Notifications
Clear all

Introduction

78 Posts
11 Users
2 Likes
1,208 Views
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

Hello Lashtal members,

Do what thou wilt and a fond hellay to none and all.  I am delighted to be making your electronic acquaintance & trust this will be the start of a beautiful and fruitful intervining with some fellow Thelemites.  There is a communal cry in Tod Browning's 1932 film "Freaks" - "we accept you, we accept you, one of us, one of us" - which I feel could equally well apply here too & especially in regard of Liber AL I.60 and II.19 & 20, and I am hoping to participate in future discussion forums around our core object of study/ "worship" in common, the handwritten contents of the Book of the Law.  Biographically, among other things I have written a little book in which I attempted to demonstrate that the working of "Chaos Magic" is in every respect a subset of Thelema, & another "thesis" on the workings of Black and Blue Magick in the "objective" world, which was published in Skoob Books' Esoterica Anthology Vol. 1 in 1995 e.v.  I am contemplating revising these slightly for reappearance elsewhere & would appreciate any relevant criticism or queries from anyone who may have read it.  I am also the only surviving admin secretary out of three who set in motion "the company of heaven" similarly like-minded Thelemic federation which has been operational since 1993, but unfortunately "with business way" is not my particular forte...

Now that I've formally introduced myself & got the preliminaries out of the way, could I cut to the crux of the biscuit and enquire whether anyone would happen to know if there is any sort of data possibly even tucked away somewhere in the bowels of this very site, or know about any other information re. any reported transmissions from Aiwass post-1904?  I know that when A.C. was asked in his nether years about it (I don't have the precise reference this minute to hand) he was reputed to have shrugged as if to say "Dunno", but was wondering whether anyone had come across anything more tangible or if this is to be regarded as prima facie evidence of a 43 year period when the minister must literally have emulated his beloved HPK.  (It's a "pity" he didn't introduce himself, for example, at least to later amanuenses such as Fratres Achad & Belarion and Soror Nema, to name three.)  And if Aiwass-Shaitan was AC's own HGA, as he himself often stated, does this mean he would have then been out of contact with his HGA for the whole of that same period?  I don't know about anyone else, but I for one am getting a little "exhausted" of waiting for him to get in touch again, unless AL was meant to be a strictly one-off for the next what - 2,000 years?! - but if not to deliver a fourth or even fifth or sixth chapters, then at least to give an update on things since the transmission of AL - a sort of "things didn't go quite according to plan with my last scribe and prophet" sort of thing.  Or: "Ah, and by the wayest, all the lines about a child/one to come after and suchlike, etc., were a put-on.  Deem not too eagerly to catch the promises, and all that stuff..."

Incidentally, does anyone recall someone drawing down the ire of Robert Anton Wilson in the course of question time following his talk on slack etc at Chelsea Town Hall in the late 80s, by saying he had ticket number 31 (or was it 23?!) and what please was the undoubted significance of this fact?  "The only special significance is that you've now got me up here on stage about to chew you out" was the tenor of his memorable rejoinder, and I've always idly wondered what might have happened since to that shortly afterwards rather hapless individual who was sitting a few seats away from me at the time, and whether that young man profited from his experience.

To end with on an upbeat note, here's a little joke I just made up.  How many AA members does it take to change a light bulb?  Just one - the others will all be busy making the L.V.X. signs.  Boom, tish!  or else - groan...! (As the late great comedian Frankie Howerd used to say: "Please yourselves...") I didn't say it would necessarily be a very good or funny joke! 

Yours in the cause of constructive blasphemy,
Love and all that,
Norma N.Joy Conquest (you can call me purely Joy for short if you like!) X


Quote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

Crowley invoked Aiwass in April of 1906 with the help of Elaine Simpson. You can read about it in the Confessions, chapter 58( http://hermetic.com/crowley/confessions/chapter58.html ). Crowley claims that Aiwass indeed appeared and told him to return to Egypt, which he did not do.

The other episode you’re thinking of is the question put to Crowley by Lawrence Miles (aka “Shri Gurudev Mahendranath) of where Aiwass is currently. According to his account, Crowley shrugged in response and looked to the sky, saying, “I think the fault is mine.”

And if Aiwass-Shaitan was AC's own HGA, as he himself often stated, does this mean he would have then been out of contact with his HGA for the whole of that same period?

This is one of the many discrepancies that suggest that – whatever “Aiwass” might have been – he was not a "Holy Guardian Angel" in the sense that Crowley uses that term throughout his body of work (which he consistently uses as a metaphor for the True Self of the individual). Thelemic scholar Erwin Hessle has traced several of the discrepancies in Equinox of the Gods as part of his seminal study on the subject, an essay entitled (appropriately) “The Holy Guardian Angel” ( http://www.erwinhessle.com/writings/pdfs/The_Holy_Guardian_Angel.pdf ) It’s very worth reading for all serious students of Thelema.

I don't know about anyone else, but I for one am getting a little "exhausted" of waiting for him to get in touch again, unless AL was meant to be a strictly one-off for the next what - 2,000 years?!

Personally, I don’t think there are any such things as “preternatural intelligences,” and, even if there were, I find the idea of sitting around waiting for superbeing spacemen to get in touch with humanity – nevermind being “exhausted” waiting for it – to be a mixture of pathetic and silly.

Welcome to the forums.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4285
 

Welcome to LAShTAL, Jamie. As you will have gathered from Los's welcome, there's a myriad shades of opinion here, which is of course one of the many strengths of the site.

There was I believe contact with Aiwass via some Workings at Cefalu with Leah Hirsig.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Welcome Jamie!  I have not read your articles yet, but I do look forward to reading them once you've revised them!


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7104
 
"Los" wrote:
Crowley claims that Aiwass indeed appeared and told him to return to Egypt, which he did not do.

I believe I read about this. If it's true, and we assume* that it is, then the whole concept of "obeying the Angel," is brought under wonderment - at least as far as AC obeying Aiwass goes.

*an assumption is always subject to falsity and other forms of Satan and those guys[/align:13qz0qdi]

But then, AC was a rebel from the beginning. His horrible childhood, I see thee hate the hand & the pen, and "O prophet! thou hast ill will to learn this writing," etc. 

There's a thread about his personal faults versus his prophet status. Maybe there should be a thread about his poor chela performance  😮


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4285
 
"Shiva" wrote:
I believe I read about this. If it's true, and we assume* that it is, then the whole concept of "obeying the Angel," is brought under wonderment - at least as far as AC obeying Aiwass goes.

This was during what's known as the Shanghai Working of 1906, when Crowley visited an old friend Elaine Simpson from his Golden Dawn days, and together they invoked Aiwass. In the course of this Crowley was urged to return to Egypt, but never did.The episode is covered in The Confessions.

I believe this was before Crowley came to regard Aiwass as his Holy Guardian Angel.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7104
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
In the course of this Crowley was urged to return to Egypt, but never did.

Which probably means AC was told by "Aiwass" through the vocal medium of the current and ever-changing clairaudient seer. She told Aleister, "Aiwass wants you to go back to Egypt."

Aleister thought, Now that might be fun, but mentally he insribed a pantacle that said (in Latin, of course), I have better things to do than go back to that place. I am merely painting astral pictures here, and beginning aspirants are advised to regard them as humourous illusion.

But just imagine how much different life would be for us all if he had returned to Egypt. What if he had travelled to Thebes?  You know, as in "I am the Lord of Thebes."

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I believe this was before Crowley came to regard Aiwass as his Holy Guardian Angel.

