Pronouncing A Word
 
Notifications
Clear all

Pronouncing A Word  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/10/2009 5:03 pm  

Part of the task of the Magus (perhaps arguably the central task) is to formulate a Word of the Aeon. Nice and evocative, but I haven't seen any real material on the subject in terms of essays, books or even postings like this.

The Magus synthesizes his new understanding of the universe into a whole. To the Magus, this Word (or system of magick, or whatever the Magus chooses to encapsulate the essence of their new understanding), is then passed to others. This Word to others is only a symbol, and not the awareness of the Master. When the Magus was starting their magical career, they used magical seals, correspondences and other symbols to bring about developments in their consciousness, and the Magus returns the favor by providing new symbols to the emerging generation.

The advantage of this approach is that the symbols presented to students change over time, staying current with the times, and are more readily acceptable to modern minds. This in part explains why the Chaos Magick paradigm is more popular than the ceremonial traditions of the past or even the modern resurrections of older religions. the mentality of man changes over time, and symbols once of great value must be re-interpreted and new symbols defined that will be understood.

Comments?


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/10/2009 5:24 pm  
"tehiru.chalal" wrote:
Part of the task of the Magus (perhaps arguably the central task) is to formulate a Word of the Aeon. Nice and evocative, but I haven't seen any real material on the subject in terms of essays, books or even postings like this.

Beyond Tiphareth you're on your own. So don't expect books, seminars or courses on how to formulate the Word of the Aeon.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/10/2009 5:40 pm  

That wasn't actually where I was going with this thread. I was wondering if anyone else had an interpretation of the task of pronouncing a Word that differed from my own.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
04/11/2009 5:06 pm  

Well, you're off the mark on this: While each Magus who attains the Grade utters his or her Word, only the Magus of the Aeon pronounces the Word of the Aeon. For comparative purposes, Crowley's Word of the Aeon was "Thelema", where as Dr. Micheal Aquino's Word (for example) was "Xepher." Aeons only come around once every 2,236 years or so, IIRC, and this one's already taken. I gather that the method and manner of pronouncing the Word of a Magus is revealed in the City of the Pyramids once one has crossed the Abyss and defeated Choronzon-- a feat many have claimed, but very few have achieved. Their Ego, or lack thereof, is the surest evidence of their journey there and back, IMHO.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
04/11/2009 7:09 pm  

While each Magus who attains the Grade utters his or her Word, only the Magus of the Aeon pronounces the Word of the Aeon

"There can only be one." A line we've heard many many times in many many religions. Crowley, of course, admites that others can attain the Grade of Magus but states that their Magus-Word will be subordinate and conform to his own. Would he have had it any other way?

Crowley's Word of the Aeon was "Thelema",

I thought he stated it was ABRAHADABRA.

Aeons only come around once every 2,236 years or so, IIRC, and this one's already taken

IF one accepts Crowley as having exclusively scored the role being described. It seems that there have risen many prophetic personalities in this general timeframe who have all attested to something shifting and changing through their own unique vehicles of communication and expression.

Their Ego, or lack thereof, is the surest evidence of their journey there and back, IMHO.

Aside from his claims to having done this, how do you see such evidence in the case of Crowley? Do you observe a definite distinction characterizing him after his "Attainment of this Grade," thereby providing such evidence of his extinguished Ego?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2009 7:38 pm  

Kyle, are we on the verge of "Word of Aeon" vs "Word of the Law," and "progression of the Aeons" vs concurrent timelines and stuff? 😉


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
04/11/2009 8:11 pm  

Kyle, are we on the verge of "Word of Aeon" vs "Word of the Law," and "progression of the Aeons" vs concurrent timelines and stuff?

Now, Camlion, what would ever give you such an idea? 😉

No, I am posing some legitimate questions. Many self-understood Thelemites adhere to Crowley on his own terms. Essentially, he is "believed." I'm simply questioning the basis of this belief. For example, is anyone here a Magus? If so, that person could step up and comment with some authority on the topic. If NOT, then one is, theoretically, "below that Grade" and therefore choosing to believe that it has certain imagined characteristics of which one cannot immediately know. Crowley presents a model of this in Liber Aleph with his examples of the "Late Greats" and then he happily joins their ranks as the "Latest Great." His followers believe this model to be sound and his testament to Himself to be true. Similarly, we find the same conviction amongst many distinct religious organizations and groups and teachings. It's a THEME. The dispensationalism of Liber AL is a religious THEME and one which Crowley fit his whole life into. Now, this doesn't immediately imply that he has spoken disingenuously or that the facts don't bear up against examination. But they still need to be examined. Otherwise, one is believing in something they like ("Thank God I'm spending MY life studying and practicing according to the TRUE religion") with the belief confirming itself.

