Except for later claims by Aleister Crowley with respect to his BOTL (= Book of the Law), did he claim that his self-created religion Thelema includes other Scarlet Woman aided Class A books?
Also, are there other allegedly received, non Class A texts or books pertaining to Aleister Crowley's self-created religion Thelema, that he claimed originated with Scarlet Woman assistance?
The short answer is no. The only other magical working that resulted in what is treated as Class A material is The Vision & The Voice / Liber 418, which is problematic in several ways when weighed as a true interaction with divine forces.
herupakraath: "The only other magical working that resulted in what is treated as Class A material is The Vision & The Voice / Liber [= Book] 418, ...".
Sex was involved in the 'magaical working' pertaining to that Class A material (material which AC in chapter 66 of his Confessions, referred to as the second most important book of his religion Thelema) Sex was also involved in the 'magaical working' pertaining to the Class a material AC referred to as the most important book of of his religion Thelema, his The Book of the Law.
Does AC's religion Thelema include other written material, Class A or not Class A, allegedly resulting from 'magaical working[-s]' involving sex, that is, sex with a 'Scarlet Woman', or sex with someone not a 'Scarlet Woman'?
According to the following list of "Works of Aleister Crowley (Libers [= Books]) From Thelemapedia", The Paris Working / Book 415, "A record of homosexual magick operations.", contains Class A material: http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Works_of_Aleister_Crowley_%28Libers%29
The just mentioned list of "Works of Aleister Crowley (Libers [= Books]) From Thelemapedia", mentions neither 'magaical working[-s]' or sex, with respect to Crowley's Book 220 / The Book of the Law.
According to the following list of "Works of Aleister Crowley (Libers [= Books]) From Thelemapedia" [...]
The just mentioned list of "Works of Aleister Crowley (Libers [= Books])
Ain't Libri the plural of Liber, not "Libers", if we're being so analytically particular to detail?
And don't cha think readers here, what ain't zackly stoopit, won't already have know that "Liber" means "Book"? {Duh!>
[... D]id he [A.C.] claim that his self-created religion Thelema include[s] other Scarlet Woman aided Class A books?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but all of Crow's "Holy Books" (i.e. Class A texts) were written between 1907 and 1911 (and mainly in the Autumn of 1907). That meant Rose/ 'Ouarda the Seer' would have been the one and only Scarlet Woman at that time (i.e.= between those years) to have "aided" him, (=although she was nearing his/her "use by date" towards the end of that period).
Sex was involved in the 'magaical working' pertaining to that Class A material [...]
Sex was also involved in the 'magaical working' pertaining to the Class a material [...]
Does AC's religion Thelema include other written material, Class A or not Class A, allegedly resulting from 'magaical working[-s]' i[...]
The just mentioned list of "Works of Aleister Crowley (Libers [= Books]) From Thelemapedia", mentions neither 'magaical working[-s]' [...]
Any reason, Well, why you should (mis-)spell "magical" FOUR times in this last post? It seems a heck of rather a lot, even if it's a typo! Plus I would have thought you normally proofed as you're usually so pedantic particular methodical, as well.
Vernacularly yours,
NormaN Joy Conquest
did he claim that his self-created religion Thelema includes other Scarlet Woman aided Class A books?
Sex was involved in the 'magaical working' pertaining to that Class A material
So, are you interested in Women or in Sex?
Also, are there other allegedly received, non Class A texts or books pertaining to Aleister Crowley's self-created religion Thelema, that he claimed originated with Scarlet Woman assistance?
You do realize that EVERY NON CLASS A text or book is EVERYTHING he wrote, yes? So, yeah, there is a lot of women and sex involved.
On the other hand, you - or your AI double - probably just wanted to use the term "self-crerated religion Thelema" as often as "magaical".
... use the term "self-created religion Thelema" as often as "magical".
With access to AI now available to wizards and common dorks alike, the end of rational, meaningful communication on planet Earth can nopw be spotted as a speck on the Horus-zone.
You will (must have) noticed that WRWB is obviously using some form of lingo sophistication, but questions about what he is employing have received absolutely no respone - not a confession, not a denial - nothing !
I (maybe you or some other) can only conclude that WRWB has an agenda, that he is not playing the game up-front as a professional soldier, but is insidiously undermining the work of A Crowley.
On the other appendage, he does come up with some interesting quotes, from time to sunset. For example, he did post a quote (from 1900-02?) wherein P.'. stated that he would from a New World Religion. Well, yes, of course. Just transport your (anyone's) mind into Edward Alex, the child. The entire structure of Thelema, at it's core, is based on the persecuted psyche of a child who was subjected to the Inquisition ... but lived to seek vengeance ...
"Now let it be understood that I am a god of war and of vengeance."
So WRWB has a basis for exposing the motivation of religious war, but the over-used terms should not be repeated in multiple plaves, over and over, as this shows bad gramma' and that the AI output was fiddled with the overly re-emphasize the point.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but all of Crow's "Holy Books" (i.e. Class A texts) were written between 1907 and 1911 (and mainly in the Autumn of 1907).
Are you forgetting the 1904 Holy Book, or are we on the verge of a breakthrough with the real date pending.
... or are we on the verge of a breakthrough with the real date ... [?]
The verge began several decades ago. It is predicted to last until the fall of The Great Equinox, after which it will not matter no more but may be of historical confusion or hysterical conclusion(s).
Are you forgetting the 1904 Holy Book
No, I was not forgetting this "[allegedly] 1904 Holy Book" - this exception was excluded because in the first half of the sentence which I went on to quote, wrwb himself stipulated:
Except for later claims by Aleister Crowley with respect to his BOTL (= Book of the Law) [...]
If this was a Gotcha (and by the magic word 'if' please nb I'm not saying itwas), you failed here and so better luck next time, mon brave! Although is it likely that your reply may eventually manifest around the start of 2025, since with a total of 16 posts over a 19 year period you appear to average out making a post every just over once a year?! You must concede, this is not exactly a prodigious output here by anyone's standards, dev193!
N Joy
The only other magical working that resulted in what is treated as Class A material is The Vision & The Voice / Liber 418, which is problematic in several ways when weighed as a true interaction with divine forces.