Well, technically you are probably correct. He just wasn't taking things seriously until a little bit later - like during and after The Vision and the Voice. Or maybe he was taking things too seriously, and not playing the game in a more detached manner. In any case, I think someting finally got through to him in 1909.

"It became evident, some 9 years later, that what stopped his further exploration of the Aethyrs in 1900 was simply that his Grade did not entitle him to go further than the 29th. In fact only a Master of the Temple, 8 = 3, can penetrate beyond a certain point, and further, as sections of the Comment point out, even a Master of the Temple cannot pierce through the veils surrounding the outer of these Aires.

"The Seer had not thought of continuing this work for nearly 9 years. It is not at all clear how the idea came to him in 1909, during a walk through the Desert with Frater O.V., but at Aumale a Hand suddenly smote its lightning into his heart, and he knew that now, that very day, he must take up The Vision and the Voice from the point where he had laid it down in 1900."  

- from http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/418/intro418.htm [/align:3bqf50ta]


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Shiva" wrote:
If it's true, and we assume* that it is, then the whole concept of "obeying the Angel," is brought under wonderment - at least as far as AC obeying Aiwass goes.

This is one of many discrepancies that suggests that Aiwass is not a "Holy Guardian Angel" in the sense that Crowley used the term in his system of individual attainment.

Remember, Crowley describes KCHGA in One Star in Sight as that which enables one to be "no less than the co-heir of the gods, a Lord of Light [...] conscious of his own consecrated course, and ready to run it." In his commentary to AL I, 7, Crowley describes KCHGA as the means by which one "become[ s ] aware of his nature and his purpose, fulfilling them." In chapter XVIII of Magick, Crowley identifies KCHGA with the magician "know[ing] Himself." In his comment to AL II:65, Crowley identifies the HGA with what he calls the "True Self," and he calls the Angel "the intelligible image of [the magician's] own true Will," accessed by concentrating on his "deepest self."

There are many, many, many more examples -- spanning through Crowley's entire career -- that demonstrate he used the term "HGA" to designate a person's "True Self," some kind of "inner self" that could be unveiled  by means of attainment.

Given those facts, Aiwass does not appear to be an HGA in the sense that Crowley's system uses the term. Crowley claims to have fought against Aiwass and his message for many years; he directly refused to obey a message from Aiwass in 1906; and even at the end of his life, in Magick Without Tears, he could write that "You disagree with Aiwass -- so do all of us."

The HGA, as described in Crowley's system, is the individual's True Self that -- upon being freed from the veils of body and mind that restrict it -- leaps forth into the "consecrated course" of the True Will. That's not what Aiwass was, even if we take Crowley at his word that all of those stories about Aiwass are accurate reports of what happened.

The most sensible conclusion is that "Aiwass" -- whatever "Aiwass" might have been -- was something else entirely that Crowley decided to call an HGA but was not an HGA in the sense of the definition of that term in his system. In other words, Crowley used one label ("HGA") to describe two very different things, for whatever reason.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

Welcome to lashtal, Jamie.

The incident in question was in 1906.
The Old Comment to Liber Al was written in 1912.
The New Comment to Liber Al was written in 1921.
One Star in Sight was written in 1921.
"Magick" - Part III of Book 4 was written in 1929.
Magick in Theory and Practice was written in 1943.

"MITP, 1943 wrote:
Now, on the other hand, there is an entirely different type of angel; and here we must be especially careful to remember that we include gods and devils, for there are such beings who are not by any means dependent one one particular element for their existence.  They are microcosms in exactly the same sense as men and women are.  They are individuals who have picked up the elements of their composition as possibility and convenience dictates, exactly as we do ourselves.  I want you to understand that a goddess like Astarte, Astaroth, Cotytto, Aphrodite, Hathoor, Venus, are not merely aspects of the planet;* they are separate individuals who have been identified with each other, and attributed to Venus merely because the salient feature in their character approximates to this ideal.

Now then, it is simple to answer the question of their development, their growing old and dying; for, being of the same order of Nature as we are ourselves, almost anything which is true of us is true also of them.

* "Venus" is, of course, a "thing-in-itself;" the planet merely one case of the idea.

I have tended rather to elaborate this theme, because of the one personally important question which arises in more recent letters; for I believe that the Holy Guardian Angel is a Being of this order.  He is something more than a man, possibly a being who has already passed through the stage of humanity, and his peculiarly intimate relationship with his client is that of friendship, of community, of brotherhood, or Fatherhood.  He is not, let me say with emphasis, a mere abstraction from yourself; and that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term "Higher Self" implies "a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion."

If it were not so, there would be no point in The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage.

Apart from any theoretical speculation, my Sammasiti [Right Mindfulness]and analytical work has never led to so much as a hint of the existence of the Guardian Angel. He is not to be found by any exploration of oneself. It is true that the process of analysis leads finally to the realization of oneself as no more than a point of view indistinguishable in itself from any other point of view; but the Holy Guardian Angel is in precisely the same position.  However close may be the identities in millions of ways, no complete identification is ever obtainable.

But do remember this, above all else; they are objective, not subjective, or I should not waste good Magick on them.

Let me say in particular in regard to Gods, that the God Jupiter whom you invoke is not necessarily the same as he whom I invoke.  It is clear in any case that the revelation of himself to you is modified in many ways by your own particular sensitiveness; just as in ordinary life, your idea of a friend may be very different from my own conception of the same individual.  Suppose, for example, he happens to be a musician, there will be an entire side of his character to which I am practically insensitive. You could talk to him for hours, and I would understand little or nothing of what was said.  Similarly, if he were a mountaineer, it would be your turn to be odd man out.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

Azidonis’ quote is from Magick Without Tears, not “MITP,” as he mistakenly says.

As Crowley points out in that letter, the HGA is “objective” in the same sense that the gods – like the Goddess Venus – are “objective.” That is, it’s not that Venus is an actually-existing being external to human minds, but that Venus is a mythological “person” about whom any objective inquirer can learn the legends ascribed to her. In the same way, Spiderman is an “objective” being about whom there are objective facts. That Spiderman doesn’t actually exist – just like Venus doesn’t actually exist – doesn’t prevent us from learning objective facts about this fictional character.

The HGA in Crowley’s system is the same way. There’s not a literal angel, but there are objective facts about that Angel (i.e. “True Self”) that an aspirant can learn by observation. Indeed, one cannot discover the True Self (HGA) by examination of the “self” (where “self” means that body-and-mind complex often mistaken for the True Self): the HGA/True Self is experienced as something wholly Other, as outside the mind and its preferences.

In other words, Crowley's comments here are entirely consistent with the HGA being something internal and part of an indivdual, which is exactly how he presents the HGA throughout his writings.

Further, his insistence that the HGA is not a "higher self" is in no way a change of position for Crowley: twenty years before MWT, he wrote in the New Comment to AL II:65:

It is curious that this verse should be numbered 65, suggesting L.V.X. and Adonai, the Holy Guardian Angel. It seems then that He is Hadit. I have never liked the term 'Higher Self'; True Self is more the idea. For each Star is the husk of Hadit, unique and conqueror, sublime in His own virtue, independent of Hierarchy.

Crowley is saying that the HGA is not a "higher self," where "higher self" means those qualities that the mind thinks are neat-o. Instead, the HGA (the "True Self," as Crowley consistently calls it) is the real self of an individual, which often possesses qualities that the mind does not like to admit are there. Most people mistake the body/mind (or some aspects of it, a "higher self") for that True Self.

Again, all of what Crowley says here is entirely consistent with the position that he presents throughout his writings, that the HGA is the True Self of an individual, entirely internal.

