1st of April...or 8...
 
Notifications
Clear all

1st of April...or 8th of April???

Page 1 / 3

 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Was the reception of Liber Al vel Legis on 1st of April...or 8th of April???
I personally think it was the 8th, even though some beg to differ, especially with some of the Equinox of the Gods 'mis-printings' of that date...

Well, which one does the Lashtal gang choose?
please vote for your pick!


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

My best proof for the date being the 8th is the fact that it is 22 days from the Equinox, so taking the Tarot 22 keys backwards it ends very nicely with the High Priestess (Nuit) as April 8th, The Magus (Hadit) as April 9th and The Fool (Horus) for the 10th.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Of what year?

How is the cute tarot game "proof" of anything other than confirmation bias?

If you're asking facts, I have no idea and don't particularly care.

If you're asking annunciation myth, we have it in the author's own words how that myth goes.

Although April 1st does have obvious resonances...

Regards
N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Some tidbits to be found here, some true, some false, one may investigate upon these hints further, especially in the correspondences of Frater Achad after AC's death wherein he discusses this I believe with Gerald Yorke. See also the Gordon Press edition of The Equinox of the Gods for the April 1st account which was a direct reprint not misprint, although it was corrected later by certain individuals...

http://www.astronargon.us/Holy%20Conundrum!.html


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 489
 

My best proof for the April 8th date is that the rest of the Equinox of the Gods speaks as if the actual date was april 8th-10th.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Patriarch156" wrote:
My best proof for the April 8th date is that the rest of the Equinox of the Gods speaks as if the actual date was april 8th-10th.

How unfathomably rigorous, objective, scientific, and truth-seeking of you.

That's like saying that the best proof that the Bible is literally true is because its authors say it is. Or that the best proof the World is five thousand years old is because the Bible says it is. And so on.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 489
 
"Noctifer" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
My best proof for the April 8th date is that the rest of the Equinox of the Gods speaks as if the actual date was april 8th-10th.

How unfathomably rigorous, objective, scientific, and truth-seeking of you.

That's like saying that the best proof that the Bible is literally true is because its authors say it is. Or that the best proof the World is five thousand years old is because the Bible says it is. And so on.

No, rather it is indicative that the april first is a typo since it is the only of several instances describing the reception of AL that dates it to that date. The fact that that particular part of the text in question was adapted from Temple of Solomon the King where again the date is given as usual serves as further corrobarative evidence. When in addition to this fact that the typescript for the Equinox of the Gods has the right date it seals the deal.

Because what does the April First believers have? A single statement in a book which otherwise contradicts this very date several times in the same book where it appears. That the original version of it (Temple of Solomon the King) and the typescript has a different date makes the most likely conclusion that this is a typo.

But if you would rather believe that not only the original version but also the typescript and all the other datings in the same book where this typo appears are the typos, be my guest, but you certainly have some odd views of what constitutes research.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
My best proof for the April 8th date is that the rest of the Equinox of the Gods speaks as if the actual date was april 8th-10th.

How unfathomably rigorous, objective, scientific, and truth-seeking of you.

That's like saying that the best proof that the Bible is literally true is because its authors say it is. Or that the best proof the World is five thousand years old is because the Bible says it is. And so on.

No, rather it is indicative that the april first is a typo

Whether or not it was a typo - and I do not assert that it was or wasn't, I actually don't care - , it has no bearing on the question of whether the intended text was factual or simply what Crowley wished to be published, which is at least part of what is being discussed.

Two issues:

1. Whether Crowley intended that mention of April First to be published
(you say no; I say that I don't know nor do I care, but it's both possible and unlikely, as well as possibly "Freudian")

2. What happened in historic, literal reality - regardless of what Crowley intended to be published (you say that if Crowley wanted it published it must be true; I say I don't know, nor do I care particularly which date is factually historically correct, but I think it's certainly interesting that he would be so seemingly careless with something he placed at the foundation of his life-defining, world-changing, Aeons in the making, miracle, especially as he apparently makes no mention of it in the errata list from the 1937 reprint).

since it is the only of several instances describing the reception of AL that dates it to that date. The fact that that particular part of the text in question was adapted from Temple of Solomon the King where again the date is given as usual serves as further corrobarative evidence.

That's certainly one interpretation of the situation, but it's not "proof" of anything at all.

I'd say that the fact the text is an excerpt but he STILL saw it through to publication in the form which we are discussing - spelt out in full - perhaps points to possibilities as well. None of which I particularly care about, by the way. Just so that's clear. It may not, but it may.

Who knows? You don't, whatever your speculations, and neither do I. But it's interesting to talk about it, I think. It's certainly more interesting than saying "Crowley said it, I believe it, that settles it" which is effectively what you did above.

Hence my bible-thumper analogy, which it reminds me of.

When in addition to this fact that the typescript for the Equinox of the Gods has the right date it seals the deal.

When in addition to the fact that, and I quote,

"Kenneth Grant" wrote:
although re-issued in 1937, the book contained an extensive errata list which did not mention the April first date. It is inconceivable that it would have passed unnoticed by Crowley a second time had the date been erroneous".

, it points to the intention to retain it, if any such conclusions are to be drawn.

Because what does the April First believers have? A single statement in a book which otherwise contradicts this very date several times in the same book where it appears. That the original version of it (Temple of Solomon the King) and the typescript has a different date makes the most likely conclusion that this is a typo.

Yeah, I type the letters f-i-r-s-t by mistake when I really meant to type "e-i-g-h-t-h" or "8th". It's easily done.

Just kidding.

But if you would rather believe that not only the original version but also the typescript and all the other datings in the same book where this typo appears are the typos, be my guest, but you certainly have some odd views of what constitutes research.

Pat, I'm not the "True Believer" in anything at all. I don't "rather believe" anything - as I have repeatedly stated. I have precisely zero investments either way, of any kind. Neither one, nor the other, really makes any difference to any aspect of my life, my property, my income, my social intercourse, my feelings of self-worth, my spiritual state, my Cult, or my book collection. I'm simply curious and intrigued by the anomalies.

If you on the other hand would rather believe automatically in the literal veracity (intentional or otherwise!) of every single thing Crowley ever said, because he said it, then congratulations. That's what his teachings stand for, after all. Isn't it. ISN'T IT, Patriarch.