Liber 418, The Vision & the Voice, of course, is partly Class A: the Utterance of the Angels is Class A, equivalent to that of Aiwaz, and "Holy".
Although no Scarlet Woman assisted in this "Holy Work" or Magnum Opus, Victor Neuburg played the role.
Anna Evans, my wife, firmly believes that the doors of Thelema need to be more widely opened to the LGBTQ community, by allowing female Thelemic Saints, and adding ceremonies wherein any person of any sexual orientation may play the role of Beast or Scarlet Woman, with another person playing the opposite role, whereby to invoke the actual Babalon, and Therion, and Aiwaz.
Anna herself is a bi woman; and I think her ideas are fantastic.
Cheers,
777
If this was a Gotcha (and by the magic word 'if' please nb I'm not saying itwas), you failed here and so better luck next time, mon brave! Although is it likely that your reply may eventually manifest around the start of 2025, since with a total of 16 posts over a 19 year period you appear to average out making a post every just over once a year?! You must concede, this is not exactly a prodigious output here by anyone's standards, dev193!
It was meant in Jest, sorry if it wasn't clear.
The actual quote I was replying to was
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but all of Crow's "Holy Books"
I didn't realise the amount of posts by a member really mattered. Quantity doesn't always make for quality (and that's not a dig either) and I am not saying mine are quality either. My contributions (very little) are only on the posts of interest to myself, so my apologies if I am not up to anyone's standards.
Have a nice weekend
the doors of Thelema need to be more widely opened to the LGBTQ community
As an addendum, I should emphasize that, from our perspective, every man and woman is a sun or a moon - Beast or Babalon - each according to the will (not the gender); and there is power mystical and magical that shines and showers from their invocation of holy love.
For Love supports the Will, and leads to Understanding.
There is much of Love and Babalon in Liber 418.
Cheers,
DCCLXXVII/XCIII
Aleisterion/Aliana
Liber 418, The Vision & the Voice, of course, is partly Class A: the Utterance of the Angels is Class A, equivalent to that of Aiwaz, and "Holy".
By what magical or mystical convention can a medieval system of Christian angelic mysticism (Enochian) be used to shed light on the utterances of Egyptian gods that emerged 400 years later as depicted in TBOTL? Or in the case of them being 'new gods' instead of Egyptian, as some think. The concept makes no sense in terms of magical theory, or religious practice.
Based on its track record, the magical current of Christianity consumes or assimilates most things that end up in its path; this is exactly what is attempted in the visions that comprise Liber 418. In TBOTL, Aiwass is the minister of an Egyptian god, while Nuit implores her readers to seek her only, and goes out of her way to be critical of the gods of men. In Liber 418, Aiwass is suddenly not only an Enochian angel, but Crowley's Holy Guardian Enochian angel. Worse still, in the same vision Ra-Hoor-Khuit is reduced to nothing more than a vice-regent of an unknown king, which is essentially the same invisible man in the sky that all the Abrahamic religions worship.
Although no Scarlet Woman assisted in this "Holy Work" or Magnum Opus, Victor Neuburg played the role.
You have it backwards: V.N. was the scribe and batter; Crowley was the seer and catcher.
by allowing female Thelemic Saints,
'Thelemic saints' is yet another quasi-Christian concept that demonstrates an effort on the part of the Christian magical current to absorb the magical current of Thelema.
and adding ceremonies wherein any person of any sexual orientation may play the role of Beast or Scarlet Woman
I should emphasize that, from our perspective, every man and woman is a sun or a moon - Beast or Babalon
Your conclusion deviates from what Nuit has to say about the matter: for HE is ever a SUN, and SHE a MOON. One cannot have salt and pepper with dinner without having salt and having pepper: it is puzzling that anyone would differently when it comes to sexual unions. I'm not being critical of same sex unions, but I am concerned about the prevailing belief that two men or two women can provide a true union of sexual opposites within the context of a magical operation.
y what magical or mystical convention can a medieval system of Christian angelic mysticism (Enochian) be used to shed light on the utterances of Egyptian gods that emerged 400 years later as depicted in TBOTL? Or in the case of them being 'new gods' instead of Egyptian, as some think. The concept makes no sense in terms of magical theory, or religious practice.
Swing and a miss, pal. Crowley utilized this system because its Hierophantic Workings were passed down, purged and purified by New Aeon Energies - and it works.
Aiwass is suddenly not only an Enochian angel, but Crowley's Holy Guardian Enochian angel. Worse still, in the same vision Ra-Hoor-Khuit is reduced to nothing more than a vice-regent of an unknown king, which is essentially the same invisible man in the sky that all the Abrahamic religions worship.
You're overthinking all of this. I used this system myself, climaxing in 1992, and from my view, it works just fine. Perhaps, if you're having difficulties, just maybe you're not "plugged in" right - check your connection to the Current.
You have it backwards: V.N. was the scribe and batter; Crowley was the seer and catcher.
I know perfectly well what went on there. Crowley channeled the "Angelic Voice" and "Vision", and also played bottom role. None of that changes the fact that the service was empowered by Tantric Energies. The modus operandi need not, however, be exactly as Crowley did it: e.g., when I did it, little animals weren't slain.
'Thelemic saints' is yet another quasi-Christian concept that demonstrates an effort on the part of the Christian magical current to absorb the magical current of Thelema.
Not really. There is a world of difference in how and why this concept is employed.
I'm not being critical of same sex unions, but I am concerned about the prevailing belief that two men or two women can provide a true union of sexual opposites within the context of a magical operation.
You seem to think that Tantric Energies are necessarily anchored in genitalia: they are not. There is a factor infinite & unknown, remember?
Cheers,
777
In TBOTL, Aiwass is the minister of an Egyptian god, while Nuit implores her readers to seek her only, and goes out of her way to be critical of the gods of men. In Liber 418, Aiwass is suddenly not only an Enochian angel, but Crowley's Holy Guardian Enochian angel. Worse still, in the same vision Ra-Hoor-Khuit is reduced to nothing more than a vice-regent of an unknown king, which is essentially the same invisible man in the sky that all the Abrahamic religions worship.
