I'm absolutely fine with that David. It is our personal complexity that demands a complex route, the simple man can get there much quicker because he is able to accept with little or no question. And it is often said a simple life is best, but how many of us live simple lives.

Stunned?  ::)  Not at all.  😮

AC's A.'.A.'. was an artificial invention. A mere appelation and indication of "the Invisible Order that hath no name."

I am above you and in you. My ecstasy is in yours. My joy is to see your joy.

There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty.

So, David, how do you feel about that and why?

93
Hamal

Exactly!

I imagine most such people are going through another mystical process, yogi's or sumfink. I don't think the higher grades come in to your life unless you make a willed effort to invoke them. That willed effort is in itself a part of natures process. Some call it evolution.

Joe Schmoe would be more than the feckless chav he started out as by the time he becomes an Ipsissimus, and I imagine he would have tried a few things along the way which may even include gathering a book collection which looks elitist to his fellow feckless chavs. 

I think the point of the quote by Crowley is that the A.'.A.'. is a way to intentionally participate in the process of evolution that is going on already.

Exactly what, exactly?

?
It’s rather curious that you should prefix your post here with this, in view of the scorn you previously heaped upon those who do:

Reply #54 by David on “Re Linguistic question” thread on requests board made on: December 07, 2013, 01:10:34 am:

Anyway, on this "93" business (but it could be a whole string of quirky devotional habits), ok, how about greeting your work-colleagues, family and everyone you meet with the "93" for the next seven days?.  Be my guest, then come back here and describe how it all went.    Then we can have a review of the matter.[…]

Reply #59 by David on “Re Linguistic question” thread on requests board on: December 07, 2013, 05:48:17 pm:

Think laterally on this subject, it may help.  Here I am with all these folk transmitting and receiving their "93.s".  Harmless enough yes but then again there's a somewhat insular and dichotomous air about it all wouldn't you say? […] Hence my suggestion, (for christ's sake why am I having to explain this?) to go OUT into THE OUTER SOCIETY, greet them with "93" and feedback the reactions (i.e. reality checks).  Now, do you feel like you're in a cult?  Maybe you wouldn't!  How does "93" aid you or anyone to do their Will?  It doesn't sit right with me.  "93" .  Call me a heathen but it seems to be a habitual nonsense, much like, "Namaste" in India has become long since outworn.
"and thou shalt greet each other with the number 93 and fear not that the people will think thee dorky or weird".

Is your intention therefore ironic, i.e., are you taking the piss out of those whom you are taking to be Thelemites upon the Lash, & therefore great liberties with their forbearing and compassionate tolerance?

Crowley said,"Many people may go through the ordeals and attain the degrees of the A.'. A.'. without ever hearing that such an Order exists. The universe is, in fact, busy with nothing else,"

I’m not doubting your word here David, but it is considered good form to please mention a source wherever possible.  It helps people to verify the accuracy of what you’re saying or alleging, don’t you know.
Also on this matter, would the italics and bold be “sic”?

Maybe this has stunned you. [...] Perhaps you can't believe that AC could say such a thing.

Whom are you addressing here - the whole Lashtal readership, without any differentiation, distinction or discrimination?  Like with fooling anybody, you are not going to succeed in “stunning” all of the Lashtalites all of the time…

After all, "ye are against the people o my chosen".

Is this like the devil quoting scripture?!  In other words, I am asking you do you accept The Book of the Law and without wanting to make any changes in it?

What he is saying

Are you another one of those people who like to “speak” for A.C.?

is that for all your elitist book collection

What is an “elitist book collection”?  One that looks askance or down its nose at inferior publications?

and specialist training

Doesn’t all training specialise in something, by its very nature?

just when you get there, well some "Joe Schmoe"

Aside from anything else, I don’t get your thread title here - why should “Joe Schmoe” (var., Shmo, Shmoe, Schmo; also cf. Joe Blow, John Doe, and the more English Joe Bloggs) be “your [my, anyone’s] Master” - even if he did “get there” months, years, decades, even minutes before?  It doesn’t follow on in any way, least of all philosophically or ahem, ‘epistemologically’…

(a deroga-tory name for man in street

Why “dero-gatory” rather than “derogatory”?  I am afraid I have rather missed the witticism (if there is one).