Kind regards
N.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 489
 

Noctifer, I am not aware of having ever stated that I "would rather believe automatically in the literal veracity (intentional or otherwise!) of every single thing Crowley ever said, because he said it" but I note the hostile tone and baseless accusations. As such I won't trouble you with any more responses when you respond to me in the future.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Patriarch156" wrote:
My best proof for the April 8th date is that the rest of the Equinox of the Gods speaks as if the actual date was april 8th-10th.

That's what you said.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 489
 
"Noctifer" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
My best proof for the April 8th date is that the rest of the Equinox of the Gods speaks as if the actual date was april 8th-10th.

That's what you said.

Since you are bringing up my own words I suppose I am forced to break my own declaration above: I suggest that you compare the above with your own assertion. As I have pointed out the reason for writing the above was that it is an indication that it is a typo since the rest of the book where this claim appears designates the ordinary dates. This is not a declaration under any reasonable interpretation that I am willing to "believe automatically in the literal veracity (intentional or otherwise!) of every single thing Crowley ever said, because he said it." Particularly after I explained my reasoning which under no circumstance declares that I am willing to believe in the literal veracity in anything just because Crowley said it.

The fact that I pointed out the problem of there being two different dates given within the same book should be enough to show you both the impossibility of that and the fact that I acknowledge that such a thing is impossible.

Be that as it may. Hopefully we can ignore each other in the future.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

No, that would be a shame, I think.

The thread is about whether April 8th is:

1. the historically accurate date (irrespective of Crowley's publishing intentions); and
2. the only date intended to be published by Crowley (out of a plausible selection of two)

as the date for the "reception" of Liber Al.

So far, Pat, you've said, possibly in jest, that "My best proof for the April 8th date is that the rest of the Equinox of the Gods speaks as if the actual date was april 8th-10th."

I apologise for my slightly intense - yes, even hostile -critique of this remark, which was provoked by the interpretation of it which I have outlined above. I will try to be kinder. I was not only thinking of "proof" of Crowley's publishing intention, but also of "proof" of the actual date of the reception. They're two different questions, as I have indicated above, and both are part of the question of this thread. At least to me they are.

Especially given the fact that (for the tenth time in this thread) Crowley didn't mention the April First issue on the errata list for the 1937 reprint.

It's possible, for example, that Crowley is actually far more brilliant and subtle than any of us give him credit for.

Best regards
N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Noctifer,
in the immortal words spoken in the 1981 movie "Stripes:"

"Lighten up, Francis..."


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 450
 

Okay, can somebody explain to us uninitiated into the mystery what is this whole conspiracy about? So the claim is that Liber Legis was written down 1-3 of April 1904 instead of 8-10 April 1904, right? And this proves ... what? That the whole thing was an elaborate April Fools Day joke that lasted three days? Or ... ? And also, if April 1-3, than Achad was right about the chronology of the Aeons, but if April 8-10, then Crowley was right, right? If the former, Liber Legis is a joke, is that the idea? What the hell are you guys talking about? That Crowley's life work was based upon a joke and that he admitted it when it came to the "final reckoning" and as a consequence he put it down once in The Equinox of the Gods, which otherwise states differently? And why is April 1st of "major significance" in both Freemasonry and Thelema?


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

93,

It's all one big joke. This debate goes on for time and time again, and still continues. There are some scholars who would have all of the available materials to make some sort of a scientific theory on the matter, especially considering the technology available to the current age of man. It does not seem to be a huge interest to them, possibly due to the lack of profit such a research would yield.

The message stays the same no matter what date you put on it. True, it would be very nice if those who had access to the real information (not just internet copies) would actually perform the science and give us a scientific finding, but even if they did, this debate would continue somehow...

There are some things that go by the way-side when dealing with religion. Every once in a while a "belief" becomes accepted as a "common fact", even though it may or may not be a "scientific fact". The difference lies in pragmatism and application. The Book of the Law is a fully functional document no matter which dates it was written on. It may have more uses being written on April 8-10, and the list of these uses has continued to grow over time. Certainly, the list of uses would have grown from an April 1-3 date, but there is no guarantee the fruits of those labors would have led all of us to the same place we are in today.

Some say Jesus of Nazareth was a Pisces, which is in direct contradiction to the determination of the Council of Nicaea, that Christmas was his birthday. It has evolved to the point that even those who believe he was a Pisces still celebrate Christmas. His real Assiah birthday being specifically unknown, and with the Solstice, Hanukkah, and other Yule Tide Rites along the time of Christmas, it isn't so hard for them to have a birthday celebration on a different day than was his Assiah birthday.

It may be that Liber AL is reduced to such a nuance one day. Some genius scholars may prove that The Book of the Law was actually written on September 18-20, and that Crowley wrote it while standing upside down on his head, and writing with his toes, while Rose rode around Crowley and the table on a unicycle in a clown suit honking a little annoying horn to designate the beginning of each verse.

Would it change the message? It would certainly change a century of Qabalistic efforts, but the message overall would remain the same. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

This debate is one of the many rifts that may create 'fissures' in the years to come, if it is not decided about....kinda like the Sunni and Shiites of the Islamic faith.

Thelema is in the very beginning of a great rein, not to be diminished but exceed the expectations of the Prophet.

Also the Motta / Caliphate debate may rage into polarizing factions like Sunni/Shiite or Catholic/Protestantism....give it a hundred years but it is not going away!

Think! this is in the 1st 100 years and it is truly growing!
its important to nail down the true revelations before they get so muddled they dont matter anymore, to the dissolution of the great work.

cheers!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Irrespective of their lack of meaningful value as dates of celebration in the context of what Crowley intended, I think the true dates - if not those which he published - would certainly be something that everyone ought to be made aware of if possible. And it should certainly be possible.

Method of Science, Aim of Religion.

Let's start with the aim of Science first, and go up from there...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Note: The The Equinox of the Gods does state "it must have been on the first of April" why not state it "was on" ?

It was probably May 2

Some believe the first association between April 1 and playing tricks can be found in Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales from 1392. In “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale,” a fox tricks proud rooster Chauntecleer on syn March bigan thritty dayes and two.