I was respectfully questioning Walter's statement that a "real Magus" (or in this case, a "real Magus of the AEON") delivers the goods in terms of personal transformation (behind saying "oh, yeah, I dissolved and vanished and came back and and and...").

Has Crowley laid claim to the Aeon (more so than, say, Dr. Micheal Aquino) and it's God-stamped over-shadowing "Word" is ABRAHADABRA? To say time will tell isn't very satisfactory (any more so than "You'll see at the Last Judgement, Sinner!").

This has nothing to do with the validity of Thelema as a practical philosophy (which you addressed in the thread on the Dark Archetype). "Thelema" is NOT "occult stuff" although we (like Crowley) ARE concerned with things that fit into that category.

"Word of the Aeon" vs. "Word of the Law" IS an important theme here because this is another bit of "evidence" the Magus delivers. I clarified the point to Walter so this bit of "evidence" can also be examined. Although Crowley was very sharp and astute with his evaluation of the Word, he also showed us he could do the same thing with Mother Goose.

Walter states that there is ONE "Magus of the Aeon" and that this is Aleister Crowley, whose Word is ABRAHADABRA. Based on the requisite transformation of the person and the uttering of a Word, I am asking how this pans out in the face of any other messianic religion.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
04/11/2009 9:59 pm  

Who else you got to offer, Kidneyhawk? Krishnamurti? David Koresh? Charlie Manson? Do your Will, Brother! Follow them! Go, and never darken our towels again! 😉

Who can say if "Crowley has laid claim to the Aeon?" Nobody could have or would have said it 2000 years ago about the Christos in the Aeon of Osiris a mere 60 years after the alleged death of Yeshua-- a long shot at best! But in the 21st Century, it's pretty evident who won *that* race in the previous Aeon, so the best you can do is tell Paschal to lay his wager, put your money down against him on the Crowned and Conquering Child, and wait for the wheel to stop spinning!

In matters of my own personal Gnosis and Knowledge and Conversation, I'm satisifed, having been shown matters and told mysteries that were far beyond my grade and comprehension at the time of their reception, illuminations the veracity of which I held in high suspicion for many years, only to have those matters and mysteries reappear years later, full-blown in my reality tunnel like worms out of a hot cheese log. Resonance, dude, giving 'certainty, not faith, both here and in the hereafter.' There is no appeal to personal experience. If yours hasn't led you where mine has, all I can say is "keep trying."

And no, Baby. *I* don't state 'that there is ONE blah-blah-blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.' Liber Al Vel Legis states it. You can quibble about what this or that means and play games with yourself if you want to, to me that's self-deception. It doesn't matter wether Uncle Al wrote it down in Cairo in 1904, or wrote part of it in 1900, or claimed in 1906 that it was 'written by another. The truths of Liber Al were as self-evident to me when I first read The Book of the Law 30 years ago as they are today. And I'd wager that they are to the majority of our reading audience wether or not they'll speak up to admit it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2009 10:12 pm  

Confirmation bias, right, Kyle. Frankly, Walter's recitation of the ol' credo made me wince, too. I find this happening with me more and more with the passage of time. Most of the detail's of the genesis of the Law of Thelema do not reinforce its validity for me, they distract from it. Theory is only proven through practical application; not that tradition and culture aren't nice in their place, provided that they are eventually substantive at some level. Sometimes the newly revealed truth exists initially but is lost in the retelling of the story it is dressed in. There are a lot of people spending a lot of time trying to figure who or what Aiwass is or was, as another example of this, (and Crowley thought this would be important, too, because the extraordinary circumstances of the delivery of a significant new worldview have been important historically,) but it is really only the adherence to the message that is important, not the nature of the deliverer or the delivery. 🙂


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
04/11/2009 11:19 pm  

Walter, you seem a bit testy in your reply. I was simply asking a few questions, the implications of which I think are vital in examining the topics at hand, and you suggest, in response, that I follow Charles Manson and never darken your towels again? Was a nerve hit that I'm unaware of?

