Regarding the first part of your post: a useful approach to the symbolism of tree of life is that we are, essentially, everywhere on the tree at once. The tree represents the macrocosm - the universe - but it also represents the microcosm - that means you. Travelling "up the tree" is not so much about "attaining to" a certain level in the sense of becoming something else or something more, it's about gaining understanding about the self and universe such that you are able to experience a particular, new, perspective.

It's like, say you have a shoulder-height window in your room. If you sit on the floor in front of the window, you see it up there, you know it's up there, but looking ahead you only see a wall. If you stand up, then you can see straight out the window in front of you to a whole new world outside. Working up the tree is like learning to stand up. Nothing has changed other than your perspective, yet when your perspective changes your understanding of your self and the universe changes. This can seem like you, yourself, are changing, but what's actually being altered is your models, your view of the world and self.

Anyway, tangent aside, the point is that we may go through periods where we remain "within" a particular spehira for a while as we learn the perpsectives of that experience, and there may be a long-term, overall linear process where one must get a sufficiently thorough understanding of a sephira before being able to fully, thoroughly understand the next, but on a practical level most people move back and forth around the tree as we progress with our magical work.

A neophyte starts at malkuth because that is the level of consciousness that the neophyte is capable of achieving. As you gain understanding, you become more able to consciously experience the perspectives of the other sephirot. But you never actually "leave" malkuth either. A master is still "in" malkuth along with the neophytes, it's just that the master has greater understanding of the self/universe due to being able to achieve these other perspectives. Yesod is particularly difficult because it requires passing the first veil, where we are first confronted with the difference between reality and our model of reality. In yesod we find our imagination, both creative and formative. It is the foundation of our reality yet it is not real, thus it's a "foundation" with no actual substance.

Regarding the correspondences, aside from using them to design particular rituals, in my early qabala studies I used them in daily life as learning tools to get accustomed to the tree of life as a map. A friend once said to me 'with Buddhist meditation you become enlightened by making everything one, with qabala you become enlightened by picking everything apart'. It's an oversimplification, but, the idea is that the tree of life is a set of symbols which apply to everything in the universe, thus everything can be broken down and categorized into the tree of life symbolism. Why would you want to do this? Well, in simple terms, it causes you to begin viewing everything as an interconnected part of your magical path, your life, your work. It is one method for experiencing, and thus understanding, the oath to "interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with my soul."

Wow, that was a very good reply. Ahaha :). Thanks! I very much appreciate that...I feel like I actually learned something from reading that.

I guess that about puts a cork in the bottle or...I dunno what the expression would be...

I was a little confused about the Qabalah at first you see Ive already been entertaining this "Oneness of All" idea in my head almost constantly for months now, identifying everything external and internal with one Mind, etc, very Eastern-thought esque as you mentioned about the Buddhist meditations... And--I also have been reading and following thru on Crowley's prescribed ideas/practices. But I just couldn't get my head around Qabalah because it seemed contradictory to all Crowley has to say about reducing everything to Unity---I had in my head that maybe only Kether or some specific Sephiroth was the Unity, or what not--and I guess I thought the Tree was like a symbolic diagram of how Unity dispersed into Multiplicity...Which I suppose isnt entirely wrong, but I was forgetting that the Unity remained intact throughout the multiplicity of the Parts of the Tree.

Well, I really appreciate your post, that was like an immediate-intuitive-apprehension-moment for me, ahahah. Cleared a terrible fog in my mind about Qabalah... Now I have a better understanding of how to approach it.

One way to look at it: as a higher order language. By learning the correspondences, using 777 as a regular reference, and being open to observing/experiencing them in daily life, one can begin to receive a wealth of data pertaining to one's spiritual path, often from very unexpected sources. Pay attention to coincidences/synchronicities and how they correspond. Note them in a diary. Pattern recognition is a key. Knowing this language - knowledge comes from use - also unlocks much more esoteric information in Crowley's writings. Qabalah is known as the Angelic Language, the Magical Alphabet, etc. It is the language of the Great Work, and also, it seems, a primary mode of communication for one's HGA.

Zardoz wrote "Knowing this language-knowledge comes from use-also unlocks much more esoteric information in Crowley's writings." And not only in Crowley's writings, I must add!

I think Crowley's own comments in Magick Without Tears regarding how to "use" the Qabala are excellent, particularly for laying the Foundation, so to speak.