Although Chaucer probably meant 32 days after March (May 2), many readers apparently misunderstood the line to mean March 32 — or April 1.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3-Mri6Gc81lLmeZt8kH29kTUmxlEG0znRVYafBS3fdh2LuBwIIg


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4222
 
"666TSAEB" wrote:
Note: The The Equinox of the Gods does state "it must have been on the first of April" why not state it "was on" ?

Crowley's published diary entries for this period are vague and incomplete. The dates for the writing seem to be his best estimate.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 915
 
"parzival" wrote:
Thelema is in the very beginning of a great rein,

profound! 🙂


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4222
 
"parzival" wrote:
This debate is one of the many rifts that may create 'fissures' in the years to come, if it is not decided about....kinda like the Sunni and Shiites of the Islamic faith.

Thelema is in the very beginning of a great rein, not to be diminished but exceed the expectations of the Prophet.

Also the Motta / Caliphate debate may rage into polarizing factions like Sunni/Shiite or Catholic/Protestantism....give it a hundred years but it is not going away!

Think! this is in the 1st 100 years and it is truly growing!
its important to nail down the true revelations before they get so muddled they dont matter anymore, to the dissolution of the great work.

cheers!

Diversity is both inevitable and welcome in my view. What are you suggesting - that we take a majority vote on whether the date of 1st April or 7th April is the "correct" one? On the lines of your trite poll, perhaps, which simply misrepresents the issue?

The whole problem is that Crowley, for whatever reason, was vague on these dates, and it is possible therefore that the dates of April 8th, 9th and 10th for the transmission of the three chapters are estimates only.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 384
 

To complicate matters even more, in her diary entry for September 28th, 1924 e.v., Leah Hirsig gives the dates for "the receipt of the Law" as "April 7, 8, 9, 1904".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

He certainly runs a tight ship, old Al.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 316
 

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

Ahhaha! and like a dog gone mad chasing it's tail...here I go!

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

if:
"...and like a 'dog' gone mad chasing it's tail...here I go!"

What does 'god' chase??? hmm...!

Our high powered microscopic world reveals the past as still blurry, but that doesnt mean reception of AL didnt happen on an exact day, and it wasnt a quantum non-local time bi-location event either!

I presume its importance may resonate astrologically?
Also Ophiuchus is 'rising' and plans to shift the calendar a bit, i wonder what the change in April's reception may reveal?

The 'supposed' New Dates:

Capricorn: Jan. 20 - Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 - March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18 - May 13
Taurus: May 13 - June 21
Gemini: June 21 - July 20
Cancer: July 20 - Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10 - Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16 - Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30 - Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23 - Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29 - Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17 - Jan. 20


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Er, let's stick to the topic shall we.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Noctifer" wrote:
Er, let's stick to the topic shall we.

Is there any proof that the post you criticized (but failed to quote) is not on topic?

Perhaps forum moderation is best left to the forum moderators...


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 316
 

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

parzival..if:
"...and like a 'dog' gone mad chasing it's tail...here I go!"

What does 'god' chase??? hmm...!

Indeed! Thank you very much! Once grasped firmly and held tightly between clenched teeth I found myself in a most unpleasant position..it is much better to be going! So as a former world famous alpha white falcon I say,"Lets Go!"
AL II:38 A feast for the three days of the writing of the Book of the Law.
The copy that I have in my possesion also has a commentary by AC which states,"This is April 8th, 9th,and 10th, the feast beginning at High Noon." In the past this has always been good enough for me but...the agent provoceteur has gotten inside the walls. Not having access to the journals, notebooks and scribblings of the Prophet and having not been there in person, I am forced to go at this with blinders on.
Not being much of an astrologer I went to my favorite online site and obtained horoscopes for April 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 9th and 10th hoping that something would jump out at me. Nothing startling...but from what I read I tend to believe the 8th, 9th and 10th.
After much thought and contemplation, that little voice in the back of my head said this..."consult the handy Lashtal Thelemic Time Converter." 12 noon April 8th, 9th and 10th 1904 +02:00. Sun in 18 degrees Aries- Moon in 25 degrees Capricorn, Sun in 19 degrees Aries-Moon in 7 degrees Aquarius, Sun in 20 degrees Aries-Moon in 19 degrees Aquarius..respectively. Am I wrong in my thinking that I should wait until the sun and moon regain these exact positions before spreading the goods out on the big table and having at it...the celebration? All being in motion instead of being firmly gripped by the tail..should the dates of celebration be the same?
Any help here would be greatly appreciated.

Love is the law, love under will.

We are the architechs of our own misfortune.


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

93,

"obscuruspaintus" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

parzival..if:
"...and like a 'dog' gone mad chasing it's tail...here I go!"

What does 'god' chase??? hmm...!

Indeed! Thank you very much! Once grasped firmly and held tightly between clenched teeth I found myself in a most unpleasant position..it is much better to be going! So as a former world famous alpha white falcon I say,"Lets Go!"
AL II:38 A feast for the three days of the writing of the Book of the Law.
The copy that I have in my possesion also has a commentary by AC which states,"This is April 8th, 9th,and 10th, the feast beginning at High Noon." In the past this has always been good enough for me but...the agent provoceteur has gotten inside the walls. Not having access to the journals, notebooks and scribblings of the Prophet and having not been there in person, I am forced to go at this with blinders on.
Not being much of an astrologer I went to my favorite online site and obtained horoscopes for April 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 9th and 10th hoping that something would jump out at me. Nothing startling...but from what I read I tend to believe the 8th, 9th and 10th.
After much thought and contemplation, that little voice in the back of my head said this..."consult the handy Lashtal Thelemic Time Converter." 12 noon April 8th, 9th and 10th 1904 +02:00. Sun in 18 degrees Aries- Moon in 25 degrees Capricorn, Sun in 19 degrees Aries-Moon in 7 degrees Aquarius, Sun in 20 degrees Aries-Moon in 19 degrees Aquarius..respectively. Am I wrong in my thinking that I should wait until the sun and moon regain these exact positions before spreading the goods out on the big table and having at it...the celebration? All being in motion instead of being firmly gripped by the tail..should the dates of celebration be the same?
Any help here would be greatly appreciated.

Love is the law, love under will.

We are the architechs of our own misfortune.

Ultimately, it's up to you. I know it sounds cliche'. I also know this is not a Buddhist website:

The Eightfold Path
1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

I also know the Dogs of Reason will bark, "That's not on topic, you idiot!" Isn't it?