I personally think the "message" of Liber AL is one that is delivered from a depth of consciousness beyond the psychological tendencies that characterize self-justification of religious ideas in the mass populace. This doesn't stop it, however, from being swallowed up by that very same mindset.

The things you just posted sound very much like the claptrap I've heard from all sorts of religious sects over the years. "It's self-evident to me." "I know what I know based on MY experience...and YOU should just keep trying to get to where I am!"

This isn't "quibbling." You made some statements that I questioned in the interest of having a dialogue, not just about who and what Crowley thought himself to be but who and what he actually WAS.

You DID say that this Aeon is already "taken" (presumably by AC and his Word, or did you have someone or something else in mind?). You contrasted this with Michael A. and "Xeper" as a development that supposedly exists within the overshadowing context of Crowley's Word (which you said was "Thelema" and not ABRAHADABRA-and that's not "quibbling." It's what Crowley formally stated was THE WORD OF THE AEON which HE as MAGUS OF THE AEON delivered to the human race). You also made statements about how a Magus "is." I asked you to clarify this in context of Crowley, both his "Post-Magus" history and the "proof" he believed he delivered, most especially his Word. None of this you addressed. Instead, you've basically said that you know you're right. The rightness of the truths are self-evident and confirmed by your experiences. That's all good and fine but its the same schtick I hear from the "religious" all the time. And they're NOT all "right."

For the record, this isn't a personal attack so please don't take it that way. Do I think "Walterfive" is Doing His Will To Which No Other Shall Say Nay? Well, yes, based on things you've expressed and shared in the past, I do. Nor am I suggesting that your experiences are anything less than powerful eruptions and developments of perception and understanding. But none of this has to do with the larger ideas of the "New Aeon," the Magus of the Aeon who inaugurates it, his requisite "Word" and what it means for those who "come after." Which happens to be the topic of this thread. It's not "self-deception" (what exactly do you think I'm trying to deceive myself about?) but INQUIRY.

truths of Liber Al were as self-evident to me when I first read The Book of the Law 30 years ago as they are today. And I'd wager that they are to the majority of our reading audience wether or not they'll speak up to admit it.

Sure. And what of the REST of the Book? Or is it ALL Truth because CERTAIN PARTS were "self-evident?"

Camlion is totally on...its the message (and the message as it translates into ACTION or ACTUALITY) that matters. Because that is what our LIFE is.

Is our life contextualized by Crowley's doctrines or did Crowley's doctrines express, imperfectly, a Way of Going At It which we ourselves may not only realize but do so in ways far different from and even contradicting his claims?


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
05/11/2009 1:50 am  

now this thread is getting kinda interesting and you all are kinda talkin above my head.

Is our life contextualized by Crowley's doctrines or did Crowley's doctrines express, imperfectly, a Way of Going At It which we ourselves may not only realize but do so in ways far different from and even contradicting his claims?

For me Crowley was a prophet of an Aeon in which humanities belief systems are challenged and tested . Much in the way he taught his child how to climb; The Children that are now not so much under the influence of the old Aeon must go at it. There is always room for perfection.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
05/11/2009 6:45 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Walter, you seem a bit testy in your reply. I was simply asking a few questions, the implications of which I think are vital in examining the topics at hand, and you suggest, in response, that I follow Charles Manson and never darken your towels again? Was a nerve hit that I'm unaware of?

Well, you said:

I am asking how this pans out in the face of any other messianic religion.

So I named several so-called or self-identified messiahs of the 20th Century to point out how this "pans out." Crowley does pretty well in comparison, don't you think? I could have mentioned Sri Baghwan Raghneesh, Rev. Sun Yeng Moon and the Guru Maharaji as well, and he'd still stand head and shoulders above them all.

I personally think the "message" of Liber AL is one that is delivered from a depth of consciousness beyond the psychological tendencies that characterize self-justification of religious ideas in the mass populace. This doesn't stop it, however, from being swallowed up by that very same mindset.

That's good. Hope that works out for you. There is No God but Man.

The things you just posted sound very much like the claptrap I've heard from all sorts of religious sects over the years. "It's self-evident to me." "I know what I know based on MY experience...and YOU should just keep trying to get to where I am!"

Really, you should use a single apostrophic quotation 'quote' when you are paraphrasing, instead of a double "quote". That's basic AP Styleguide. One might take offense, and think you were trying to put words into one's mouth.