Aiwaz is the union of Therion and Babalon, in our view. It is - again, in our view - the Supernal Holy Spirit of the Aeons, working through the processes and powers of all Magi (9=2). Symbols and mechanisms of the systems of all Magi may be of use effectively, if used by Adepts and Masters of the Gnosis of the Ages.
I did construct a new Holy Seal, reversing the main symbols therein (i.e. Pentagram and Septagram), in my 1000 or so page book, the Breviarium, 20 years ago - to better gear it for use in the Thelemic Age. Here it is:
Cheers,
777
By what magical or mystical convention can a medieval system of Christian angelic mysticism (Enochian) be used to shed light on the utterances of Egyptian gods that emerged 400 years later as depicted in TBOTL? Or in the case of them being 'new gods' instead of Egyptian, as some think. The concept makes no sense in terms of magical theory, or religious practice.
Based on its track record, the magical current of Christianity consumes or assimilates most things that end up in its path; this is exactly what is attempted in the visions that comprise Liber 418. In TBOTL, Aiwass is the minister of an Egyptian god, while Nuit implores her readers to seek her only, and goes out of her way to be critical of the gods of men. In Liber 418, Aiwass is suddenly not only an Enochian angel, but Crowley's Holy Guardian Enochian angel. Worse still, in the same vision Ra-Hoor-Khuit is reduced to nothing more than a vice-regent of an unknown king, which is essentially the same invisible man in the sky that all the Abrahamic religions worship.
An interesting insight and critique, worthy of an essay or more discussion.
Relative to the O.P. and Scarlett Woman assistance. I believe that the Vision and Voice workings involved AC and Neuberg...rather than a Scarlett Woman.
By what magical or mystical convention can a medieval system of Christian angelic mysticism (Enochian) be used to shed light on the utterances of Egyptian gods that emerged 400 years later as depicted in TBOTL?
Urm, maybe it's not at all so literal? What "actual" "Egyptian" "Gods" could shed any light on Thelema in any way better that "actual" "Christian" "Angels"? Those who send "Adepts" into the present? Well, many "Gods" seem to have send (and probably still seem to send) "Adepts" into the present. Don't you think you would have been visited by "Viking Adepts" if for some funny accidental reason AC's dictation would have taken place in Norway and included Nordic "Gods"?
Egypt itself - though the "Gods" of Liber L were present - isn't exactly known as a forerunning Thelemic Kingdom.
In his commentary to TVATV AC tries to reconcile both systems (Enochian and Egytptian) anyway, as they all lead up to Horus, the Crowned Child. Surely not in the literal sense, though.
Also, you either accept the Class sytems of Libers or you don't.
Except for later claims by Aleister Crowley with respect to his BOTL (= Book of the Law), did he claim that his self-created religion Thelema includes other Scarlet Woman aided Class A books?
You of course are aware that at the time of dictation Rose wasn't a Scarlet Woman yet, aren't you? She became one after that and because of that.
Also, are there other allegedly received, non Class A texts or books pertaining to Aleister Crowley's self-created religion Thelema, that he claimed originated with Scarlet Woman assistance?
Liber LX, Liber XCVII, Mary d'Este Sturgess (later also Book 4)
Liber CCCXXV, Leila Waddell
Liber XCVII, Roddie Minor
Liber XCI, Marie Rohling
Of course in your next post it suddenly is all about sex and I am not sure how much sex was involved in the before mentioned Libri.
Urm, maybe it's not at all so literal?
The question stands regardless of whether gods exist as external packets of energy that can affect the world at large, or as internal concepts that exist solely within our thoughts; in either case, the basic rules of magick as taught by Crowley should apply. The essential premise underlying 777 as an occult/religious dictionary is that similar ideas should be grouped together, and are connected through a sympathetic link; based on that observation, I can rephrase the original question: what are the ideological similarities shared between Christian angels and Egyptian gods that makes them compatible?
Don't you think you would have been visited by "Viking Adepts" if for some funny accidental reason AC's dictation would have taken place in Norway and included Nordic "Gods"?
Until it happens, the suggestion is merely speculation, and can only serve as an attempt to diminish the uniqueness of the Cairo Working without any evidence to that effect.
Egypt itself - though the "Gods" of Liber L were present - isn't exactly known as a forerunning Thelemic Kingdom.
To assume the word Thelema as used in TBOTL serves as a welcoming handshake with Christianity is quite an overreach, given the anti-Christianity overtones involved with the word Thelemites as coined by Rabelais.
The influence that ancient Egypt had on later cultures, including Greece, is well-established, despite the long-standing effort on the part of historians to deny its seminal influence. Ironically, the word Christ is quite likely derived from the Egyptian word KRST, which means 'anointed one', and was used routinely to refer to the deceased that were mummified. Based on the example provided, there is no reason why the Greek word Thelema could not have originated in the Egyptian language.
In his commentary to TVATV AC tries to reconcile both systems (Enochian and Egytptian) anyway, as they all lead up to Horus, the Crowned Child.
And yet in TBOTL there is a xenophobic treatment of all other religions and their gods, which suggests Crowley's efforts do not align with the central message of the text, making it appear he lapsed into his personal fantasies of being the Beast 666, and took a step backwards by working with the Enochian system. I also disagree with your conclusion that Liber 418 serves the interests of Horus, when he is reduced to serving as the vice-regent of an unknown king in the text.
Also, you either accept the Class sytems of Libers or you don't.
I do not, given that most of the other texts written by Crowley that are treated as 'holy' in nature are conceived around the Tree of Life and the Qabalah, while TBOTL is not.
@herupakraath There is no angel, there is no god, beyond the greater genius of humanity.
It was meant in Jest, sorry if it wasn't clear.
I wasn't at all clear it was "in Jest". as I wasn't/ still can't see what is meant to be hilarious by your query as to "am [I] forgetting the Holy Book [AL]?" which standing by itself would have been a quite legitimate (if mistaken) enquiry.
The actual quote I was replying to was
As explained, this was inferred by my inclusion of "[...]" referring to the first half of the sentence, the second half of which I included in full. I am also sorry if this wasn't quite clear. These misunderstandings do sometimes happen on online forums, along with ambiguities relating to "tone", etc.