For those who consider themselves Thelemites, the dates that The Book of the Law was written are indeed sacred dates. It would be similar to the Jew who knew the date Tetragrammaton made the Covenant with Abraham, or any other significant religious date. The date itself soon becomes sacred to those adherents to the doctrine. For the Thelemite, the dates April 8, 9 and 10 are indeed sacred. Those dates are special to us. The Feasts are a very important part of our celebration of Life, Light, Liberty, and Love.

As it is written:

"The Feast of the Equinox

'The Equinox of the Gods is the term used to describe the Beginning of a New Aeon, or a New Magical Formula. It should be celebrated at every Equinox, in the manner known to Neophytes of the A:.A:.. (New Comment to Liber L., Cap. II, v. 40)'

One specialized application of the Neophyte Formula which is particularly referred to the Neophyte (and, implicitly, to initiates of all higher Grades) is the Feast of the Equinox.

The Ceremony of the Feast of the Equinox serves two purposes. First, it is a ritual by which each initiate magically can unite her consciousness with that of the Sun, and attune herself thereby to a new magical current inaugurated twice annually, at the commencement of spring and autumn. Secondly, by this same ceremony is derived a Word which quintessentializes the nature of the magick current prevailing for the six months following.[...]"

- Eshelman, James A. The Mystical and Magical System of the A:.A:., 3rd Ed. College of Thelema, 2000.

Yes, certainly we are talking about the writing of the Book, and not the Equinoxes. However, every Feast is sacred in some way. These are the Feasts:

From Liber AL vel Legis:
"II;34. But ye, o my people, rise up & awake!
II;35. Let the rituals be rightly performed with joy & beauty!
II;36. There are rituals of the elements and feasts of the times.
II;37. A feast for the first night of the Prophet and his Bride!
II;38. A feast for the three days of the writing of the Book of the Law.
II;39. A feast for Tahuti and the child of the Prophet -- secret, O Prophet!
II;40. A feast for the Supreme Ritual, and a feast for the Equinox of the Gods.
II;41. A feast for fire and a feast for water; a feast for life and a greater
feast for death!
II;42. A feast every day in your hearts in the joy of my rapture!
II;43. A feast every night unto Nu, and the pleasure of uttermost delight!
II;44. Aye! feast! rejoice! there is no dread hereafter. There is the
dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu."

Each one of these Feasts is sacred, as each one is an important and integral part of the Thelemite's history and modern life. They help to shape the identity of Thelema in oneself and the world at large.

Note that the Western mind likes to think critically and categorically. Thus, we are inclined to make these feasts count in every way possible. If the Feast on April 8 shows a Scorpio moon beginning at 6:46 pm, for example, and one has a Scorpio Sun, Moon, or Rising sign, one will consider it more beneficial to begin one's April 8 Feast at 6:46pm exactly.

In analogy, we have the Sun, a large magnifying glass, and you. The common idea is that we are to walk underneath this magnifying glass on certain days, during certain times of those days, in order to get the best frying from the Sun.

This seems like a great practice. Everyone wants to get fried rightly. Only sometimes, this is done and one misses the actual point of the practice. It becomes a "snake pit" when one gets say, three Scorpio moons three years in a row on April 8, and the fourth April 8 does not yield a Scorpio moon. What now? We go nuts trying to figure out which moon is best, and perhaps even adapting our Feasts to suit it!

Let us in our analytical minds not forget that the Great Work is enlightenment. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." We take the last part, "...shall be the whole of the Law" for granted, as the English is fairly straightforward. However, many become caught up in the two key words, "Do" and "wilt". One thinks that one always must be doing this Will, and if not, one must be doing something in order to unveil that Will. After so long, it's "'Do' [...] shall be the whole of the Law".

Interestingly enough, it has been said that one can Do all of the necessary things right, from the Studentship up through Exempt Adept, and upon entering the Abyss, one may still miss the bus and be cast away. What does this mean? Should we not adhere to those sacred days, and sacred times, for fear of failure and sorrow at the possibility we won't make it? Of course not. It means that one must indeed Do, but the Will is the ever-important fulcrum.

As it is said in Liber LXV Chapter I:

41. (The scribe was wroth thereat. He spake:
O Adonai and my master, I have borne the inkhorn and the pen without pay, in order that I might search this river of Amrit, and sail thereon as one of ye. This I demand for my fee, that I partake of the echo of your kisses.)
42. (And immediately it was granted unto him.)
43. (Nay; but not therewith was he content. By an infinite abasement unto shame did he strive. Then a voice:)
44. Thou strivest ever; even in thy yielding thou strivest to yield—and lo! thou yieldest not.
45. Go thou unto the outermost places and subdue all things.
46. Subdue thy fear and thy disgust. Then—yield!
47. There was a maiden that strayed among the corn, and sighed; then grew a new birth, a narcissus, and therein she forgot her sighing and her loneliness.
48. Even instantly rode Hades heavily upon her, and ravished her away.
49. (Then the scribe knew the narcissus in his heart; but because it came not to his lips, therefore was he shamed and spake no more.)"

In our Going, we sometimes forget to yield. The wheels get turning, and it becomes imperative that we continue onward. But what continues onward? The identity, the illusion of the self, the image. And by grasping at one thing or the next, whether it is childhood pleasures, adult habits, or ritual correspondences, we continue to grasp and add these nuances to our total experience, to the total experience of the maya. We are plugged in to one thing or another, and suddenly the Scorpio moon is more relevant to the April 8 Feast than the April 8 Feast! The Book of the Law only says to Feast for the three days of the writing, whatever those days may be or may have been.

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."
- The 14th Dalai Lama, New York Times, December 2005.

Likewise, if science proves the Book of the Law was written on April 1, 2, and 3, then Thelema will have to change. In this change is stability. All we have to 'do' is yield.

It wouldn't be so bad if the Book was written on April 1, Fool's Day. Is Hadit not the Juggler?

Liber Ararita, VII:13.
"That returned unto One, and beyond One, even unto the vision of the Fool in his folly that chanted the word Ararita, and beyond the Word and the Fool; yea, beyond the Word and the Fool."

Even if the constellations realigned, and the Feast was then in the House of Virgo, it would remain the same.