(presumably streets on wrong part of town,

Why is that you should presume this?

wherever that could be))

Yes, where/ whatevah!  Perhaps maybe Carey Street at number 74? (see The Book Of Lies).  Or even Skid Row?

Amazing isn't it?

No.

No robe, no temple, no yoga, no ceremony, no incense, no asana, no saucer on head, no ever heard of cabbalah, no learning medieval rituals

This is an unusual catalogue – “presumably” again, it is not in any sort of particular order of something, e.g. importance?

but he/she is/was there above you

"Above"?  The choice of this word is clearly of importance to you.

How do you feel about that and why? [My itals!]

This is my own answer to your question.  Hope you find it useful.  Gertcha cowson & 93!  ;D
N-Joy

P.S.  Just read this -

Yes, I agree with you there, nashimirion!  A very good point to make.

It's a word in the English language .  I suggest you google the dictionary definition to grasp what I meant. 

Welcome to the Academy of “Question Dodging After Requesting Feedback, Outrageous Unbacked-up Statements, Miscellaneous General Posturing and Unsupported Cynicism” (Head Teacher [and Principal culprit]: Los).

Unless/ until you succeed in resitting your qualifications, you have managed to pass out outrageously with flying colours & distinction.  Makes you feel proud, eh?

Handing out your scroll,
N Joy

An outrageous abuse of our good natures David! Either you contribute something to this forum or stop expecting others to engage with your seemingly pointless self serving statements.

93
Hamal

I'm sorry you're so supercilious, though not surprised. There was a quote from The Book of the Law, your reaction to which was "Exactly!", from which I assumed that you thought the quote validated the point you were making originally.

I've responded to you several times in these forums, with courtesy so far as I can recall, and I'm sorry that courtesy appears to be beyond you.

Why entertain this crap?  His point in his original post is valid I feel as there are many ways and some people are naturals.  Access to higher/more advanced insights may need a shove for the vast majority but this guy is not here for constructive dialogue.  Don't feed him.  Just a shit stirrer.

The OP asked, "How do you feel about that and why?"

This is an obvious OPening for a debate or a squabble. How do I know this? Well, just read the thread and you'll see for yourself. Beware the OP that states a fact or a theory and then asks for commentary.

I'm Joe Schmoe and I'll take on all comers[/align:2f97vl49]

Didn't stop you taking the bait though did it!  ;D

🙂
93
Hamal

Of course not! I'm always willing to throw a little sarcasm around.

WARNING: Thread closure coming soon.

re "exactly" etc my point was so utterly obvious that it did not warrant an explanation.  How could you even ask me what I meant by "exactly"??  Anyway "Joe Schmoe is your master" yes my take (the OP) on the matter has a humorous element but the quoted statement by Crowley is deadly serious.  People seem to be focussing on the humour and ignoring Crowley's statement that the Universe is busy with nothing but the initiation of people who have never heard of magick.  If we could cease the petty bickering and answer that question it would be nice.

My first point is Liber Legis calls us to be "against the people o my chosen" but here Crowley seems to be saying that "the people" are being initiated all over the place by Mother NU/Nature.  Please explain whether that is a contradiction or not.

Someone asked about 93. They dragged up some old post.  Boy I have stalker already.  I like 93 as a greeting now as it beats typing out Do What Thou etc etc every time.  Do I accept the law of Thelema?  One is reminded of that scene in Cool Hand Luke where Newman is battered by the warden until he says he believes in God.  Guns And Roses sampled it for the intro to "civil war"

Please provide a reference for your quote, or if not say that it is not a quote but your memory or whatever.  You are using this to bolster your point but at the moment it has no strength from the position that you are trying to present...ie as something that AC contends. 