One's experiences are the basis for one's personal Gnosis. How could they be otherwise? One's Knowledge and Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel. One's Astral and Lucid Dream Work. One's Theurgic work. One's Henosic experiences. In them, one follows the in the footsteps of Adepts going back at least 2000 years, according to the Panarion of Epiphaneus, and the research of Dr. John Marco Allegro. These matters have laid my path before me for over 30 years now. You wish to indict Gnosticism?

This isn't "quibbling." You made some statements that I questioned in the interest of having a dialogue, not just about who and what Crowley thought himself to be but who and what he actually WAS.

Really? I could have swore you set up a straw-man argument in order to iterate your own forgone conclusions. To me, that's not an attempt to 'dialogue.' That's an attempt to monologue. But I could have been mistaken.

You DID say that this Aeon is already "taken" (presumably by AC and his Word, or did you have someone or something else in mind?). You contrasted this with Michael A. and "Xeper" as a development that supposedly exists within the overshadowing context of Crowley's Word (which you said was "Thelema" and not ABRAHADABRA-and that's not "quibbling." It's what Crowley formally stated was THE WORD OF THE AEON which HE as MAGUS OF THE AEON delivered to the human race). You also made statements about how a Magus "is." I asked you to clarify this in context of Crowley, both his "Post-Magus" history and the "proof" he believed he delivered, most especially his Word. None of this you addressed. Instead, you've basically said that you know you're right. The rightness of the truths are self-evident and confirmed by your experiences. That's all good and fine but its the same schtick I hear from the "religious" all the time. And they're NOT all "right."

Yes, Crowley says that Abrahadabra is the word of the New Aeon in Liber Samekh. (Will the Neophytes and Minervals please note this in their Magickal Diaries for further reference.) Forgive me for that oversight, as I plainly mispoke. 🙂 Yes, I said this Aeon is "Taken." Claimed. Owned. Liber L/ Liber Al/Liber Al Vel Legis is pretty clear on this. But like I said-- who else do you have to nominate for the position? Who, other than Crowley would you nominate as a candidate for Magus of the Aeon of the Crowned and Conquering Child? I can think of no other Magi in the last 300 years who has had such widespread and resonant influence... can you name another who has, and who also claimed to usher in the New Aeon? One unlike Anton LaVey, who was a mere imitator and admitted charlatan?

And on another thought: Merely because you've heard the "schtick" from a fraud, or frauds, it doesn't neccesarily follow that everyone who says something similar is neccesarily a fraud themselves. Good Shepherds can (and should) exist, even if most (but not all) Shepherds *do* have ulterior motives having to do with the shearing, screwing, and/or slaughtering of their Sheep. See Dr. P.B. Randolph's translation of "The Divine Pymander of Hermes Trismegitus" if you have any doubts. This is not to say that our Prophet or Magi in point doesn't have feet of clay, but we don't go about veiling his vices with virtuous words, do we? And as Thelemites, we're more Goat (Oz) than Sheep (Tzone), anyway, and not so good for fleecing.

And to be fair, you must admit-- you ask me to prove to you what you know cannot be proven within the realm of Formal Logic. However, that doesn't show the weakness of my position, that only shows the weakness of Formal Logic when confronted with Phenomenology. The objective study of the subjective cannot be bound by a Venn Diagram or Logical Postulates and Conclusions. This is the essense of the dichotomy between Mysticism and Science-- identical experiments conducted by separate individuals do not neccesarily produce identical or reproducable results every time. Which is why I suggested to you: "Keep trying." You know, "Perdurabo?"

For the record, this isn't a personal attack so please don't take it that way. Do I think "Walterfive" is Doing His Will To Which No Other Shall Say Nay? Well, yes, based on things you've expressed and shared in the past, I do. Nor am I suggesting that your experiences are anything less than powerful eruptions and developments of perception and understanding. But none of this has to do with the larger ideas of the "New Aeon," the Magus of the Aeon who inaugurates it, his requisite "Word" and what it means for those who "come after." Which happens to be the topic of this thread. It's not "self-deception" (what exactly do you think I'm trying to deceive myself about?) but INQUIRY.

First, I wouldn't presume to know what you're trying to decieve yourself about, I would only note that most people do seem to pull the wool over their own eyes, and even Atheists are known to say "God Damn It!"