The Book of the Law, II:44.
"Aye! feast! rejoice! there is no dread hereafter. There is the dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu."

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"666TSAEB" wrote:
See also the Gordon Press edition of The Equinox of the Gods for the April 1st account which was a direct reprint not misprint, although it was corrected later by certain individuals…

I wish I could, that edition is going for $250 a copy (if you can locate one).

As anyone who has read David Allen Hulse's 3-booklet series "Genesis of the Book of the Law" can tell you, the points made here about conflicting dates barely scratch the surface of the various anomalies concerning when (and if) The Book Of The Law was communicated, and by whom it was written-- in 1906, for example, Crowley claimed Liber L (as it was originally called) was written "by another."

Hulse brings up many questions. I don't always agree with many of his answers to them, but each of us ought to ask these questions ourselves, and see what answers we can come up with that have resonance within our own reality tunnels. There's a concentrated effort to Catholicize Thelema these days, and Uncle Al played his cards close to his vest on many of these seeming contradictions in his accounts, which makes his (and others) accounts come into question. We may never know the answers to these questions, and I wish *someone* besides Mr. Hulse would attempt to answer them with a bit of historic research-- but *every* Crowley biography prior to "Secret Agent 666" is in need of a re-write, given what we now know of Crowley's activities as an Intelligence Operative.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 501
 
"Walterfive" wrote:
I wish I could, that edition is going for $250 a copy (if you can locate one).

I think the book bubble has burst. There is a Germer edition for $170 for auction (usual place) at the moment and a Brock on Abe for $82

The Gordon Press is probably only being mentioned because it's 'uncorrected', it's not very special otherwise.

OK


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 86
 

I have to say that it really does not matter to me. The book was written, and the ideology put forward. Crowley obviously didn't care what people around him thought. He knew how ignorant and stupid they were... and still are. I believe he was thinking about people in the future who might have looked at the whole thing from the vantage point of history.

We know that in strictly literal terms, the apocalypse did not happen in 1904. No second coming, or baptism by fire, or nothin'! I think Crowley was wayyy ahead of the curve, knowing damn well that there wasn't going to be an apocalypse like that. Not then, and not ever.

Why should there be? Does any one here actually believe in the literal word of the bible? The whole thing is essentially made up! and what about the new testament? A character appears, fulfills the "law", and (voila!) a new religion is made.

Any one who knows the historical roots of christianity (and the political history of the region), should already know how convenient it was to introduce a character that fulfilled all the old laws and prophecies. This is one of the central pillars of christian dogma! How many people still literally believe this "history" today? Living in Crowley's time, it was almost unthinkable that someone would question the bible.

Although many people fear him today, and still associate him with satan, there are few (besides thelemites) who actually would consider him the beast from revelation. Nor would they concede that the apocalypse happened.

Recently I was thinking about this last book of the bible. Like all the rest, people are expected to take it literally, but unlike the rest, it does not describe something in the past.... but rather the future. So, knowing that the whole book should probably be taken metaphorically, what can we get from going back and looking at it the way Crowley might have? i.e. symbolically.

To me the book of revelation describes an initiation. The rapture is not this impending thing happening at some point in time, but something that begins when the "aspirtant" realizes that the whole of christianity is in fact metaphorical or "gnostic" or whatever. The descriptions and symbolism in the book describe the gates or thresholds you pass, ultimately culminating in a reappearance of the light which was your guiding principal to begin with. Then, a resurrection, or rebirth occurs in consciousness.

I say "reappearance of the light...", where most people would think "second coming" because I don't believe jesus ever existed... in the end the "aspirant" will realize he never did, and that it doesn't matter... the symbol of what he was supposed to represent has reappeared and you are re-born either way.

This may be wrong, and certainly my own opinion (and not Crowley's) but these are some of my very simplified musings on the subject... if you've been reading wondering if I'd ever get to the point, then it's time to reward you!

IMO, whether Crowley "made up" the story or not is irrelevant. If he did, it wasn't for your benefit, but someone 600 years from now. I am not saying that he wasn't in touch with some very cosmic forces, or that he didn't feel that he had all the authority in the universe to do so. It seems though, that he took it into his hands to settle the issue by conveniently "fulfilling" a few prophecies that might have been in the way. He even provided for a "second coming" of principles that get reworked for new aeon mentality.

The book of the law, and Thelema, is a synthesis. At present I believe it to be the most concise, the most exact, and the most satisfactory (spiritually, intellectually or otherwise) system/book ever conceived (or received). Whether you believe it to be a fabrication, or a revelation is for the individual to decide. Whether channeled through transpersonal authority, or crafted slowly and subtly, it contains an synthesis of ideas so exact, as to convince me of it's efficacy.

The last religion (cult) I was a part of also has it's own modern day prophet... it comes complete with a book that he "found" too! .....can any one guess which one I'm talking about? I left because the whole thing was BS! and not just a little bit, but a whole lot!

Ironically, I am not bothered at all by possible evidence showing Crowley may have made it up. I sure hope it catches on more in the future. As far as I'm concerned, he was the beast! Lets move on to the new aeon already!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Well put. I've never associated the Book with the Bible I must say, (though obviously Crowley identified as Beast, I mean I don't associate AL with an Apocalypse as such)but I agree the point is in the content and intent, as well as context (and, if there's such a thing, the "intext" too, for the sake of completeness 😀 ).

That said, the facts are worth knowing, particularly where they contradict the official line that has been put forward.

From memory, Crowley himself refers to the tale as a "Marvel-Story", quoted private correspondence in AC& The Hidden God.

For me it's good to have the facts as well as a Romance to pursue, particularly as Truth has a place in these matters, and the entire point of much of his teaching was relentless insistence on rigorous honesty and not accepting anyone's word on face value, especially his.

Best regards
n


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Walterfive" wrote:
"666TSAEB" wrote:
See also the Gordon Press edition of The Equinox of the Gods for the April 1st account which was a direct reprint not misprint, although it was corrected later by certain individuals…

I wish I could, that edition is going for $250 a copy (if you can locate one).

As anyone who has read David Allen Hulse's 3-booklet series "Genesis of the Book of the Law" can tell you, the points made here about conflicting dates barely scratch the surface of the various anomalies concerning when (and if) The Book Of The Law was communicated, and by whom it was written-- in 1906, for example, Crowley claimed Liber L (as it was originally called) was written "by another."