I didn't realise the amount of posts by a member really mattered. Quantity doesn't always make for quality (and that's not a dig either) and I am not saying mine are quality either. My contributions (very little) are only on the posts of interest to myself, so my apologies if I am not up to anyone's standards.
Of course the number of posts you (=anyone) make don't "really matter", and I am surprised you are inferring that you think I do. I would have thought (hoped) my history of posting here would illustrate I haven't ever been quite so facile in the past. (I could myself potentially take offence at such a suggestion, but besides being untrue this would muddy the water still further!). Nor was I thinking your contributions are not up to a particular "standard" which it is only you have in mind (- for myself and/or others). Hopefully this has cleared up any misunderstanding, and also the air.
Again, I suppose this is occasionally inevitable with the printed word which cannot take into account all the possible nuances of meaning within, and all that. Also there is a danger of readers (all of us) becoming 'over-sensitive' to possible slights where none is intended. In most cases we only know each other's electronic personae, after all.
You may wish to reply back to me again or not. You may also wish to assume this is all a plot on my part to bump your totals up (and which may or may not be the case!)
Yours [dev193] was a good jest
Please would you explain it for the benefit of all those (including moi) who somehow failed to "get" this beau jest. Also, did you "get it" before or after dev193 explained/admitted that his actual meaning hadn't been clear?
Worse still, in the same vision Ra-Hoor-Khuit is reduced to nothing more than a vice-regent of an unknown king, which is essentially the same invisible man in the sky that all the Abrahamic religions worship.
I may have missed that, could you give a precise link (citation) as to where this "king" is referenced, please?
'Thelemic saints' is yet another quasi-Christian concept that demonstrates an effort on the part of the Christian magical current to absorb the magical current of Thelema.
Don't you maybe "have this backwards" yourself, i.e., the "magical current of Thelema" itself absorbing the "Christian magical current" (in the same way that the latter tried to do with the preceeding magical current relating to pagan religions)?
I know perfectly well what went on there. Crowley channeled the "Angelic Voice" and "Vision", and also played bottom role.
I've never heard it (this role) described this way before in any of the historical accounts I've come across - but I get it! (The meaning is even clearer when read as, "the role of the bottom"...)
In his commentary to TVATV AC tries to reconcile both systems (Enochian and Egyptian) anyway, as they all lead up to Horus, the Crowned Child. Surely not in the literal sense, though.
I'm not quite sure, but why would it not be reconciled in the literal sense? As if not, then in what (non-literal) sense would it be?
Also, you either accept the Class sytems of Libers or you don't.
C'mon, that's 'Libri' Lutz! (nb not being a nitpickkin ninny here - honestly! - it's just that I like to see order rather than confusion where poss...
Have a nice weekend
And to you and all (an' all?) - what's left of it!
'n Joy
There is no angel, there is no god, beyond the greater genius of humanity.
Now, now. Revealing the ultimate secret in public can cause reverberations and tomatoes.
There is no angel, there is no god, beyond the greater genius of humanity.
"The prediction made in the verse came to pass in dramatic fashion in 1992. While walking past a jewelry store in a shopping mall, a flash of light reflected off of an unknown object in a glass case, as seen out of the corner of my eye, and evoked a reaction within me. One would expect many shiny objects to be found in a jewelry store, and having no interest or any money to make a purchase, my conscious mind went about its business of completing the task at hand. Upon returning to the mall a few hours later to complete the business, and walking past the jewelry store again, I was inclined to investigate the shiny object.
With nothing to lose, I approached the case in the store where the flash of light originated from, and saw a selection of glass figurines for sale. The centerpiece was a large faceted crystal that served as the manufacturer's emblem that was not for sale, but was evidently responsible for the flash of light that was seen. I pointed to the figure of a hummingbird and asked to see it; the clerk reached into the case and said: "You must mean the falcon." What he emerged with was a beautiful falcon head with jewels for eyes. I immediately thought of verse III:21, but with any joy in finding the image dampened by the fact I had no money to purchase it.
Thinking about the verse, I realized that if I had money to purchase the falcon, it would not be "suddenly easy" to purchase as stated. As I walked away from the store, it occurred to me to spend one dollar on a quick-pick lottery ticket; I did so and won $132, making it possible to purchase the falcon the next day."
Having had experiences such as that recounted, and others that are even more remarkable, it is simply impossible for me to believe there is no god but man.
While on the subject of verse III:21 of Liber Legis, in a footnote to the verse in the Liber L galley proofs for the Collected Works, Crowley provides a footnote to the verse that indicates the statements in the verse were fulfilled in a strange manner, and refers the reader to Volume III of the Collected Works. Does anyone know the specifics of the fulfillment?
@herupakraath That must have been the sweetest post I ever read here, why have I ever doubted your Egyptian Adept thingie is beyond me. IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!
There is no angel, there is no god, beyond the greater genius of humanity.
Unfortunately, these great secrets are beyond the acceptance of most folks. They have a whole (thus holy) collective unconscious to navigate, just to get to the periphery. Inside that "thought-sphere" there are a lot of angels, gods, demons, and other things ... that later appear illusionary.
It really depends on what level is speaking, or describing, that sets the context for the statement(s). At Tiphareth, the angel can be the dominant reality (it better be or somebody's not going higher on the cosmic elevator).
While on the subject of verse III:21 of Liber Legis, in a footnote to the verse in the Liber L galley proofs for the Collected Works, Crowley provides a footnote to the verse that indicates the statements in the verse were fulfilled in a strange manner, and refers the reader to Volume III of the Collected Works. Does anyone know the specifics of the fulfillment?
Something to do with a simulacrum of the stele which a lady acquaintance of his (not one of the Scarlet Women, I think) embroidered for him literally out of the blue as a big surprise gift?
Please don't kill me if I'm wrong, though.
(And I dunno what Vol IIII of his Collected Doo-Dah refers to, either)
N Joy
a lady acquaintance of his (not one of the Scarlet Women, I think)
Elaine Simpson, a colleague from the Golden Dawn.