But to me the matters you mention *are* related. These "eruptions and developments of perception and understanding" as you put it, have synchronistic relation with the larger ideas in my reality tunnel. They did with Achad, they did with Parsons, and they do with the nature of my own Gnosis (not that I'm placing myself at Parsons or Achad's degree, level, or station, mind you). It is not a question of separating the cart from the horse. The vehicle of illumination is Liber Al Vel Legis. "Questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal" to the writings of Ankh-Af-Na-Khonsu, according to the Comment.

truths of Liber Al were as self-evident to me when I first read The Book of the Law 30 years ago as they are today. And I'd wager that they are to the majority of our reading audience wether or not they'll speak up to admit it.

Sure. And what of the REST of the Book? Or is it ALL Truth because CERTAIN PARTS were "self-evident?"

What of the rest of it? This appears to be another Straw-Man, and again, you're trying to use Formal Logic in a realm where All is Not, and AL=LA, and it just doesn't track.

Is our life contextualized by Crowley's doctrines or did Crowley's doctrines express, imperfectly, a Way of Going At It which we ourselves may not only realize but do so in ways far different from and even contradicting his claims?

"The two are one, yea, are none." 2=1=0. Why must everything be either/or with you? The opposite of a Great Truth is also a Great Truth, whereas the opposite of "The Truth" is merely a Lie. (BTW-When you ask such leading questions, it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to deduce where you are trying to take the so-called conversation.)


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
05/11/2009 7:55 pm  

BTW-When you ask such leading questions, it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to deduce where you are trying to take the so-called conversation.)

And where exactly do you think that would be, Walter? Are you anticipating a point that you think I'm hoping to make or demonstrate after collecting your responses? I certainly have my views and opinions on the topic-and those views and opinions are also mutable things, which I do not doggedly cling to. I suspect you are projecting as to some "motive" of mine and hence the "testy-tone." Of course, I could be projecting that perception myself. But you don't seem to be following. Why would you write:

Why must everything be either/or with you?

This is just a bizarre question. I don't think that and, in fact, have argued the opposite view plenty of times with posters such as Los, Erwin etc.

"The two are one, yea, are none." 2=1=0

Was this ever in question?

So I named several so-called or self-identified messiahs of the 20th Century to point out how this "pans out." Crowley does pretty well in comparison, don't you think?

LOL-of course, the genius Englishman is going to tower over the list you give. My own view is that ANY "messianic role" is problematic, esp. one that asks that WE express and declare deference and subservience to the "messiah" in question. I would say it's an "Old Aeonic" Device which belongs to how religion has functioned. You seem quite happy to hold Crowley to your bosom as your "Prophet" and fall back on "I didn't say it; Liber AL does!" It's an appeal to authority to justify a view. So I questioned this appeal of yours: what's THAT based on, Walter? It's apparently based on your encountering of "self-evident" truths and then confirmatory experiences. However, another soul will feel the same way about a "Holy Book" that you feel is a sham. In and of itself, it's not a testament to anything other than the way Walter sees and feels about things. This, too, I questioned-and that, respectfully. If you'd pause for a minute, you'd see that I'm not trying to crow atop some shitpile of superiority whilst spewing on your views. I obviously process things according to my own perceptive capabilites and am not so different in operating as such than yourself. But this same approach can yield up quite different convictions. This fact has to be taken into consideration, esp. with your statement

The opposite of a Great Truth is also a Great Truth

I was truly interested in what you would say in response to my questions as to HOW Crowley has demonstrated in his life or with his "Magus-Word" the status you personally attribute to him. It's a legit question and it's not a shield in front of some pre-planned attack on whatever you might say. Someone who knows nothing of Thelema may well ask this..."You're all into this Crowley is the Prophet, we're in a New Aeon, the Book of the Law is Truth and so on...WHY do you feel that way, Walter? I know there are worms coming out of the cheesedog and all that but I'm seeing the same thing with these other folks...and they're different worms. So why are you hanging onto these convictions?"

When you veer into the areas of how we know, how things are perceived and the limits of "Formal Logic" as we enter into Gnostic Consciousness, THIS is where I'm "going" with the dialogue. States of Mind opened by transcending formal logic apprehend things from a different perspective. This includes the way we view things such as the idea that Aleister Crowley was selected by the Powers That Be to function as a Prophet, delivering the Aeonic Word and so on.

