it's condescending or stupid, then I, or Los, or Jamie, or Belmurru, or anyone else is gonna call you on it.

Or I see you must forgive my ignorance. I did't realise you three musketeers were in charge.

And when you start thrashing around like a bull in a chinashop, we're probably gonna say things just to pull your leg and make you look more silly because of your ego-centered way of telling people what their problem is.

Oh I see so the problem is with my ego then? Thanks doctor Shiva! 🙂 It has been causing me a few problems lately but I'll just keep taking the Advaita tabs and I should be OK in a week or so.

but you have not been given a soap box to carry on in a shrill, defensive voice while attacking our "conceptual, spoon-fed thinking."

Oh I am very sorry. It seems like I have upset people already and I only started here a couple of days ago! 🙁

Do you think the members here are idiots who need your counsel?

I don't know, do you?

Mentu

We're not. I just named three recent commentors to your posts, and added "or anyone else." There are several "anyone elses."

It seems like I have upset people already and I only started here a couple of days ago!

We noticed ... apparently.

Do you think the members here are idiots who need your counsel?

I don't know, do you?

No, I don't think the members are idiots (except for me ;)), nor do we need your councel. If you wanna have a discussion, without pointing out "our problem" to us, then that's a different matter.

??? All of this sturm und drang on his Introduction thread, the side of the forum that presents itself as a safe place for individuals to introduce themselves and their own individual proclivities but which turns out, in actuality, to attract the same patronising "corrections" -- written qualifiers notwithstanding -- by those who believe they know better. I've certainly grown to expect this type of response everywhere else, but here? Really? Don't you boys have anything better to do?

Hello MD! Welcome! Try not to take the attacks too personally. Or do. Your choice, really. They certainly won't go away, but it sucks that your attempt to present an honest picture of yourself up front got torn into so quickly. Then again, if you plan on diving into the discussions out on the rest of the boards, I guess this got you up to speed faster than most.

Chin up, and all that.  😉

Oh, and this Ode to your Grandmother has got me all sorts of curious.  ;D

Hi and thanks for your Welcome. It seems like I attracted a load of cackling hens by my posts. 🙂

On a serious note, it was not my intention to dictate my ideas upon anyone. I have no interest in doing that. I have no agenda and I am not a member of any esoteric order or group, or religion. My aim is not so much to impart information as to create a little receptivity to influences that cannot be easily explained, and what I have openly expressed so far is NOT of my inspiration or creation, so if there is any credit which may be ascribed to these revelations which will follow more in due course, they are certainly not taken by me.

94

'Revelations', Michael? Crikey...

Oh my god.

Such a friendly welcome!  😀 It seems to me it's not so much a case of telling this new-comer to get off his soap-box as of pointing out, and demonstrating, that all the soap-boxes here are currently taken.

::)

Well he is apparently a teacher after all.  I would hate for him to be MY English teacher.