Something to do with a simulacrum of the stele which a lady acquaintance of his (not one of the Scarlet Women, I think) embroidered for him literally out of the blue as a big surprise gift?
That was a four-foot reproduction of the stele made out of silk around 1918 by Jane Cheron while trying to kick an opium addiction; Crowley said nothing about it being a gift, which is unlikely given she spent months creating it. The event I am referring to had to occur over ten years earlier.
While on the subject of verse III:21 of Liber Legis, in a footnote to the verse in the Liber L galley proofs for the Collected Works, Crowley provides a footnote to the verse that indicates the statements in the verse were fulfilled in a strange manner, and refers the reader to Volume III of the Collected Works. Does anyone know the specifics of the fulfillment?
I hope I can help on this. The page in question from the galley proofs is page number 241. Underneath the note is printed (VOL. III.) opposite this is printed the letter (Q). If you turn to the same page in the published edition of the Collected Works (First edition or Yogi reprint) you can see the same impression. These are indications to the binder to make sure the pages run in the correct order. Starting on The Star and the Garter page, at the bottom is printed (VOL.III) and opposite this is printed the letter (A). These run throughout the volume.
So accordingly whatever AC was referring to was not in VOL. III, this was just a quirk in the printing.
Anna Evans, my wife, firmly believes that the doors of Thelema need to be more widely opened to the LGBTQ community, by allowing female Thelemic Saints, and adding ceremonies wherein any person of any sexual orientation may play the role of Beast or Scarlet Woman, with another person playing the opposite role, whereby to invoke the actual Babalon, and Therion, and Aiwaz.
The thought just occurred, Aleisterion - in the case of for example the Gnostic Mass, would that mean that the Priest and Priestess could both be of the same, or reversed, sexual persuasion? And that being the case, have you ever participated in or attended such an occasion, and how successful did you find it?
Are you aware of any actual publicised ceremonies which make use of performers taking on the identities/ archetypes of The Beast and Scarlet Woman? (As if so, presumably the same criteria would apply there also).
Crowley said nothing about it [a four-foot reproduction of the stele made out of silk] being a gift, which is unlikely given she spent months creating it
I wonder what she did with it, then? Assuming the moths wouldn't have got at it since, it would probably fetch a tidy sum if it was to fetch up on e-bay sometime...
The event I am referring to had to occur over ten years earlier.
Perhaps you are thinking of the one fashioned by Elaine Simpson, then - as that might have been done about twelve years earlier?
Btw, any chance of a reply to my queries further up yet, herupakraath?
N Joy
the Priest and Priestess could both be of the same, or reversed, sexual persuasion?
YOU can have it any way you want or Will, in your Order. I don't do it at all any more, so I won't need to engage in mentail strain. There was/is[?] a "queer mass" thread. I forget if it got into variations.
I may have missed that, could you give a precise link (citation) as to where this "king" is referenced, please?
The Cry of the 8th Aethyr:
For I am not only appointed to guard thee, but we are of the blood royal, the guardians of the Treasure-house of Wisdom. Therefore am I called the Minister of Ra Hoor Khuit: and yet he is but the Viceroy of the unknown King.
Don't you maybe "have this backwards" yourself, i.e., the "magical current of Thelema" itself absorbing the "Christian magical current"
You may want to reconsider your position based on the text quoted in my last post, and the total rejection of all past religions as indicated in verses III:49-55 of Liber Legis. Launching a new aeon is pointless if the end result is wallowing endlessly in the last one.
Perhaps you are thinking of the one fashioned by Elaine Simpson, then - as that might have been done about twelve years earlier?
Details?
The thought just occurred, Aleisterion - in the case of for example the Gnostic Mass, would that mean that the Priest and Priestess could both be of the same, or reversed, sexual persuasion? And that being the case, have you ever participated in or attended such an occasion, and how successful did you find it?
An actual Gnostic Mass, no, but a Thelemic Mass similar thereto, yes. We've done woman/woman, man/man, with others in our area. Both work wonderfully, but only under certain conditions.
The man or woman playing the Beast role must undeniably possess, and express, very powerful masculine energies; and the man or woman playing the Scarlet Woman must undeniably possess, and express, magnetically feminine energies, beauty being key. If done right, it works well. Get the wrong individuals together - or just one wrong person - and the whole operation is ruined.
Are you aware of any actual publicised ceremonies which make use of performers taking on the identities/ archetypes of The Beast and Scarlet Woman?
No; and we never constructed a pdf of our workings, even though we made many of other kinds over the years.
total rejection of all past religions as indicated in verses III:49-55 of Liber Legis.
Umm..."total rejection"? Are you absolutely certain that this is how you view those verses?
Don't forget though: some of those Thelemic Saints (or Gnostic Catholic Saints) designated by Crowley were of past religions.
Launching a new aeon is pointless if the end result is wallowing endlessly in the last one.
Adopting useful ancient practices, I think, is hardly "wallowing endlessly" in old Aeons, no?
Launching a new aeon is pointless if the end result is wallowing endlessly in the last one.
Particularly if it's not launched.
Aeons are generally considered as durations of time. Many traditions around the world have their unique systems of aeons.
Within what's generally thought of as the Thelemic system, the present aeon was not assigned a fixed period of time. Crowley's 'Old Comment' was clear on this: "Following him [Horus] will arise the Equinox of Ma, the Goddess of Justice, it may be a hundred or ten thousand years from now; for the Computation of Time is not here as There." Crowley appears to have shifted to the 2,000-years-or-so concept in the wake of his 1936 correspondence with Achad; just because it postdates the Old Comment doesn't make it more correct.
If this indefinite duration ("a hundred or ten thousand years from now") applies to the current aeon, might it not have applied to the previous aeons too?
Better still, what if time is an illusion, a concept invented to make life easier?
As a Thelemite, I'm happy to "wallow" in traditions that predate 1904 if they seem useful; so did Crowley. There's a lot in Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism that I admire and make use of, in particular Advaita Vedanta and its ilk.
Crowley's 'Old Comment' was clear on this:
But since there is also a "New Commentary," which reverses his "Old" thought, plus other footnotes and notations that diverge, we have no choice but to read the stuff, and then pick which Commentary's Comment we think is true.