Erwin’s essay goes into far greater detail on these points and explains the surprising consistency with which Crowley presented these ideas and did not “change his mind” on the question of what the HGA was at all.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Los" wrote:
Azidonis’ quote is from Magick Without Tears, not “MITP,” as he mistakenly says.

Thanks for the correction.

You forgot to correct also that Magick Without Tears was written in 1943, not Magick in Theory and Practice.
MITP was written in 1929, and included in Book 4 "Magick" - as Part 3, as stated.
The quote, indeed, was from MWT, as intended, as visiting the link will show.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

Thank you for the kind greetings, information and comments, particularly the inclusion of Erwin Hassle's stimulating and useful essay which I had not come across before and which I read with my finest attention.  Maybe my comments should be posted & appear under a separate thread in the Reviews section?  You may have to bear with me as I am not familiar with all the ways of the site, am not very up to speed with "tech" stuff & may make some mistakes to begin with until I can find my way around better.

Many congratulations, Paul - this really seems to be a very Well established Thelemic zone and an excellent "centre" in which to discuss all of these relevant matters.  I wanted to, if not subscribe as I am not presently in a position to do so, then at least make a one-off donation for the time being but am not sufficienmtly familiar with PayPal or Gumball, or particularly wish to use them either, but will send an old-fashioned cheque for £11 to get things rolling and as a token gesture of appreciation if you give me a postal address I can send it to.

Would anyone now have any information on the Force of Coph Nia-I (only in AL Liber 31 III.72)?  I have my own intimations on the subject, but was wondering if someone else might have some valuable insights to offer up for discussion/ meditation.  Can anyone also help me find the origin and context of the definition of a Prophet being "not someone who foretells the future, but someone who correctly reads and interprets the present" (this is my paraphrase but approximately verbatim).  I have looked in the usual places but cannot find it & thought it might have been Thomas Paine, but it appears not.  Many thanks!

Pip, pip!
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

Please find my comments on the above which as I mentioned before I am not sure where exactly to review. Thanks you to Los for bringing this to my attention and apologies to Erwin Hessle for slightly misspelling his name previously.

Erwin appears to discuss the idea of HGA being subjective or objective quite impartially and with a commendably academic tone & some thoroughness in respect to Crowley's written work until the reader is suddenly met out of the blue with the adjectival bizarre 'extraterrestrial' [my italics].  I am not sure whether by "extraterrestrial" Erwin includes in a wider sense by implication all ultraterrestrials, otherwordly sentient organisms, praeterhuman intelligences, 'supernatural' denizens of other dimensions, etc., since there is no clear dividing line shown in his essay where he might make the different distinction apparent.  But, while I am inclined to share Los's skepticism with the perception of Aiwass being some sort of superannuated "superbeing spaceman" - albeit one bearing Persian characteristics - hovering around (in a UFO?) the vicinity of the Sol system, this seems to me to be his throwing away the babe and e.g. any sort of Sirius connection out with his bathwater.  However I do agree with his apparent suggestion that the HGA - and more specifically Aiwass as an HGA figure in whatever form, although that is my extrapolation by extension - may be a particular manifestation of a larger (Group) Mind* or aspect of cosmic consciousness with and into which we can all potentially access and "know and confer" to a degree, and one which in Crowley's case with the reception of Liber AL was tempered and tailored by his particular personality (i.e. the Edwardian rationalist who was well acquainted with the King James Bible among other things).
*  Similar perhaps to Nema's N'atonA propos of which, does anyone know why there would be that Lovecraftian stylistic apostrophe in the name?  I did ask Nema this myself while she was in the course of doing the washing up after the Maat Conference at Oxford in c.1990 but did not receive a sufficiently clear and satisfactory answer to my question.

I have always had this difficulty, whilst attempting not to talk overmuch, of explaining about this aspect of Thelema to interested others in the course of say dining or drinking at them.  Channeling or direct voice transmission?  Yes, most people can grasp the idea of that and there is enough evidence of strange phenomena and unusual contact of some sort or another to make it not appear totally unreasonable to those with fairly open minds.  Most also, given that, do not even have an immediate problem with the reception of the Book of the Law, although like Crowley they may not like the third chapter.  However, if they are as intelligent and curious as they should be and then enquire further about the nature of the "dictator", it can become very difficult to answer certain sorts of questions which inevitably follow on because so little information seems to be known, and one indeed ends up gesturing "Dunno" or something similar to that, which does not exactly accord with the worthy principles of "Scientific Illuminism"...

I must have read about Soror Fidelis/Elaine Simpson's communication in the Hag at some point, but this incident does not have anywhere near the same tangible atmosphere of significance about it as the Cairo one gone into in The Equinox Of The Gods, and although I'm also not conscious of the Cefalu incident as similarly mentioned by Michael, I'm sure that this same consideration would also apply.  In any case it wouldn't invalidate my initial contention that Aiwass - whether as Crowley's HGA or nay is irrelevant here - would seem to have gone remarkably silent even to his own Holy Chosen One for what would have been, if not 43 years, then at least the last quarter century of his life.  I was enquiring the important matter for preliminary debate as to Why that might have been, especially as A.C. had not fulfilled many of the Book's obligations as enjoined originally & specifically with regard to the progress of the Aeon.

I agree with Erwin's forwarding of the notion that the Khabs is the least dense emanation or veil of the individual star (and on a similar wavelength as it happens had employed the same sort of well/pool and hidden sun/shadow earth analogies he uses on pages 30 and 31 earlier in my own essay on pages 77 and 81 of the Skoob Anthology, as mentioned in my introduction), and it's also echoed in some of Alan Watts' remarks about the nature of zazen and satori, viz it is not so much we are striving "towards a goal" of Attainment as realising the structure of the moment and what has already accreted in this temporal position ("the complexes").
However I wonder if, since the identification of the HGA with "The 'Light within' of the Khabs" - presumably therefore Hadit and represented by Kether - how this then fits in with "knowing" the HGA individually in the fullest elementally balanced sense, and therefore identifying with "him" at a particular point?  This traditionally corresponds to Tiphereth & which must also be totally abandoned along with every other particle of dust in the course of crossing the abyss.  There is that "One Star In Sight" which still remains, but is this the same thing as being the HGA itself among the Supernals to the then implicit exclusion of everything else in the cup of Babalon?  Despite Erwin pointing out (see pages 8-9) A.C.'s apparently disparaging remarks regarding the phrase Higher Self, in his new comment to AL I.7 (the same one from which Erwin quotes, though unfortunately choosing to omit this!) AC also makes this highly relevant statement: "Hoor-paar-kraat, or Harpocrates...represents the Higher Self [my italics], the Holy Guardian Angel. [...] Aiwass is then the 'minister' of Hoor-paar-kraat, that is, of the Saviour of the World in the larger sense, and of mine own 'Silent Self' in the lesser."  This of course creates further complications and fuel for discussion in asserting that HPK (not Aiwass) = the Silent Self = {everyone's} HGA.  Perhaps someone else could now take the ball and run further with this as I'm sure that is enough from me on the subject and I don't wish to go on and on...

Shang a lang!
N.Joy

 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Thanks you to Los for bringing this to my attention

You’re welcome.

while I am inclined to share Los's skepticism with the perception of Aiwass being some sort of superannuated "superbeing spaceman" […] this seems to me to be his throwing away the babe and e.g. any sort of Sirius connection out with his bathwater.

I certainly am throwing out the spaceman/spirit junk, but I don't see it in any sense as essential (or the "baby" in the bathwater). I don’t believe in any kind of “Sirius connection” of the sort you mean: far from being a “babe in the bathwater,” the whole Sirius idea, in my estimation, is a tangential piece of (at best) symbolism used by later writers that has nothing to do with Thelema.