I must completely agree with this statement made by Zardoz:"It is the language of the Great Work, and also, it seems, a primary mode of communication for one's HGA."

It's exactly how the K&C began with my H.G.A. I was instructed in some magickal workings that I must do before Crossing the Abyss, and HE will waiting with open arms on the other side, even after I must abandon even Him during the Crossing! There, (in Binah AND Daath) is still Magick HE instructed me to do. All of this (I've left out the specifics, mind you) I learned through Gematria on His, no "Our" name, for indeed we are One. So, don't neglect Sepher Sephiroth (and other Gematrias) in your Qabalah studies!

BTW can someone PM me with any correspondences for the Sumerian God of the Heavens Anu? I was sent a messenger of his so we may communicate, but I'd like some correspondences to apply to the Magickal Space so as to make it more welcoming for the incoming messege. There are none in 777, that I saw. I'm no Sumerian Archaelolgist, otherwise I'd probably could use the Original Spells and whatnot. Any help would be appreciated, just PM me.

If you have already "crossed the Abyss" why don't you "PM" these Sumerian God's yourself?

If you read the post above my last, you'll notice I never said that I Crossed the Abyss. Just that I have had the K&C of my H.G.A. with the use of "paranoiac critical activity" with Gematria. I was showing the originator of this thread the importance of Qabalah. I was being helpful, by giving an example of how Gematria played an important role in The Great Work for me. Your sarcastic reply to my asking for help really doesn't even deserve a reply. But I'm giving you one anyway: Don't be an ass and just post something stupid. You seem to be one of those people who talk because they love the sound of their voice. Your post was not helpful for anyone. Why don't you just not post anything until you can learn how to read....and read the Forum Guidelines. RifRaf, the name suits you. 🙄

BTW can someone PM me with any correspondences for the Sumerian God of the Heavens Anu?

Don't know if it'll be helpful but there is a "Summerian" supplement for 777 in Simon's Necronomicon and I believe Skinner's recent book of Magical Tables should also have additional information.

Says the guy who just posted an apparently serious claim to have been contacted by a "messenger" of the "Sumerian God of the Heavens Anu" for the purpose of setting up a chat with said deity.

Seriously, if you want to criticise others for "post[ing] something stupid" you may want to think about cleaning up your own kitchen first, because you're comfortably leading that particular race at the moment.

Anyone still wondering why the "Qabalah" Forum here was locked until recently?

If you're still looking to others to tell you what the correspondences are for this and that, then you don't yet fully understand the purpose and significance of using correspondences in your personal qabalistic practice or magical work.

If you want to know which correspondences with the Sumerian God of the Heavens Anu you should use to create a welcoming environment in your ritual temple for personal communication with a messenger related to that God, you need to develop them on your own. This would be true even if there was a wealth of information already available to you.

So - research Anu, research Sumerian mythology, and see what you come up with. This is what practicing qabalists do even when there are readily available correspondences (such as 777). Here, I'll get you started, it's easy even when using a somehat shoddy source as wikipedia -

Anu apparently is also called "lord of constellations". Chokmah is associated with the sphere of fixed stars, the constellations, (rather than a single planet like with the others). This correspondence, along with Anu being the 'lord of the heavens' and 'king of the gods' and such, place him squarely in Chokmah. Thus the Chokmah correspondences apply. I would then choose which to use based on a Sumerian perspective. For example, in 777 Crowley associated Amaranth with Chokmah. So I looked up amaranth and found that it is a traditional grain/plant used in Africa, so it would not be unreasonable to use it with a Sumerian ritual. Crowley also associates Hashish with Chockmah, that too corresponds well with a Sumerian ritual. etc...

In addition to doing that research, I would design the ritual space to match up with Sumerian mythology and known/assumed history, including details such as type of wine or beer or juice, setting out a bowl of dates and figs and almonds, burning incense with cedar, etc.