The Confessions. 

Thanks for that pointer to a two volume work.  Not really good enough is it to enable me to go and gauge the context in which it was written?  Methinks that this would be returned to the writer with marks off for poor referencing.

Exactly!

🙂
93
Hamal

93, David, and welcome to our cult!

No, one is reminded of the everyday story of someone who complete changed his position on something in the course of one month.

I think your initial question has been answered perfectly already and just want to add that you missed an important part in your quote, which I add here in bold letters:

"Many people may go through the ordeals and attain the degrees of the A.'. A.'. without ever hearing that such an Order exists. The universe is, in fact, busy with nothing else, for the relation of the Order to it is that of the man of science to his subject." (Confessions, Chapter 68)

I guess this explains it all (though it obviously was a little exaggeration by Crowley to make his point, obviously as the universe seems to be busy with at least some things more). Thelema adopts the method of science. As Crowley writes: "This story marks a stage in my own understanding of the formula of initiation."

Of course it is not a contradiction, moreover the authors of these quotes are different entities. But Crowley comments on Aiwass' words thus and again talks about initiation:

"Still deeper, there is a meaning in this verse applicable to the process of personal initiation. By "the people" we may understand the many-headed and mutable mob which swarms in the slums of our own minds. Most men are almost entirely at the mercy of a mass of loud and violent emotions, without discipline or even organization. They sway with the mood of the moment. They lack purpose, foresight, and intelligence. They are moved by ignorant and irrational instincts, many of which affront the law of self-preservation itself, with suicidal stupidity. The moral Idea which we call "the people" is the natural enemy of good government. He who is 'chosen' by Hadit to Kingship must consequently be 'against the people' if he is to pursue any consistent policy. The massed maggots of 'love' devoured Mark Antony as they did Abelard. For this reason the first task of the Aspirant is to disarm all his thoughts, to make himself impregnably above the influence of any one of them; this he may accomplish by the methods given in Liber Aleph, Liber Jugorum, Thien Tao, and elsewhere. Secondly, he must impose absolute silence upon them, as may be done by the "Yoga" practices taught in Book 4 (Part I) Liber XVI, etc. He is then ready to analyse them, to organize them, to drill them, and so to take advantage of the properties peculiar to each one by employing its energies in the service of his imperial purpose."

So, enlightenment isn't all, taking advantage of it is what matters to the A.:.A.:. aspirant. No need to talk condescendingly about "magicians" or "book collectors" or (to summarize it) "occultists".

93 93/93

Love=Law
Lutz

Bravo Lutz! Bravo!

93
Hamal

93!

Just to be a know-it-all: it is six a volume work! But David will response soon to underline his position of:

It was a kind of self-review of his "The Ordeal of Ida Pendragon" that Crowley wrote about in the Confessions, by the way.

Love=Law
Lutz

Thanks Lutz
Yes you are a know all - but a much nicer one 🙂  I don't even own Confessions.  I just look at pictures usually.

It was probably the context of what was "exactly" that brought about your one word response. What was exact? The quote, the interpretation, the justification, the spelling? You want people to tell you "how they feel" and why, but when you're asked what you mean in a one-word reply (and what you meant was not crystal clear), you get uppity and think you're in a boxing match, or at least an arguement - and guess what? You started it, OP.

... the quoted statement by Crowley is deadly serious.

Oh now we can see why you seem to be uptight and why you're getting some oppostion. "Deadly serious" in the same post as some "humour?" Which is it?  Look, you don't seem to get the idea that it's all a game. You can get deadly serious, but it'll either get you in conflict - or slain.

Actually, nobody's going to be deadly dead if they don't take the A.'.A.'. seriously.

... Crowley's statement that the Universe is busy with nothing but the initiation of people who have never heard of magick.  If we could cease the petty bickering and answer that question it would be nice.