If Thelema is a system of discovering and carrying out an individual’s True Will, one is more than capable of doing so without ever once hearing about “Sirius.” As such, it can't be the proverbial "baby."

However I do agree with his apparent suggestion that the HGA - and more specifically Aiwass as an HGA figure in whatever form, although that is my extrapolation by extension - may be a particular manifestation of a larger (Group) Mind* or aspect of cosmic consciousness with and into which we can all potentially access and "know and confer" to a degree, and one which in Crowley's case with the reception of Liber AL was tempered and tailored by his particular personality (i.e. the Edwardian rationalist who was well acquainted with the King James Bible among other things).

I’m not sure who “his” is in this context, but I never suggested such a thing, nor is this suggestion contained in Erwin’s HGA essay (to the best of my recollection).

I don’t think there is any kind of “larger (Group) Mind” or “cosmic consciousness.” While it might be possible that the natural human unconscious can occasionally “erupt” into outpourings of symbolism, given the right conditions – and while an argument can be made that something of that sort happened to Crowley – a contention that is (at least) as likely is that Crowley fabricated the myth of the reception of the Book of the Law.

Naturally, I’m just speculating here, but if this is true, then the answer to “who/what is Aiwass?” is “a fictional character Crowley invented to help sell himself as ‘prophet’ of some new age.” Remember, Crowley claimed that only he had the authority to interpret Liber Legis correctly because he had “exclusive access” to Aiwass. [Well, evidently that’s not true, as Simpson helped him invoke Aiwass and then Aiwass seemed to vanish from Crowley’s life.] So, if he indeed made up Aiwass, he would have had good reason for doing so: perhaps if he were more successful attracting a religious movement, he would have done more with the Aiwass character.

Aiwass - whether as Crowley's HGA or nay is irrelevant here - would seem to have gone remarkably silent even to his own Holy Chosen One for what would have been, if not 43 years, then at least the last quarter century of his life. I was enquiring the important matter for preliminary debate as to Why that might have been

Well, if Crowley just made him up, of course he would have went silent for 43 years.

Of course, I guess it’s also possible that “Aiwass” was part of some authentic outpouring of the unconscious mind, and in that case, “Aiwass” would be a fictional character that *seemed* real to Crowley.

There’s absolutely no evidence, however, that there are such things as preternatural beings or spirits or any kinds of minds without physical brains. Whatever Aiwass was (whether part of an authentic experience or an outright fabrication), we’re on safe ground saying that he wasn’t an honest-to-goodness mind without a body.

Luckily for us, the message of Thelema remains the message of Thelema, whoever wrote the Book.

However I wonder if, since the identification of the HGA with "The 'Light within' of the Khabs" - presumably therefore Hadit and represented by Kether - how this then fits in with "knowing" the HGA individually in the fullest elementally balanced sense, and therefore identifying with "him" at a particular point?

Hadit at Kether represents any possible point of view. But the HGA of a particular person – that is, the True Self of a person, and therefore the True Will – doesn’t appear until Tipareth. See Crowley’s Naples Arrangement, where it takes until (6) to have a point capable of being defined in space with a path through that space (i.e. a True Will).

Another way to think about it is this: “Khabs” is the name of Hadit’s “house.” If an individual’s Khabs is the True Self, Hadit dwells inside it (i.e. the True Self isn’t identical to Hadit, but Hadit is the basis of every True Self).

Another way to think about it is to realize that all of these symbolic maps aren’t communicating fact: just different ways to think about stuff, so there very well might be some contradictions within the maps themselves. Whether one ascribes the “True Self” to here or there on some imaginary Tree changes nothing about facts.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
The HGA, as described in Crowley's system, is the individual's True Self that -- upon being freed from the veils of body and mind that restrict it -- leaps forth into the "consecrated course" of the True Will. That's not what Aiwass was, even if we take Crowley at his word that all of those stories about Aiwass are accurate reports of what happened.

The most sensible conclusion is that "Aiwass" -- whatever "Aiwass" might have been -- was something else entirely that Crowley decided to call an HGA but was not an HGA in the sense of the definition of that term in his system. In other words, Crowley used one label ("HGA") to describe two very different things, for whatever reason.

This certainly is a tricky subject.
The problem is that there seems to be two different aspects of Aiwass from Crowley's standpoint.

Aiwass the "being", who gave Therion the Book of the Law and convinced him to be a prophet of a new religion called "Thelema" and declare the "Aeon of Horus", which would supersede the old aeon of Osiris. This was during a phase Crowley initially regarded Aiwass as one of the 'secret chiefs'.

Later in life he became to embrace Aiwass as his personal Guardian Angel/Higher Self.

Crowley himself warns his readers against of this mixing up of personal experiences with objective reality in MITP; i.e. "professing one's personal truth to be everyone's religion", yet he goes to identify Aiwass as his HGA. This Crowley's later identification in my opinion, could certainly make one view Thelema/BOTL as much more personal 'revelation' rather than something more universal.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

jamie, welcome to one of the oldest "debates" on these boards.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

As no (ir)regulars seem to have responded so far to my enquiry about this yet (or the Thomas Paine[?] quote) maybe I can start the ball rolling for possible further discussion.  It should hardly need stating that this is my personal interpretation and is only to be regarded as such & of course I should not be shunned in any way on account thereof!  My personal perception is therefore that Coph Nia {- I} would seem to symbolically represent a force emanating from the galactic centre of our Milky Way in Sagittarius as an extension of the influence in our own star-system of the effect of Ra but on a "higher" "wavelength".  This may possibly even come from Andromeda as the central nexus in our local family group of galaxies - rather as Sirius itself (so sorry, Los!), the "sun behind the sun" may be considered to have a similar bearing in our local family of stars.  As such it may signpost the next stage in {Intrastellar} evolution from our relatively immediate neighbourhood within the progress, but probably toward the end, of the Aeon of Horus.  However there may possibly be an increased influx of "strange radiation/ intelligence" in alignment from that quarter before then and sooner than might be anticipated (although I am keeping a quite open mind about it being next month!)  Any convincing qabalistic exegesis and analysis may or may not make itself known before then, but would probably be in the English Alphabet.
The original inspiration for this intuition came from something in (I think) an 80s number of the British Journal of Ma'at [?] - unfortunately I cannot reference the source at this present moment as it is inaccesibly buried away in my "archive".  Next, please!...

Sheela-na-gig!
N. Joy

"PS" Now, is anyone aware of the exact ingredients of AC's "Elixir of Life" pills apart from his own semen?  I quite fancy the idea of trying to make some myself!  And why weren't they successful??  Were they not marketed particularly well?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
My personal perception is therefore that Coph Nia {- I} would seem to symbolically represent a force emanating from the galactic centre of our Milky Way in Sagittarius as an extension of the influence in our own star-system of the effect of Ra but on a "higher" "wavelength".

I don't doubt that this is your "personal perception," but I have no idea why you would think that this perception is true.

Crowley's "Old Comment" to the verse is as follows:

Coph Nia. I cannot trace this anywhere; but KOPhNIA adds to 231, Nia is Ain backwards; Coph suggests Qoph. All very unsatisfactory.

And his "New Comment" is:

"The Double Wand of Power" is a curious variant of the common "Wand of Double Power"; the general meaning is "I control alike the Forces of Active and Passive".

"Coph Nia": the original MS. has "----"; left incomplete as not having been properly heard. The present text was filled in later in her own hand by the first Scarlet Woman.

The Egyptian Gods are usually represented as bearing an Ankh, or sandal-strap, in the left hand, the wand being in the right. This ankh signifies the power to go, characteristic of a god.