Again, it's a perspective that I've pitted against certain arguments made by previous posters who have decried intuition and imagination. And there ARE conclusions we personally draw from taking things in this direction. We "try" (to use your word) and we smash through reality tunnels. We look back at the smouldering remains and find it looks quite different from the new vantage point. I AM suggesting that the "religion of Crowley" represents a type of reality tunnel which ultimately needs to be transcended. This WILL call into question what he was doing and what his work (and Words) represents as we encounter it in our own perceptive field. Unless you're suggesting that we stop here and no longer "try" to go beyond the reality tunnel thus far constructed.

You wrote:

These "eruptions and developments of perception and understanding" as you put it, have synchronistic relation with the larger ideas in my reality tunnel. They did with Achad, they did with Parsons, and they do with the nature of my own Gnosis (not that I'm placing myself at Parsons or Achad's degree, level, or station, mind you).

Why wouldn't you place yourself "at Parsons or Achad's degree, level or station?" What precisely do you look at and see when you conceive of these men and then conceive of "yourself?" That is a serious question and I'm really interested in what you think here.

There is a tremendous Wisdom and Liberating Power in William Blake's words when he was questioned as to the Divine Nature of the Christ. Blake stated: "He is the Only God...but then so are you. And so am I."

I like that. A lot. And its hardly an "either/or" proposition.

93,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
05/11/2009 8:10 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I personally think the "message" of Liber AL is one that is delivered from a depth of consciousness beyond the psychological tendencies that characterize self-justification of religious ideas in the mass populace.
"Walterfive" wrote:
That's good. Hope that works out for you. There is No God but Man.

Who's to say that these two are mutually exclusive? I've never thought so. It depends on where one places the boundary markers between oneself and one's not-self. Sometimes we mistake one for the other, too. Its easy to do when exploring certain far-flung frontiers 🙂


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1264
05/11/2009 8:42 pm  

Part of the task of the Magus (perhaps arguably the central task) is to formulate a Word of the Aeon.

I don't think it makes any sense to throw up past methods - if indeed it was a past method. Why should we assume that a word needs to be uttered, because Crowley claims that one should? After all, you mentioned that the times change? Obviously Crowley felt he has some kind of authority, however didn't, for example, Picasso have it too?

If Picasso in 1909, had declared a new aeon....and that it's word was 'abstraction', rather more people would have found the phenomena convincing than the limited number of Thelemites.

Sadly, the influence of Thelema has been rather minor, the insights offered poor, and some of it's adherents, quite misguided and vacuous. Well, especially when making claims about what they may, or may not have experienced, as indicated above.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1264
05/11/2009 8:46 pm  

I am, of course assuming that Picasso, would not be so arrogant to have proclaimed himself a Messiah....the mark of a true Messiah (yeah, right....)


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
05/11/2009 10:06 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I personally think the "message" of Liber AL is one that is delivered from a depth of consciousness beyond the psychological tendencies that characterize self-justification of religious ideas in the mass populace.
"Walterfive" wrote:
That's good. Hope that works out for you. There is No God but Man.

Who's to say that these two are mutually exclusive?

Certainly not I.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 450
05/11/2009 11:42 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
I am, of course assuming that Picasso, would not be so arrogant to have proclaimed himself a Messiah....the mark of a true Messiah (yeah, right....)

Yeah, but Dali totally could have and in a way did.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1264
06/11/2009 5:16 am  

Yeah, but Dali totally could have and in a way did.

And no-one, apart from Dali, found him either convincing or credible.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
06/11/2009 1:56 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:

Yeah, but Dali totally could have and in a way did.

And no-one, apart from Dali, found him either convincing or credible.

"No-one?" You can competantly speak for the entirity of Western Civilization? I call BS on that, but I would say that his Tarot deck seems rather a mess in its attributions...


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
06/11/2009 9:45 pm  

93!

Yep Walterfive, Your boy owns it!
OWNS it baby!
No ifs, ands, or buts.

What makes a Magus?
The ability---without hindrance,
To become full recipient of the Thelemic/Therionic,
Current.
The reason (no need to shun the word)
AC was “The One---and Only---Grand Pooh-Bah if you will,
has to do with the legacy of Ankh-f-n-khonsu;
what He was all about.
Being that, AC was the incarnation thereof,
Only he, completes---as the worthy, of the worthiest
Candidates----His work as the prince priest The Beast,
in spite of the “so called” personality failures,
resultant from
the modern era/local of Victorian/Edwardian England,
that He, AC (once Ankh-f-n-khonsu) ---
incarnated/lived-- into and through.