This new, New Aeon, which only includes Hrumachis in AL with no mention of Maat Themis Ma or others, which arose as afterthoughts in AC's mind, is getting to be an almost daily drag. Let me recall and re-post without heresy or fiddling the conclusion that we came to on some thread, and by which I live and measure my being, and yours, and thus we both retain our sanity (more or less, mostly more) ...
Aeons are big chunks of time
that roll out regularly to define
the characteristics of an age
that is longer than anyone's cage
Let's not be silly and think it's true
that everyone's the same as me and you
Every culture, nation, person is different you know,
so we having sliding-scale Aeons ready to go
that can be adapted to any situation
according to the rate of inflation
(and other factors)
According to this paradigm just stated, anyone can be rated, according to their insight, and not their birthright ... but let's not be birthing new aeons for the whole planetary schism, when Ra-Hoor is still exercizing his system.
Better still, what if time is an illusion, a concept invented to make life easier?
Uh-huh.
While on the subject of verse III:21 of Liber Legis, in a footnote to the verse in the Liber L galley proofs for the Collected Works, Crowley provides a footnote to the verse that indicates the statements in the verse were fulfilled in a strange manner, and refers the reader to Volume III of the Collected Works. Does anyone know the specifics of the fulfillment?
Whereas @devl93 post of his observations regarding the galley proofs might have likely solved the query of @herupakraath question.....who knows?
The question, starting with a footnote, did divert me into an interesting search, and at least I am coming to understand why THE STAR AND THE GARTER of XXXIII Chapters, would stand as it was with promotional leaflet from "the greatest love poem of modern times" that might fit that bill in cryptically, and copitically perhaps, lol, serving to signal that III:21 had been accomplished.
Set up my image in the East: thou shalt buy thee an image which I will show thee, especial, not unlike the one thou knowest. And it shall be suddenly easy for thee to do this.
Now some might observe the portrait by Aime Dupont on the cover for signs, and one might be able to claim that a mudra is given but lets go somewhere else...
What is interesting is that at the end of The Star And The Garter, to me, was the fact that there was an APPENDIX, which might well it seems from notes, to have been especial to Volume III of the Collected Works.
Now the Appendix is curiously entitled:
A mademoiselle Le Modele --Dite Jones
But is was the first footnote in the Appendix that seemed to have turned the tide relative to clues as it states:
"1 A young lady in the Montparnasse Quarter chose to imagine the se was the "Stare" itself; not merely the model for that masterpiece, as was the case."
Now this footnote is inserted:
"In order to avoid the misunderstanding, which I have reason to believe exists.1"
Of course this speaks to the issue of jealously i believe, and where the main poem involves as we find in the Confessions:
I gradually sickened of the atmosphere of Paris. It was all too easy. I flitted restlessly to London and back, and found no rest for the sole of my foot. I had even got engaged to be married, but returning after a week in London I was partly too shy to resume relations with my fiance, and partly awake to the fact that we had drifted under the lee shore of matrimony out of sheer lack of moral energy. This lady claims notice principally as the model for several poems, notably (in Rosa Mundi, and other Love Songs) “The Kiss”, “Eileen” and the poems numbered 14, 15, 16, 18, 21 to 28. She was also the “Star” in The Star and the Garter, Which I wrote at this time; and the three women connected with the “Garter” were an English lady with a passion for either, an acrobat and model whom I called my boot-button girl because her face was “round and hard and small and pretty”, and thirdly Nina Olivier. Nina is described in the poem itself and also in several lyrics, notably “The Rondel”—“You laughing little light of wickedness”. My adoration of Nina made her the most famous girl in the quarter for a dozen years and more. She figures, by the way, in my “Ordeal of Ida Pendragon”.
The Star and the Garter contains some of my best lyrics and is also important as marking a new step in my poetic path. I had mastered form better than I had ever done before; I had welded lyrics into a continuous opus with an integral purpose, without artificiality, such as to some extent mars Orpheus and even Alice. I spent two days writing the poem; but I do not consider it a waste of time.
Some time later I added an appendix of a very obscure kind. The people of our circle, from Kathleen Bruce (since Lady Scott and Mrs. Hilton Young) to Sybil Muggins and Hener-Skene (later, accompanist to Isadora Duncan) are satirized. Their names are introduced by means of puns or allusions and every line is loaded with cryptic criticism. Gerald and I, as educated men, were frightfully fed up with the presumption and poses of the average ass—male or female—of the quarter.— The Confessions of Aleister Crowley. New York, NY. Hill and Wang, 1969. Page 335-336.
And where I believe that in Richard Kazcinski's Perdurabu he places Eileen Terry as the woman AC had proposed to, while the footnote to the Star and the Garter, at the end of the poem, and as found in the Collected Works version identifies:
"Rose as his wife was the name of the poet's wife"
Scholars might best know some timelines and have a facility with the poem whose title has many levels of potential meaning, but first what came to my mind was the image of Crowley, coming back from Cairo and resuming the play with one of the garters, as a star with some act of magick where the model becomes the image in the East...?
I will note another image also coming to mind, of Rose, being pregnant, perhaps being a bit jealous of her husband and the garters, or whether she was just a garter rather than star, and thus Horus affair, while potentially a ruse of Rose's, did set in motion something that would address the issue of the Star and the Garter such that modern era might find its great love story or modern era where "Every man and Every woman is a star."
There is something thus about 'Star" and "Garter" that seems to speak to Khabs and Khu as well as Hadit and Nuit.
The Appendix poetry is interesting with opening lines like:
"There is an eye by which the Kabbalists
Behold the goat"
And where section II finds:
"Kephera, tough Beetle-headed God!
Who travelest in thy strength above
The Heaven of Nu, with splendor shod
Of Thoth, and girt about with love!
O Sun at midenight! in thy bark"
So if this does not take us close to what we are looking for or maybe something else.
I think it still interesting that we have this name Dite Jones in the title to the Appendix to which maybe some kabbalistic number might find the clue...