But apparently Ra Hoor Khuit had an Universe in his left hand, and crushed it so that naught remains. I think this "Universe" is that of monistic metaphysics; in one hand is the "Double Wand", in the other "naught". This seems to refer to the 'none and Two' ontology outlined in previous notes.

So, basically, "Coph Nia" -- whatever it might mean -- has something to do with the "2" part of the 0=2 equation. Crowley gets us thinking in the right direction by suggesting that the second word is "Ain" (Nothing) spelled backwards: that is, it's a representation of the manifested universe in which there are disparate "things" (Ain backwards = "Nothing is not" = "Something is"). I'm sure we could noodle around with the gemetria a bit to get results that are more or less consistent with the above.

But there's absolutely nothing that suggests the phrase "Coph Nia" has anything to do with outerspace, in the sense you seem to mean. Why in the world would you think this? Perhaps if you can explain your thinking on this matter, it would clear things up for you.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

You are a sometimes entertaining arguer, Los, but I do not feel that you altogether take a sufficiently wide open and broad-minded view of things & that it would become futile and circular to engage in any kind of sustained debate with you on account of this apparent lack of fluidity and intractability in your response on certain subjects.  However I will answer your latest points as follows.

I don't think I ever said, wrote or have thought that my "personal perception" is or was in any way "true".  Nothing is true and everything is permitted, surely you knew that?!  Also, I am well aware of what the Old, New, Djeridensis & all the other Comments have to say - especially in the matter of AL I.7 as I may have indicated in my little review of Erwin Hessle's essay supra - and I find Crowley's comments as Prophet on the matter of Coph Nia to be rather jejune.  Are you yourself familiar with The Book of Lies, Los?  If you are not you may find some nutritious food for the mind & "gravy for your brain" there!...

splish-splash!
N.Joy


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4285
 
"Los" wrote:
Ain backwards = "Nothing is not" = "Something is"

Or perhaps not.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Not taking any sides on this discussion, but I still quite agree with Los.

What there really is to gain to even speculate on what "star system" or some "higher wavelengths" it might be connected to? Same way how Kenneth Grant in his works sometimes goes on rambling about Sirius. I think Crowley nails my current thoughts quite well:

"One Star in Sight" wrote:
Behold within, and not above.
  One star in sight!

ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"ayino" wrote:
What there really is to gain to even speculate on what "star system" or some "higher wavelengths" it might be connected to?

Whether such wavelengths exist or not is a matter of its own. If such wavelengths did exist, chances are their effects would be greatly muddled by the mass of human activity here on Earth.

To imagine there is some entity or set of entities sitting on the stars in the Sirius system, directing messages towards this planet, is an exercise in fantasy, and in my opinion, misses the point.

Sirius is not just one star, but a triad of three stars, each with very unique qualities. This planet does receive some 'light' from Sirius, in that we can see one of its stars quite openly, but that light may or may not have any influence on us. Whether it does or not influence us is irrelevant, as there is simply nothing we can do about it, unless we want to put tin foil hats on our heads and run around assuming to catch Star Rays. That's just silly.

But within, the Sirius system takes on a meaning of its own. That meaning is different for each of us, according to the unique disposition each of us are all in. However, there is indeed a theme to it, and I'm not too sure that this is the right thread or venue to even discuss it. It may be lawful to say that said Star Rays are quite an interesting metaphor, and manner of speaking about something altogether similar, yet different, regarding the nature of Sirius as perceived by our ancestors on this planet.

Just as the HGA may appear to be a completely separate entity, that appearance is a matter of convenience for the Adepts, and of no consequence to the Masters.

As for the Wand of Coph Nia, that has been answered, more or less, in the past here on these boards.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7104
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
... there is simply nothing we can do about it, unless we want to put tin foil hats on our heads and run around assuming to catch Star Rays.

I believe in the holy ghost and the fact that "tin" foil is rather hard to get. Wikipedia, The Ape of Thoth, tells us ... "A tin foil hat is a piece of headgear made from one or more sheets of aluminium foil or similar material." The point being that "Actual tin foil was superseded by cheaper and more durable aluminium foil after World War II."

My question is, do I need tin or can I substitute aluminum and get the same results?

[/align:232osfwf]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Ape Of Thoth" wrote:
A well-constructed tin foil enclosure would approximate a Faraday cage, reducing the amount of (typically harmless) radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation passing through to the interior of the structure
"Ape Of Thoth" wrote:
Humans are able to detect modulated radio-frequency electromagnetic signals in the microwave range, hearing them as sounds. The perceived source of induced sound is located inside of or directly behind the head of the recipient, regardless of the location of the transmitter.

There seems to be two schools of thought. For some people, the hat seems to give protection, while others, it is the means to receive transmissions 🙂
Probably would be the best not to use any headgear if Sirius is trying to contact you


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"ayino" wrote:
"Ape Of Thoth" wrote:
A well-constructed tin foil enclosure would approximate a Faraday cage, reducing the amount of (typically harmless) radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation passing through to the interior of the structure
"Ape Of Thoth" wrote:
Humans are able to detect modulated radio-frequency electromagnetic signals in the microwave range, hearing them as sounds. The perceived source of induced sound is located inside of or directly behind the head of the recipient, regardless of the location of the transmitter.

There seems to be two schools of thought. For some people, the hat seems to give protection, while others, it is the means to receive transmissions 🙂
Probably would be the best not to use any headgear if Sirius is trying to contact you

Or any head at all.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
I don't think I ever said, wrote or have thought that my "personal perception" is or was in any way "true".

Ok, so you don't think it's true that "Coph Nia" has something to do with outerspace? We're in agreement on that point, then.

Nothing is true and everything is permitted, surely you knew that?!

Does "nothing is true" include the claim "nothing is true"? In that case, the claim invalidates itself.

It's a good thing that people who do stuff that is practically useful, like scientists and construction workers, don't share this view of yours. 

Are you yourself familiar with The Book of Lies, Los?

Thoroughly. Read my recent blog post on the Star Ruby and N.O.X.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

I am not sure what point is meant by both Ayino and Azidonis overstressing the aspect of "within".  In terms of AA progression it goes without saying that "within" and not "above" is meant by One Star in Sight.  But I also get the impression that Ayino seems to think it was Kenneth Grant who was responsible for starting the ball rolling with the whole Sirius thing by "rambling on about" it, but why should it be excluded from being considered One Star in Sight as well, given that Crowley made references to it also & that the importance of the system was paramount in the whole Ancient Egyptian schema of "our ancestors".  Why is there this seeming either/or emphasis on Within versus Above?  Did the builders of the pyramids have "within" in mind exclusively when they set up their colossal edifices as devices to observe and channel the light of the heliacal rising Sirius/ Sothis in "outerspace"?

As a parenthesis I also wonder, Ayino, how you can supposedly quite impartially "not take any side" in a discussion, and yet manage to then "agree" with the viewpoint of one of the two sides involved?  Wouldn't you agree this seems rather to be enjoying your cake whilst eating it?

If such wavelengths did exist, chances are their effects would be greatly muddled by the mass of human activity here on Earth.
Why should this be?  I imagine a lot of us here on this site are familiar with at least the basic principles of astrology.  Why then should, for example, the influence of Mars or Sol in transit (or in fact any other "planet", in any other phase) ever be "muddled" by any mere human activity?  And given that, why should any geographical distance (in space) therefore be a consideration and especially if the quai-astrological effects of its influence/ "wavelength" are consequently strong enough in magnitude?