1. Crowley's statement: Yes this is true!  The Universe is grinding out initiates who have never heard of the Order (A.'.A.'.).

2. By the way, it's "never heard of the Order" (A.'.A.'.), not "Magick," but "Magick," as a term, also applies. Some Masters have never heard of "Magick," or AC or A.'.A.'..

3. "Petty bickering" is really your interpretation. "Subtle Admontion," or "Discriminatory Rebuttal," or "Pulling your leg or pushing your buttons because you're so open to it," and so many other terms are applicable. Why do you want to start a discussion about a statement made by AC that is so obviously true? Why should anyone feel obligated to tell you how they "feel" about it - and especially "why?"

NOTE: (Answer) I feel it (the AC statement) is true because (in response to why?) I have met initiates who are not from the Thelemic lineage/persuasion and have never heard of the "Order." "In my father's house, there are many mansions." "There are other sheep not of my flock" (that's a very rough quote). Quotes provided by the Osirian Book of Fables.

My first point is Liber Legis calls us to be "against the people o my chosen" but here Crowley seems to be saying that "the people" are being initiated all over the place by Mother NU/Nature.  Please explain whether that is a contradiction or not.

Oh poop!  Liber Legis says "Ye are against the people O my chosen." (AL II-25). Any Magus, or an agent of a Magus is against the people (the Establishment) because he/she is seeking to create change (Magick) - but the established Establishment doesn't want change and they/it will stone any Magus or his/her agents.

Also, what's this chosen crap? "Many are called, but few are Chosen," a pre-Thelemic theorum. The word chosen appears in AL exactly ten times - I just counted. Chosen should probably be the theme of another thread.

So somebody could easily "be against the people" as a cosmic change-agent, and also be aware that anyone and everyone is nontheless going through the evolutionary-initiatory mill. No contradiction here, Watson, eh?

Boy I have stalker already.

It's not paranoia if they're really after you.

[/align:1a3i71s9]

Due to the nature of the OP (post), seceral people have chosen to pick on the OP (poster) in order to get him out of deadly seriousness and into the great game of initiation. Nobody ever said it was goin' to be easy.

Thankyou Lutz.  93.  That's  a brilliant assessment of the matter.  I see how the way I wrote that title of the OP could be deemed to be provocative.  That comment ties in with what he said, in the Confessions (sorry no Chapter reference) , about the "sensual steady man" who will birth future geniuses.  (Well, with the help of his woman of course). 

Nice dualistic, terrestrial EITHER/OR backwardness there "Shiva". 

Thank you for your nonsensical reply.

PLAY ME (AUDIO)

😀
93
Hamal

“Someone”?  That was me, that was me!  (he said, excitedly).  “Stalker”?  No, just someone with a good memory for these things - it comes in useful from time to time don’tchaknow (as can be seen.  I suggest you maybe read and do “Berashith”, if you'd like to do the same!)  Furthermore, to echo Shiva's profound comment upon the matter:

Incidentally, without wanting to prolong these matters excruciatingly, can you give a simple answer as to whether you have now changed your position on “93”, and if so, what has made you do this road-to-damascus volte-face from your previously quite cynical and (so it came across to me) anti- stance ("It seems to be a habitual nonsense", in your very own words)?

Likewise, and for the benefit of those not familiar with Paul Newman’s predicament, could you again clarify here with a simple yea or nay “Exactly” where you are coming from, so that appropriate adjustments (and maybe should it warrant it, allowances) can be made accordingly.

Pretty please - with sugar and bells on, give a straight answer
N Joy

Who are you to issue us with essay questions? I suggest you Google "Netiquette" for a guide to on-line etiquette and manners. Your behavior is akin to an Internet Troll, again something else to Google.

😮
93
Hamal

93 Hamal
You know we've had our little differences but I can sense that you seem to be a wonderful person.  Am proud to share a forum with you 🙂

Aaaw that's nice! See we can all get along really.