Anyways perhaps she is "O Lily" of the poem who might not get the cryptic coptic
So in section IV we find:
Your lily langour. Irish Stew
Shall float like dewdrops in your dreams
So shall my new Apocalypse
Appear to you my model! Once"
Anyways Irish Stew sounds like it might be just right for a day in November, bit cold and after a poetic bender~
93
HG
But since there is also a "New Commentary," which reverses his "Old" thought
The 'New Comment' doesn't contradict the 'Old Comment'. There is still no mention of an aeon having a fixed duration of time. To take one sentence: "We should begin already, as I deem, to regard this Justice as the Ideal whose Way we should make ready, by virtue of our Force and Fire".
Umm..."total rejection"? Are you absolutely certain that this is how you view those verses?
I can read English, and understand the magical implications of the directive, Curse them!
Don't forget though: some of those Thelemic Saints (or Gnostic Catholic Saints) designated by Crowley were of past religions.
Which only serves to underscore my point about the attempt to assimilate Thelema into the paradigm of Christianity, and the antiquated concept of Christian gnosis.
The pursuit of religious syncretism is nothing new, and can be traced back to 500 BCE if not earlier. During the last few Egyptian dynasties, Egypt was occupied by conquering forces that forced the blending of Egyptian religion with that of other religions, and we know how that turned out:
Monumental use of hieroglyphs ceased after the closing of all non-Christian temples in 391 by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I; the last known inscription is from Philae, known as the Graffito of Esmet-Akhom, from 394.
When the ability to read and write the ancient Egyptian language was lost, so was the knowledge of its gods and the worship of them for over 1400 years, which is a very good reason for Ra-Hoor-Khuit to be angry and bent on war and vengeance. Someone online recently referred to Ra-Hoor-Khuit as an angry old grandpa, demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the history that led up to the reception of the Book of the Law, and the emerging consequences.
"Following him [Horus] will arise the Equinox of Ma, the Goddess of Justice, it may be a hundred or ten thousand years from now; for the Computation of Time is not here as There."
I am astonished Crowley could misinterpret the name of the god to supersede Ra-Hoor-Khuit, who is literally named in verse III:34, and instead rely on the Golden Dawn Equinox ceremony as the criterion for determining whom he thought the next god would be. It only goes to show that Crowley relied on existing concepts as a source for definitions, with an apparent inability to perceive anything new.
Hrumachis is variation of Harmachis, and we know Crowley was familiar with the latter name, having included it in the Invocation of Hoor used during the Cairo Working. It appears to me that Ra-hoor-Khuit makes a determined effort distinguish Hrumachis as a form of the Egyptian sun god based on the spelling of the name. In the Egyptian language, HERU as spelled by Budge and other translators of the Egyptian language, is actually spelled HRU without any vowels. Not only does the name Hrumachis tell us that he is Heru of the Horizon, it also reveals why he is referred to as the double-wanded one. Treating HRU as the Hebrew letters, He-Resh-Vav, and transposing the letters into English with the Tri-key, results in the name SET, thus suggesting Hrumachis wields the wand of Horus and Set:
He: Aries: T
Resh: Sun: E
Vav: Taurus: S
If this indefinite duration ("a hundred or ten thousand years from now") applies to the current aeon, might it not have applied to the previous aeons too?
The duration is defined as a Great Year based on the term Great Equinox, as used in the verse.
Better still, what if time is an illusion, a concept invented to make life easier?
According to Einstein's observations, time is relative and local, based on gravity/acceleration. If time were an illusion, then space would also have be an illusion, given that space-time is but one thing.
I can read English, and understand the magical implications of the directive, Curse them!
The gods of men (or the way of propitiation as opposed to that of Thelemic apotheosis), are "cursed" (or of no use), because the divinity within and around us (the greater genius of humanity) is exalted within. There is nothing said of practices or traditions, however, hence we use certain of those devices, e.g. pranayama, saints, missae, etc.
I am astonished Crowley could misinterpret...
Crowley didn't write Liber Legis, Aiwaz did that, so anything in the manuscript is meaningful as is.
The duration is defined as a Great Year based on the term Great Equinox, as used in the verse.
My point above, about Aiwaz writing the ms, applies here as well. "Great Equinox", by the way, numerates as 156 by AQBL (which is not a contrived system, just A=1 through Z=26 or the natural order of letters), also the number of "seen of the seeing").
Not all points in Liber Legis are to be taken literally. This is a major pitfall.
Cheers,
777
The duration is defined as a Great Year based on the term Great Equinox, as used in the verse
So what is this duration in terms of years?
According to Einstein's observations, time is relative and local, based on gravity/acceleration. If time were an illusion, then space would also have be an illusion, given that space-time is but one thing.
And your point is . . . ?
By what magical or mystical convention can a medieval system of Christian angelic mysticism (Enochian) be used to shed light on the utterances of Egyptian gods that emerged 400 years later as depicted in TBOTL? Or in the case of them being 'new gods' instead of Egyptian, as some think. The concept makes no sense in terms of magical theory, or religious practice.
Treating HRU as the Hebrew letters, He-Resh-Vav, and transposing [sic] the letters into English with the Tri-key, results in the name SET, thus suggesting Hrumachis wields the wand of Horus and Set....
So let me get this straight: We totally can't use Enochian to "shed light on the utterances" of the "Egyptian gods" (maybe new ones, maybe ancient ones) of AL because that would be absurd and anachronistic, but there is no problem at all with "shed[ding] light on the utterances" of those same gods by taking a variant Greek spelling of the name of an Egyptian god, and then transliterating the first three letters of that variant Greek spelling into Hebrew (and discarding the rest of the letters of that name as inconvenient surplus (because why again?)), and then using the astrological cognates of the Hebrew letters to produce English letters using a self-designed QBL system, and then reversing the order of those letters, to understand the role of this god.
When the ability to read and write the ancient Egyptian language was lost, so was the knowledge of its gods and the worship of them for over 1400 years, which is a very good reason for Ra-Hoor-Khuit to be angry and bent on war and vengeance. Someone online recently referred to Ra-Hoor-Khuit as an angry old grandpa, demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge of the history that led up to the reception of the Book of the Law, and the emerging consequences.