Hulse brings up many questions. I don't always agree with many of his answers to them, but each of us ought to ask these questions ourselves, and see what answers we can come up with that have resonance within our own reality tunnels. There's a concentrated effort to Catholicize Thelema these days, and Uncle Al played his cards close to his vest on many of these seeming contradictions in his accounts, which makes his (and others) accounts come into question. We may never know the answers to these questions, and I wish *someone* besides Mr. Hulse would attempt to answer them with a bit of historic research-- but *every* Crowley biography prior to "Secret Agent 666" is in need of a re-write, given what we now know of Crowley's activities as an Intelligence Operative.

That's a shame, it used to be here at a reasonable price:

http://www.runforcoverbooks.com/?CLSN_689=1301988609689069b9ffd381c87c95e6&keyword=crowley&searchby=author&page=shop%2Fbrowse&fsb=1&Search=Search


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 

Yeah, I got Gordon Press editions of "Tannhauser" and "Sword of Song" from them last year, for under $15.00 apiece. I buy Gordon Press books with some caution though-- many of those individual volumes only contain 20-30 pages of text/poetry and have an abundance of blank pages that make up the rest of the book. Frankly, I've never been too enamoured of the Gordon Press editions, I don't really know why.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 2042
 
"Walterfive" wrote:
Frankly, I've never been too enamoured of the Gordon Press editions, I don't really know why.

It's probably because they are mainly facsimiles of one single copy of the "Collected Works" with all its inconveniences like the double-row texts and so on. Then Gordon made a hardcover book out of each work. Pieces like Tannhäuser (originally 142 pages) had to be quite short (30 pages) in the Works edition due to the "Collected" part, or else the volume would have had thousands of pages. Then there is something like a 48 pages minimum for hardcover books which leaves a lot of empty pages for the shorter pieces. On the other hand they also had nice facsimiles like the Equinox of the Gods or Diary of a Drug Fiend.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"Noctifer" wrote:
Well put. I've never associated the Book with the Bible I must say, (though obviously Crowley identified as Beast, I mean I don't associate AL with an Apocalypse as such)but I agree the point is in the content and intent, as well as context (and, if there's such a thing, the "intext" too, for the sake of completeness 😀 ).

Well, I'm going to go out on an unpopular limb here, but as some of this relates to matters revealed to me by my Holy Guardian Angel, I'll speak up, and hope that some of you have ears to hear.

Personally, I see a lot of association with the Revelation of St. John of Patmos: not only is his book to the Aeon of Osiris what Liber Al Vel Legis is to the Aeon of Horus, but I highly suggest examining its 22 Chapters in connection with the 22 Trumps of the Major Arcana, most Students find this exercise quite instructive: the order of the first half may seem a little out of order, but the correspondences in the latter half are clear as an unmuddied brook. (Of course, I needn't point out that there have been several different arrangements of the order of the cards of the Greater Arcana over the last 400+ years or so of the history of the Tarot Cards as we know them-- perhaps the order indicated by the Revelation of St. John of Patmos was the order of the Major Arcana at the time.)

And the more I read about Gnostic Sects such as the Ebionites, in the Panarion of Epiphaneus, the more relation I see in many of the Holy Books, The Gnostic Mass, and various of the "secret instructions" given to the 8th, and 9th Degrees by Baphomet X'.

St. John's vision in the Apocalypse of John was a True Vision, but he was unable to understand that his vision was not the end of the world, merely the end of his then new Aeon-- Babalon and the Beast are the creative and generative forces of Chaos that needs must create the Chaos out of which the new Order of the Aeon of Horus can be born. This is the Chaos into which we have been born, and friends, it's been a difficult delivery so far. Living in the midst of it all, as we do, it's hard to see the forest for all the damned trees in the way! In the last 100 years we've seen advancements in technology, social planning, medicine, engineering, and scientific theory that has changed the world more in this century than in the 48-50 centuries preceeding it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Walterfive" wrote:
(Of course, I needn't point out that there have been several different arrangements of the order of the cards of the Greater Arcana over the last 400+ years or so of the history of the Tarot Cards as we know them-- perhaps the order indicated by the Revelation of St. John of Patmos was the order of the Major Arcana at the time.)

What evidence do you have that the tarot existed 1400 or whatever years before when we traditionally think of it having come into existence?

If the 22 chapters relate to anything it's going to be the Hebrew alphabet, not a non-existent tarot.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"graspee" wrote:
If the 22 chapters relate to anything it's going to be the Hebrew alphabet, not a non-existent tarot.

An how much of that Hebrew alphabet ended up becoming the Tarot trumps?

I'm sure its not related in any way...


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2957
 

Time is an illusion engendered by physical manifestation. The Book of the Law was received at all times and no times. So your poll should have an option to say that they are both correct dates and also that their correctness is utterly unimportant. Its the fact that it was finally manifested for us meatbags to read that is the most important thing.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"graspee" wrote:
[What evidence do you have that the tarot existed 1400 or whatever years before when we traditionally think of it having come into existence?

There's that damned dog of reason. 'Evidence?' You expect me to pull a 2000 year old Tarot Card out of a Magick Hat? One of the more profound Adepts of the 20th Century, Paul Foster Case brought this postulation forward well over 50 years ago. He claimed that this showed that John of Patmos was an Adept, perhaps even a Magus. The similarities of the images in the Major Arcana to images in each chapter are impossible to deny, if you have any honest ability whatsoever to look at the matter with a balanced perspective.

"graspee" wrote:
[If the 22 chapters relate to anything it's going to be the Hebrew alphabet, not a non-existent tarot.

And why would you presume that, when the book was written in Koine Greek (to make a point, that is to say, NOT Aramaic Hebrew)? He may have been a Presbyter, that is to say recognized as a Priest or Monk in the seven Christian Churches he addressed in his apokalupsis but nobody that I'm aware of has ever identified St. John of Patmos as any sort of Rabbi. Furthermore, there are at least 24 letters in the Koine Greek Alphabet, not 22. But the 22 Archetypes that make up the Tarot can be found to more or less directly correspond to the Chapters of the Book of the Seven Seals, especially in the latter half-- no *way* this is coincidence..