93
🙂
Hamal

93 my brother  🙂

As a teenager when I first studied AC's books and organization I very much thought I was part of some elite, special, secluded group thereby.  This didn't help me socially I feel as it contributed to a bit of alienation, so this subject is a bit of a hobby -horse for me.  I was only made aware of it recently and initially I was amazed.  Was I projecting that y'all would be amazed also?  Yes a bit I guesse, well some of y'all anyway 🙂  Sorry if this offended.  Don't hate on me though as AC himself says it i.e. he confesses to falling into this very same pit also! 🙂 

Anyway if you consider that Thelema is for all and " the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers! " then I humbly ask you, you've known many magickally clueless keen and proud, royal and lofty people in  your life have you not?  Well, our good book tells us that they are our brothers.  Does that make sense my good sisters and brothers?  🙂

Yes indeed the Law is for all.  And I certainly do not regard myself as particularly special etc etc.  Just yesterday I picked up Gerald Del Campo's book "The Heretic's Guide to Thelema Vol 2 & 3".  At the very back of this book he talks of having traded barbs with a guy who clearly had had a lot of 'occult', 'esoteric' experience who become a Catholic priest.  His name is (was?) Padre Gal McLeod.  Gerald actually met up with him and, in the book, reproduced a hand written 'essay' that Gal had composed.  His stance reminds me a bit of your's.  It is one of questioning, asking people to think about their assertions perhaps, whatever, within the context of Thelema.  And importantly ask..."Why Thelema?  What has Thelema done for me?", and the good one of "...How many people have you met who have become 'enlightened' via the Thelemic path?"  (I paraphrase but you get the drift) I commend the essay and I'd love to scan it and make it available but not possible obviously.  I think that there are good many Thelemites who would do well to consider some its points. 

Your point is well made and to not consider others as brothers and sisters and listening and conversing with them makes for a poorer existence.  I have very close friends on a multitude of paths, and I live in a part of the world and work in an industry where I see the most far out of these.  I am richer for it (although I do see damaged people as a result of true nuttiness) and I welcome it and seek it out most times.  Yes, you do make sense and I see your stance akin to the Padre's.

I would rather have you here throwing sticks and few petrol bombs than not if the truth be told!

As the Padre said he can't really argue with the core tenets of Thelema, but Thelemites...now that's another story.  The distinction between the message and the messenger is the crucial bit obviously...or, as the Padre says...maybe not so obvious to some.

Back to the original topic....the following quote, I feel, is appropriate here not only because it was written by Crowley, but it also elaborates on the topic started by the OP, and is, I think, very  interesting:

From The Magical Revival by Kenneth Grant pg.71-72 (Here Grant is quoting A.C.)

"He wrote, in Liber LXXIII (The Urn):

While I have done my utmost to advance directly towards Truth by the regular traditional magical and mystical methods which The Book of the Law has perfected, I have constantly sought pari passu to correlate my results with those of modern intellectual progress; indeed, to demonstrate that the deepest thinkers are unwittingly approaching the apprehension of initiated ideas, and are in fact, despite themselves, being compelled to extend their definitions of the Ruach [Reason] to include conceptions proper to Neschamah [Intuition], that they are, in other words, becoming Initiates in our sense of the word without suspecting that they are committing high treason against the majesty of materialism."
(Emphasis mine)

This reminds me a bit of Alex in A Clockwork Orange: “viddy well, my goodly sisters and brothers…”

If you are sincere in your rather “damascene” change of heart/ attitude/ tack, then OK David.  Time will tell!  Even though you seem to have dramatically changed your tone within a 24 hours period & even though you still haven’t answered my points, especially regarding your 180[sup:13qwbew0]o[/sup:13qwbew0] turn over the usage of 93 within a month and whether you accept Liber AL without wishing to make any changes in it.

However, if you are genuinely being straight and sincere now let that pass, but if your intention is not to raise folks’ ire & piss them off any further, this had better not be another game on your part though!