"some entity or set of entities sitting on the stars in the Sirius system, directing messages towards this planet"
What, like Heru-ra-ha for example?  And especially in its aspect of [the minister of] Hoor-paar-kraat with its "directing of messages" in Liber AL?

"This planet does receive some 'light' from Sirius"
Why only "some" light?  It should surely receive ALL of its light, as there is no obstruction to all of its rays in otherwise empty space?  I was not referring to 'ordinary' spectrum light here, but some (presently unknown) radiation moving at the speed of light.  There is a significant difference and it raises the question of whether "Light" in some ways contains intelligence?  What then after all is the creative nature of "Light In Extension" and the whole manifestation of "Fiat Lux" from the Ain Soph Aur (itself "Limitless Light") into Kether and through the then increasingly 'dense' sephira and downwards all the way to Malkuth by means of the Lightening Flash.
We are not really discussing 'light' which is visible to human eyes here, more something like "the light higher than eyesight".  Also Sirius may well be a triad system, but this makes absolutely no difference to the issue under consideration.

"As for the Wand of Coph Nia, that has been answered, more or less, in the past here on these boards."
I would be most fascinated in reading "the answer" (more or less) to this matter of "the Wand of Coph Nia" which has apparently been divulged in the past on these very here boards.  Could I get a specific reference in order to be "enlightened" in this, please?

I have just seen Los's latest.  You really are an indefatigable fellow! However:
Does "nothing  is true" include the claim "Nothing is true"?
Yes and no.  But (and I know I'm going to regret asking this) is LA (31, being Not) the same thing as Ain (61, being Nothing), as you seem to be suggesting?
"It's a good thing that people who do stuff that is practically useful, likte scientists...don't share this view of yours."
What, like quantum physicists you mean?  Have you ever heard of (Im)Probability Theory?  Do some more research!
Read my recent blog post on the Star Ruby and N.O.X.I will read it if I get the chance and the time, but there are many other important matters for my attention and I cannot guarantee anything.

In the matter of Shiva and the 'Tin' Foil Hats (sounds like some avant-garde band!), etc: yes this is very amusing and made me chortle, and to which I remark:

Aum Ha, Amn Ho!
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Why stop at Sirius? Even your "Sun behind the Sun" hypothesis is not quite so grand when compared to the strong evidence that supports the existence of a supermassive black hole at the Galactic Center of the Milky Way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun_(occult_symbol)

This concept of "factor infinite & unknown" was pretty popular in German occult circles in the early 20th century and especially when considering from the "within" context:

"Rudolf J. Mund: Das Mysterium der Schwarzen Sonne" wrote:
Everything that can be comprehended by human senses is material, the shadow of the invisible spiritual light. The material fire is - seen in this way - also just the shadow of the spiritual fire

ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

I totally agree!  Why stop at Sirius?  My original point was in fact in relation to the (supermassive) black centre of the Milky Way, if not Andromeda... (but for the sake of argument let's stop somewhere!...)

I am not sure where the "factor infinte & unknown" came into it - nobody brought that up as far as I am aware - but I am in total agreement here as well.

Isn't it lovely to agree on something for a change?!

Oingo Boingo,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
I am not sure where the "factor infinte & unknown" came into it - nobody brought that up as far as I am aware - but I am in total agreement here as well.

It represents total Negation. Black Sun/Black Hole/Schwarze Sonne, but that is, for me.
I really cannot even begin to explain it to myself in words even If I really wanted to.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

[flash=300,300:11988t7j] http://www.youtube.com/v/sDW6vkuqGLg [/flash:11988t7j]


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

Going back to any earlier 'thread' (see my postscript to "Reply #16" supra), does anybody actually HAVE any Elixir Of Life pills in order that one of them could be at least forensically examined to at least isolate all of its constituent elements, if this has not already happened.

I wonder how much they would retail at now - I would imagine many hundreds of times the asking price, originally...  Presumably the pills might also contain very minute traces of Crowley's dna - so that one would, at least in one sense, be "his child & that strangely" (AL III.47) !!

Also was the trade name A.M.R.I.T.A. (with or without the stops)?  As a further curiosity, could anyone (hint, Simon?!) have images of any advertisements, labels, instructions, publicity or what-have-you for these magical rejuvenation tablets?

** ***[/align:stekiw51]

Incidentally someone brought up about my book which I mentioned which demonstrated that "Chaos Magic" is in "every way a sub-set of Thelema".  It was called Will & The Wisp ("The Wisp" was a reference to C.M.) and it was distributed in 11 copies, in which there now may be unlimited further copies from here to Serbia as there is no personal copyright (as with all of my magickal writings); in fact I would be quite flattered if anyone chooses to reproduce anything & 'pass the word on' (with due credit which would be nice, of course!).  It was originally meant to be part of a triptych by me printed by LAyLAh Press, the would-be publishing arm of "the company of heaven", consisting of W&TW, Black and Blue Magick (also known as "Metaphor, Media, Magick & the buried Crowley", as it appeared in the Skoob Esoterica Anthology), and the "authorised" (by Francis King) revised and fully expanded with more material 2nd edition of The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O. - but as with the best laid plans of mice & men this operation never got off the ground, although W&TW was also going to be published with a couple of other smaller things of mine by Skoob Books in their second volume (which never materialised).  (I was also assailed by the Caliph-ornian "OTO"'s lawyers and somewhat rather deterred by the Mandrake & Typhonian experiences - although I have NOT given up, people! - "but that's another story"...)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I believe someone posted an image around here somewhere of an empty bottle of the "Elixer of Life" pills a few years back. 


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

Thank you, N.O.X.  I suppose a (picture of) an empty bottle ends up being better than no bottle or picture at all, and is better than half a sixpence...  But still!

The following is described in Martin P. Starr's excellently produced but alarmingly expensive Amrita (1990) as pertaining to Crowley's "perfume of attraction", but it is fairly clear from reading this extract as to what one of the ingredients may also have been:

IT is not a vague phantasmal word, IT is not a mystical way of pretending to explain ignorance; no, indeed, IT is a definite substance which confers Charm, Fascination and Personality exactly as good food, fresh air, and wholesome exercise brings health.
There is a physical basis of these qualities in the same way as Phosphorus is an essential ingredient of the chemico-physiological compounds whose flower is Thought.
This substance occurs in Nature in every human body but it varies as to nature and quality.  But where the quality is poor, or the quantity deficient, the lack may be supplied artificially by the skilled chemist through the preparation, compounded of analogous  or sympathetic substances,to which we have given the title of "IT".
  (pp. 51-52) [My emphasis]

The question I am wondering is whether the Elixir of Life pills may also have been called "IT"?  And If so, regarding my remarks about Crowley's dna in my previous, the quoted sentence from AL III.47 therefore would seem to become a lot clearer:  "It shall be his child, & that strangely." [My emphasis again]

Or perhaps not, of course!...

Woof, woof
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

I can't imagine why anyone would want his DNA.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
I can't imagine why anyone would want his DNA.

Just for the hell of it?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"U.G Krishnamurti" wrote:
An enlightened man can never have sex because he cannot reproduce another one like him.  Once an interviewer on television asked me, “Can’t we take your sperm and make a woman pregnant?”  I answered, “There is no sperm anymore.”

🙂


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

Azidonis says he can't imagine why anyone might want A.C.'s D.N.A.  This is a valid comment and with regard to "it", firstly let me state that I myself would have no conceivable personal use for any full or empty pill bottles from Uncle Al's medicine cabinet, nor for his old semen residue or protein base either.  However, among all the general merriment I may be causing by my remarks let's not forget the serious point that in the course of the big-business Project of classifying the amino acid variations involved in our human genome, some biochemical pharmaceutical multinational concerns have already been attempting to "patent" certain sequences in order to achieve a degree of monopolistic control - irrespective of the health of many unwell people then unable to access the natural prescription for their maladies - in that particular "medical" market.  It is moreover not inconceivable that at some later point in the future, one of these may attempt to "trademark" the particular dna sequence of particular individuals, such as The Beast for example, for reasons presently unknown.

I'm not aware whether there is anything "special" about AC's own chain in itself - I wouldn't have thought so - but it also follows on that the science of biological genetic engineering further on down the line might make it possible to 'reconstruct' his replica clone.  That certainly would count as a strange little homunculus or child of his under those prevailing circumstances, wouldn't it?  Watson, Crick & Wilkins only publicly revealed the beautiful intricacy of the double-helix of dna just over five years after the Prophet died in 1953 & this fact, together with the concept of cloning humans would have been altogether unknown except as an extreme form of science fiction (for instance like walking on the moon, leaving aside any "Dark Apollo" conspiracy theories for the moment, please!) and chronologically it would have been unrealistic for A.C. to "seek after this" matter as it would have been quite outside his scientific comprehension and not known to his understanding at the time.

Needless to say (I hope) I do not "believe" this scenario myself, but am just throwing it out - like most of the other stuff I am throwing out in these last days of the Aeon about the "tricky" third chapter, as I mentioned earlier - purely for the sake of discussion as a wild (or not so wild) card of "possibility".  N.B. "Nothing is true" - I could just as easily make a semi-convincing case out for the "group mind" of this website LAShTAL being the "child" to come after as well, if I felt so disposed!

Arf, arf!
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2219
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
[flash=300,300:1v6pbtfu] http://www.youtube.com/v/sDW6vkuqGLg [/flash:1v6pbtfu]

Amazing snippet Az, says it all really. Thanks.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Azidonis says he can't imagine why anyone might want A.C.'s D.N.A.  This is a valid comment and with regard to "it", firstly let me state that I myself would have no conceivable personal use for any full or empty pill bottles from Uncle Al's medicine cabinet, nor for his old semen residue or protein base either.  However, among all the general merriment I may be causing by my remarks let's not forget the serious point that in the course of the big-business Project of classifying the amino acid variations involved in our human genome, some biochemical pharmaceutical multinational concerns have already been attempting to "patent" certain sequences in order to achieve a degree of monopolistic control - irrespective of the health of many unwell people then unable to access the natural prescription for their maladies - in that particular "medical" market.  It is moreover not inconceivable that at some later point in the future, one of these may attempt to "trademark" the particular dna sequence of particular individuals, such as The Beast for example, for reasons presently unknown.

I'm not aware whether there is anything "special" about AC's own chain in itself - I wouldn't have thought so - but it also follows on that the science of biological genetic engineering further on down the line might make it possible to 'reconstruct' his replica clone.  That certainly would count as a strange little homunculus or child of his under those prevailing circumstances, wouldn't it?  Watson, Crick & Wilkins only publicly revealed the beautiful intricacy of the double-helix of dna just over five years after the Prophet died in 1953 & this fact, together with the concept of cloning humans would have been altogether unknown except as an extreme form of science fiction (for instance like walking on the moon, leaving aside any "Dark Apollo" conspiracy theories for the moment, please!) and chronologically it would have been unrealistic for A.C. to "seek after this" matter as it would have been quite outside his scientific comprehension and not known to his understanding at the time.

Needless to say (I hope) I do not "believe" this scenario myself, but am just throwing it out - like most of the other stuff I am throwing out in these last days of the Aeon about the "tricky" third chapter, as I mentioned earlier - purely for the sake of discussion as a wild (or not so wild) card of "possibility".  N.B. "Nothing is true" - I could just as easily make a semi-convincing case out for the "group mind" of this website LAShTAL being the "child" to come after as well, if I felt so disposed!

Arf, arf!
N. Joy

I get it. DNA manipulation is new, cool, neat, and scientists want to fuck with it to see what they can come up with. Cloning sheep, cloning chickens... scientists trying to play the role of nature, as if they can do any better than perfection!

This body will be self-immolated before it lets scientists clone it.

There really can/should be 'only one', in my opinion. If nature decides to produce an exact replica, that's one thing. If humans want to do it, that's quite another. It is a page straight out of Adolf Hitler's Book of the Black Lodge if you ask me.

"ptoner" wrote:
Amazing snippet Az, says it all really. Thanks.

Any time. 🙂


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7104
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
DNA manipulation is new, cool, neat, and scientists want to fuck with it to see what they can come up with... If humans want to do it, that's quite another. It is a page straight out of Adolf Hitler's Book of the Black Lodge if you ask me.

It is also a page from various accounts of Atlantis. Not that we have an accurate fistory, but simply that there's a legend about a previous civilization that did these weird things - and caused disaster.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

Liked the Hitler Black Magician reference.  Anyone who has watched the film The Boys from Brazil (or read the equally not-bad book by Ira Levin) will get a fairly good rough idea of what is involved here, but the dna is only "half" the story (nature); the individual (e.g., 666) would only get roundly formed by their history (nurture), which is probably even harder to replicate.

Yes we sure don't need or want that sort of biotechnology around at the moment, at least probably not for thousands of years more till we're all more adept at handling the forces of Nature and come to live in symbiosis with it better as co-creators of & with the planetary consciousness of "Gaia" - in other words the little world our sister (pace McKenna, Ingalls, Sheldrake, etc.)

"Cloning sheep, cloning hens..."
I believe these are now inventively labelled by the Media "Frankensheep" and "Frankenhens", etc...

I just wanted to add one more thing before I finished with my discussion on this particular verse (AL III.47) for the time being, in that I forgot to mention that in the sentence preceeding the "It shall be his child & that strangely" is the two word sentence "And Abrahadabra".  And is of course the palindrome, anagram and a type of notaqiron of Dna "and" is therefore obviously closely tied up with the Word of Power.

The next verse I'd like to discuss is "Now let it be understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance.  I shall deal hardly with them." [AL III.3].  It seems clear enough, doesn't it? - I have done a brief cabbalistic study of hardly but there's no obscured meaning that I can see there & so it seems as if it should be read quite literally - any comments, anyone?

Incidentally, please note that I have no personal computer or smartphone of my own (nor ever have had, for reasons why I do not need to go into here) & which is one reason that I have never posted in a forum before and therefore have to go elsewhere to use one but cannot do so on a 'daily' basis which may account for some unexpected gaps in any replies.  I am also not very conversant with this type of technology & may take a while to acclimatise myself.  However I am trying desperately hard to avoid "Go to Sandbox, do not pass Go and do not collect £200"...!

Bow Wow,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
The next verse I'd like to discuss

This is quickly expanding beyond the scope of an "introduction." If you're interested in discussing some aspect of the Book of the Law, it might be best to start a thread on it.

"Now let it be understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance.  I shall deal hardly with them." [AL III.3].  It seems clear enough, doesn't it? - I have done a brief cabbalistic study of hardly but there's no obscured meaning that I can see there & so it seems as if it should be read quite literally - any comments, anyone?

But since you posted this here, I'll have a bite of it.

And, just to clarify, what I'm about to say is directed at a certain segment of the population of people calling themselves "Thelemites." It's not specifically directed at the OP or anyone in particular.

Crowley famously concludes Chapter 7 of The Equinox of the Gods by "laying down the principles of Exegesis" for the Book of the Law.  He writes, tellingly:

Where the text is simple straightforward English, I shall not seek, or allow, any interpretation at variance with it.