Hey read the rest of the book 777 for a lot of good info on this 🙂

Okay first off, Erwin I asked for someone that could help to post. You are definitley not helping and apparently unable to read between the lines. The messenger for Anu "Kaaka" is actually what came through during the same period of "paranoiac critical activity" with Gematria analysis on the name of my H.G.A., which A.C. wrote that analysis by Gematria of ones H.G.A. will tell you of its essential nature. Please refrain your uncreative self from responding to any of my questions in the future. I will just laugh at the lack of imagination and creativity you seem to put forth in every post. I will ignore anything you post from now on. I asked for help and you respond with an insult. Who's being an ass now? Ever heard of creative occultism? You seem to have a prejudice against us Grant enthusiasts. Why don't you and RifRaf go play in your forum and leave the posts for people who can answer someone's question without insulting them. Thanks Kyle, and Mika I do "fully understand the purpose and significance of using correspondences" and at least you tryed to help after insulting me but, you didn't really tell me anything that i hadn't already read and thought of. Really, I was hoping for someone who had Skinner's Complete Tables to help me out. Like Kyle said there should be the information I need in that book. I guess that was too much to ask for. I guess I should have mentioned "Kaaka", the messenger. I was really looking for correspondences for both from Skinners tables. I was planning on Invoking the messenger for an automatic writing session. The homepage says that this is not an occult website but the occult can be discussed here. From now on I'll take my occult inquiries to Spectrallight.com. There sure wasn't much help considering all the Traffic on this site, and I know for a fact you have Skinner's Tables, Paul. Since it wasn't directly related to Crowley you declined to help I guess, when I've seen you helpfully answer other peoples questions but since it was not directly related to A.C. and this is the Home of the Aleister Crowley Society, even with the occult disclaimer on the homepage, what more should have I hoped for...This was going to be an important ritual for me resulting in a received text. And A.C. did write, at one point, that he aimed to restore the Sumerian Magickal Tradition, or something to that effect....It's okay though, I knew Kyle would come through with something, thanks dude.

You're clearly feeling a little bruised by the response your post received, but for clarity I think it's worth pointing out that I didn't "decline to help". You didn't ask me to help and, even if you had, there are people on LAShTAL.COM that have far greater knowledge and expertise in this area than I.

As you note in your post, there are other sites that are generally better equipped to provide you with answers to this sort of question. The Guidelines here couldn't be any clearer: LAShTAL.COM hosts Forums, downloads, links, galleries and other interactive or collaborative resources as a service for members with an interest in Thelema and in the life, works and legacy of Aleister Crowley. LAShTAL.COM is not an occult site and it doesn't promote a particular interpretation of Thelema. It doesn't seek to teach or initiate. It is devoted to the legacy of Aleister Crowley: it is home of the Aleister Crowley Society.

Crowley was a mountaineer, too, but I wouldn't expect visitors to rely on these Forums for advice on how to climb K2.

So, just so we're all clear, when you said "I was sent a messenger of his so we may communicate," what you actually meant was "I wasn't sent a messenger of his so we may communicate," right?

My money is on you, given your posts to this thread.

Presumably you're referring to "blatantly making up absurdly wild and false tales of clearly fictitious communications"? Yes, I'm quite familiar with that concept, thank you.

Pointing out the irony in someone claiming to have been contacted by a "messenger of the Gods" and then in their very next post having the gall to accuse someone else of "post[ing] something stupid" is not "prejudice"; it's an evidence-based observation.

Erwin, out of curiosity, do you have any personal experience with the practice of Bhakta Yoga?

Oh yes, for anyone questioning the relevance of the subject in general to this website, please see Liber CLXXV. Apparently Crowley thought the subject of sufficient value to some individuals to have included it in his teachings. 😉

Yes, you do seem to have an recurrent obsessive curiosity about me. That's probably not particularly healthy for you.

Define what you believe you mean by "Bhakta Yoga", and I'll answer you.

Healthy for me? What a curious little muttering from someone such as yourself. 🙄

Why are you evading my question about your personal experience with the subject matter, Erwin? I gave the reference to Liber CLXXV quite clearly so as to curb the anticipated evasion. For all either us of know, N.O.X was making an inquiry related to the practice of Bhakti Yoga, as one might assume from the nature of the initial question.

I think that this is just another routine example of your playing the bully due to not being able to consistently get around the derangement of your own personality, something that the readership of this site apparently must either contend with or stop reading the site. I have noticed some effort toward improvement in that regard in your recent posts, but I think you are fighting a loosing battle with your own demons.

Which one of us is evading defining our terms? You can't expect to have an intelligent conversation with me if you can't even explain what it is you're trying to talk about, let alone demonstrate any actual knowledge of what you're trying to talk about. If you want to have a technical discussion with me, then you're first going to have to demonstrate enough technical knowledge to at least be able to describe what you want to discuss, otherwise I'm not going to waste my time pandering to the idle "curiosity" of a rank beginner.

You indicated you wanted to have a conversation about experiences of "Bhakta Yoga". I asked you if you even knew what you meant by that term. As I clearly suspected from the outset, it now turns out that you don't. Which is fine, of course, but don't be under any illusions about who is engaging in "evasion" here, sunshine.

As I said, these elaborate fantasies about me you constantly indulge yourself with really aren't healthy. You may want to consider seeing a doctor about them. Perhaps you should consider spending less time online if you're prone to becoming obsessed with the personalities you encounter there.

Now, Erwin, which of us is truly obsessed with those we encounter online? You attribute your attraction and reply to N.O.X.'s post to what motive of yours, exactly? Yes, yes, I know, its all in the name of your self-appointed crusade against self-deception, heroically undertaken on behalf of those less enlightened than yourself, all for their own good, whether they like or not. They'll thank you in the end, right?

This is the really just the ideal rationalization of a hopelessly compulsive bully, as most of the readership here are well aware, I'm sure. What drivel it all is.

Not sure what Erwin is doing on this thread other than calling N.O.X. stupid and picking a fight with Camlion. However, backing up to the start, I think Mika offered some wonderfully insightful comments with her first response.

I very much appreciate the vantage point she is taking with regards to the nature of the Tree here. At the get-go (or as-ahem-"rank beginners"), we can't wholly be faulted for understanding the T of L from a "linear" perspective. It is often presented in a such fashion, whether emanating from Godhead or mappng a "magickal path" to attain to that same state. Of course, Order degree systems and the like seem to reward or christen us with a number and title once we've successfully "done it" and then we identify with the next category. Removing identification with the partial or transient state seems to me to be a very liberating approach.

I've always wondered what exactly Achad felt and thought within himself when Crowley suggested that he go back and rework the Grades of the AA from the ground-up. He had entered a more expansive state of consciousness (he had "crossed the Abyss" in his own estimate) and yet I don't think such a suggestion from AC necessarily implied a "down-grade" of "status." Perhaps Jones thought it did, I do not know. But we have (outside Thelema and the Grade Systems of its various Orders) examples of mystics (and even "ordinary folks") who exerience a life-altering elevation or up-grade of consciousness, who realize that "Enlightenment" was always there and what is experienced is more of an "unveiling."

If we can have an inkling of this perspective, I think we can proceed with the work at hand without a sense of limitation or self-frustrating hunger to be somewhere else (the IDEA of being a "Master" or "Magus" or what have you may seem like a far-off and yet more romantically tantalizing prospect than how one's present "lowly title" is viewed).

Every Man and Every Woman IS a Star...not "might eventually become one." Therefore, with this assurance, the work of unveiling should be a portion of the Star's "Ever-Going" which, freed from self-deceit, is perfect in its present action.

N.O.X. was sharing some perspectives from his own vantage point and I think Mika's response regarding "figuring it out" with available resources (wikipedia, whatever) provided a nice example of "creative occultism." 777 is a great foundation for organizing thought via symbol and impression but it's meant to be built upon, revised, expanded. I believe Regardie once commented that the Qabala was like a filing cabinet. We might regard 777 as the neatly alphabetized "dividers" but how we fill the cabinet and apply our "collection" in action is up to us.

You. Scroll up, we've just been through this. Pretty much every time I post, you can't control yourself. You attempt to engage me in conversation and use even the simplest request for a definition of terms as a transparent excuse to compulsively publish all these bizarre, homoerotic fantasies you have about me for all to see. This is neither normal nor healthy behaviour, as you've been told already.

See? There's those elaborate fantasies of yours about me yet again. Now I'm a "crusading hero" in your mind. Seriously, you ought to think about getting yourself checked out for that. There may be people here embarrassed for you.

Finally, you get something right.

use even the simplest request for a definition of terms as a transparent excuse to compulsively publish all these bizarre, homoerotic fantasies you have about me for all to see

LMAO! Are you for real? Did I miss some evidence of Camlion's "homoerotic fantasies about Erwin?" 😯 He simply asked if you had anything to say from a personal standpoint regarding the experience of Bhakti Yoga, which, as Crowley points out in Liber Astarte, asks to the Magician to make some extensive study and use of correspondences. Bhakti and Astarte are quite pertinent to the practical use of 777 and its underlying thought. N.O.X. was interjecting some personal thoughts and experiences relating to this particular pursuit and, as such, he's opened up some interesting avenues for discussing the use of this "Crowley Classic." At least Mika has offered some constructive contribution in this department.

Anyone still wondering why the "Qabalah" Forum here was locked until recently?

I don't think it's the topic of the Forum that's the problem.

That's not too much to ask for. The problem is, you didn't ask for information from Skinner's Complete Tables, you asked "can someone PM me with any correspondences". If your questions aren't sufficiently specific, not receiving the answers you're hoping for is your own fault. Getting pissy at people, like Paul, because he didn't read your mind and know that when you said "any correspondences" what you really meant was "information from Skinner's book" is just silly.

Alright, then, what do you think is the purpose and significance of using correspondences?

From my perspective, the 777 correspondences only have personal meaning for Crowley. Otherwise, they are useful for beginners as a place to get started, and as an example of how one might apply qabala to their magical work. However, if you are not a beginner, and are designing your own personal rituals and workings, the only correspondences that have meaning are the ones you research and develop yourself. Blindly copying another's table of associations is like saying you understand modern physics because you know the equation E=mc^2.

The reality is, you could correspond *anything* with Anu, you could make any qabalistic association you feel like, and it would be valid as long as it was personally meaningful for you. That's because the significance of using correspondences is directly related to your own, internal symbolic mapping. That's also why copying someone else's correspondences is meaningless - including Crowley's or Skinner's, and why your original question indicated that you don't seem to understand the significance and purpose of using correspondences. It's unfortunate that you chose to interpret my comment as an insult instead of asking what I meant.

Apparently. He's just made two posts filled with them. I know observation isn't your strong point, but a couple presses of the page-up key is all it would have taken.

Yeah, and Hitler "simply" took his mistress out to dinner one night. If you want evidence of his fantasies, look in the posts where he rattles them out, not in the posts where he doesn't. Honestly, I shouldn't need to explain this to you.

And he's been told how he can get the information he seeks. The rest, as they say, is up to him. If the tiny iota of effort required is too much for his fragile constitution to cope with, then his "curiosity" can go unsatisfied till the end of time for all I care, it makes no difference to me either way.

Fantasies, not "experiences". There's a big difference between the two which is worth pointing out.

93!

Usually, Bhakti Yoga
should not really strain us by lacking for an easily agreed upon definition, being that it is pretty much understandable to those having given it a fair amount of study, and/or practice!

Usually, the result of the endeavor achieves either of 2 results,
but not necessarily is this "always" the case.

1. Where the object of devotion is experienced in a way that is seemingly "exterior" to the devotee in a way which is just as physically "tangible" to the devotee, as the devotee perceives his/her own tangibility to be.
I am making no mention here, if the devotee considers the object of his/her devotion to already exist in part or in entirety, outside/inside/ or somewhere other than his/her own realm of abidance. Nor am I even considering the idea of "real" or "unreal" in this simple description of what most of those concerning themselves with Bhakti consider Bhakti to be.
There can be more than one level so to say---to these perceptions/experiences.

2. Where the object of devotion ceases to be apprehended as exterior, or interior to the devotee---once union with the object of desire is achieved.

Either experience, is possible---depending upon the medium for expression, which is the very devotee.

Some would perceive #1 as failing to produce the desired result which makes for success; believing that # 2
is the only result that can be said to be "The Goal" or "Aim" of the practice itself.

The answer is not so clear cut, considering, that the "effect upon the devotee", after the experience of such Bhakti, must be considered.
Is he/she---the devotee, better or worse off---or the same, once their Bhakti is completed. Are they closer to knowing what their True Will is?
Has the practice enhanced their ability to manifest their True Will?

93! 93! 93!

Yes, as you have amply demonstrated, sonofthestar, (albeit perhaps unintentionally), we could have discussed and debated the definition, meaning, value and significance of Bhakti Yoga for weeks on end, which would have provided the obfuscation that Erwin was after to dodge the question regarding his personal experience with the subject matter.

However, the beauty of so much of Crowley's work is his presentation of things in a manner which transcends the usual attendant need for controversy, a 'do certain things (really do them) and observe the results' kind of approach. Hence my reference to Liber CLXXV without further comment of my own.

My advice to N.O.X., and anyone else seeking advise on any particular topic, is to qualify the respondents by limiting oneself to people with personal experience with the subject matter. Mika, for example, demonstrated (to me) that she has a great deal of this, and Erwin demonstrated that he does not, that his contribution to the discussion was, well, other than constructive.

Fantasies, not "experiences". There's a big difference between the two which is worth pointing out

Or experience of fantastic phenomena. We might observe that Bhakti utilizes 777 to "saturate" consciousness towards the nature of a given Deity. The methods and modes of this work call for a good deal of imaginative power and a willed suspension of disbelief to achieve a dynamic awareness of and encounter(s) with one's "God." Mika has already indicated one of the "ultimate" goals of this working:

it causes you to begin viewing everything as an interconnected part of your magical path, your life, your work. It is one method for experiencing, and thus understanding, the oath to "interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with my soul."

I believe Mika was speaking more specifically of the "filtration system" of correspondences but we might regard the chosen deity in Bhakti as a specialized or concentrated component of that larger system. It's the "tap" we're drawing from to access the "Living Waters" in our own unique sphere of experience.

Of what "substance" is our Deity composed-or "clothed?" The stuff of imagination-or, if you like, "fantasy." And here we see an application of the same to the transcendent aims of Magick.

Liber Astarte asks of the Magician sanity and offers words of advice and caution. But it also asks the Magician to go all out. One is not going to embrace the chosen Deity in the sequential manner described by Crowley while regarding "him," "her" or "it" as a "pretend creature," the experience of which being considered nothing more than a useless "fantasy."

Exactly, Kyle. In this case, as with so many others, years of theoretical analysis and verbose posturing with conclusions drawn therefrom do not equal 30 days of sincere and genuine practical application of oneself and the devotion of all of one's faculties to the matter at hand; this is including, no, especially, one's imagination.

The experience is not a fantasy, but it is based on a fantasy. You can have real experiences that result from fantasies, but the reality of the experience does not then make the fantasy real as well. A magician can "go all out" and pretend an imaginary being is actually real, completely suspend disbelief for the purposes of a devotional ritual/meditation that hinges on believing in an external diety, and through this have a profound, transformational experience. However, that profound experience does not then "prove" or otherwise imply that the external diety really does exist.

Suspension of disbelief is temporary, it is a tool to be used during the ritual experience itself. That means, once a devotional-type of ritual/meditation is over, belief that the diety is some external entity also must end. That belief truly is nothing more than a fantasy, even if it led to some real experiential results.

When using qabalistic correspondences, if you dismiss or don't even notice the difference between belief and suspension of disbelief, you can forget that you, yourself, are making the connections and then start to believe that some diety/angel/demon/spirit is sending you messages and telling you what to do. The oath to "interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with my soul" does not require "a good deal of imaginative power and a willed suspension of disbelief". All it calls for is conscious awareness; for example, one can consciously interpret every phenomena through the 777 correspondences and through that process become aware of the relationship between perception, experience, and interpretation of perception and experience. Thus the oath is fulfilled without even indulging in the fantasy that such things as "God" and "my soul" even exist.

On the other hand, if you choose to suspend disbelief and pretend that "God" and "my soul" exist for the sake of practicing the oath, any "dynamic awareness of and encounter(s) with one's God" that may be achieved still don't mean that the "God" you are encountering is anything more than a figment of your imagination.

I'll say it again: You can have real experiences that result from fantasies, but the reality of the experience does not then make the fantasy real as well.

I agree that there is no god but man, simply put.

There is no man but god.

Nemo is a god

I said, "simply put." 🙂

Well said, Mika! 😀

Well said, Michael! 😀

Alright, my deciding to ignore Erwin's bullshit has kept him off of this page, at least! BTW, Michael, you were right, as always.

Okay, Mika, A.C. can have Horus send him a messenger that resulted in a received text, but I cannot have a similar experience? Although, I'm not going to claim "the Advent of a New Aeon?" A.C. expected many Adepts to have "communications" resulting in "received texts", in the future. (and BTW, I remember A.C.writing somewhere in one of the Equinox I volumes that every aspirant is expected to produce his/her own Qabalah, 777 is a starting point, and its not set in stone. It is meant to be added to and even subtracted from...that's some "creative occultism" right there. So yes I get it Mika.) My H.G.A has proven by Gematria that "He" is "riding" the 93 Current. A.C. wrote, I forget where, that analysis by Gematria of your H.G.A's Name will show you its/your True Nature. My only point in my posting my "Initiations" was to show "reino", by example, that "Zardoz" reply was correct. You and Erwin( which I think you singled my post out because you seem to have no creative bone in your body, I detect a hint of jealousy in your posts.) can call my experiences, "fantasies" all you like, but I know the Truth of my Gnosis.

Kyle, I knew you would understand what I was getting at. After all you are familiar with what paradigm I work with. Thanks for sticking up for me.

Paul, I apologize for getting "pissy", to quote Mika, at the responses I received. I didn't mean it to sound like I was angry at you or anything like that. The fact that I came here with my inquiry first, should tell you how much I think of this wonderful community that you have created for us, Paul. Thanks. Again apologies, no disrespect intended.

I'm done with this thread.

Here is a magician named N.O.X
Who made claim his H.G.A. talks,
With Grantian pious
Confirmation bias,
at the method of science he balks.

N.O.X, best to remember, at the same time, the tremendous emphasis that AC placed on skepticism, on doubt. Its all about the often delicate balance between an open mind and a closed one, and neither extreme is healthy or productive in this Work without the other to counter-balance it.

I would be very much more happy if that point Crowley stressess that much should be taken more in consideration.

Oh, I'm so flattered that you were so inspired to write a rhyme about me, mal.
How is it that I baulk at the method of science, pal?
You don't have access to my Magickal Records now.
But, you assume that you know the nature of my praxis, anyhow?

You are judging me ingnorance anyway,
even as the book says "thou has no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no othershall say nay."
Do you have a problem with me today?
It seems that way.

("Grantian pious, Confirmation bias", what the hell are talking about? Yeah, I'm a fan of his work and we are both in the E.O.D, which I was determined to join before I even knew he was in it. I'm possibly going to be a member of the Typhonian Order, if my Probationary Work proved adequate. But I don't worship the guy, so what's with the "pious" remark? What do you mean by Confirmation bias? I'm not looking for "confirmation" that my experience was a vailid Initiation or not, because I Know (the Gnosis) was an experience of unveiling that is unmistakeable as Initiation. As far as bias is concerned, yeah I value what certain members say to me or about me more than others (which I should, as we are either in the same Order or affiliated) still others, who belong to different or no Orders have shown their knowlege and experiences to be greater than my own (I am only 24 yrs old. but I've been a Thelemite since I was 17) so I learn from what they have to say, and some (i.e. Erwin) opinions are ignored because of they are not even worth the time it takes to read them. 'Nuff said.

The trouble is, alysa, that so many of the people who vehemently caution against the gullibly 'wide open' mind are advocating a totally closed mind instead; a mind that refuses to even consider possibilities beyond what is commonly known and accepted by the average person. The totally closed mind is just as unsuited to this Work as the mind without sufficient willingness and ability to scrutinize itself and its observations. It's all about the balance.

93.

I have to admit that the Qabala was a major stumbling block for me but the main thing that one has to realize is that if they're going to even attempt to understand what Crowley was ON about, then at some point you need to get cracking.

For specifically of the answering of attaining Yesod. Well, one of the main things about Yesod is you are opening yourself up to the reception of the light from Tiphareth. When that light comes, how are you going to recognize it? How are you going to understand it? When in the astral, what does what you see mean? The Qabala (and 777) isn't the only way but you need to establish a language for yourself to process all of this.

93 93/93

Confirmation Bias is a term which describes a perception based psychological pathology. A web search will help you find more specific information, if you wish to know more.

Do I have a problem with you? No. I was criticising your dismissal of the observations (Mika specifically, but sure Erwin too) which didn't conform to your current ideas about your experiences while, in the same post, lauding those comments which confirmed your preset notions. Hardly a capital offence, but your post does seem to demonstrate Confirmation Bias. A fault of mind worth noting in context of the usage of Qabalistic Correspondences to examine the Nature of Experience.

Doubtless a very clever observation.

On the basis of your description of "Confirmation Bias", I suspect that it's something that most of us have to some degree, some more so than others.

I shouldn't rush to see a psychiatrist just yet, N.O.X. . .

Best wishes,

Michael.

By "a psychiatrist" do you mean "The True Grimoire"? 😈

Re: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=40800&highlight=#40800

You can pay for the "Confirmation Bias" of a psychiatrist that has taken into consideration all factors existing while like Jung they try to get their own head straight. Most times its more interesting to hazard your own in the Desert of Set. Its all a learning process. Your doing great, No your not, better keep going. Thats my "Confirmation Bias"

N.O.X. imho your HGA maybe talking but an aspect of your being is not listening; or you are being made to listen.

Best Wishes.