Regarding that particular verse which you reference, maybe you might like to check out A.C.’s commentary on what he interprets it means as a starter, if you want a pointer (assuming you have not already done so).

Viddy well, my droog!  Oh, and 93!
N Joy

This reminds me a bit of Alex in A Clockwork Orange: “viddy well, my goodly sisters and brothers…”

If you are sincere in your rather “damascene” change of heart/ attitude/ tack, then OK David.  Time will tell!  Even though you seem to have dramatically changed your tone within a 24 hours period & even though you still haven’t answered my points, especially regarding your 180[sup:1bv2p84g]o[/sup:1bv2p84g] turn over the usage of 93 within a month and whether you accept Liber AL without wishing to make any changes in it.

However, if you are genuinely being straight and sincere now let that pass, but if your intention is not to raise folks’ ire & piss them off any further, this had better not be another game on your part though!

Regarding that particular verse which you reference, maybe you might like to check out A.C.’s commentary on what he interprets it means as a starter, if you want a pointer (assuming you have not already done so).

Viddy well, my droog!  Oh, and 93!
N Joy

93!

Thank you for your candour David.  I wish you well.  I hope that your therapy goes well.  Psychological therapy can be very effective for anxiety disorders if you are prepared for the work.  You will find *most* people very supportive here, and very forgiving should there be a deviation or two from "normal" transmission, whatever that may be.

I look forward to hearing more of your ideas, contentions and challenges.  The rest is behind us.

Be well.

PS:  And yes, it may be the pressures of the path.  Hang in there.

93! David,

Take it easy on yourself. It's very easy to isolate yourself. Can be difficult to get over yourself, I suffer from an Ego too! Makes me laugh how inflated our egos get on forums like this when we talk about getting over our own egos! Quite funny really.

Therapy is a good thing, I dare say we could all do with some therapy. Don't let anyone compel you to become "normal" though... perish the thought!  😀 Changing your mind about things is positive, it means you are open to new ideas and new possibilities. The day our parameters become set in stone is the day we stop learning and growing.

93
🙂
Hamal

Thank you guys  8) 🙂

93; Yes, just to add my best wishes to Mazus and Hamal here, having perhaps been one of your sternest critics as it were! (although only based upon the written text)

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with doing some therapy, if it works for you: I myself underwent regular (neo-Reichian) vegetotherapy regularly (on a voluntary basis) for five years (after which I thought I had had enough!), and do not consider a single minute of it wasted time. 

‘Ditto also’ with:  I too “look forward to hearing more of your ideas, contentions and challenges.  The rest is behind us.  Be well.”

93 93/93
N Joy, Jamie

PS, no need to send any “thanks” (assuming you were going to! 😉 ) - let’s take that as read…

🙂

The OP unfortunately contained a, "binary opposition", which as Derrida pointed is the inherent flaw in Western thinking (and language)  since Plato i.e.  two theoretical opposites are strictly defined and set off against one another, in this case "Joe Schmoe" and "Master of magick".

Well, david, I think we all noticed that, but out of sheer embarrassment preferred to turn a blind eye. Nice of you to 'fess up, all the same.

01000001 01010011 00100000 01011001 01001111 01010101 00100000 01001101 01000101 01001110 01010100 01001001 01001111 01001110 01000101 01000100 00100000 01000010 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010010 01011001 00100000 01001001 00100000 01010100 01001000 01001111 01010101 01000111 01001000 01010100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01010111 01001111 01010101 01001100 01000100 00100000 01010010 01000101 01010000 01001100 01011001 00100000 01001001 01001110 00100000 01000010 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010010 01011001 00101110 00100000 01011001 01000101 01010011 00100000 01001001 00100000 01000001 01000111 01010010 01000101 01000101 00100001
Convert Binary with http://www.ConvertBinary.com (Online Binary Translator)

93
😀
Hamal