But the second sentence, someone "online" referring to Ra-Hoor-Khuit as an angry old grandpa ist the PERFECT SUMMARY of why (you think) this "God" is angry and bent on war as stated in the first sentence. What a bad loser.
@ignant666 perfectly summed up what I also wanted to say about that EST nonsense.
"God" is angry and bent on war as stated in the first sentence.
Why look for minor made-up reasons to be angry. Stop your mind (everybody!), look at the original, basic configuration ...
The entire Horus-Set legend is based on Horus seeking revenge for Set's murder of Osiris. It's not any more complicated than that.
To bring the entire paradigm into practical application, just transfer this whole deal to your interior where the conscious and the unconscious are featured as the main players.
Crowley didn't write Liber Legis, Aiwaz did that, so anything in the manuscript is meaningful as is.
Non sequitur. Crowley interpreted Hrumachis as meaning 'the dawning of any new series of events,' or words to that affect, ignoring the possibility, not to mention probability, that the word is a god name based on the rest of the names in TBOTL.
My point above, about Aiwaz writing the ms, applies here as well. "Great Equinox",
As above, your response has no relevance to my original statement. There is no questioning 'Great Equinox' appears in the text, the issue is what is meant by it.
So what is this duration in terms of years?
According to NASA, the length is 25,772 years, more or less, while others with the mathematical skills to make such determinations suggest other lengths. In 1904, a suggested length was 25,632 years, a number still being suggested today.
And your point is . . . ?
I quit last night before I could finish up properly.
If I travel at the speed of light away from the earth for one month and return, the terrestrial time that elapses will be different for both us, demonstrating that time passage and the perceptions of it by humans can vary based on circumstance, but there is nothing illusory about it. Celestial space-time on the other hand can be measured consistently throughout the universe, thus contradicting Crowley's conclusion that time is not the same 'here' as it is 'there.'
So let me get this straight: We totally can't use Enochian to "shed light on the utterances" of the "Egyptian gods" (maybe new ones, maybe ancient ones) of AL because that would be absurd and anachronistic,
The time period between Dee's work and Crowley's is not a barrier to such efforts in itself, but in the absence of a magical link between the two, the gap only serves to exacerbate the original issue. For instance, the age gap between the stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu and the Book of the Law is 2500 years, however they are ideologically, and conceptually linked, meeting the standards required to form a magical link between the two. Not so in the case of the Enochian system and TBOTL.
but there is no problem at all with "shed[ding] light on the utterances" of those same gods by taking a variant Greek spelling of the name of an Egyptian god, and then transliterating the first three letters of that variant Greek spelling into Hebrew
The variant spelling appears in the TBOTL, whereas there is no mention of angels made in the text, Enochian or otherwise. Likewise, there is a Greek word present in text, a Hebrew letter, and an inference to a Hebrew word through the value 61, forming a tangible link between those things and TBOTL. You're comparing apples with oranges.
(and discarding the rest of the letters of that name as inconvenient surplus (because why again?)),
It is merely an assumption on your part that elements of the name have been discarded. It is impossible for me to answer 'why again?' when you never asked 'why?' to begin with. You could have simply asked if the rest of the letters in the name hold any meaning:
Heh: Aries: T = 2
Resh: Sun: E = 1
Vav: Taurus: S = 6
Mem: Water: L = 10
Aleph: Air: M = 14
Cheth: Cancer: R = 9
Yod: Virgo: U = 12
Samech: Sagittarius: C = 18
2 + 1 + 6 + 10 + 14 + 9 + 12 + 18 = 72 = Ra-Hoor-Khut
Also, when enumerated using English gematria, Hrumachis has value of 79, that of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. The two equations suggest strongly that Hrumachis will be a variation of the Egyptian sun god Hoor.
and then using the astrological cognates of the Hebrew letters to produce English letters using a self-designed QBL system,
A system that finds its roots in TBOTL, demonstrating a magical link between the two.
I recently found a passage from Gerald Massey's work, Ancient Egypt, Light of the World, and am now convinced that Crowley's theory about an Aeon of Maat linked to Harmachis/Hrumachis originates with Massey:
"The Greek name of Harmachis is derived from the Egyptian word Makhu, for the balance or scales, and thence for the level of the equinox, where the balance was erected on the day of weighing words and of reckoning the years."
Massey was wrong about the word Makhu, which shows how superficial his understanding of the Egyptian language was. The name breaks down as Hr-m-akhu in the Egyptian language, Horus of the Horizon.
Celestial space-time on the other hand can be measured consistently throughout the universe, thus contradicting Crowley's conclusion that time is not the same 'here' as it is 'there.
This is laughable. Crowley's remark was "for the Computation of Time is not here as There." The use of the upper-case indicates that Crowley was referencing a spiritual realm of some sort – perhaps the home of the order of beings such as Aiwaz – rather than just another place in the universe.
Also, when enumerated using English gematria, Hrumachis has value of 79, that of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. The two equations suggest strongly that Hrumachis will be a variation of the Egyptian sun god Hoor.
So, we learned that Heru is actually HRU and Massey and Crowley got it all pretty wrong. Which is probably correct and which of course doesn't mean today we got it all right. On the other hand, where do you have a source for "Hrumachis" being a real name? I am no Egyptologist, but I cannot find any Hrumachis anywhere (of course except all sources that deal with AC and TBOTL). Or Ra-Hoor-Khuit, which is also usually Rā-Ḥerakhty. I mean which spelling should be used? The wrong ones from AC's times or the real ones (real means that are standard today).
Let's just take Wikipedia:
Thank you for providing a source.
On the other hand, where do you have a source for "Hrumachis" being a real name?
Hrumachis - is the usual AC-mis-spelling of Hor-em-akhet. spellings vary). I could produce a source, but it's only in my mind and not in the column that says which book I covered this in, in detail. His symbol is that of The Sphynx and, sure enough, he's the next guy in the line of Portals to Aeons.
Alas, this might be rather important, in that it's not widely discussed or even known in Thelemic circles, squares, and its Octagons. So I did Magick and found the piece, which is in Appendix Iv, of which everybody here should have a copy as it was widely bequeathed.
But here is an extract about said Hor ...