This puts some sort of "Secret Doctrine" or "Authentic Tradition" 700 years before the Qabala was allegedly codified by Rabbi Isaac The Blind in The Book of Bahir in 13th Century Moorish-occupied Seville. Furthermore an incorporation of the descriptions of the chapters of Revelations are found in some the design of the earliest Tarot cards. Certain paper watermarks found in 14th century Manuscripts are also very suggestive, see Margaret Starbird's "The Tarot Trumps and The Holy Grail" and Cynthia Giles makes a similar point regarding a possible hidden link between Gnostic material and the Tarot cards in her book "The Tarot" published in 1991.

So please, check the references I have cited, and spend and hour or two *actually* doing the work of reading the the Apocalypse of St. John and comparing them chapter by chapter to the Major Arcana, take some notes, and see for yourself, instead of trying to ask clever questions that you could answer for yourself with a minimum of time and effort on your behalf. Five minutes (or less) of research would have told you the Book of Revelations was written in Koine, and not Aramaic Hebrew.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Walterfive" wrote:
Five minutes (or less) of research would have told you the Book of Revelations was written in Koine, and not Aramaic Hebrew.

I know the New Testament is written in Greek not Hebrew. I said "if anything" the chapters would be related to Hebrew letters, not Tarot simply because tarot didn't exist then and Hebrew letters did.

I don't see why it matters what language it was written in anyway, you could still think he had knowledge of Ancient Wisdom (tm) regarding Hebrew letters. I don't, but it would certainly be less of a stretch than thinking he was in touch with knowledge of the tarot, which didn't exist then, and even when it first existed was used as a game not anything occult.

If you actually read your argument it makes no sense. Read especially the part when you are going on about John not being a Rabbi etc. then all of a sudden you say "Furthermore, there are at least 24 letters in the Koine Greek Alphabet, not 22." This is just out of nowhere and meaningless to the discussion.

The rest of your argument makes little sense either. You argue that the link between the major arcana and the chapters of Revelation is "impossible to deny". I have looked at them, and I'm denying it. If you want to post a more lengthy comparison of a few chapters with tarot cards, showing how they match up then I will consider it.

Even if the chapters did match up to the major arcana it is not as you would claim, evidence that the tarot existed back when Revelations was written. Did you ever stop to think that maybe when early-thing-A and later-thing-B resemble each other it's because people based B on A rather than "B existed earlier than we thought!"

Because of your flawed logic and meaningless criticisms of my points, and especially your whole Dan Brownesque enthusiasm for "hidden currents of knowledge" and so forth, I won't respond further to you unless you want to post some comparisons of chapters of Revelations with major arcana.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I want to add that it's annoying that people place so much emphasis on Revelations simply because it got included in "The Bible". There is a vast body of apocalyptic writing which survives that hardly anyone takes a second glance at just because it's not in the bible. It seems a bit odd that the sort of people who want to believe that secret teachings have survived, hidden, down the centuries seem to restrict themselves to looking at what's right under their nose.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"graspee" wrote:
I want to add that it's annoying that people place so much emphasis on Revelations simply because it got included in "The Bible". There is a vast body of apocalyptic writing which survives that hardly anyone takes a second glance at just because it's not in the bible. It seems a bit odd that the sort of people who want to believe that secret teachings have survived, hidden, down the centuries seem to restrict themselves to looking at what's right under their nose.

Some disturbing data here:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

I know, way off topic and the Feast Days are near, but...

`


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 86
 
"graspee" wrote:
I want to add that it's annoying that people place so much emphasis on Revelations simply because it got included in "The Bible". There is a vast body of apocalyptic writing which survives that hardly anyone takes a second glance at just because it's not in the bible. It seems a bit odd that the sort of people who want to believe that secret teachings have survived, hidden, down the centuries seem to restrict themselves to looking at what's right under their nose.

Graspee, while I agree that it is important to separate fact from fiction/fantasy, it is also important when examining the present subject, to consider the world view at the time Aleister Crowley was alive... particularly, what his own views might have been regarding tarot, or revalation or anything like that.

I enjoyed what walterfive had to say about it... when I was trying to comment earlier, I was having a hard time articulating what I was wanting to say.

I'm not holding out hope for an actual Armageddon, and I can appreciate Crowley's sense of humor.

Whether transmitted by praeternatural inteligence, or filtered through his own unconscious self, thelema reflects a profound change in our evolution consciousness at the current time. This issue doesn't set of any crisis of conscience for me, because it's something I observe to be true regardless. They might very well have been his own words, but something bigger was speaking through the man.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"graspee" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
Five minutes (or less) of research would have told you the Book of Revelations was written in Koine, and not Aramaic Hebrew.
"graspee" wrote:
I know the New Testament is written in Greek not Hebrew. I said "if anything" the chapters would be related to Hebrew letters, not Tarot simply because tarot didn't exist then and Hebrew letters did.

Koine Greek. If you want to agrue stupid technicalities, then you'll have to be more specific. Ah, and you're going to prove this negative (that the Tarot did not exist)*how?* All you can really show is that there are no existing examples of such cards before the 15th Century. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, or couldn't have existed. The imagery already existed-- in the 22 Chapters of the Book of Revelations, a book approximately 1500 years preceeding the first *known* Tarocchi deck. You think it unlikely that someone illustrated those 22 chapters at some point in the 15 freakin' centuries before the Italians started using playing cards for parlour games? Okay. *I* think it unlikely that you'd acknowlege a single point to me if I used it to poke your eye out. 🙄 I DID preface my original post: "Well, I'm going to go out on an unpopular limb here, but as some of this relates to matters revealed to me by my Holy Guardian Angel, I'll speak up, and hope that some of you have ears to hear."

Why don't you share a little with us about what your Holy Guardian Angel has communicated to *you*?

"graspee" wrote:
I don't see why it matters what language it was written in anyway.

Is this why the significance of 22 cards and 22 chapters is lost upon you? Because the 24 letters of Koine Greek don't tally to the 22 Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet? Gnosticism came from the Greeks, not the Roman-ruled Palestinians.

"graspee" wrote:
you could still think he had knowledge of Ancient Wisdom (tm) regarding Hebrew letters. I don't, but it would certainly be less of a stretch than thinking he was in touch with knowledge of the tarot, which didn't exist then, and even when it first existed was used as a game not anything occult.