I may admit a Qabalistic or cryptographic secondary meaning when such confirms, amplifies, deepens, intensifies, or clarifes the obvious common-sense significance ; but only if it be part of the general plan of the "latent light," and self-proven by abundant witness.

[side note: the hermetic.com page transcription of this passge has the typos "and" for "any" and "abundatnt" for "abundant." If anyone reading this has the power to fix things on that site, there's a minor recommendation]

So clearly, when the text is straightforward, there's no reason not to read it in a straightforward way. And yet self-proclaimed Thelemites *love* to come up with secret "obscure" meanings for straightforward passages, especially when those straightforward passages are not to their liking (as almost all of Chapter III is). And, surprise, surprise, these "obscure" meanings often reverse the meaning of passages they find so offensive.

I've seen really wild attempts to twist this particular verse into something entirely different, like the claim that if we transliterate "war" into Hebrew and scramble the letters, we get the Hebrew word for "light" and so therefore, RHK must be the light of the higher self. And since he will deal "hardly" (i.e. "hardly at all") with "them" (the percption of multiplicity, and therefore duality), he is saying that as a God of Light, he is the experience of Sammadhi that annihilates duality. Turns out Chapter III isn't about violence at all, some would say: it's just an unusual metaphor for enlightenment.

It's not that readings like the above are stupid...it's that they're seductively stupid. It's actually fun to keep twisting and reinterpreting meanings of words to make them say whatever you want them to say.

And that's the entire problem: if one just qabalistically noodles a passage of the Book to mean what one wants the Book to mean, then what's the point of having the Book? Put another way, if one is simply going to keep one's original values (for example, valuing compassion or selflessness as inherently good things) and twist the Book to support those values, then the Book is completely meaningless. One might as well just discard it and just stick with those original values.

We might term Thelema a "system of development" (it's actually a system of de-development, of removing false ideas that surround one's True Self): if that's the case, then just sticking with ideas that one has always held to be true -- without bothering to challenge them -- is the antithesis of Thelema. And using twisty interpretations of the Book of the Law to affirm one's already-existing values (instead of attacking them) simply uses "Thelema" as an excuse to solidify these convictions.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5359
 

Best advice I ever received in connection with Liber AL is: always, always refer to the original in the handwriting of The Beast. The shapes of letters, the juxtaposition of words, crossings-out and so on - these are often significant. Oh, and one more thing, whether or not you believe in the account of the Cairo Working, when you read the manuscript, do so (preferably aloud) as if it was written at dictation speed, dictated by someone with English as a second language.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4285
 
"Los" wrote:
And yet self-proclaimed Thelemites . . .

One picks up a hint of a sneer at this point. Are you other than "self-proclaimed"?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"lashtal" wrote:
when you read the manuscript, do so (preferably aloud) as if it was written at dictation speed, dictated by someone with English as a second language.

There's lots of fun at Finnegans Wake. 😉


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5359
 
"Los" wrote:
There's lots of fun at Finnegans Wake. 😉

🙂

Actually, Los, you're right - that's another work of genius that rewards regular re-reading. Out loud!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
Topic starter  

I see you have been posting again Los.  Hello stranger!  It was beginning to feel like you and about 4 others were the only ghosts in the machine... I did think when I first saw your posting that I might have to smite & shoot you down in flames (metaphorically speaking, of course), but was agreeably & pleasantly surprised to find that it made a great deal of sense on the whole, apart from maybe your third paragraph.  Please "clarify" this OP abbreviation exactly and the general sense of your sentence as to which certain segment of Thelemite population it is you're referring to?  Other than that:

So clearly, when the text is straightforward, there's no reason not to read it in a straightforward way.
But let's not forget that it is also written and concealed, and there is also "the half" and "half"...

I've seen really wild attempts to twist this particular verse into something entirely different...
I bet you have!  All very entertaining, no doubt...

And since he will deal "hardly" (i.e. "hardly at all")
Thank you for pointing this distinction out; it saved me the the trouble as I'd thought of doing that as well.

The tao has intuited that I skip my own remark on III.3 for the time being and go straight on to verses 4 to 8.  Please find my observations as follows:

"Choose ye an island." (v.4)
Select a vehicle in which to Incarnate as a Microcosm.

"Fortify it" (v.5)
Establish an Ego/Ruach with the Four Neurological Circuits [see Leary or Wilson]

"Dung it about with enginery of war!" (v.6)
= The defence (/attack) mechanism of the survival urges and a [Reichian] character armour as an unavoidable 'break' or excrement of spiritual energy

"I will give you a war-engine" (v.7)
Augmented by Thelema as a superior means of Accomplishment.

"With it ye shall smite the peoples, and none shall stand before you (v.8)
= peoples as undisciplined mentation activity in the Ruach, none is the Unmanifest, or resolution of 2=0, as is smite in terms of "rectify balance"

This is probably enough to be going on with for now.  Back to your posting, Los!

This is quickly expanding beyond the scope of an "introduction." If you're interested in discussing some aspect of the Book of the Law, it might be best to start a thread on it.
As Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman in that most wonderful film Man On The Moon remarks to his prospective audience when about to read "The Great Gatsby" at - not to - them in full: "There is a lot to do people, and a long way to go before the dawn" (or something like that: I am paraphrasing/ adapting).  I have EVERY INTENTION of going through the whole of the third chapter in time for the winter Solstice - I also want to discuss the Gnostic Mass as well for christmas, if there's time (another joke, by the way!!)  "But seriously", I'm quite comfortable just noodling away here in Introductions till then, if that's alright with everybody.  Then I may either go through a Period Of Silence (for the yuletide hols with the family & all that sort of stuff), or may try to organise these various threads a bit more coherently for everyone's easy reference in the future.  In fact, I have

A Modest Proposal[/align:1yaojoui]
I am not really intending to go through each of the verses of the third chapter - that would take too long, and everyone would get tired of my "voice" long before the end - but would it not be valuable to organise a forum, divided into say 75 sub-forums or threads, maybe one for each verse, to which we could all contribute our bon pensees?  If space and demand allows, we could then do the same thing for Chapters One and Two as well.  The words of the Prophet would of course be written on the subway walls, I mean, take precedence in any manner of interpretation where applicable.  Maybe Paul could advise in due course if this is feazible?
I had contemplated this arrangement with "the company of heaven" with the Forum actually taking place in pubs or whatever (as many magic groups carry on doing today) discussing a few verses at a time - but now there are more than enough activities taking place on this basis, & time is ever at a premium.  The other possibility I thought of, such as a magazine talking post, has now been superceded by the internet.  So how about holding it here?  We could even talismanically call it "the centre of pestilence", the reasons why for which won't need going into at this moment but may be apparent (and I think Paul may already be aware) & so that as many Thelemites as possible are aware of it.

N.B. I will try next week to upload my Will & The Wisp, Black and Blue Magick, and the full contents of The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O. so that everybody who wants to has the chance to read them free of charge {Don't panic, Paul - I am aware of all the Guidelines!  I was referring to the "Contents" page only, which should not present any problems with "the law"...}.

By the way, with regard to the dictation speed of The Book of the Law, it has always surprised me how it took between 12 o'clock and 1 to read each one of the 3 chapters.  Perhaps Aiwass speeded up his pace a bit with the 3rd (longer) one?!

may the mome raths outgrabe,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
THE COMMENT.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.

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.

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


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7104
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
it has always surprised me how it took between 12 o'clock and 1 to read each one of the 3 chapters.  Perhaps Aiwass speeded up his pace a bit with the 3rd (longer) one?!

Read? Each chapter was written in one hour.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: