@shiva Thanks for that, but I misread something. Of course @herupakraath is only using the god names from the TBOTL, regardless of how "wrong" these are. So forget my question please.
So forget my question please.
The Recordum Akaskicka forgets nothing. But we can forget it and get back to the ladies-in-waiting and those who were waited upon.
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.
Based on Crowley's solipsistic atheism--there is no god but man, and the gods are but packets of energy that exist within us--it seems unlikely he actually believed in a spiritual netherworld.
So much for the method of science being the aim of religion.
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).
Hrumachis is a modified form of Harmachis, with the modifications explained by the expressions provided in my last response.
Most of the god names in the Book of the Law are custom-fashioned to serve specific purposes:
Nuit = 29 = Hadit, while Nu = 20 = Had, both of which demonstrate their relationship as complements to each other. The symbolism goes even deeper. Dividing 29 in two, 20 is the number of Capricorn, while 9 is the number of Cancer in the Tri-key, two signs that lie in opposition on the Zodiacal wheel, and express the combining of opposites. Using the digits in 29, two is the value of Aries, the cardinal fire sign, while 9 is the value of Cancer, the cardinal sign of water, with fire and water serving as opposing or complementary ideas.
Ra-Hoor-Khuit states that he is in a secret fourfold word, thought by Crowley to mean Do what thou wilt: Heru-pa-kraath = 97 = Do what thou wilt. There are other examples.
I am astonished Crowley could misinterpret the name of the god to supersede Ra-Hoor-Khuit,
Dwtw
I am astonished that you (and practically everyone else) could misinterpret the verse in question.
It is a common misconception that Hrumachis is the god to follow Ra-hoor-khuit (regardless of how their names are transliterated in modern Egyptology). I've posted about this before, but I can't remember which thread.
The text says: "yet an invisible house there standeth, and shall stand until the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place."
Hrumachis is the Liber AL version of Harmachis, itself the Greek version of Hor-em-akhet, the name given to the Sphinx at Giza. And Harmakhis is identical with Harachti, i.e., Ra-hoor-khuit, as noted on the Dream Stele
So, where the text specifies that “Hrumachis shall arise” it means that Ra Hoor Khuit - in his name of Hrumachis - will arise out of his “seat in the East”, and allow the “double-wanded one” to assume his throne and place for the next aeon. Hrumachis is NOT the double-wanded one, and that is the cause of the confusion.
I have never seen an image of Horemakhet/Hrumachis wielding two wands, but here is one of Maat:
Litllwtw
O.L.
it seems unlikely he actually believed in a spiritual netherworld.
No, he went to Netherwood. But you make a good point, as long as we don't confuse the planes ages. That is, At different points in his life, he obviously believed in all sorts of things. He may have gotten over a lot of them, but his insistence on praeterhuman entities lasted (seemingly) 'til his ending.
Hrumachis is NOT the double-wanded one, and that is the cause of the confusion.
Right. I always felt a glitch (in my brainiac) when reading that line - your elucidation, and especially the pic of the chick with two rods, straightens that configuration out.
Based on Crowley's solipsistic atheism--there is no god but man, and the gods are but packets of energy that exist within us--it seems unlikely he actually believed in a spiritual netherworld.
What of the Cairo Working, the Abuldiz Working, the Amalantrah Working? How can you imagine – never mind maintain – that Crowley didn't believe in a spiritual realm? Are you Los in disguise?
You might think that, because these Workings predate Liber OZ, Crowley henceforth turned his back on such notions. However, later works such as Magick without Tears do not reflect any such apostasy.
So much for the method of science being the aim of religion.
The method of science isn't the aim of religion. You might be thinking of "the method of science, the aim of religion".
it seems unlikely he actually believed in a spiritual netherworld.
So much for the method of science being the aim of religion.
While the patently wrong religion/science quote has already been addressed by @michael-staley, I would like to ask: from which non-netherworld came the Egyptian Adepts who instructed you to formulate a completely new kind of Magick or the obviously non-human mind that predicted you being the "one who followeth after" and how is this non-netherworld different in substance from the netherworld, or our world?
"He [The Times math and science critic J.W.N.Sullivan] was profoundly impressed by my demonstration of the praeter-human knowledge and power of the Author of the Book of the Law, as are all other intelligent people to whom I explain the facts. These facts, indeed, are so convincing that people get annoyed. They are afraid that they will have to give up their belief that homo sapiens is the highest type of intelligence. (You surely see that it would be too absurd if a tailless ape on a petty planet should have developed the biggest brain power in the Uinverse.) All religion has presupposed the existence of some mind higher than man's, but hitherto, there has been no proof. [...] All that happened is that an Intelligence of some kind chose me to demonstrate its existence. And I am a savagely skeptical man. [...] I fought fiercely for years against accepting the claims of the Book of the Law, but I was forced into obedience by sheer superior strength and skill"
This was written in 1923, 7 years after the penning of Liber OZ (which was published only in 1941).
His quote "there is no god but man" in my opinion just means that "Gods" are man-made, and this doesn't contradict his obvious belief in the existence of praeter/super/outer-natural intelligence.
I am astonished that you (and practically everyone else) could misinterpret the verse in question.
Your astonishment is precipitous.
So, where the text specifies that “Hrumachis shall arise” it means that Ra Hoor Khuit - in his name of Hrumachis - will arise out of his “seat in the East”, and allow the “double-wanded one” to assume his throne and place for the next aeon.
I would agree with your stance if the word rise had been used instead of arise; while the latter term can mean to 'rise up' as you suggest, it has another meaning that is contextually significant to the verse: arise: to originate or manifest; to come into existence.
What of the Cairo Working, the Abuldiz Working, the Amalantrah Working? How can you imagine – never mind maintain – that Crowley didn't believe in a spiritual realm?
I agree with your reasoning based on the Cairo Working alone, but Crowley did openly state he was an atheist, and chose a skeptical stance that is undeniable. In MIT&P, he states that if the gods exist, they exist within us, meaning to exclusion of them existing outside of us.
I would like to ask: from which non-netherworld came the Egyptian Adepts who instructed you
I would never be so presumptuous to think I could answer that question with any certainty; however, when external events beyond my control are either directed by, or foreseen by such minds, such as the image of Horus I was shown and ultimately able to purchase, there is no choice but to conclude they exist somewhere within the macrocosmic universe.
I would never be so presumptuous to think I could answer that question with any certainty; however, when external events beyond my control are either directed by, or foreseen by such minds, such as the image of Horus I was shown and ultimately able to purchase, there is no choice but to conclude they exist somewhere within the macrocosmic universe.
That is so humble, very wholesome. Still, what is included in that "macrocosmic universe"? Just to make up my mind where AC was wrong or I am wrong or you are wrong. Can you get a little more specific here than just "somewhere" in some "macrocosmic universe"? Is the "netherworld" you decline in the same universe? Where is the exact difference between the "universe" AC's intelligences (Aiwass, Alamatrah, Abul-Diz etc.) came from and the "universe" the Egyptian Adepts that were contacting you came from? What was this probably super-cool Horus image?
Thank you for answering.
(Text in bold by me, for clarity🙂
threefold31: " The text says: "yet an invisible house there standeth, and shall stand until the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place." "
Compare with these quotes from the third and last chapter within Aleister Crowley's most holy book for his religion Thelema, The book of the Law:
"34. But your holy place shall be untouched throughout the centuries: though with fire and sword it be burnt down & shattered, yet an invisible house there standeth, and shall stand until the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place. Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies; another woman shall awakethe lust & worship of the Snake; another soul of God and beast shall mingle in the globed priest; another sacrifice shall stain the tomb; another king shall reign; and blessing no longer be poured To the Hawk-headed mystical Lord! [...]
72. I am the Lord of the Double Wand of Power; the wand of the Force of Coph Nia--but my left hand is empty, for I have crushed an Universe; & nought remains."
What is the relationship bettween "the double-wanded one" and "the Double Wand of Power", mentioned in the two verses from the same chapter, quoted above?
And, shall there be a "Lord" of "the double-wanded one" assuming "the Hawk-headed mystical Lord"['s], "throne and place", after "the fall of the Great Equinox"?
Or, who shall be the "Lord" of "the double-wanded one" assuming "the Hawk-headed mystical Lord"['s], "throne and place", after "the fall of the Great Equinox"?
Still, what is included in that "macrocosmic universe"?
Science understands approximately 5% of the physical universe; when dealing with metaphysics, even less is known, so accordingly there is no answer to your question.
Just to make up my mind where AC was wrong or I am wrong or you are wrong.
It's not a matter of being right or wrong; I was simply commenting on Crowley's inconsistencies in stating what he believed.
What was this probably super-cool Horus image?
Hrumachis is NOT the double-wanded one, and that is the cause of the confusion.
One of my Egyptian Reconstructionist friends said that the closest candidate she could think of as the double-wanded one would be Thoth. And Thoth is said to be married to...