That's one theory. However Scholars know that a set of rules describing the game pre-exists by several decades any of the incomplete surviving decks. So there were decks in existance previous to the few that have incompletely survived. How previous? Who can say? And who can say their origins? Or their age? Certainly not you.

"graspee" wrote:
If you actually read your argument it makes no sense.

If you actually did the exercise I suggested --with an open mind-- and took an hour or two to compare the 22 Major Arcana of a few Tarot Decks of the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries to the 22 Chapters of the Book of Revelations it would make a lot of sense. But you're too busy arguing semantics and trying to "win" in a discussion of Mysticism that has no winners or losers.

"graspee" wrote:
Read especially the part when you are going on about John not being a Rabbi etc. then all of a sudden you say "Furthermore, there are at least 24 letters in the Koine Greek Alphabet, not 22." This is just out of nowhere and meaningless to the discussion.

No, it was merely my getting ahead of myself-- I only type 60-70 words per minute, but my mind often races rather ahead of my fingers. If you couldn't figure out that I was connecting the 22 chapters of Revelation with the 22 Cards of the Tarot but *not* the 22 letters of Hebrew/Aramaic alphabet, because the writer's native tongue was Koine Greek, and it's 24 letters have completely different numerological values, my bad-- see (if/when you can) the Equinox Vol. III No. 2, or any other volume on Greek Gematria.

"graspee" wrote:
The rest of your argument makes little sense either. You argue that the link between the major arcana and the chapters of Revelation is "impossible to deny". I have looked at them, and I'm denying it. If you want to post a more lengthy comparison of a few chapters with tarot cards, showing how they match up then I will consider it.

And do your work for you? Bugger that! You won't appreciate it if you don't work it out for yourself. Don't mistake the map for the territory. If you can't figure out for yourself how the 22 cards of (say) the Marseilles Deck's Major Arcana can correspond to the 22 Chapters of the Book of Revelations, ask Vana if you can buy a vowel, because you obviously haven't a clue.

"graspee" wrote:
Because of your flawed logic and meaningless criticisms of my points, and especially your whole Dan Brownesque enthusiasm for "hidden currents of knowledge" and so forth, I won't respond further to you unless you want to post some comparisons of chapters of Revelations with major arcana.

Promise? Then STFU and listen. 😀

*My* interpretations of terms like "Secret Doctrine" come from Mdm. Blavatsky's books of the same name, whereas the terms "Authentic Tradition" can be found used by T. Allen Greenfield in his "Roots Of Modern Magick" and in Jonathan Sellers "Qadosh--The Johannite Tradition." I challenge you to read them-- with an open mind. There are many threads of the "Authentic Tradition." Some of them Kenneth Grant refers to as "Cults of the Dragon" in his "Magical Revival," others may be found in "Ophiolatreia: Serpent Worship, Rites & Mysteries." Sorry if you are not so well read as to get *all* my points of reference, but one or two should be all you need to get you looking in the right direction.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"graspee" wrote:
I want to add that it's annoying that people place so much emphasis on Revelations simply because it got included in "The Bible". There is a vast body of apocalyptic writing which survives that hardly anyone takes a second glance at just because it's not in the bible. It seems a bit odd that the sort of people who want to believe that secret teachings have survived, hidden, down the centuries seem to restrict themselves to looking at what's right under their nose.

It seems a bit odd to *me* that so many so-called thelemites get their knickers in a twist when anyone brings up Christianity or any of the books of the New Testament, whining or acting like a petulant child throwing a fit because they haven't gotten their head far enough out of that Slave Religion to stop senselessly hating it. You find it "annoying?" "Tough titty" quoth the kitty. Re-read Liber Librae, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200.
(Personally, it took me almost 15 years to get my head far enough out of Christianity to look at it, and its Holy Books with any objectivity.)

Personally, I've *read* the 1980's English translation of the Nag Hammadi Codex, AND both volumes of Dr. Frank Williams English translation of "The Panarion of Epiphaneus", as well as the works of Dr. John Allegro, Dr. Elaine Pagels, and many other Gnostic scholars. I'm quite familiar with the various non-biblical apocalyptic books, but your bringing them into this conversation is a blind. They have no connection to the matter we are talking about.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5353
 

Back to the topic, please...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 480
 

Dwtw

I am partial to the traditional dates of April 8, 9, 10. They have a lot going for them from an esoteric perspective, separate from any claims of AC's in print, whether intentional or not.

First of all, they correspond to the days of Good Friday through Easter in the Orthodox church, following the Julian calendar.

This would be an excellent time to assert a magical current that is in direct contrast to Christianity.
(of course, the previous week was Roman Catholic Easter, so the argument would also apply there, but the Cairo working took place in Egypt, home of the orthodox Copts)

Secondly, the date of April 9th corresponds to the degree of the Sun's Exaltation in the 19th degree of Aries. Also, there was an exact conjunction of Mars and Mercury shortly after noon during this period.

Astrologically, this would be a propitious date for a magickal current centered on the Sun god, as well as the Star goddess, (since the Sun is a star too).

The conjunction of Mercury and Mars might be seen as the two halves of Heru-Ra-Ha -- Hoor Paar Kraat being the bringer of the Word through his minister Aiwass, and Ra Hoor Khut as the god of War and Vengeance

Thirdly, the dates begin 22 days after the initial invocation of Thoth by AC on March 17, (a day which witnessed a solar eclipse in Pisces), which was the magickal trigger for the events that followed, including the EOTG on March 20.

Assuming March 17 as Day 1, April 7 would be day 22, so you could cycle through all your Hebrew letters or Tarot trumps and start fresh on April 8, back at square 1. To me it makes more sense to start a new Aeon at the beginning, (which is just the flip side of the end).

If you were inclined to work backwards from Tau to Alef, (Tau on March 17 to Alef on April 7), then the 8th, 9th 10th would have you back at the series Tau-Shin-Resh, whose Tarot trumps seem to correspond nicely with Nuit - the Universe, Hadit - the Aeon, and Ra Hoor Khuit, the Sun.

So from the religious, astrological, cabalistic and Tarot perspectives, April 8, 9, 10 are a very potent trio of dates.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Wonderful post threefold31! Thanks for all that info!


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 3
Share: