Is anyone aware of any Thelemic texts (or any spiritual texts) regarding Melchizedek. Other than commentary, I only see information briefly in the Old Testament Bible, as well as non-canonical books such as Enoch. This entity seems powerful enough to survive the millennia but almost seems to be removed from much of the history that first mentioned him.
any Thelemic texts (or any spiritual texts) regarding Melchizedek
I came across the term/title in the '60s, but it was always in some "Psychic" magazine or in Mail-order discipleship. Yeah, The Order of Melchizedeck. I didn't join. He isn't tied in to Thelema. Maybe he's part of the rituals of old are black.
At that time (50s), there were also AMORC (Rosicrucian), The Monastery of the Seven Rays, The Mayan School, and of course The Order of Mel.'..
I was told about the secret teachings of AMORC by a former student who had upgraded to Thelema. He crashed and burned after 3 months. I got to actually read the mail-order lessons of the Mayan series.
But, no, sorry. Even though I have taken the side path that leads to accumulating extra burdens, in search of Mel, I can say that I found a description, long ago, but nothing remains in my memory, at all, except that the name comes out of The Bible.
It may not be much but there is a chapter in Aivanhov's 'The Book of Revelations: a commentary' entitled 'Melchizedek and Initiation into the Mystery of the Two Principles' pp 27-45.
In one of the collected works Aivanhov mentions the infamous black magician Aleister Crowley in England but I failed to make a note of it, does anyone know where as a long shot? It may be in Love and Sexuality part 1 or 2.
Melchizedek is a very big deal with the Mormons.
Go west, young man! (unless you are west of Utah, in which case go east).
Thanks for the input, everyone.
I was hoping Shiva (and his mutant memory) would know some obscure mentioning that would connect the dots I'm getting with something tangible.
I feel its an old entity/energy/program that is no longer around and religions/"spiritual" groups (such as the mormons ignant666 mentioned) use it to add/imply credibility with no true understanding or connection. Much as what the Christian church did by applying the term to Jesus.
My own personal feelings/discernment prior to research was that its an energy that hasn't been in play for over 3,000 years. Something within a specific individual/Avatar that could absorb excess types of energy in the world, acting like a filter feeder for spiritual energy to maintain a balance by converting the absorbed energy into another form.
With limited information, everyone can claim it as their own for "divine authority."
I feel its an old entity/energy/program that is no longer around
Since we are advised to not deem anything relating to change, because all is as it ever was, I suspect it is still around. It, or its proprietors, have simply changed its name - an old trick, employed even by myself. MelchizedekTM is now showing daily as XYZTM. XYZ is mere a code-designation for its present location. One's duty, not mine today, would be to anal-eyes the details of M's manifestation. Then, erasing all names, traditions, or national origins, go looking for those characteristics in modern drag.
My own personal feelings/discernment prior to research was that its an energy that hasn't been in play for over 3,000 years. Something within a specific individual/Avatar that could absorb excess types of energy in the world, acting like a filter feeder for spiritual energy to maintain a balance by converting the absorbed energy into another form.
Oh, goodness and her 40 thieves! This short paragraph, quoted above for eternity's sake, could easily be expanded into a full-blown 7=4 thesis, if certain postulates could be verified as starting points. I see no reason why you should not be the avatar ... or at least its vehicle.
With limited information, everyone can claim it as their own for "divine authority."
But hardly anyone does.
My own personal feelings/discernment prior to research was that its an energy that hasn't been in play for over 3,000 years. Something within a specific individual/Avatar that could absorb excess types of energy in the world, acting like a filter feeder for spiritual energy to maintain a balance by converting the absorbed energy into another form.
With limited information, everyone can claim it as their own for "divine authority."
There is the modern author, Drunvalo Melchizedek, who's involved in a lot of sacred geometry, merkabah mysticism, new age, and conspiracy theory stuff.
I was a vehicle for over 38 years, then Nemo for 4 months. Next, a vehicle undergoing adjustments/upgrades for over 2 years to prepare to be an avatar for nearly 3 and a half years. Became Nemo again for 11 days, then a vehicle for something else undergoing adjustments for 3 days and now an avatar again for the something else.
September 8, 2022 - March 8, 2023 will be some interesting times. Hopefully people can let LOVE into their hearts...
I was a vehicle for over 38 years, then Nemo for 4 months
I was under the impression that an Avatar outranked both a Nemo and a revised iMage. But then, everybody must build their own QBL, Grade System, and Dues Structure.
@shiva Avatars are definitely above bodhisattvas, but there have been stories of people being temporarily elevated to grades for particular reasons and then restored to their proper grade after.
I'm not giving credence to any particular claim here, just offering a potential explanation.
there have been stories of people being temporarily elevated to grades for particular reasons and then restored to their proper grade after.
Why, yes. The historical fact closest to our heart in this matter was when O.M. decided to elevate JFC Fuller, 0=0, to 5=6, because he (O.M.) didn't have enough people to fill out the inner (or outer) triad. Blateent dishonesty, if you ask me, which you didn't?
to achieve his ends ...
shining image when you get
caught with the illusion part?
But this is hardly what you meant. It's just a dim reflected echo of what you describe. Obviously, to me, maybe you and some reader in these lonely, but peaceful halls, there are times when some innocent (or guilty) by-stander gets pulled into, or otherwise involved, in some magical operation, and they somehow fulfil a certain part, and then they go away and you never see them again. Sound familiar? AC described Eckenstein as "a messenger from the A.'.A.'.," and that was a longer-term friendship.
In a few ceremonies, I have elevated people to "stand in" for higher grades. Not that they got elevated to 5=6 or 8=3, that would be naughty, but simply to just go stand in a little circle on the Tree of Life laid out on the ground.
I would say that when something is supposed to be done, by Will or Destiny or Forces that causes happenings, that the most suitable subject in the area of the operation could easily be Queen for a Day.
there have been stories of people being temporarily elevated to grades for particular reasons and then restored to their proper grade after.
Why, yes. The historical fact closest to our heart in this matter was when O.M. decided to elevate JFC Fuller, 0=0, to 5=6, because he (O.M.) didn't have enough people to fill out the inner (or outer) triad. Blateent dishonesty, if you ask me, which you didn't?
I would say that when something is supposed to be done, by Will or Destiny or Forces that causes happenings, that the most suitable subject in the area of the operation could easily be Queen for a Day.
It's possible for someone to temporarily reach a level of consciousness equivalent to a grade prior to reaching that grade. The grade simply indicates that that level is their default state. Someone could, for example, be raised to the point of uttering an Aeon-enhancing Word* but not stay at that grade after that. Personally,I think most people who have uttered such Words had that experience, not all of them can be Magi in the A:.A:. grade sense. This goes even more so for Words claimed to be Words of the Aeon.
* (ok, really just enhancing the current manifestation of the Aeon in the world, but that's a lot to type when a ready made phrase already exists)
It's possible for someone to temporarily reach a level of consciousness equivalent to a grade prior to reaching that grade.
Yes, it happens all the time, particularly with strange drugs. However, it is my hypothesis that we all come in with a particular grade level - either from some past life or inherited via DNA from some ancestor. As kids, we stumble around ... later we develop an interest ... at any point, some unusual scenario, or some libation, or some close encounter, or whatever it takes, any aspirant may find themselves elevated to a higher level, often the level they came in with but have not yet attained because they're still working on it.
Temporary? Yeah.
Repeatable? Sometimes, yeah. Sometimes, no way.
Whenever one can shift, at will (more or less), without libation or electrocution, the demonstrated repeatability means Congratulations - it's not temporary any more.
Yes, it happens all the time, particularly with strange drugs. However, it is my hypothesis that we all come in with a particular grade level - either from some past life or inherited via DNA from some ancestor. As kids, we stumble around ... later we develop an interest ... at any point, some unusual scenario, or some libation, or some close encounter, or whatever it takes, any aspirant may find themselves elevated to a higher level, often the level they came in with but have not yet attained because they're still working on it.
That makes sense. Some people are "called", and some seem to have more momentum in initiatory progress, and some may have experiences that leave a mark on them that leaves them more advanced in some areas, but still have to catch up in others.
So some get a head start.
We have all of the grades in us in potential, the Work helps realize that potential, so if we carry them all within us, some can get temporarily activated for a particular reason, and some may begin with a head start.
But it also carries the risk of someone having a temporary attainment and mistaking it for actual attainment, and some misinterpret the kind of experience they have.
For example, someone can be elevated to utter a Word, but not actually attain that grade permanently.
Or someone may utter a Word as a Magus or as someone temporarily elevated to Magus and not realize that their Word as an Aeon-enhancing Word and believe that they've become Magus of a new Aeon.
Or someone may utter a Word as a Magus or as someone temporarily elevated to Magus and not realize that their Word as an Aeon-enhancing Word and believe that they've become Magus of a new Aeon.
Dwtw
Can you give any examples of this claim, or is this hypothetical?
Alternatively, can you give examples of those who claimed to be a Magus and uttered a Word (as Crowley expected others might), which would be "Aeon-enhancing" (as you put it), as opposed to Magi who uttered a Word of a new Aeon? I'm speaking strictly of the Aeon of Horus and/or Aeons supposedly coming after it.
It seems that Fr. Achad thought he uttered a Word of a new Aeon (Manifestation); not sure how many others claim this? Sr. Nema perhaps?
Litlluw
O.L.
Or someone may utter a Word as a Magus or as someone temporarily elevated to Magus and not realize that their Word as an Aeon-enhancing Word and believe that they've become Magus of a new Aeon.
Dwtw
Can you give any examples of this claim, or is this hypothetical?
Not hypothetical at all.
I am of course talking of the idea of Words in general, not specifically within Thelema as is largely acknowledged, but also of systems that have origins in Thelema and diverged from it.
Aquino and Carroll come immediately to mind. Both have Words and have declared Aeons. One could indeed include Achad and Nema too if one does not believe their connection to a future Aeon.
Alternatively, can you give examples of those who claimed to be a Magus and uttered a Word (as Crowley expected others might), which would be "Aeon-enhancing" (as you put it), as opposed to Magi who uttered a Word of a new Aeon? I'm speaking strictly of the Aeon of Horus and/or Aeons supposedly coming after it.
The term "Aeon-enhancing" is not mine. Please also note that Crowley himself wrote that others may utter Words aligned with the Aeon, not every Magus or person temporarily elevated to Magus utters the Word of an Aeon.
There are a number of other Words, like Synesis, Essent, Xem, Arkte, and Runa, just to name a few.
Alternatively, can you give examples of those who claimed to be a Magus and uttered a Word (as Crowley expected others might), which would be "Aeon-enhancing" (as you put it), as opposed to Magi who uttered a Word of a new Aeon? I'm speaking strictly of the Aeon of Horus and/or Aeons supposedly coming after it.
The term "Aeon-enhancing" is not mine. Please also note that Crowley himself wrote that others may utter Words aligned with the Aeon, not every Magus or person temporarily elevated to Magus utters the Word of an Aeon.
There are a number of other Words, like Synesis, Essent, Xem, Arkte, and Runa, just to name a few.
Dwtw
Yes, as I said in parentheses, AC expected others would have Words also, and that these are not necessarily of a separate Aeon.
What I was hoping for was more of a list of 'person X claims Magus grade (real, imagined, temporary?) and has Word Y' (Crowleyan, post-Crowleyan, non-Crowleyan?). It would be interesting to see how this idea has evolved from its original use by AC, and in his Liber B vel Magi. For him it was a very technical term, and maybe not so for others.
The last 5 words you mention are not in my vocabulary, and i have no idea who uttered them or their connection (or lack thereof) to Thelema. I assume these could be part of such a list.
When you talk about being a 'temporary Magus', do you have any examples of people who claimed that?
Litlluw
O.L.
Michael Aquino claims the Word Xeper, and declared the Aeon of Set
Peter Carroll's Word is Kaos, and declared the Pandemonaeon
The last 5 words you mention are not in my vocabulary, and i have no idea who uttered them or their connection (or lack thereof) to Thelema.
Synesis: Robert Neilly
Essent: Robert Robinson. I will admit I know little about the story behind this one
Xem: Ronald Barrett
Arkte: Lilith Aquino
Runa: Stephen Flowers
I'll also add Jubalcain: Joel Biroco
When you talk about being a 'temporary Magus', do you have any examples of people who claimed that?
I seem to recall Crowley himself making that claim at one point, though I can't remember specifically where.
Most of these "Words" don't seem to be actual words, in the sense of having definitions, and existing before being "received" by some "Magus".
"Xeper", "Runa", "Artke", "Xem", and "Essent" are, as far as i can tell, just made-up strings of letters, or at least i can't find any online sources that use or define these "Words".
"Synesis" means "not strictly correct in syntax". "Kaos" is also a word in the traditional sense.
"Jubalcain" is a mash-up of two characters in Genesis, Jubal, and Cain, who was Jubal's great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. It sounds a lot like Tubal-Cain, who was Jubal's cousin. But there is no Biblical Jubal Cain.
I know you aren't advocating for the validity of any of these Magus-claimers, @katrice, but are you aware of any response made by any of these "Magi" to folks pointing out that their "words" aren't actually, y'know, words?
Dwtw
Thanks @katrice for fleshing out that list some more.
And @ignant666 is right that most of these aren't even 'words' in the traditional sense.
I would surmise that there is a distinction between a 'word of power' that a magician might create or have channeled, and a Word in the technical sense meant by AC. In the same way, the term Magus is rather technical in AC's mythos. It might be fair to say that being a Magus requires uttering a Word, but uttering a word (of power) does not necessarily imply that one is a Magus.
There is also a distinction between an Aeon, which is a very meta-level concept, and a 'current', which could emerge at any time through particular workings and magicians. For example, the 'Aeon' of Set is not really in line with the prophecies of the Book of the Law, so it may be more sensible to think of it as a 'current of Set'. Since Liber AL specifically states that the 'fall of the Great Equinox' will not occur until after Boleskine is 'burnt down and shattered', any claims of a successor Aeon before that time (Dec. 2015) were simply premature, or willfully ignoring the very prophecies related to the idea of successive Aeons.
I suppose this is all better placed in a different thread, but thanks for taking the time to reply.
Litlluw
O.L.
"Xeper", "Runa", "Artke", "Xem", and "Essent" are, as far as i can tell, just made-up strings of letters, or at least i can't find any online sources that use or define these "Words".
We have other "magical" words (not Words of an Aeon, but maybe words that last for just a few hours) like IAO, LVX, and LAShTAL, while Therion himself listed the names of the historical Magi (in his lineage) along with their Words, such as ... HRILIU, AGLA, MU ...
It's a long list, but I suppose one could scan just AC's List of various words (Aeonic, Temporal, and QBL), and the abstract (summary) could fit on one page of parchment.
By reading all the list of (post-AC) Attainees and their Words, surely only a partial sampling, I begin to get a strange pressure in my head, as if it were starting off toward the syndrome wherein it ends up exploding.
Swollen Head Syndrome.
Of course, any given individual can makw "personal progress" to that of "a Word of an Aeon" at any time and in any place, and soon the 9=2 Roster will be filled as fast as popping popcorn ... but it's all "personal progress," and when they sound (squeak) their Word, it may or may not open their own personal (impersonally, of course) portal onto the Atmic plane (Chokmah) ...
... but this is of no importance to any of us (others) because so what? It is unlikely that any of these folks actually changed the nature of reality for the rest of humanity.
The so what? part is answered by the refrain ... They sounded their Word, thus destroying themselves. Anything left over is a Bodhisattva, an Arhat retuirning from the other shore. After they return, then we turn to ...
You shall judge them by their Works
So? Who among these fine folks have extraordinary works to present? ... other than a Claim to Magihood or Ipsissimusality?
This post contains a lot of ?s - This is probably because I question the whole stable of concepts and their applications, allowing everyone (who thinks they are operating at this level) to be upheld by the sink or swim principle.
I know you aren't advocating for the validity of any of these Magus-claimers, @katrice, but are you aware of any response made by any of these "Magi" to folks pointing out that their "words" aren't actually, y'know, words?
Shiva addressed this in the way that I was going to. I know of no prohibition on Words not being Barbarous. One look through the PGM, especially for things like the Bornless Ritual or the Hidden Stele, will show dozens of such words.
Thanks @katrice for fleshing out that list some more.
You're welcome.
I would surmise that there is a distinction between a 'word of power' that a magician might create or have channeled, and a Word in the technical sense meant by AC. In the same way, the term Magus is rather technical in AC's mythos. It might be fair to say that being a Magus requires uttering a Word, but uttering a word (of power) does not necessarily imply that one is a Magus.
There is also a distinction between an Aeon, which is a very meta-level concept, and a 'current', which could emerge at any time through particular workings and magicians. For example, the 'Aeon' of Set is not really in line with the prophecies of the Book of the Law, so it may be more sensible to think of it as a 'current of Set'. Since Liber AL specifically states that the 'fall of the Great Equinox' will not occur until after Boleskine is 'burnt down and shattered', any claims of a successor Aeon before that time (Dec. 2015) were simply premature, or willfully ignoring the very prophecies related to the idea of successive Aeons.
I do agree with all of this. I personally see, for example, the Aeon of Set and the Pandemonaeon as currents branching off of Thelema rather than Aeons, and the other Words I'd mentioned as sub-currents, for lack of a better term. Anyone can have a word, a Magus (but not Magus of the Aeon, who also brings a law and "book" in addition to articulating an Aeon) creates an aeon-enhancing current or sub-current, condensing an idea or teaching in to a Word.
We have other "magical" words (not Words of an Aeon, but maybe words that last for just a few hours) like IAO, LVX, and LAShTAL, while Therion himself listed the names of the historical Magi (in his lineage) along with their Words, such as ... HRILIU, AGLA, MU
Exactly. Abrahadabra is another example, AbraCadabra having no confirmed origin in any other language, and finding one of its earliest uses in Basilides.
By reading all the list of (post-AC) Attainees and their Words, surely only a partial sampling, I begin to get a strange pressure in my head, as if it were starting off toward the syndrome wherein it ends up exploding.
Swollen Head Syndrome.
I'd agree in many cases. Barrett in particular seemed to have become somewhat megalomaniacal.
... but this is of no importance to any of us (others) because so what? It is unlikely that any of these folks actually changed the nature of reality for the rest of humanity
Aeon-enhancing Words tend to confine their influence to those devoted to the Aeon, but do inspire Work within that context. Arkte even inspired the creation of an animal rights/rescue group.
You shall judge them by their Works
The value of a Word lies in what use people find in it.
I know of no prohibition on Words not being Barbarous.
Perhaps.
But AC says that a Magus "may be recognized by the fact that their message may be formulated as a single word, which word must be such that it overturns all existing beliefs and codes." [emphasis added, Hag, ch. 49, p.399]
He goes on to give as examples the words of 50% of the "scarcely half a dozen" Magi "in recorded history": Buddha with "Anatta" ["no atman/soul" in Sanskrit], Mohammed with "Allah" ["God is one" in Arabic], and himself with "Thelema" ["Will" in Greek]. Elsewhere, he gives the word of Jesus as "Agape" ["Love" in Greek], and i believe also Lao-Tse with "Tao" ["Way" in Chinese].
So we can say with certainty at least that 4 out of the 6 Magi, and 5 out of 6 if i am correct about Lao-Tse, who existed before 1947, had words with actual definitions.
We might go on to wonder how exactly a contrived non-word "word" like "Xeper" could possibly "overturn all existing beliefs and codes".
Khepher, Khem
And, while I'm at it, "Ascent" combined with "Essence"
But I still see no prohibition against barbarous words. Undeed, the Gnostics and Hermetics seemed very fond of them.
Taken as Aeon-enhancing words, they manifest ideas in to the current created by the Word of the Aeon.
Grant speaks of, no pun intended, of words as formulas, which I would describe as nested with significance to which YHV* is perhaps the primal example still being fiddled with and explored in a manner of neither writing it out loud in a profane sense, and in a certain initiated sense hath just revealed an essence that actually speaks to perhaps what our friend here @threefold31 has shared in his other thread considering geometries of II. 76..... a bullish star in sight!...
Katalysis sounds like a chemical reaction, or Cattle Isis, meaning bull and the verb to be in one of its conjugations twice, which can be construed as an Aeon, or final forth, a daughter, as a word having a significance of time that concerns a multitude, and cattle are multitude, and sacrificed little and big after a child, so I, yod, suppose that after the Horus child is sacrificed... while i guess the cattle come or go with my prattling, but catalysis is a chemical reactions and can be writ as part of larger formula so perhaps our friend @Shiva 's concern about the pop-corn going off, of lots of words, is consolation prize being mooed from the cattle being....
So solving II.76 may or may not be part of game. but if its spells your name, Mr. or Ms. Stoval, are pee on the x why the Horus toy and box of Petrie stationary are yours on the way...write on!
Hey what's the waiters name?
HG
I
But AC says that a Magus "may be recognized by the fact that their message may be formulated as a single word, which word must be such that it overturns all existing beliefs and codes." [emphasis added, Hag, ch. 49, p.399]
Hyperbole by Crowley, to say the least. In what way did Anatta overturn "all existing beliefs and codes"? Or Agape? Or Allah? Or Tao? Thery didn't. They may have had an effect on a limited culture, for a time, but they certainly didn't overturn "all existing beliefs and codes".
We might go on to wonder how exactly a contrived non-word "word" like "Xeper" could possibly "overturn all existing beliefs and codes".
Yes, we might. However, since the words listed by Crowley didn't do that in the first place, we might suspect that you're setting rather a high bar.
[W]e might suspect that you're setting rather a high bar.
The bar as to what might be the import of a Magus' "word" may well be set rather high, but it ain't me doing any bar-setting here.
I am simply quoting AC, the guy who made up the idea that "Magi" by definition are those who utter "words" that overturn prior religious concepts and introduce a sort of religious paradigm shift by their utterance.
Anyone is of course free to disagree with Crowley on this point, as you do, and thus have some other definitions of "Magus"/the "word" of a Magus. But when we are discussing the system AC created/defined, his words are in fact definitive, if only in a tautological sense.
An analogy: Ian Fleming would be the definitive source on James Bond, because he invented "James Bond". Anyone could claim superior knowledge or insight as to the realities of British Cold War espionage, but no one could claim superior knowledge of "James Bond", the invented character, to the person who invented him.
And all these post-AC "Magi" are folks who have accepted/adopted AC's definitions and claims about Magi, or they would not be "uttering words", and calling themselves "Magi". They are seeking to be taken as equivalent to AC in attainment- that's why they are using his terminology. So if they/their "words" don't live up to AC's definitions here, isn't that worthy of comment?
The bar as to what might be the import of a Magus' "word" may well be set rather high, but it ain't me doing any bar-setting here
Well, with all due respect, it was you doing the bar-setting. You were suggesting that Xeper (a term of which I'd not heard prior to this thread) would be unlikely to overturn "all existing beliefs and codes". Probably true, but the words cited in the passage by Crowley didn't have such an effect either.
If you want to use something by Crowley, which you know to be hyperbole, in order to advance your argument, it seems a bit threadbare.
I think it would be hard to deny that Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed, and Lao-Tse each had a profound effect on the world; the jury is still out on whether AC did (not looking good for him, though).
Yes, of course it was hyperbole to say that each "overturn[ed] all existing beliefs and codes", but they were, by anyone's reckoning, among the most significant changers of thought in human history.
We will neither of us live to see whether, a thousand years from now, Michael Aquino (the "Magus" whose "word" is "Xeper") is regarded as their equal; i myself have my doubts.
I think it would be hard to deny that Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed, and Lao-Tse each had a profound effect on the world
Yes, agreed that they had an effect As someone who considers Advaita Vedanta to be the best thing since sliced bread, I'd have liked Anatta to have made more of a splash.
Dwtw
A more modest claim, and one more in keeping with the successive Equinoxes as given in Liber AL, is found in One Star in Sight:
“The essential characteristic of the Grade is that its possessor utters a Creative Magical Word, which transforms the planet on which he lives by the installation of new officers to preside over its initiation.”
Litlluw
O.L.
A more modest claim
Not hardly: "transforms the planet on which he lives" is about equally grandiose/hyperbolic as the "overturns all existing beliefs and codes" language i quoted.
And that one's honeymoon jottings have led to "the installation of new officers to preside over [the planet's] initiation" is not easily describable as a "modest" claim.
“The essential characteristic of the Grade is that its possessor utters a Creative Magical Word, which transforms the planet on which he lives by the installation of new officers to preside over its initiation.”
Crowley's projected idea of a single Word is also limiting, esp. in a worldview where paradigm (Aeon) shifts indicate progression and development as opposed to the turning of the wheel in another “dull round.” Ergo-and for example, might not a Magus utter a PHRASE?
“The Phrase of a Magus?”
Somehow that just doesn't SOUND as good. And what if said Magi has more than one Phrase?
There is an essay by Papus where he wrote that Occultism has two approaches toward one end: System and Mandala. In the System, one absorbs a vast amount and diversity of information which is distilled into a singular form. In the Mandala, one extracts or unfolds from the central symbol (or “Word”) the diversity of all things. Thus, Eliphas Levi said one could restore the entirety of world knowledge, were it to be lost, from the TAROT alone.
In a simplistic way, we might regard these poles as Kether and Malkuth, the former being in the latter. Two paths, one goal: the ALL and NONE which is AL/LA.
Coming Together or Divided for Love's Sake. Lightning Flash of Nodens to meet the Arrow of Nuit.
To confine the expression of this Gnosis into a single “Word” of the Zeitgeist seems a bit awkward, cramping and dogmatic, doesn't it?
But if that's what it takes to “install new officers...”
There is an essay by Papus where he wrote that Occultism has two approaches toward one end: System and Mandala. In the System, one absorbs a vast amount and diversity of information which is distilled into a singular form. In the Mandala, one extracts or unfolds from the central symbol (or “Word”) the diversity of all things. Thus, Eliphas Levi said one could restore the entirety of world knowledge, were it to be lost, from the TAROT alone.
Dwtw
If the Word is truly Creative, then it should be the Beginning, not the End of the process.
Presumably when one finds their Thelema, that is merely the start of actually Doing it, which will take as many forms as there are stars.
You seem to be hinting that the Word is the focal point where the System turns inside out to become the Mandala?
Litlluw
O.L.
If the Word is truly Creative, then it should be the Beginning, not the End of the process.
What is the “Word” of the Aeon?
It's not Thelema-that's the LAW.
Crowley says the Word is ABRAHADABRA (even less likely to transform the world than the notion of “Will”).
Is ABRAHADABRA a “Creative Word?” Well, it has been explained to mean “By my word, I create.” But how can it-or ANY word-be “creative?”
WE are the creative ones. WE deduce or attribute meaning.
Think of the Swastika. It expresses four elements whirling about a center-and this is about as archetypal as it gets. Crowley's “Mark of the Beast” is no more than a variation on this. I could go on at great length here: Four Qabalistic Worlds, Four Elements, Four Quadrants of the Psyche, the Center Point (Hadit), the Circle or Spinning bars (Nuit). An entire picture of the World could be drawn from this image (which IS a type of Mandala).
But most of us, upon seeing this image today, think “Hitler,” “Nazis,” “Evil.”
Which view is correct?
Well, they both are. As profound as this symbol is, as much as we might demonstrate its connection to lofty ideals of thought, we cannot deny its use and widespread proliferation in connection with the horrors of the Third Reich-and the malignancy of those who would emulate it. But is this a CREATIVE view-or a reactionary one?
If I were to expound upon the esoteric swastika as a mandala, would it not be akin to doing the same with ABRAHADABRA?
The “Creative Value” of the “Word” is not apparent upon its face. It must be extracted by MEANS of the creative consciousness interfacing with it. We can see this power at work when Frater Achad gave Crowley his account/solution of the “cipher.”
You seem to be hinting that the Word is the focal point where the System turns inside out to become the Mandala?
If anything, I would say the “Word” is the focal point where the Mandala turns itself inside out to become the System.
But all of this is just a collection of (my own) perspective points on the subject. In the world of Crowley, the critical thing was that HE be the MAGUS who utters the BIG WORD and establish his importance thereby. He knows this is precarious ground and other Wordites or Wordians are going to come popping up out of the woodwork straightaway so he makes provision for this by allowing for other Magi-as long as THEIR “Words” are in harmony with his own.
Xepers ensue.
The Religion of Crowley is what Robert Anton Wilson would call a “Reality Tunnel.” But Reality Tunnels are not Reality. Just ways in which it gets organized according to the creative power (and limits) of the individual consciousness.
We may all inhabit such Reality Tunnels at any given time. They are not to be disdained for being such. But there is a difference between such a Space or State functioning as a Landscape for the Voyager or a Cell for the Prisoner. Crowley's World can serve as a liberating medicine-or a confining poison. It all depends on the Creative Power of the Individual interfacing with it.
Above, i refer to AC being the person who invented the idea that a "Magus" utters a "word" that may usher in a new "aeon".
No one has ventured to contradict me and say, "No, no, no, he took that idea from the Golden Dawn [or whatever other source]."
So: am i correct that AC is the original source of this Magus/word/aeon business? Or does this idea (or any parts of it) occur prior to AC, and, if so, where?
He didn't get it from from AL, at any rate: the words "aeon" and magus" are never mentioned, and none of the 15 uses of "word" seem to touch upon this sense of a "word" uttered by a "Magus" that ushers in (or reflects) a new "aeon".
So: am i correct that AC is the original source of this Magus/word/aeon business?
I would say - though I don't know exactly - yes, it started with Crowley. Apart from the idea of aeons, see Age of Aquarius. IIrc at first he stated that this Age of Aquarius is the Aeon of Horus the Child following the Aeons of the Mother and the Father that all had a roughly 2000 year duration. The word-uttering-per-new-aeon came later I guess.
But AC says that a Magus "may be recognized by the fact that their message may be formulated as a single word, which word must be such that it overturns all existing beliefs and codes." [emphasis added, Hag, ch. 49, p.399]
Thank you for posting this - I have only a dim recollection of such an AC-definition, hyperbole or not, because it sort of parallels my own, unfounded, unpublished, and unrecognized definition, which is ...
Chokmah on the Tree, way up there
This is the Collective Unconscious
at the primal yang [proton] level
you know, which changes reality at the core
However, AC's term, "may be recognized," involves only those who are capable of formulating such a world-view ...
In what way did Anatta overturn "all existing beliefs and codes"? Or Agape? Or Allah? Or Tao? Thery didn't. They may have had an effect on a limited culture, for a time, but they certainly didn't overturn "all existing beliefs and codes".
This would be true if we were considering it from its effect on the outer world, which is what most people want to see. "A man may make personal progress equivalent to The Word of an Aeon ..." which merely means it overturns all existing beliefs and codes for that individual unit ... and maybe for some of the readers of his books, immediately - and for a hundred or more years later.
it ain't me doing any bar-setting here.
Samuel bar-Aiwaz says The Bar is already set at Chokmah. This is one of those topics where the linear mind is going to get gnotted-up. The only Roman-designated text that I know of at this level is Liber B vel Magi, which speaks of these matters. I believe that a few beliefs and codes are still swirling about in that Class A [!] document.
There is also the personal account of The Great Beast and his adventure in Sicily, et environs, in that Amazing Account of Magus-hood titled The Heat of The Master, which is a cool Liber, but swirlings of belief and codes may be detected.
I am simply quoting AC, the guy who made up the idea that "Magi" by definition are those who utter "words" that overturn prior religious concepts and introduce a sort of religious paradigm shift by their utterance.
I believe you have summarized the so-called Thelemic paradigm (at the upper level) quite nicely . Thelema is the Word, and The Buck Stops Here. The question now arises, "Is this Magus-Word maneuver true? Or is it just another made-up thing like the IX* that sounds good, but generally fails in clinical trials?
"the installation of new officers to preside over [the planet's] initiation" is not easily describable as a "modest" claim.
But, waite! Horus was declared Hiero on The Equinox '04. AL, presumably writ April 8-9-10 '04, says "Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taen his Seat in the East.
But Therion didn't utter the Word 'til the early '20s ... so him uttering the Word after the Officer hanged ... ? Another "kinks in time" enigma?
Crowley says the Word is ABRAHADABRA
Verified. That's what he said/wrote.
No one has ventured to contradict me and say, "No, no, no, he took that idea from the Golden Dawn [or whatever other source]."
I have not encountered this particular concept in other places, so it appears that AC came up with this one by himself. New wine in a new bottle.
Hyperbole by Crowley, to say the least. In what way did Anatta overturn "all existing beliefs and codes"? Or Agape? Or Allah? Or Tao? Thery didn't. They may have had an effect on a limited culture, for a time, but they certainly didn't overturn "all existing beliefs and codes".
Indeed. One might even argue that Agape, Anatta, and Allah are the most influential Words in history, but still did not do that.
So if they/their "words" don't live up to AC's definitions here, isn't that worthy of comment?
And discussion. But of those I listed, only Aquino and Carroll have claimed Aeons, and even then, Carroll's encompasses all Aeons. I disagree with either being Magus of an Aeon, and the others, whether they be actual full Magi or just those who had gained momentary Magus consciousness, do not claim Aeons. I'd argue that Aeon-enhancing Words would not have the status of a Word of an Aeon and should not be held to the standards of one.
the jury is still out on whether AC did (not looking good for him, though).
He has influenced and inspired a lot of influential people, though. But he certain has not had the impact of the three listed above.
Somehow that just doesn't SOUND as good. And what if said Magi has more than one Phrase?
A Magus of the Aeon would also have a Book (not necessarily a literal one) and a Law. A Law could be a phrase, a Book a collection of them. 😉
Anyone could claim superior knowledge or insight as to the realities of British Cold War espionage, but no one could claim superior knowledge of "James Bond", the invented character, to the person who invented him.
Are we considering the Aeon's current status in the world as static and finished, or dynamic and still unfolding?
Crowley says the Word is ABRAHADABRA (even less likely to transform the world than the notion of “Will”).
A Word who's original form, Abracadabra, has unconfirmed origins and seems to be Barbarous.
The “Creative Value” of the “Word” is not apparent upon its face. It must be extracted by MEANS of the creative consciousness interfacing with it.
The value lying in what it produces in those who align themselves with it.
If anything, I would say the “Word” is the focal point where the Mandala turns itself inside out to become the System.
Words being compressed teachings.
So: am i correct that AC is the original source of this Magus/word/aeon business? Or does this idea (or any parts of it) occur prior to AC, and, if so, where?
I believe Aeonics is derived from the idea of Astrological ages, and Joachim of Fiore had his own system of Ages, which is where Maria de Naglowska got her own model.While I have seen the idea of a predecessor of the idea of Magus, Word, Book, and Law,though not those specific terms, attributed to Philo of Alexandria, I admit I don't know the specifics or veracity of that claim.
But Therion didn't utter the Word 'til the early '20s ... so him uttering the Word after the Officer hanged ... ? Another "kinks in time" enigma?
Didn't he claim the grade in 1915?
Didn't he claim the grade in 1915?
The initiations occurred in 1915, with its Chokmah Days etc. However, I don't think Crowley formally claimed the grade until after Achad was able to claim the grade of Master of the Temple in 1916. The anticipated Word did not follow. Eventually Crowley claimed that the Word was Thelema; acknowledging that it had come along many years earlier, he said that he had not properly appreciated it until his initiation. More details of this are set out on page xx of the Introduction to The Incoming of the Aeon of Maat, the 1948/49 correspondence between Achad and Gerald Yorke.
Dwtw
There's a whole separate argument about whether AC ever actually uttered a Word of the Aeon. Thelema is the Word of the Law, but it seems as if he also settled on it being his Word, since he struggled to come up with one (AC scholars will know which diary this occurs in).
He did lean toward Abrahadabra at some point, but a better claimant is MAKHASHANAH, which is specified as the Word of the Aeon in Liber 418. I don't know if the idea was ever proposed by someone before him, but it is certainly made explicit in his vision of the 27th Aethyr. This word Makhashanah, however, is even more obscure than Abrahadabara, and according to an Israeli I know, the word means nothing in Hebrew; it may be a portmanteau, or a barbarous word, but it is unlikely to transform the planet, especially since it was ignored by AC.
But whatever Word of lack thereof that AC settled on, of course no word is *itself* Creative. We are the creators. I think the quote from One Star In Sight points toward the idea that the Magus uses the Word to create the worlds, as noted in Liber B vel Magi. So the word is 'creative' in that it recognizes the necessity of Creation in its application by the Adept. Thus it is said in The Book of Dissolution that "Dissolution is Creation." And Katalysis in the chemical sense is about creating a new compound by use of a change agent that itself is not changed. So just as Thelema needs a willing agent or Thelemite to manifest its power, so Katalysis needs a Catalyst.
Liber B vel Magi does not include a reference to an 'aeon'. The term 'Word' only appears twice in the Book, while it seems that technically the job of the Magus is to speak Truth:
1. In the beginning doth the Magus speak Truth, and send forth Illusion and Falsehood to enslave the soul. Yet therein is the Mystery of Redemption.
2. By His Wisdom made He the Worlds; the Word that is God is none other than He.
5. By a Magus is this writing made known through the mind of a Magister. The one uttereth clearly, and the other understandeth; yet the Word is falsehood, and the Understanding darkness. And this saying is Of All Truth.
14.Let Him beware of abstinence from Action. For the curse of His grade is that He must speak Truth, that the Falsehood thereof may enslave the souls of men. Let Him then utter that without Fear, that the Law may be fulfilled.
So, the Magus not only utters a Word, he is that Word. This seems akin to the Logos.
And he must speak Truth, but that in turn is Falsehood. This seems akin to Emeyt in Hebrew, or Ma'at in Egyptian. It might even be Aletheia in Greek.
Litlluw
O.L.
There's a whole separate argument about whether AC ever actually uttered a Word of the Aeon.
Why, yes, that is certainly true. Here's the LAW Word from Heart of the Master ...
Thelema is the Word of the Law, but it seems as if he also settled on it being his Word
He went out of his way, almost everywhere, to include the "93=418" equation. He implies, almost everywhere that 93, 418, Aiwass, Thelema, Abrahadabra ... are all the same thing.
he struggled to come up with one (AC scholars will know which diary this occurs in).
I only possessed, as curator, many original AC diaries, which I read. I cannot be considered an "AC Scolar" as I have no idea what/where to are pointing your moon finger at. But then, after a long time had passed, "they" (assorted) decided to publish the various diaries, some of which I had not read in the codices themselves ... but, alas and YHVH!, too much time had passed and, really, I had no need any more to pour over the struggles of a past passed poet.
"Struggled" inplies that he was using his linear mind to invent or select a Word.
And in The End (his final decision), did he just wu-wei it? Or did he use the QBL-Fiddler technique? Since there is "room for argument," I suspect the ultimate answer is not known ... like a bunch of other things.
But whatever Word of lack thereof that AC settled on, of course no word is *itself* Creative.
Right. If these words, which are printed in many places, had inherent power, then every nitwit would be re-shaping the planet on a daily basis. Say, maybe that's exactly what's happening now?
Aleister Crowley did come in contact with the word, and while he did not know it, the word was exhausted!
93
HG
Prove me wrong, then!
Prove me wrong, then!
Generally speaking, when a person maintains something, and someone demurs, it is for them to make thir case. To be honest I assumed that your remark was poetical whimsey, a humorous remark, or irony, hence my remark.
If your remark was in fact a contention then I don't see how anybody could prove or disprove it.
Yes, think about the sentence I wrote and then consider whether there is something familiar in that, and after you have given that some thought, then you might come to understand what I, or it, means...!
Yes, think about the sentence I wrote and then consider whether there is something familiar in that, and after you have given that some thought, then you might come to understand what I, or it, means...!
You think I hadn't noticed the allusion to a passage in The Book of the Law? Seriously?
Its all right, now we are one the same page.