"Posted by: @threefold31 Hrumachis is NOT the double-wanded one, and that is the cause of the confusion."
"katrice: One of my Egyptian Reconstructionist friends said that the closest candidate she could think of as the double-wanded one would be Thoth. And Thoth is said to be married to... "
In making up something along the lines of threefold31's The Book of the Lauds, that – within the environs of Aleister Crowley's Thelema – could be attractive to notions of wish fulfillment and/or wishful thinking concerning expectancies regarding a certain future time period, the following from "Thelemapedia: The Encyclopedia of Thelema & Magick", could serve as a source of inspiration:
"Amoun From Thelemapedia", source: http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Amoun
One of my Egyptian Reconstructionist friends said that the closest candidate she could think of as the double-wanded one would be Thoth. And Thoth is said to be married to...
That's interesting.
but Crowley did openly state he was an atheist, and chose a skeptical stance that is undeniable
Crowley "openly stated" all sorts of things. His "skeptical stance" is not bourne out by the letters in Magick without Tears which he was working on in the 1940s. It's not a matter that Crowley believed this, that, or the other; he believed this, that and the other, though not necessarily at the same time.
Crowley "openly stated" all sorts of things.
For anything stated by AC, the anal researcher can find a place where he expresses the exact opposite. The world is not fixed and stable, as it seems to be. Sometimes we use our right hand, other times the left. It depends on circumstances, not ultimatums.
His "skeptical stance"
Crowley seemed more like a true skeptic, taking all information as tentative pending further evidence, rather than the more popular interpretation of the word as nearly synonymous with "rationalist" or "materialist" in the philosophical sense. Part of "the method of science; the aim of religion".
Crowley seemed more like a true skeptic, taking all information as tentative pending further evidence, rather than the more popular interpretation of the word as nearly synonymous with "rationalist" or "materialist" in the philosophical sense.
On some things, perhaps, but not all. There were certain things that he deemed self-evident, such as that a new Aeon had come in in 1904; that there was a Magical Current that fluxed and flowed; that praeter-human Intelligences existed and could be contacted. These are things that are not open to "objective proof". Like many of us, Crowley liked to have his cake and eat it.
Personally I don't have much time for "The method of science; the aim of religion". I do though take from it the need for a methodical approach, in particular the keeping of a Magical Record.
Like many of us, Crowley liked to have his cake and eat it.
This is true, but I'm not sure that any single belief system can apply 100% to everything.
Personally I don't have much time for "The method of science; the aim of religion". I do though take from it the need for a methodical approach, in particular the keeping of a Magical Record.
I've found that skepticism can help in keeping me grounded. I think it makes for good protection against falling in to dogmatism, and in avoiding becoming what Alan Moore calls Yellow Brick Roadkill, ie falling in to self-made illusions.
Personally I don't have much time for "The method of science; the aim of religion". I do though take from it the need for a methodical approach, in particular the keeping of a Magical Record.
It was a noble ideal-but one which AC, himself, couldn't maintain. His diaries absolutely fail in this regard (see John St. John for the many ways in which AC, entertaining and instructive as he was, disregards his own standards).
Walt Whitman's disciple, Richard Maurice Bucke, attempted a historical analysis of spiritual genius by assessing certain aspects of the "Enlightenment Experience" in his study "Cosmic Consciousness." This was turn of the century and prior to AC announcing the "New Aeon."
I once remarked-and hold to- the "Method of Magic, the Aim of Mysticism."
Both are irrational. And yet the
methodical approach
can serve both method and goal.
I've found that skepticism can help in keeping me grounded. I think it makes for good protection against falling in to dogmatism, and in avoiding becoming what Alan Moore calls Yellow Brick Roadkill, ie falling in to self-made illusions.
I think Robert Anton Wilson is a great example for us here. His skepticism not only protects us against obsession and insanity, it opens doors to joy and healing in our interface with Castaneda's Nagual.
And on we go...!
Crowley liked to have his cake and eat it.
Personally I don't have much time for "The method of science; the aim of religion"
Yet the penultimate grade of Crowley's system is full of a gang of fellows that are leaders of their own respective religions.
I think that the building-blocks of transcendental, non-propitiatory religions - designed to unite the participants thereof with praeterhuman intelligence rather than to merely venerate deity to no end - are useful toward uplifting and evolving humanity, when engineered a certain way.
It isn't that the religious methods themselves are bad, it's how they are utilized that really matters.