He---The Prophet of The Aeon of Horus, does GUARANTEE
that once having become fit to receive as Thine Own,
The Full Unbridled Power
Of The Light! Life! Love! And Liberty! which is Thelema,
the Adept “Officiates Fully” as He himself---was charged to do.

Meaning, that once such state of Adepthood is reached,
There are no doubts:
One IS Thelema!

93! 93! 93!


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 351
07/11/2009 11:32 am  

Here is something that I prepared earlier:

"The time would be easy to know, for then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom"

Compare this with those declarations of Ra-Hoor-Khuit such as:
...I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay... AL.III.46. Or consider AL.II.22, ..Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.

Frater Tenebrous has noted the marked similarities in Lovecraft's text to occult teachings such as the Law of Thelema (see 'Cults of Cthulhu', Daath Press, 1987 e.v., page 4). here it is appropriate to consider the implications of these similarities in order to elucidate the possible identity of a Word for the Aeon of Cthulhu.

[Patience, here we get to the most relevant bits].

Generally, the Aeon of Cthulhu Rising is regarded as being either equivalent to, or coextensive with the Thelemic Aeon of Horus; indeed, the Esoteric Order of Dagon accepts the validity of the Law of Thelema. Now, the Word of the Law encapsulates the spiritual, or mystical principle predominant in the aeon, while the Word of the Aeon is its functional magickal formula and represents the goal of the Work in that aeon. In Liber AL this Word is given as ABRAHADABRA, and it is described as being the reward of Ra Hoor Khut. This god describes himself as a god of War and of Vengeance and here it is possible to see how his Word has a functional basis, for the difference between Abrahadabra = 418 and Thelema = 93 is the number 325, being that of both the Spirit of Mars, Bartzabel, and the Intelligence of Mars, Graphiel. Hence, Force and Fire, the energies of destruction and analysis necessary to clear away the false accretions of former times in order that the new Law shall have free development to its fullest extent.
Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us. AL.II.20
It is essential that this Work should be a sustained act of love under will, as indicated by the emphasis on the delight in slaying in Liber AL, that is paralleled in Lovecraft's description.
.....
There is much reference in Liber AL to ecstasy and rapture, and although the word 'freedom' is not used, central emphasis is given to the necessity of the removal of all restriction....

From: CULTS OF CTHULHU, April. 1990 e.v.

So, here we are again, not necessarily wild, but free. The word of Sin is Restriction AL.I.41 'The Message of the Master Therion' (Liber II) is one of the few places in the Commentaries on Liber AL (its included in the Symonds & Grant edition) where AC uses the word 'freedom':
".."Do what thou wilt" does not mean "Do what you like". It is the apotheosis of Freedom; but it is also the strictest possible bond." and so forth.
In my essay, I went on to suggest that rather than 'Chaos' the Word of the Aeon of Cthulhu should be 'Freedom' or 'Liberation'. In Hebrew this would be ChPShH, from a root meaning 'to spread out' (in contemporary Hebrew this would appear to be ChVPShH).
Qabbalists may care to note that this has a value of 393 - a rather significant Typhonian number - for information on which see the Gargophias chapter in 'Nightside of Eden'.

AHBH VNShIQVTh - Satan's Advocaat.


The Children of Transgression are the Dragons of the Law.

(Seem to have a problem here with the italics on/off, but don't have time to sort. Sorry about that).


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2009 4:25 pm  

The word ABRAHADABRA describes both the method of work as well as the teleological aim of this aeon.


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 351
09/11/2009 10:27 am  

Just for the record:

The essay was published in 'The Pylon' Number 1, Winter 1990/1991 e.v. and did not have a title; but I refer to it as 'Chaos and Cthulhu'.

In contemporary Hebrew, the word for freedom is ChVPSh, and not 'ChVPShH' as previously stated.

And I'm not sure what you mean, or imply, by 'teleological aim', Zardoz ? Is there such a thing ?

S.A.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/11/2009 11:54 am  

I meant the accomplishment of the Great Work for this aeon.


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 351
09/11/2009 3:16 pm  

Right. I am very content to go along with That.


ReplyQuote
Share: