My quotes from, & c...
 
Notifications
Clear all

My quotes from, & comment to, download Timothy Moss: “Case of the Cairo Working"

Page 2 / 2

Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

Page 9 and 10: {...} “Crowley, […] rejected the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning {and revival in some form} for the Book of the Law.” {...} Crowley rejected the idea, concluding instead that the god names are mere literary conveniences, and not to be treated as Egyptian gods.”
I know it comes from Mr Moss here, but does this qualify as (his) opinion or fact?  And if fact, where is the exact reference source from where he (Crowley) says it so to back it up?

And I am making a point about that treating the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law, could become like (to use your words) “the hammering of square pegs into round holes" {...}, that Ankh-af-na-khonsu’s reincarnation as Aleister Crowley is the ultimate purpose of the Stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu, is incorrect and misleading.
I'm surprised that more people haven't picked up on or debated these two angles.  I would myself, but... life is short, y'know?!

My reference in the original posting in this thread, to how deities can be understood both as theological personages, & as terms for natural forces and principles within Hinduism as a religion, is meant to demonstrate that Crowley did not do anything entirely new, in treating the deities in his The Book of the Law as convenient terms for natural forces and principles {"that, because of evolutionary advances in human consciousness, we are able to comprehend more clearly than our spiritual ancestors" - DuQuette. }
But you disagree with this caveat of DuQuette's here, or not?

Crowley was likely to have gained some, first hand knowledge about basic concepts within Hindusim as a religion, before he wrote The Book of the Law, and that the content of the said book might reflect elements of this knowledge. {...}This has resemblance to how the Hindu gods are not eternal, but only for this cycle of creation
This is not an unusual or novel conception, though --- nothing "entirely new", as you put it.  It's a valid idea, but what else is there to back it up? (I suppose what I'm really asking is --- "So?")

It’s a Zen web, not a Zer web. It’s not supposed to make rational sense. It’s designed to make you Enlightened.
Zen zat hasn't exactly worked out zere has it, oui n'est-ce pas?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Jamie J Barter: "I know it comes from Mr Moss here, but does this qualify as (his) opinion or fact? And if fact, where is the exact reference source from where he (Crowley) says it so to back it up?"

Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law, Redwheel/Weiser, Centennial Edition, 2006), page 10., is in endnote 31, provided by Mr. Moss as source for: “Crowley, […] rejected the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for the Book of the Law.”

Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law, Redwheel/Weiser, Centennial Edition, 2006), page 10., is in endnote 36, also provided by Mr. Moss as source for: “... Although there are elements of the [ancient] Egyptian religion in the Book of the Law that could serve as a basis for its [the said religion’s] revival in some form, Crowley rejected the idea, concluding instead that the god names are mere literary conveniences, and not to be treated as Egyptian gods.”

Jamie J Barter: "But you disagree with this caveat of DuQuette’s here, or not?"

I agree with it as a warning that should be remembered when you are dealing with, or thinking about, "Crowley’s New Aeon deities". That is, a warning against dealing with, or thinking about, the said deities, as theological personages, as traditional religions would have us imagine.

Jamie J Barter: "This is not an unusual or novel conception, though — nothing “entirely new”, as you put it. It’s a valid idea, but what else is there to back it up? (I suppose what I’m really asking is — “So?”)"

So as to demonstrate that treating Crowley's likely first hand knowledge about concepts within Hindusim as a religion, as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law, is a valid idea, in contrast to what Crowley himself rejected, namely treating the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for the said book.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

“I know it comes from Mr Moss here, but does this qualify as (his) opinion or fact? And if fact, where is the exact reference source from where he (Crowley) says it so to back it up?” = The Book of the Law, Redwheel/Weiser, Centennial Edition, 2006), page 10., is in endnote 31, 36
Thanks for the reference, but it is not the exact source since it is still second-hand reportage.  I have a vague memory of A.C. having written something similar along those lines, but would still like to see his DIRECT quote and exact wordage, or whether Mr Moss/Red Wheel are just paraphrasing something which might originally reveal a subtly nuanced although nevertheless tangibly distinct difference..

that Ankh-af-na-khonsu’s reincarnation as Aleister Crowley is the ultimate purpose of the Stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu, is incorrect and misleading.
Why should that be the "ultimate purpose" (nb I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it here, just asking).  Would that be your own contention but if not, like before could you give a reference where this comes from?  And why would you reckon it to be so (when e.g. as "a proof to the world" would be closing it in locked glass)?

I agree with [DuQuette's caveat] as a warning that should be remembered when you are dealing with, or thinking about, “Crowley’s New Aeon deities”. That is, a warning against dealing with, or thinking about, the said deities, as theological personages, as traditional religions would have us imagine.
Yes, traditional religions would --- but DuQuette's statement points out that our collective consciousness has evolved and we look at things differently now.  (For example, very few people fear or worship thunder gods per se anymore and/as we have learned it is an acoustic phenomenon derived from an electrical discharge in the atmosphere).  This is the whole aspect you don't seem to be taking into account: religions and cosmologies themselves (like language) evolve, they do not stand still, and Crowley/ Aiwass's approach was not intended as a mere revival but as a progression and a development on from the old "ancient Egyptian" perspective --- an updating of the paradigm for the new aeon, if you will.  The rituals of the old time are indeed black, spelling defunct & blessing at the moment poured To the Hawk-headed mystical Lord etc etc etc.  We move with the times or run the risk of becoming fossilised ourselves.  Now then you wouldn't want to be looked upon as an old fossil, would you well?..

So as to demonstrate that treating Crowley’s likely first hand knowledge about concepts within Hindusim as a religion, as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law, is a valid idea, in contrast to what Crowley himself rejected, namely treating the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for the said book.
The question is surely to what degree Crowley rejected it as a source of meaning, as he liked to reject a lot of things; for example, he also rejected Christianity & various 'crapulous creeds', but to a far greater extent than he did the ancient Egyptian religion --- some names, concepts & meanings of which he DID incorporate.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Jamie J Barter: "Why should that be the “ultimate purpose” (nb I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it here, just asking). Would that be your own contention but if not, like before could you give a reference where this comes from? And why would you reckon it to be so (when e.g. as “a proof to the world” would be closing it in locked glass)?"

That should be the “ultimate purpose”, according to the following statement on page eight of the document titled 'Case of the Cairo Working':

"and let Asar be with Isa who is also one.

[...] Asar/Osiris is the dying, ressurected god, while Isa/Isis uses her magical powers to resurrect him. For the two gods to be one is symbolic of the process of reincarnation, a concept implied in the identification of Aleister Crowley with Ankh-af-na-khonsu as seen in The Book of the Law, and the ultimate purpose of the Stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu."

"Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law, (widely available on the internet) verse I:36.", is in endnote 25, of the document titled 'Case of the Cairo Working', provided by Mr. Moss as source for that "... the process of reincarnation, a concept implied in the identification of Aleister Crowley with Ankh-af-na-khonsu as seen in The Book of the Law, ..." is "... the ultimate purpose of the Stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu."

Jamie J Barter: "We move with the times or run the risk of becoming fossilised ourselves. Now then you wouldn’t want to be looked upon as an old fossil, would you well?.."

I don't care about how I am looked upon by others on this site, and what I care about in this thread, is the approach to the [ancient] Egyptian religion in The Book of the Law.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

I don’t care about how I am looked upon by others on this site, and what I care about in this thread, is the approach to the [ancient] Egyptian religion in The Book of the Law.

But unless you demonstrate otherwise, your whole approach re this question does come over as fossilised and you seem at the least unwilling to take on board the possibility that the ancient Egyptian religion can evolve, or in this case of A.C. and the Thelemic paradigm & outlook presented in The Book of the Law, has actually done so.  You accept that in the Hindu pantheon the gods can be 'temporary', and that RHK will step down from his throne in the East and give his place to Hrumachis the double-wanded one.  But why then do you want the ancient Egyptian religion to be forever stuck in amber, as it were?  The two things are not compatible.  Why shouldn't the "ancient Egyptian religion" evolve into a modern quasi-Egyptian philosophical conception, the approach indicated in The Book of the Law as an improvement & a timely progression?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

I mention that "the Hindu gods are not eternal, but only for this cycle of creation"( http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/3776/do-hindu-gods-share-some-similarity-with-the-gods-of-other-religion), only to demonstrate a resemblance between a metaphysical concept within Hindusim as a religion, and a metaphysical concept within The Book of the Law, that RHK will step down from his throne in the East and give his place to Hrumachis the double-wanded one. Me mentioning the said metaphysical concepts, does not mean that I accept them, or actually believe them to be true.

Jamie J Barter: "Why shouldn’t the “ancient Egyptian religion” evolve into a modern quasi-Egyptian philosophical conception, the approach indicated in The Book of the Law as an improvement & a timely progression?"

"Revivals" of the ancient Egyptian gods with the Golden Dawn in the 19th century, and Aleister Crowley in the 20th century, had little to do with actual ancient Egyptian religion, so yes, I agree with you in that the approach to the ancient Egyptian religion in The Book of the Law, can be described as "a modern quasi-Egyptian philosophical conception."


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

I mention that "the Hindu gods are not eternal, but only for this cycle of creation"( http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/3776/do-hindu-gods-share-some-similarity-with-the-gods-of-other-religion), only to demonstrate a resemblance between a metaphysical concept within Hinduism as a religion, and a metaphysical concept within The Book of the Law, that RHK will step down from his throne in the East and give his place to Hrumachis the double-wanded one. Me mentioning the said metaphysical concepts, does not mean that I accept them, or actually believe them to be true.

Jamie J Barter: "Why shouldn’t the “ancient Egyptian religion” evolve into a modern quasi-Egyptian philosophical conception, the approach indicated in The Book of the Law as an improvement & a timely progression?"

"Revivals" of the ancient Egyptian gods with the Golden Dawn in the 19th century, and Aleister Crowley in the 20th century, had little to do with actual ancient Egyptian religion, so yes, I agree with you in that the approach to the ancient Egyptian religion in The Book of the Law, can be described as "a modern quasi-Egyptian philosophical conception."


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

I mention that “the Hindu gods are not eternal, but only for this cycle of creation”( http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/3776/do-hindu-gods-share-some-similarity-with-the-gods-of-other-religion), only to demonstrate a resemblance between a metaphysical concept within Hinduism as a religion, and a metaphysical concept within The Book of the Law, that RHK will step down from his throne in the East and give his place to Hrumachis the double-wanded one. Me mentioning the said metaphysical concepts, does not mean that I accept them, or actually believe them to be true.

No, it doesn't mean that.(if you say so!), but in which case I'm also not quite clear on why you DID mention them, then, if you don't accept them either or you regard them as false; nor what significance you therefore attributed to these metaphysical concepts.  Possibly you might enlighten me further? So, why does the 'ancient Egyptian religion' (a) still have any status/ relevance (in your eyes at least) other than something to be historically appreciated, (b) is still binding or operative (as in the case that stelae have a ongoing and timeless function in both prolonging the civil life of the deceased represented etc, or being able to curse later transgressors (e.g. Crowley), and (c) still have validity, given a lot of the ancient religion's at one time believed-in ideas are clearly anachronistic according to the DuQuette quote provided, in that at the time these believers "didn't know any better"? 

Let me ask you another question  based upon the above.  Do you think that because Crowley mentioned e.g. the Ka, that he believed that it meant exactly the same thing as would have been represented 2,700 years ago on the stele (given that there is no definition or even use of the word anywhere else in The Book of the Law)?He was no Egyptologist, but in the absence of anything different to the contrary do you think he would have accepted its mention in The Book of the Law ("Lighten the ways of the Ka") as actually referring to a specific sub-unit of the human individual (psyche), similar to that of the Neschamah, possibly, even though it remains unknown to & undiscovered by moderns science and may be quite "outdated" as a concept, a la DuQuette's olden-time storm gods?

Incidentally I'm still awaiting the source (if you happen to have it) where Crowley himself rejected ancient Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law, that there were elements of it within The Book of the Law which could serve as a basis for its revival/regeneration in some form; and that god names were 'mere literary conveniences', and not to be treated as referring to actual Egyptian gods.  Also, related to my earlier queries around your comments, what is your view on this "ultimate purpose of the Stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu" inasmuch as it has any relevance to & relates to the present day (that is, post 1904)?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

I "DID mention them", to indicate that their resemblance imply that The Book of the Law is the product of Aleister Crowley himeself, and not the product of a praeternatural intelligence, Aiwass, functioning supernaturally as a messenger; mouthpiece, or spokesperson, for actual ancient Egyptian gods of the ancient Egyptian religion.

Let us for the sake of argument argue that Aiwass actually did function supernaturally as a mouthpiece for actual ancient Egyptian gods, and that they actually intended The Book of the Law to be an improvement & a timely progression of the ancient Egyptian religion. If that was the case, accurate and exact information about the original meaning of ancient concepts like for example the Ka, pluss detailed information about why and how these ancient concepts were to be improved, could easily have been provided within the said book.

Jamie J Barter: "Incidentally I’m still awaiting the source (if you happen to have it) [...] ."

Sorry, I don't have it, and as you wrote earlier in this thread one page three in the '#99937 Reply'; "Incidentally Timothy Moss/herupakraath seems to be keeping very quiet on the matter? Maybe he’s on his summer holidays and out of internet range… <“he added generously”>"


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 144
 

Incidentally I’m still awaiting the source (if you happen to have it) where Crowley himself rejected ancient Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law, that there were elements of it within The Book of the Law which could serve as a basis for its revival/regeneration in some form; and that god names were ‘mere literary conveniences’, and not to be treated as referring to actual Egyptian gods.

In the preface to the 1938 edition of the Book of the Law -

"This Book explains the Universe. The elements are Nuit — Space — that is, the total of possibilities of every kind— and Hadit, any point which has experience of these possibilities. (This idea is for literary convenience symbolized by the Egyptian Goddess Nuit, a woman bending over like the Arch of the Night Sky. Hadit is symbolized as a Winged Globe at the heart of Nuit.)"

In Chapter II of Magick in Theory and Practice (1929)

"Egyptian Gods are so complete in their nature, so perfectly spiritual and yet so perfectly material, that this one invocation is sufficient"

"He might have called this "God", or "The Higher Self", or "The Augoeides", or "Adi-Buddha", or 61 other things --- but He had discovered that these were all one, yet that each one represented some theory of the Universe which would ultimately be shattered by criticism --- for He had already passed through the realm of Reason, and knew that every statement contained an absurdity. He therefore said: "Let me declare this Work under this title: 'The obtaining of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel'", because the theory implied in these words is so patently absurd that only simpletons would waste much time in analysing it. It would be accepted as a convention, and no one would incur the grave danger of building a philosophical system upon it"

In a letter to Frieda Harris dated November 11, 1943

"The Egyptian Theogony is the noblest, the most truly magical, the most bound to me (or rather I to it) by some inmost instinct, and by the memory of my incarnation as Ankh-f-n-Khonsu, that I use it (with its Græco-Phoenician child) for all work of supreme import."

In the New Comment

"The theogony of our Law is entirely scientific, Nuit is Matter, Hadit is Motion, in their full physical sense.«The Proton and the Electron, in a metaphysical sense, suggest close analogies.» They are the Tao and Teh of Chinese Philosophy; or, to put it very simply, the Noun and Verb in grammar. Our central Truth – beyond other philosophies – is that these two infinities cannot exist apart"


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

Interesting examples, jg.  Thanks for stepping in and taking the trouble to bring those up.
 
Did Crowley himself "reject ancient Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law" here?  In the examples given above it almost seems the reverse: he at the very least admires its theogony and value as being "of supreme import" to him to the extent that he incorporates it into his whole magickal system.

Also in the 1938 example A.C. is less referring to a "literary" convenience than a pictorial or artistic one, in terms of the given representation from the imagery of the Stele.  Also he did refer to the names of actual Egyptian gods (or of goddesses anyway - or Nuit [Nut] in particular.)

I suppose at some point it might be argued everything Crowley writes, being born of language below the Abyss, can theoretically be reduced to being so patently absurd that only simpletons would waste much time in analysing it, as he as much himself stated!

From one of the pack of cards,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Yes, thanks to jg.

I think the 1938 example is the one referred to by Timothy Moss/herupakraath, as a source backing his statement that; “Crowley, […] rejected the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for the Book of the Law.”, and as source backing his statement that; “… Although there are elements of the [ancient] Egyptian religion in the Book of the Law that could serve as a basis for its [the said religion’s] revival in some form, Crowley rejected the idea, concluding instead that the god names are mere literary conveniences, and not to be treated as Egyptian gods.”

"... the servants of the house were very excited by my arrival because I had penetrated into the temple at Madura and sacrificed a goat (in November 1901). I had said nothing to my friends about my interest in Magick and religion, and they were much astonished when I told them that their servants were right. [...] My first business at Calcutta [February 1902] was to learn Hindustani and Balti, in order to be an efficient interpreter on the expedition to Chogo Ri (Confessions page 260)." "My cynical disgust with the corrupt pettiness of humanity, far from being assuaged by the consciousness of my ability to outmanoeuvre it, saddened me. I loved mankind; I wanted everybody to be an enthusiastic aspirant to the absolute. [...] My disillusionment drove me more and more to determine that the only thing worth doing was to save humanity from the horror of its own ignorant heartlessness (Confessions page 261)."

"We reached Skardu on the fourtenth of May [1902, during an expedition to climb Chogo Ri or what is also known as K2, in the Himalayas], and put in four days making arrangements for the next stage of the journey. We could no longer depend on finding enough coolies, the villages beyond Shigar being poorly populated. [...] [Crowley describing his contemplation inspired by witnessing the stoicism of a Mongolian with a severely damaged leg being operated for an hour and a half without anesthesia:] It is possible to base a religion, not on theory and results, but on practice and methods. It is honest and hopeful to progress on admitted principles towards the development of each individual mind, and thus to advance towards the absolute by means of the consciously willed evolution of the faculty of apprehension. Such is in fact the idea underlying initiation (Confessions page 292, 293 and 296).

The preceding quotes from Confessions of Aleister Crowley, do support that Crowley in early 1902 (before his first visit to Egypt, where he arrived 14 October 1902), two years before The Book the Law was supposedly written in 1904, was determined "... that the only thing worth doing was to save humanity from the horror of its own ignorant heartlessness.", and do support that Crowley in May 1902 was convinced that "It is possible to base a religion, not on theory and results, but on practice and methods.", "... the idea underlying initiation.", according to him.

Do you know about any text[-s] written by Aleister Crowley, where he mentions having a determination to save humanity, or having contemplated the possibility of a new religion, earlier than 1902?


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

Do you know about any text[-s] written by Aleister Crowley, where he mentions having a determination to save humanity, or having contemplated the possibility of a new religion, earlier than 1902?
Although there's no apparently extant manifesto, presumably his intention in setting up the Lamp of the Invisible Light (L.I.L.) in Mexico in 1900 was similarly altruistic with this aim in mind?

Let us for the sake of argument argue that Aiwass actually did function supernaturally as a mouthpiece for actual ancient Egyptian gods, and that they actually intended The Book of the Law to be an improvement & a timely progression of the ancient Egyptian religion. If that was the case, accurate and exact information about the original meaning of ancient concepts like for example the Ka, plus detailed information about why and how these ancient concepts were to be improved, could easily have been provided within the said book.
I don't regard this as a convincing or full and satisfactory answer here, unfortunately.  Why should Aiwass do this (taking the reception story as gospel for the sake of argument here)?  The Book of the Law isn't like a manual for a piece of equipment, and within the constraints of the prose-poem format provided, how could "he" have relayed this information?  Besides which, the Ka etc is a very small part of it (once mentioned in III:37, with the verse actually fully acknowledged to be Crowley's own contribution) while the (original) meaning of this (within the terms of the ancient Egyptian religion) has not changed or evolved for 2,700 years.

You don't appear to have answered why the ‘ancient Egyptian religion’
(a) still has any status/ relevance (in your eyes at least) other than something to be historically appreciated;
(b) still has validity (given a lot of the ancient religion’s at one time believed-in ideas are clearly anachronistic according to the DuQuette quote provided, in that at the time these believers “didn’t know any better”)? and
(c) is still binding or operative (as in the case that stelae have a ongoing and timeless function in both prolonging the civil life of the deceased represented etc, or being able to curse later transgressors (e.g. Crowley)?

Also, you haven't stated whether it's the actual image which is ON the stele, or the physical SHAPE of the stele --- as miniature tomb/ the doorway for the deceased to the afterlife (as well as the land of the living) itself --- which acts as a guarantor for perpetual life?  Or whether it may be both, in which case which do you reckon would have the greater importance? (And like I enquired, what if the actual drawing of Ankh-af-na-khonsu wasn’t a very good likeness of what he was really like [=the old voudun poppet problem]?)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

The Book of the Law I:49 "Abrogate [= abolish[ed] by authoritative action] are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods; and let Asar be with Isa, who also are one. But they are not of me. Let Asar be the adorant, Isa the sufferer; Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating."

The Book of the Law II:5 "Behold! the rituals of the old time are black. Let the evil ones be cast away; let the good ones be purged by the prophet! Then shall this Knowledge go aright."

Crowley's The Book of the Law, abrogates all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs, declaring "Hoor in his secret name and splendour" to be "... the Lord initiating (I:49).", and the said book orders that "the evil" "rituals of the old time" "be cast away", and "the good ones be purged by the prophet (= Crowley himself) (II:5)!"

"... the 'Crowned' and Conquering 'Child' in ourselves, our own personal God.", and every person's "silent self" or "Holy Guardian Angel", is according to Crowley (his New Comment to III:22), the initiator in the new system of initiation declared by The Book of the Law (his Old Comment to I:49). And this fulfills Crowley's mentioned (Confessions page 296) May 1902 convinction that "… the idea underlying initiation.", namely "practice and methods", instead of "theory and results", could be the basis of a religion. Because "our own personal God" now is the initiator, because all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs, are abrogate, and because Crowley as prophet is granted the authority to, on behalf of the said "own personal God" of every person, to purge the good rituals of the old time, and to let the evil rituals of the old time be cast away.

That is, the premise his The Book of the Law (supposedly written in 1904) provided him with, corresponds with his said May 1902 convinction, that "It is possible to base a religion" "on practice and methods", "… the idea underlying initiation", according to Crowley.

As I have already stated (Source:July 22, 2017 at 1:00 pm Reply #100120), the objective of the whole endeavour with respect to this thread created by me, is to argue in support of Crowley's position that rejected the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for the Book of the Law.

With respect to my said objective, and with respect to my already (July 24, 2017 at 11:57 am Reply #100149) mentioned position "... that The Book of the Law is the product of Aleister Crowley himself, and not the product of a praeternatural intelligence, Aiwass, functioning supernaturally as a messenger; mouthpiece, or spokesperson, for actual ancient Egyptian gods of the ancient Egyptian religion.", I am not going to waste any more time just for the sake of argument, to argue in support of Aiwass supernaturally being involved in the writing of The Book of the Law, or to argue in support of the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for the Book of the Law. Why? Because I find this kind of arguing to be irrelevant both to my said objective with this thread, and to my mentioned position about who The Book of the Law's author was.

And as for waste of time, you did on page four of this thread (July 22, 2017 at 4:44 Reply #100121), express suprise "that more people haven’t picked up on or debated these two angles." (These two angles = "that treating the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law, could become like (to use your words) “the hammering of square pegs into round holes”", and "that Ankh-af-na-khonsu’s reincarnation as Aleister Crowley is the ultimate purpose of the Stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu, is incorrect and misleading.") But there you also stated that "I would myself, but… life is short, y’know?!"

With respect to this, I agree with you in that "... life is short, y’know?!", but I suggest that you can create your own thread, or blog, if you want to write more in support of why treating the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law is useful.

To me the ‘ancient Egyptian religion’ does not have any status/relevance other than something to be historically appreciated, and not to be interpreted historically incorrect as in Crowley's The Book of the Law, where it is implied that the said Crowley is somehow identical with, and/or the reincarnation of, a person who lived in

I have now clarified my objective with this thread, my position about who The Book of the Law's author was, and what status/relevance the ‘ancient Egyptian religion’ has to me.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

I have also already stated that "... I agree with you in that the approach to the ancient Egyptian religion in The Book of the Law, can be described as “a modern quasi-Egyptian philosophical conception (July 24, 2017 at 1:33 am Reply #100146).”" Quasi, because the ancient Egyptian religion is interpreted and/or used historically incorrect within the said book.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Oooops, sorry for chain-posting, but this posting is just to add the words missing in a paragraph within 'July 26, 2017 at 1:46 pm Reply #100171':

"To me the ‘ancient Egyptian religion’ does not have any status/relevance other than something to be historically appreciated, and not to be interpreted historically incorrect as in Crowley’s The Book of the Law, where it is implied that the said Crowley is somehow identical with, and/or the reincarnation of, a person who lived in ancient Egypt."


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

For a doubter, you sure do quote from The Book of the Law a heck of a lot!

That is, the premise his The Book of the Law (supposedly written in 1904) provided him with, corresponds with his said May 1902 conviction, that "It is possible to base a religion" "on practice and methods", {instead of "theory and results"} "… the idea underlying initiation", according to Crowley.
Is it me, or does this seem all mixed up --- I would have thought the more terminal "practice and results" versus the more preliminary "theory and methods" fitted together better?. Or am I missing something?

As I have already stated (Source:July 22, 2017 at 1:00 pm Reply #100120), the objective of the whole endeavour with respect to this thread created by me, is to argue in support of Crowley's position that rejected the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for the Book of the Law.
But in all the quotes so far, I still haven't come across anything which would justify using such a strong word as his "rejection", when he didn't so much reject as adapt...

With respect to my said objective, and with respect to my already (July 24, 2017 at 11:57 am Reply #100149) mentioned position "... that The Book of the Law is the product of Aleister Crowley himself, and not the product of a praeternatural intelligence, Aiwass, functioning supernaturally as a messenger; mouthpiece, or spokesperson, for actual ancient Egyptian gods of the ancient Egyptian religion.", I am not going to waste any more time just for the sake of argument, to argue in support of Aiwass supernaturally being involved in the writing of The Book of the Law, or to argue in support of the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for the Book of the Law. Why? Because I find this kind of arguing to be irrelevant both to my said objective with this thread, and to my mentioned position about who The Book of the Law's author was.
Well ... !

And as for waste of time, you did on page four of this thread (July 22, 2017 at 4:44 Reply #100121), express suprise "that more people haven’t picked up on or debated these two angles." (These two angles = "that treating the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law, could become like (to use your words) “the hammering of square pegs into round holes”", and "that Ankh-af-na-khonsu’s reincarnation as Aleister Crowley is the ultimate purpose of the Stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu, is incorrect and misleading.") But there you also stated that "I would myself, but… life is short, y’know?!"
I suspect you take me too seriously sometimes.  And not only me!  Yes, life is short, but if I didn't want to respond to you then I wouldn't have done so, would I? 🙂 Having said that though, I am beginning to wonder if I should continue this exchange much longer and whether it might possibly be better stepping aside & leaving it to somebody else to jump in and reply to your posts instead.  (I'd ask you not to all step up to the plate at once, though ---- form an orderly queue, people.) 
And there's also such a thing as the law of diminishing marginal returns, y'know?!

With respect to this, I agree with you in that "... life is short, y’know?!", but I suggest that you can create your own thread, or blog, if you want to write more in support of why treating the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law is useful.
But I don't want to write this though, so the matter is academic. I think I'd rather economise on time and watch you do it instead.

To me the ‘ancient Egyptian religion’ does not have any status/relevance other than something to be historically appreciated, and not to be interpreted historically incorrect as in Crowley's The Book of the Law, where it is implied that the said Crowley is somehow identical with, and/or the reincarnation of, a person who lived in ancient Egypt.
I have now clarified my objective with this thread, my position about who The Book of the Law's author was, and what status/relevance the ‘ancient Egyptian religion’ has to me.

Yes, you answered my point (a) satisfactorily, in the end, for which I thank you.  I cannot say quite the same about (b) and (c), let alone the last point about how you see stelae (or more specifically, the Stele) operating according to your perception of them.  But, I can and will only repeat questions a certain number of times, and if it becomes obvious that you'd prefer to cherry-pick them (like Long Lost Los used to do, for example, or Sir Staley sometimes does now) & not be asked --- or rather, feel obliged to give answers --- then have no fear sirrah, I sha'n''t tax you any further!

Z  oJy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

As the ‘ancient Egyptian religion’ to me does not have any status/relevance other than something to be historically appreciated, I was under the impression that it to the reader would be obvious, that it to me does NOT (b) still has validity, and that it to the reader would be obvious that it to me is NOT (c) still binding or operative, which means I regard stelae, or more specifically the Stele, as nothing more than an ancient object to be historically appreciated.

And to further clarify my position, religions, Karma, curses, voudon, Crowley's Thelema, etc., are to me only real in the sense that they can become social reality for those who realy believe in them, that is, my position is that they can have no effect upon me and/or someone else, or the world we live in, unless I, and/or someone else, make them have any such effect. In addition to this, I respect extinct religions as something to be historically appreciated.

"... Crowley, recognize[d] correlations between Thelemic and other systems of spiritual thought [...] For example, Nu and Had are thought to correspond with [...] Ain Soph and Kether in the Hermetic Qabalah (Crowley, Aleister. "777 Revised" in The Qabalah of Aleister Crowley. New York: Samuel Weiser, 1973.)( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema) ." And as already stated in this thread, “… the ‘Crowned’ and Conquering ‘Child’ in ourselves, our own personal God.”, and every person’s “silent self” or “Holy Guardian Angel”, is according to Crowley (his New Comment to III:22), the initiator in the new system of initiation declared by The Book of the Law (his Old Comment to I:49).

Jamie J Barter: "For a doubter, you sure do quote from The Book of the Law a heck of a lot!"

Well, in respect of the subject matter of this thread, 'My quotes from, & comment to, download Timothy Moss: “Case of the Cairo Working”', Crowley was obviously well qualified to have written The Book of the Law on his own without 'the Cairo Working', as he already before 1904, was well informed both about "The Boundless" (= Ain Soph), which the first chapter of The Book of the Law is supposed to be the 'voice' of, and well informed about "The first condensation" or "The first "central point" (of Ain Soph) (= Kether), which the second chapter of The Book of the Law is supposed to be the 'voice' of, and also well informed about the "Holy Guardian Angel" (= every person's own personal God), which the third and last chapter of The Book of the Law is supposed to be the 'voice' of.

Jamie J Barter: "But in all the quotes so far, I still haven’t come across anything which would justify using such a strong word as his “rejection”, when he didn’t so much reject as adapt…"

Presuming that The Book of the Law had been written with "The Boundless" as the 'voice' of the first chapter, "The first central point" as the 'voice' of the the second chapter, and the "Holy Guardian Angel" as the 'voice' of the third and last chapter, and without any content relating to the religion of ancient Egypt. Don't you agree that it would then have appeared less convoluted to readers not deeply familiar with Crowley's background from The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and that it would then have made it easier for such readers to not be distracted from detecting and recognizing the three main 'voices' within the book?

Jamie J Barter: "Is it me, or does this seem all mixed up — I would have thought the more terminal “practice and results” versus the more preliminary “theory and methods” fitted together better?. Or am I missing something?"

Not if this reflects Crowley already in May 1902, being certain about that the 'Holy Guardian Angel', the "personal God" or "silent self" within every person, is the factor that actually enables the initiation for every person. Then it is only a matter of finding the correct practice and methods (the idea underlying initiation, according to Crowley) to activate the said factor.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

Re (a), Thank you very, well, that makes the position a LOT clearer!  Though I don't know why you couldn't have spelled it out like that before....

As the ‘ancient Egyptian religion’ to me does not have any status/relevance other than something to be historically appreciated, I was under the impression that it to the reader would be obvious, that it to me does NOT (b) still has validity, and that it to the reader would be obvious that it to me is NOT (c) still binding or operative, which means I regard stelae, or more specifically the Stele, as nothing more than an ancient object to be historically appreciated.
Re (b), I beg to differ here, since it is NOT "immediately obvious to the reader" because, although it (the ancient Egyptian religion) was not valid to you yourself, subjectively, it does not then necessarily follow that you'd go as far as to deny it wouldn't be similarly valid to (some) other people, albeit few in number.  Just because you believe something is not so, doesn't mean nobody else would and that it won't therefore be valued as valid by any of them.

(c) is a slightly more tricksy answer, since you DO seem to regard it as still being binding and operative, in that you see it as fulfilling its original purpose (that of assisting Ankh-af-na-khonsu to perpetuate himself in the afterlife) as opposed to being somehow instrumental in his 'reincarnation' as Aleister Crowley, and that A.C. would justly receive some sort of karmic kickback as a result of his misappropriating it for that (his) purpose.  In fact you have fairly strongly given off the suggestion that you feel it would only be right that as a "criminal offence punishable by execution" he should be "extremely severely punished" for doing so.  Even though you "regard the stelae as nothing more than an object to be historically appreciated", it seems you are unnecessarily and disproportionately defensive about any possible sacrilegious or blasphemous position taken with regard to it (e.g. specifically old Crow's), e.g. where you state: "[...] this ultimate purpose was profaned or desecrated by Crowley’s The Book of the Law (BOTL I:36), where Ankh-af-na-khonsu is appropriated and repurposed as an earlier life from which Crowley has reincarnated" (Reply #99809 on June 20th 2017 at 1.52 am.)  Also in Reply ##99935 (5th July 2017 at 11.44am) you say: "The symbolism used on the Stele or miniature tomb of one Ankh-f-n-khonsu, was bastardized by Crowley to express something completely different within the belief system of Thelema developed by the latter. And the said tomb was in that sense damaged or defiled by Crowley, acts that were severely punished in Ancient Egypt ...And my point is that Aleister Crowley (with his Thelema), irrespective of having the best of intentions or motives in dealing with the Stele or miniature tomb of one Ankh-f-n-khonsu, in any way he saw fit as the new incarnation of the said Ankh-f-n-khonsu, would have been subject to extremely severe punishments for doing so in ancient Egypt at the time the said Stele or miniature tomb was made."

Furthermore when you say (Reply #99813, 20th June 2017 at 10.13pm) "The person behind the Stele of Ankh-f-na-khonsu appropriated and repurposed by Aleister Crowley, had no relatives that could defend his legacy against Crowley’s various negations of the perception & understanding of life after death, behind his Stele", it almost seems that you are stepping into the breach on their behalf? (That was why I mused whether you thought you might be distantly related!)  This not being the case, though --- why DO you feel so strongly about it?. 

By the wayside, connected with this and with regard to another earlier quote, in which you contend "that Ankh-af-na-khonsu’s reincarnation as Aleister Crowley is the ultimate purpose of the Stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu, is incorrect and misleading", would you accept that the ultimate purpose (according to The Book of the Law) is to function as “a proof to the world” by closing it in locked glass --- and in effect, that its ultimate purpose is yet to be  to be fulfilled?  (I don't see HOW the ultimate purpose could possibly be "the process of reincarnation" as suggested by endnote 25 of "The Case of the Cairo Working".)

And to further clarify my position, religions, Karma, curses, voudon, Crowley’s Thelema, etc., are to me only real in the sense that they can become social reality for those who realy believe in them, that is, my position is that they can have no effect upon me and/or someone else, or the world we live in, unless I, and/or someone else, make them have any such effect. In addition to this,
Fair enough.  Did you ever think of becoming a lawyer, incidentally?  Or maybe you are one!  (Please tell me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.)

{...} the “Holy Guardian Angel” (= every person’s own personal God), which the third and last chapter of The Book of the Law is supposed to be the ‘voice’ of.
It is actually supposed to be the voice of Ra Hoor Khuit, the active 'twin' of the solar composite deity Heru-ra-ha, rather than the HGA per se.  It would seem that a god of war and vengeance trumps a HGA in terms of hierarchy.  Of course, one also has to consider that Aiwass as Crowley's HGA dictated and arguably composed The Book of the Law as the voice and mouthpiece of these divinities (actually of Heru-ra-ha, since being the God of Silence Hoor-paar-kraat would have nothing to say, leaving all the speaking & words to Ra Hoor Khuit.)

Presuming that The Book of the Law had been written with “The Boundless” as the ‘voice’ of the first chapter, “The first central point” as the ‘voice’ of the second chapter, and the “Holy Guardian Angel” as the ‘voice’ of the third and last chapter, and without any content relating to the religion of ancient Egypt. Don’t you agree that it would then have appeared less convoluted to readers not deeply familiar with Crowley’s background from The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and that it would then have made it easier for such readers to not be distracted from detecting and recognizing the three main ‘voices’ within the book?
Again: there is no distraction from readers detecting and recognizing the fact that the position and perspective of the third main voice is that of Ra Hoor Khuit, and not Aiwass 'himself',
In fact, you go as far as to have acknowledged it yourself, well: (Reply #100057, 5th July at 12 "Within the Book of the Law (supposedly written in 1904 after Crowley’s first and second visit to Allan Bennett, in respectively August 1901 and February 1902), the ‘god’ expressing itself in the third and last chapter, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, has annihilate{d} an universe".  So why change it now?

I'm not sure I quite understand the question in the second sentence. Could you rephrase and/or clarify it please? 

Not if this reflects Crowley already in May 1902, being certain about that the ‘Holy Guardian Angel’, the “personal God” or “silent self” within every person, is the factor that actually enables the initiation for every person. Then it is only a matter of finding the correct practice and methods (the idea underlying initiation, according to Crowley) to activate the said factor.
I get you.  From that context, it makes a bit more sense I suppose.

Like Dusty Springfield might say: Little by little... straining, the answers gradually appear. Chuffin' nora, it's like trying to draw blood from a stone.  Oh wow, did I type that last bit aloud?!  Whoops, sorry, hope I didn't upset your feelings there! 🙂  Hoping you will take it in the joshing spirit it was intended & with appreciation for making at least the effort to try to answer so far,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Jamie J Barter: "... why DO you feel so strongly about it?"

No, I don't feel strongly about it. If I did, I could not have agreed with you as I did with respect to your following statement made on page three in this thread in Reply '#99965': “If A.C.’s motives and intentions were never to deliberately cause offence, his heart in line with the Forty-Two Confessions would therefore be “pure” & he would be unassailable..”

It is not as if I personally think that what Crowley did with one stele, should make him deserve punishment, during his life (or hypothetically in his afterlife).

Jamie J Barter: "... would you accept that the ultimate purpose (according to The Book of the Law) is to function as “a proof to the world” [...]?"

Funny you should ask that, because I have allways thought of those words as a tongue-in-cheek remark, that is, "... Close it in locked glass for a proof to the world (III:10)." (That this is the ancient artifact I fabricated this book around.)

"I don’t see HOW the ultimate purpose could possibly be “the process of reincarnation” as suggested by endnote 25 of “The Case of the Cairo Working”."

Well, Timothy Moss/herupakraath might do that.

Jamie J Barter: "Did you ever think of becoming a lawyer, incidentally?"

No, why?

Do you think The Book of the Law would have been worse, or better, or neither, if the third and last chapter of it was the 'voice' of the “Holy Guardian Angel”?

Jamie J Barter: "So why change it now?"

No, you are missing my point. My point is if you think The Book of the Law would have been worse, or better, or neither, if it was originally written with "The Boundless" as the ‘voice’ of the first chapter, “The first central point” as the ‘voice’ of the second chapter, and the “Holy Guardian Angel” as the ‘voice’ of the third and last chapter, and without any content relating to the religion of ancient Egypt?

Jamie J Barter: "I’m not sure I quite understand the question in the second sentence. Could you rephrase and/or clarify it please?"

What is the second sentence? Is it the following one? "Don’t you agree that it would then have appeared less convoluted to readers not deeply familiar with Crowley’s background from The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and that it would then have made it easier for such readers to not be distracted from detecting and recognizing the three main ‘voices’ within the book?"


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 479
 

WRWB:

A major mistake on my part, in misleadingly presenting quotes from the Timothy Moss/herupakraath authored document titled ‘Case of the Cairo Working’, as being quotes from the Timothy Moss/herupakraath authored document titled ‘Squaring The Circle’.

And it only took six months for you to realize your mistake. I noticed it immediately, but decided to allow you enough rope to hang yourself, which might seem cruel, but deserving of any critic.

Shiva:

Aha! It was the circle squared in its failure.

Indeed.

WRWB:

Page 10

: “Summary and Conclusion […] Although there are elements of the [ancient] Egyptian religion in the Book of the Law that could serve as a basis for its [the said religion’s] revival in some form, Crowley rejected the idea, concluding instead that the god names are mere literary conveniences, and not to be treated as Egyptian gods.”

There is a statement by Crowley where he makes it clear that Nuit and Hadit are literary conveniences, and their usage in the Book of the Law is not indicative of a revival of the Egyptian religion. I'm not sure where the statement originates, but I'll come across it again eventually if no else does first.

And I am making a point about that treating the [ancient] Egyptian religion as a source of meaning for The Book of the Law, could become like (to use your words) “the hammering of square pegs into round holes”, exemplified in this thread by my arguments about why the claim made in the middle section on page eight of the document ‘Case of the Cairo Working’, that Ankh-af-na-khonsu’s reincarnation as Aleister Crowley is the ultimate purpose of the Stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu, is incorrect and misleading.

Incorrect and misleading according to whom? Most of the New Kingdom votive/funerary stelae identify the person the stele was created for with Osiris, a god who was magically reincarnated by Isis in order to mate and produce the offspring Horus. The purpose of such stelae is to insure the immortality of their owners. In weighing present day beliefs about reincarnation, the concept is quite similar to that expressed with the Egyptian trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus: within six months of death, the reincarnated spirit of the deceased is thought to meld with the consciousness of a new-born child. You should also consider the ancient Egyptian concept whereby the spirit of the sun god himself was believed to manifest within the consciousness of the successor of the deceased King, yet another form of reincarnation.

As for Crowley's thoughts on the matter, see chapter 41 of Magick Without Tears, where he notes the implication in the Book of the Law that he is Ankh-f-n-khonsu reincarnated, describing himself as the 'chief of the sinners' in entertaining such beliefs.

Ra-Hoor-Khuit is in THe Book of the Law described as a deity that will be replaced by Hrumachis (III, 34.:

I disagree, Let's take a look at the actual statement made:

when Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place.

If we are to believe your interpretation, only these parts of the sentence are required:

when Hrumachis shall arise and assume my throne and place.

The actual statement describes two different things: the arising of Hrumachis, and the assumption of the throne by the double-wanded one, and therein lies a great secret.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

No, I don’t feel strongly about it. If I did, I could not have agreed with you as I did with respect to your following statement made on page three in this thread in Reply ‘#99965’: “If A.C.’s motives and intentions were never to deliberately cause offence, his heart in line with the Forty-Two Confessions would therefore be “pure” & he would be unassailable..”
Well, I'm sorry: I didn't know that you had.been agreeing with me there all the time (you actually commented, "Good for him.").  it just goes to show doesn't it (or it doesn't, as the case may be...)

as “a proof to the world” […]?”
Funny you should ask that, because I have allways thought of those words as a tongue-in-cheek remark, that is, “… Close it in locked glass for a proof to the world (III:10).” (That this is the ancient artifact I fabricated this book around.)

Well I suppose Well you could take it as being tongue-in-cheek or even if you like, tongue going as far as half-way-up-the-rectum.  But if one is taking it seriously (i.e. the verse in question and by extension the reception account as told) then I contend that would be its ultimate purpose, more so than any(in)direct association(s) with Aleister Crowley or Ankh-af-na-khonsu or even Aleister Crowley AS Ankh-a-na-khonsu. Does anybody else reading disagree with this and have another ultimate purpose in mind?

“I don’t see HOW the ultimate purpose could possibly be “the process of reincarnation” as suggested by endnote 25 of “The Case of the Cairo Working”.”Well, Timothy Moss/herupakraath might do that.
He would seem to be agreeing with you when he says "The purpose of such stelae is to insure the immortality of their owners", but doesn't say yes or no whether that would be the Ultimate purpose.  And with regard to the quote (Endquote 25) he doesn't explain how it could possibly be and how it might possibly assist the process of reincarnation (a double how).

Jamie J Barter: “Did you ever think of becoming a lawyer, incidentally?”
No, why?

Are you being serious, or is this a disingenuous question?  I would have thought it was obvious...  At times your style is highly suggestive of legalese, for example the use of lots of quotes (more than necessary), using many words where a few might do, tautology & repeating yourself & repetition over & over galore to drum home the point home.... But really, it was just meant as a throwaway comment, not worth lingering over.  Seriously!

Do you think The Book of the Law would have been worse, or better, or neither, if the third and last chapter of it was the ‘voice’ of the “Holy Guardian Angel”?
But it isn't!  The contents, 'voice' and all the references in the third and final chapter refer explicitly to RHK rather than the HGA.  Do you mean a whole new HGA chapter INSTEAD of the present third chapter (when that would obviously be better as a fourth one)?  Arguably, as a "received" text one could say this was in fact what was supernally channelled to A.C., although some time later on in 1907 as Liber LXV.  .But nowhere (apart from your erroneous post, as outlined) is it suggested that the 3rd chapter already does refer to the HGA.

What is the second sentence? Is it the following one? “{...}
Yes!!  (Of course it is --- is there some difficulty in ascertaining that, since it immediately follows the first & is the second of the (count, them!) 2 sentences in the paragraph quoted??)

The actual statement describes two different things: the arising of Hrumachis, and the assumption of the throne by the double-wanded one, and therein lies a great secret.
I concur along with one of Aleister Crowley's "bright remarks" that "Mystery is the enemy of Truth" --- which for the purposes of my own remark here, I equate with Secrecy.  Who is it alleging there's supposed to be a "great secret" --- is it Crowley himself (in which case a source for the quote would be useful) or is it your own assumption, in which case why should anyone else believe it is a great secret, and why should that be so anyway?
It could be interpreted either way --- there is no definitive viewpoint or certain test--- each for one's self, and with or without recourse of appeal to the writings, 
blah blah blah,
Z Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

herupakraath: "Incorrect and misleading according to whom? Most of the New Kingdom votive/funerary stelae identify the person the stele was created for with Osiris, a god who was magically reincarnated by Isis in order to mate and produce the offspring Horus. The purpose of such stelae is to insure the immortality of their owners. ..."

According to beliefs about a life after death in ancient Egypt. "In general, the Egyptian religion was based on the idea of resurrection: When a person died, he or she could resurrect in the next world. [...] More than any other ancient culture, the Egyptians were fascinated by the mystery of death and the prospect of RESURRECTION in the next world. If they were happy in this life, with the help of the gods, they could live an even better life in the next world. If their lives were not so good, there was always the possibility of achieving happiness by resurrecting in the next world (page 20 ( https://books.google.no/books?id=wLUjtPDyu-IC&pg=PT36&lpg=PT36&dq=%22In+general,+the+Egyptian+religion+was+based+on+the+idea+of+resurrection:%22&source=bl&ots=euQTr74iQZ&sig=-dCEwfAA4bPwf9V2QcHTF7LYa9I&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmw_bct7PVAhVCchQKHfIvCZcQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20general%2C%20the%20Egyptian%20religion%20was%20based%20on%20the%20idea%20of%20resurrection%3A%22&f=false) and 71 ( https://books.google.no/books?id=wLUjtPDyu-IC&pg=PT87&lpg=PT87&dq=%22fascinated+by+the+mystery+of+death,+and+the+prospect+of+RESURRECTION+in+the+next+world.%22&source=bl&ots=euQTqgcpTV&sig=ebK1_guz92FRQUNGRotMEoEDq4M&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0vbP9srPVAhVCVhQKHTfzBv8Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22fascinated%20by%20the%20mystery%20of%20death%2C%20and%20the%20prospect%20of%20RESURRECTION%20in%20the%20next%20world.%22&f=false), in Egyptian Mythology A to Z, third edition, 2010, by Pat Remler)." Osiris was the god of transition, resurrection, and regeneration in ancient Egypt ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris).


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

And it only took six months for you to realize your mistake. I noticed it immediately, but decided to allow you enough rope to hang yourself, which might seem cruel, but deserving of any critic

Although the rope may have got a bit entangled --- twisted, even --- the hemp it's made out of, although seemingly of sturdy stuff looks a little on the short side to do the job properly & I'm not sure well's managed to hang himself with it just yet...

To paraphrase Brody in Jaws I think you might need a bigger rope (or to make a call for an unbiased autopsy?)

Knot Stringing along (for the helluvit),
N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

"Get the stele of revealing itself; set it in thy secret temple -- and that temple is already aright disposed -- & it shall be your Kiblah for ever. It shall not fade, but miraculous colour shall come back to it day after day. Close it in locked glass for a proof to the world. (The Book of the Law; III:10)."

Jamie J Barter: "... would you accept that the ultimate purpose (according to The Book of the Law) is to function as “a proof to the world” by closing it in locked glass — and in effect, that its ultimate purpose is yet to be to be fulfilled?"

I have no idea why this should be the ultimate purpose, as the words "Close it in locked glass for a proof to the world.", are in line with something purely practical and mundane, namely that it is commonsensical and utilitarian to exhibit to the world, the exact appearance of the particular Stele referred to in The Book of the Law. And this can simply be fulfilled, by publicly exhibiting accurate depictions of the said Stele, together with descriptions of its significance within Crowley's Thelema. "Close it in locked glass ...", can be a poetic description of the process of depicting the said stele through camera (glass) lenses.

Jamie J Barter: "I’m not sure I quite understand the question in the second sentence. Could you rephrase and/or clarify it please?"

Presuming that (the in 1904 written) The Book of the Law was written without any arbitrary use of names of supposed deities in already pre-existing mythologies, likely to distract readers from understanding the concept[-s] the text in each chapter was to be the symbolic expression of. And also presuming that the same book was also written in a way clearly indicating that each chapter was the symbolic expression of concept[-s] related to terms like “The Boundless” and “The first central point”.

Don’t you agree that if The Book of the Law was written like just presumed above (without any arbitrary use of names of supposed deities in already pre-existing mythologies, likely to distract readers from understanding the concept[-s] the text in each chapter was to be the symbolic expression of), that it would then have been easier for readers of such a book to understand clearly what concept[-s] the text in each chapter was to be the symbolic expression of?


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

I have no idea why this should be the ultimate purpose
By default, if nothing else --- for what other purpose is there listed in The Book of the Law?

as the words “Close it in locked glass for a proof to the world.”, are in line with something purely practical and mundane, namely that it is commonsensical and utilitarian to exhibit to the world, the exact appearance of the particular Stele referred to in The Book of the Law. And this can simply be fulfilled, by publicly exhibiting accurate depictions of the said Stele, together with descriptions of its significance within Crowley’s Thelema. “Close it in locked glass …”, can be a poetic description of the process of depicting the said stele through camera (glass) lenses.
It's a nice supposition, but I don't think it is quite as straightforward as that.  The instruction may well be to "close it in locked glass", but this comes after the "miraculous colour" coming back to it each and every day.  Until that happens, there is no point in closing it in, as presumably nothing would happen - the preliminary condition not having been met: it would be a bit like having a television set and it not working until plugged into the power of a wall socket to begin with.  And this colour is only meant to come back after it has already been  "set in thy secret temple" first.  That is a tricky bit, as it's hard to tell for certain what, or where, this "secret" temple is: the consensus is that since the Kiblah is Boleskine, the temple would have to be situated there as well.   In addition, to begin with (assuming this is all correct) first of all the original Stele (or "the stele of revealing itself") would have to be removed from the Cairo museum to Loch Ness --- something with which the Egyptian authorities are unlikely to be very keen to acquiesce.  Only once this material transference to this unique geophysical location at "Aeonic East" has occurred (maybe inside the "invisible house"!), would some sort of a miracle then take place as the only tangible physical proof of The Book of the Law's veracity (apart from A.C.'s word on the matter).  Or at any rate, after its being then closed in the celebrated locked glass. 

Don’t you agree that if The Book of the Law was written like just presumed above (without any arbitrary use of names of supposed deities in already pre-existing mythologies, likely to distract readers from understanding the concept[-s] the text in each chapter was to be the symbolic expression of), that it would then have been easier for readers of such a book to understand clearly what concept[-s] the text in each chapter was to be the symbolic expression of?
So, if I'm reading you right, you're saying that if The Book of the Law had just stuck to having a chapter on each of these three viewpoints - from that of the "Boundless", the "first central point", and the dynamic interplay between the two of them (which you seem to want to recognise as the HGA, as distinct from Heru-ra-ha), and omitting every reference to divinities and deities already in existence as such, then that would be tickety-boo & hunky dory for (you and) its readers?

I agree that there would seem to be no point in muddying things up by bringing in anachronistic religious deities and beliefs, but with a trio of important qualifications.  The first is that since there are meant to be many (cabbalistic) mysteries contained within even so much as the style of a single letter, the English Alphabet-encoded descriptions of the divinities cannot be dispensed with just on that account alone. Secondly, perhaps the intelligence behind The Book of the Law thought that at this time of transition (from the cusp of one Aeon to another) people would be more likely to respond with a spiritual message & religious metaphors than a strictly scientific one, including the use of old-fashioned King James Bible vernacular.  And thirdly, the usage, adaptation and update of these old divinities might still involve some residual ongoing charge (or "morphic resonance" as Rupert Sheldrake would say) directly coming through from these old archetypes.

Success shall be your locked glass,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Jamie J Barter: "By default, if nothing else — for what other purpose is there listed in The Book of the Law?"

A copy of the particular Stele referred to in The Book of the Law, is used in the Gnostic Mass, with respect to the following purpose expressed in The Book of the Law (III:10); "Get the stele of revealing itself; set it in thy secret temple -- and that temple is already aright disposed -- & it shall be your Kiblah for ever. It shall not fade, but miraculous colour shall come back to it day after day. Close it in locked glass for a proof to the world." For all I know, some among them who practice the Gnostic Mass, and/or who actually believe that the said Stele "... shall be your Kiblah for ever.", might keep a copy of the said Stele in a locked glass case, to somehow fulfil the already mentioned following purpose expressed in The Book of the Law ( III "Close it in locked glass for a proof to the world."

Jamie J Barter: "It’s a nice supposition, but I don’t think it is quite as straightforward as that. The instruction may well be to “close it in locked glass”, but this comes after the “miraculous colour” coming back to it each and every day. Until that happens, there is no point in closing it in, [...] ."

The words "... it shall be your Kiblah for ever. It shall not fade, but miraculous colour shall come back to it day after day.", indicates that the said Stele's magical (or miraculous) power, or magical (or miraculous) significance, as "... your Kiblah for ever.", shall not fade but remain intact. And thus there is a point in closing an exact copy of it in locked glass for a proof to the world, a proof to the world of the exact appearance of this "... your [miraculous [and/or magical]] Kiblah for ever."

Jamie J Barter: "So, if I’m reading you right, you’re saying that if The Book of the Law had just stuck to having a chapter on each of these three viewpoints – ... "

You seem to catch the drift.

Jamie J Barter: "... from that of the “Boundless”, the “first central point”, and the dynamic interplay between the two of them (which you seem to want to recognise as the HGA, as distinct from Heru-ra-ha), ..."

With respect to Heru-ra-ha, and the below 'Further information about the nature of Horus, as the “Lord of Initiation”, and of the nature of The Great Work:', do you think that describing the third and last chapter of The Book of the Law, as being from the viewpoint of “The uniting of opposites, and that which is beyond them”, is more comprehensive than describing it as being from the viewpoint of “The Two-in-One”, or “The double natured one”?

Further information about the nature of Horus, as the “Lord of Initiation”, and of the nature of The Great Work:

The Book of the Law I,49: “Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods; and let Asar be with Isa, who also are one. But they are not of me. Let Asar be the adorant, Isa the sufferer; Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating.”

"... Class A. This is considered a Holy Book of Thelema. [...] Liber Tzaddi both begins and ends with an identical line: “In the name of the Lord of Initiation. Amen.” We know from many sources, primarily Liber AL I:49, that Horus is the “Lord of Initiation” in this Aeon (Source: https://iao131.com/commentaries/liber-tzaddi-vel-hamus-hermeticus-sub-figura-xc/).

"The Great Work is the uniting of opposites. It may mean the uniting of the soul with God, of the microcosm with the macrocosm, of the female with the male, of the ego with the non - ego — or what not (Source: Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears, Introduction, Letter No. C April 30, 1943. http://www.tomegatherion.co.uk/magickwithouttears.pdf) ."

"In the "1st Aethyr" of The Vision and the Voice [source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/418/aetyr1.htm, Class A.], Horus himself says of his nature: "I am light, and I am night, and I am that which is beyond them. I am speech, and I am silence, and I am that which is beyond them. I am life, and I am death, and I am that which is beyond them. I am war, and I am peace, and I am that which is beyond them. I am weakness, and I am strength, and I am that which is beyond them. ...And it shall be unto them a grace and a sacrament, and ye shall all sit down together at the supernal banquet, and ye shall feast upon the honey of the gods, and be drunk upon the dew of immortality --- FOR I AM HORUS, THE CROWNED AND CONQUERING CHILD, WHOM THOU KNEWEST NOT (Source: New Aeon Initiation (part 1) - IAO131 thelemicstudies.com --- http://iao131.livejournal.com/29777.html) !"


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6332
 

Frater Aquarius told us (in 1964) that the paint used on the Stele had a goodly portion of precious gems mixed in, and thus it would not fade as other (non-gem infused) Steles and paintings would. I have no idea where he got this information, and I (we) have no way to verify it without getting hold of the original artifact, which is presently unlikely.

AC's instructions in AL included "Get the Stele ..." He was told to "abstruct" (move/take away) said Artifact, and that it would be "easy" for him to do this, as the "ill-ordered house in the victorious city" (Al-Karira [sic?] means "the victorious" = Cairo) would seemingly be in confusion (moving day? days?). Without hardly a glance in the rear-view mirror, almost anyone would be inclined to immediately think of the Boulak Museum, where the Stele was housed, might have been in disarray over pre-moving, or moving, We are generally aware the the Museum had moved, was moving, or could be in post-moving operation, and that AC's dates don't match up with the Establishment's calendar in terms of when it moved and changed its name.

But AC apparently did not "abstruct" the original artifact. He claims to have hired an artist to make him a duplicate. He later reported that someone "stole my Stele" from his baggage while on some outdoor adventure.

So ... so much falls by the wayside, since the primary instruction to "abstruction" was never fulfilled.

Locking a copy of the Stele in a (hermetically-sealed) glass frame with a lock on it) will certainly tend to keep the artifact copy free from dust and grime. However, since that scenario is based on an injunction that was never fulfilled, it has the faint ring of the cargo cult about it.

A Kiblah is "the direction on turns to, in order to pray." If it's up there on the superaltar in the Gnostic Mass, then tells us all where to start our search. Look at the Stele (forever, no less) and it all unfolds from there.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3723
 

A very interesting point (of the compass) re where the Kiblah might actually be.

"Abstruction" is a coined word difficult of interpretation. I agree with Shiva that AC did nothing that might fulfill that injunction.

However, I suggested a while back in these august forums (fora?) that the "War-Engine" Mark II (aka the internet; the "War-Engine" Mark I was of course LSD) may have "abstructed" the stele, in that it is available in "locked glass" to all provided with the appropriate Magickal Weapon, provided they first pay obeisance and make offerings to the daemons known as ISP and Google.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6332
 

Ig666: A very interesting point (of the compass) re where the Kiblah might actually be.

For Muslims, they face toward Mecca. If we do it properly, the superaltar, and the Stele, would be flat on a wall whose external surface faced Boleskine. Personally, I don't see Boleskine as being particularly important, but others may wish to consult with their architects and construction managers before erecting their temple.

“Abstruction” is a coined word difficult of interpretation.

Actually it's not "coined" (if that means "made up" or "loosely accurate.") When anyone stands straight with their arms hanging down, then lifts their arm(s) away from the body, that is abstruction, a well-defined term/action in medical terminology (Greek based).

... make offerings to the daemons known as ISP and Google [Facebook, IBM and DEA are tentacles].

They are Castaneda's "Inorganic Beings," and Horus help us if we ever develop a true "artificial intelligence."


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3723
 

Shiva: I misunderstood, thinking you were suggesting that the true Kiblah is Cairo, where the Stele is, rather than Jimmy Page's old house, where it never was. I think this is an interesting idea despite being born in my confusion.

As to "abstruction": I based my statement that "abstruction" was a coined word on the fact that my unabridged OED has no entry for this word. Thank you for letting me know this word has some currency outside Thelema. Can you elucidate how one could "abstruct" a stele by the arm-lifting movement you describe? Perhaps a punning reference to the slang term "lift" meaning steal?

Invoking the daemon Google, i have indeed found some other uses of this word, many seeming to be an archaic spelling of "obstruction". The hermeneutical problem presented is that none of these acts seem like a thing a person could do with an object like a stele.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

@wellreadwellbred :

{...} And this can simply be fulfilled, by publicly exhibiting accurate depictions of the said Stele, together with descriptions of its significance within Crowley’s Thelema. “Close it in locked glass …”, can be a poetic description of the process of depicting the said stele through camera (glass) lenses.
The reference from III:10 is to the Stele of Revealing itself --- not to a copy, a simulacrum, a facsimile, an image, a depiction, or however else you might want to describe what is not the genuine article.... How & why do you reckon it should apply to one of these then?  So like I said, it was a nice supposition.   But wrong!

This makes me wonder though: how many copies did A.C. have in the end himself.  There was the copy he claimed he had done immediately at the museum.  Then there was the one which was sewn for him by one of his lady admirers to while away the long wintry evenings without his company --- also lost somewhere on his travels, it would seem.  And then there's the one which he had towards the end of his life at Netherwood, and which seems to have found its way to Grady McMurrtry via the Solar Lodge fire sale (or is that in turn another different one?)  They must each of them have their own special and unique CHARGE.  What could have happened to all those?  (I've an idea there was a thread somewhere in the past listing them but can't find it.) Probably Breeze has the one which McMurtry was photographed as pleased-as-punch to be able to abstruct personally in the [C.]O.T.O. archives somewhere... 

You seem to catch the drift.
Phew, that's a (bas) relief!  Life can go on living then?

With respect to Heru-ra-ha, and the below ‘Further information about the nature of Horus, as the “Lord of Initiation”, and of the nature of The Great Work:‘, do you think that describing the third and last chapter of The Book of the Law, as being from the viewpoint of “The uniting of opposites, and that which is beyond them”, is more comprehensive than describing it as being from the viewpoint of “The Two-in-One”, or “The double natured one”?
Yes.  Next question?  (I'm assuming this has all got something to do with the thread topic/ Mr Moss's essay(s), but damned if I can quite see it at present...)

Incidentally do you still hold the position that the three main "voices" within The Book of the Law are the Boundless, the infinte[ly small] central point, and the HGA? And if so why?

Meanwhile please briefly answer any & all outstanding queries (e.g. about the stele's function --- "whether it’s the actual image which is ON the stele, or the physical SHAPE of the stele — as miniature tomb/ the doorway for the deceased to the afterlife (as well as the land of the living) itself — which acts as a guarantor for perpetual life?  Or whether it may be both, in which case which do you reckon would have the greater importance? (And like I enquired, what if the actual drawing of Ankh-af-na-khonsu wasn’t a very good likeness of what he was really like [=the old voudun poppet problem]?)")

@Shiva :

But AC apparently did not “abstruct” the original artifact. He claims to have hired an artist to make him a duplicate. He later reported that someone “stole my Stele” from his baggage while on some outdoor adventure.
Wouldn't this invoke bad karma (Like owning the Hope diamond)?  I wonder what variation of the Lost Basement it resides in now......

So … so much falls by the wayside, since the primary instruction to “abstruction” was never fulfilled.
Surely though such a comparatively omniscient Secret Chief as Aiwass would have somehow preternaturally known A.C.'s character defects that he would ultimately make a right mess out of most of the injunctions made to him as Prophet and priest of the princes despite all the glowing honorifics in The Book of the Law?

A Kiblah is “the direction on turns to, in order to pray.” If it’s up there on the superaltar in the Gnostic Mass, then tells us all where to start our search.
Yes, the Stele of Revealing's mentioned as being up there all right --- "in reproduction".

Look at the Stele (for ever, no less) and it all unfolds from there.
I have always suspected there is a profoundly deep meaning attached to the word "EVER" whenever it appears in The Book of the Law, and that like AL it also forms a "Key" of its own of sorts, for reasons which would take too long to go into here.

@ignant666 :
However, I suggested a while back in these august forums (fora?) that the “War-Engine” Mark II (aka the internet; the “War-Engine” Mark I was of course LSD)
It's an imaginative idea, but how is it you suppose "the peoples" would be smitten by A.C. with the war-engine presented by RHK with none standing before him (assuming the remarks are addressed to him, that is --- but if not him, then to whom)?  And in the Third World at least, not many people will have (so far) had the opportunity to either trip or surf.

N Joy 


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Jamie J Barter: "How & why do you reckon it should apply to one of these then?"

Maybe because AC thought "I will make easy to you the abstruction from the ill-ordered house in the Victorious City. Thou shalt thyself convey it with worship, o prophet, though thou likest it not [verse 11 in chapter III in The Book of the Law].", was fulfilled by the the preparation of a replica:

"THE OLD COMMENT.
11. 'Abstruction'. It was thought that this meant to combine abstraction and construction, i.e. the preparation of a replica, which was done.
Of course, the original is in "locked glass.""

Jamie J Barter: "Incidentally do you still hold the position that the three main “voices” within The Book of the Law are the Boundless, the infinte[ly small] central point, and the HGA? And if so why?"

Yes, to the degree that the HGA can be encompassed by the last of the three main “voices” within The Book of the Law: (One) "The Boundless", (Two) "The [First] infinte[ly small] central point", and (Three) "The uniting of opposites, and that which is beyond them".

Jamie J Barter: "Meanwhile please briefly answer any & all outstanding queries (e.g. about the stele’s function [...])", according to beliefs and values in Ancient Egypt.

I have in this thread covered the function of the stele (= the stele of one Ankh-af-na-khonsu), according to beliefs in Ancient Egypt, and how this could conflict with said stele's function according to Aleister Crowley's Thelema. As already stated by me in this thread, REPLY #100176 page 5, "... religions, Karma, curses, voudon, Crowley’s Thelema, etc., are to me only real in the sense that they can become social reality for those who realy believe in them, that is, my position is that they can have no effect upon me and/or someone else, or the world we live in, unless I, and/or someone else, make them have any such effect. In addition to this, I respect extinct religions as something to be historically appreciated."

If the inclination is there & time allows this for you, you might find it fascinating to delve further into beliefs and values in Ancient Egypt, with respect to the function of a stele. I have neither inclination nor time for this.

As already mentioned by me in this thread, REPLY #99923 page 2, Aleister Crowley was raised among the Exclusive Brethren, a more conservative faction of a denomination known as the Plymouth Brethren, and at some later time rebelled against the Exclusive Brethren. In that context I also mention that "The founder of the Exclusive Brethren, John Nelson Darby (1800 – 1882) is considered to be the father of modern Futurism.", that "“Interpreters with a futurist perspective think that Jesus’ prophecy [about the abomination of desolation] deals with a literal, end-times False Prophet. Futurists consider the abomination of desolation prophecy of Daniel mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 to refer to an event in the future, when there appears […] the “False Prophet [(King James Bible, Revelation 16:13, 19:20, 20:10)]”", and that "The Book of the Law supposedly received by Aleister Crowley in 1904, repeatedly refers to him as a prophet, and contains the following claim concerning that the Stele of Ankh-af-na-khonsu shall be called the abomination of desolation: “That stele they shall call the Abomination of Desolation; [...] (source: The Book of the Law, Chapter III, verse 19.).”"

And this indicates that making himself associated with the "literal, end-times False Prophet", expected by the denomination of Christians which he was raised among and eventually rebelled against, was an underlying purpose influencing both the way he wrote The Book of the Law, and the way he wrote about the stele of one Ankh-af-na-khonsu in the said book.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Diodorus Siculus or Diodorus of Sicily, a Greek historian of Agyrium in Sicily, ca. 80–20 BCE, wrote forty books of world history, called Library of History:

"Diodorus reports without comment that deliberate killing of the sacred animals is punishable by death. But for the unintentional killing of a cat or ibis, the killer may expect death at the hands of the mob, motivated by [...] the unalterable nature of their passions in honouring these animals. Such was the fate of a Roman ambassador, as witnessed by Diodorus himself." Diodorus describes the Egyptians' determination to safeguard and honour these animals at all costs even in war and famine, allegedly eating each other but not the animals. He also states that the Egyptians spend far more than they can afford on their funerals, and that the attendants mourn their dead animals as for a 'beloved child'. According to Diodorus the Egyptians make no effort to avoid the service of the sacred animals; on the contrary, they feel no shame in their public performance, believing that they are engaged in the most serious rites of divine worship. Furthermore, at the great sanctuaries, like Memphis, the animals are cared for by 'many men of distinction [...]' (source: page 252 and 252 in The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo's Representation of Egypt (copyright 2007), by Sarah Pearce).

Crowley’s The Book of the Law, leaves the implication that he is somehow identical with, and/or the reincarnation of, a man of distinction who lived in ancient Egypt.

Within Chapter 6 in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, authored by Aleister Crowley himself, he describes himself as a child deducing that it must be practically impossible to kill a cat, having been told that “A cat has nine lives”, and deliberately killing a cat as an experiment to test if it was possible.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

(Sorry for chain posting!)

Shiva ("August 2, 2017 at 2:20 pm [...] REPLY #10021"): "Frater Aquarius told us (in 1964) that the paint used on the Stele had a goodly portion of precious gems mixed in, and thus it would not fade as other (non-gem infused) Steles and paintings would. I have no idea where he got this information, and I (we) have no way to verify it without getting hold of the original artifact, which is presently unlikely."

"The Book of the Law describes the Stele of Revealing as the Kiblah, the focal point of Thelema, and as ‘a proof to the world’, an outward, visible symbol of the new Aeon. The Book of the Law instructed Crowley to ‘abstruct’ the Stele, which he interpreted by having a replica of the Stele made. [...] When the Stele of Revealing was painted in Ancient Egypt, its surface was glazed for protection with a clear varnish. Over the centuries, that glaze has aged giving the Stele a translucent, honey-coloured background, highlighting the original brush strokes and runs in the varnish. Various layers of varnish are used to reproduce this distinctive effect on each replica (source: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=125170&page=3) ."


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

(Again, sorry for chain posting!)

Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law contains descriptions about one man named Ankh-f-n-Khonsu who lived in the Ancient Egypt, and and about this man's burial stele. This Ankh-f-n-Khonsu is within Crowley's The Book of the Law described as having comitted suicide: "... The self-slain Ankh-af-na-khonsu Whose words are truth. I invoke, I greet Thy presence, O Ra-Hoor-Khuit (Source: The Book of the Law, chapter III, verse 37.)!").

"The reference to suicide in ancient Egypt is so scarce that the long history of ancient Egyptyields records of just a handful of suicides. [...] More than one of the suicide allusions do suggest that suicide was believed to hinder a soul’s progress after death, and to constitute a corresponding disqualification from proper burial (Source: https://www.academia.edu/4749930/Death_Without_Dishonour_Suicide_as_Punishment_in_the_Judicial_Sources_of_the_New_Kingdom) ."

Crowley's description within his The Book of the Law, about one man named Ankh-f-n-Khonsu who lived in the Ancient Egypt, having comitted suicide, does directly contradict this man's purpose and intention with providing himself with a proper burial in the form of his own personal burial stele (= miniature tomb), namely to secure the continuity of his individuality and civil status in the life beyond death into perpetuity.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

(And again, sorry for chain posting!)

Jamie J Barter (July 25, 2017 at 11:05 pm REPLY #100168 Reply):

"... you haven’t stated whether it’s the actual image which is ON the stele, or the physical SHAPE of the stele — as miniature tomb/ the doorway for the deceased to the afterlife (as well as the land of the living) itself — which acts as a guarantor for perpetual life? Or whether it may be both, in which case which do you reckon would have the greater importance? (And like I enquired, what if the actual drawing of Ankh-af-na-khonsu wasn’t a very good likeness of what he was really like [=the old voudun poppet problem]?)"

Jamie J Barter: "(And like I enquired, what if the actual drawing of Ankh-af-na-khonsu wasn’t a very good likeness of what he was really like [=the old voudun poppet problem]?)"

What that is claimed to be "The world's oldest Voodoo doll" appears to be from "Circa 3rd-4th Century AD" ( https://aminoapps.com/c/pagans-witches/page/blog/the-worlds-oldest-known-voodoo-doll/2vz1_5BnINuaxjx7Y4QdDKp0WmXEL44vGD), that is after the last time period of Ancient Egypt, the Late Period 664–332 BC. "Voodoo dolls (or kolossoi as the Greeks called them) were also quite popular in the Greco-Roman world. (source: https://www.deliriumsrealm.com/voodoo-dolls/, this source refers to "... ancient voodoo dolls from the 2-3 centuries CE.)."

The pharaoh Horemheb (the last Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty), "... considered his former king [the pharao Akhenaten (1353-1336 BCE), known as 'the heretic king'] worthy of what has come to be known as the Damnatio Memoriae (Latin for 'condemnation of memory') in which all memory of a person is erased from existence. Although this practice is most commonly associated with the Roman Empire, it was first practiced in Egypt centuries earlier through inscriptions known as Execration Texts. An execration text was a passage inscribed on ostraca (a shard of a clay pot) or sometimes on a figure (along the lines of a voodoo doll) and often on a tomb warning would-be robbers of the horrors which awaited them should they enter uninvited (source: https://www.ancient.eu/Amarna_Period_of_Egypt/) ."

Jamie J Barter: "... you haven’t stated whether it’s the actual image which is ON the stele, or the physical SHAPE of the stele — as miniature tomb/ the doorway for the deceased to the afterlife (as well as the land of the living) itself — which acts as a guarantor for perpetual life? Or whether it may be both, in which case which do you reckon would have the greater importance?"

"Royal and elite statuary served as intermediaries between the people and the gods. Family chapels with the statuary of a deceased forefather could serve as a sort of 'family temple.' There were festivals in honor of the dead, where the family would come and eat in the chapel, offering food for the Afterlife, flowers (symbols of rebirth), and incense (the scent of which was considered divine). Preserved letters let us know that the deceased was actively petitioned for their assistance, both in this world and the next.

What we see in museums
Generally, the works we see on display in museums were products of royal or elite workshops; these pieces fit best with our modern aesthetic and ideas of beauty. Most museum basements, however, are packed with hundreds (even thousands!) of other objects made for people of lower status—small statuary, amulets, coffins, and stelae (similar to modern tombstones) that are completely recognizable, but rarely displayed. These pieces generally show less quality in the workmanship; being oddly proportioned or poorly executed; they are less often considered ‘art’ in the modern sense. However, these objects served the exact same function of providing benefit to their owners (and to the same degree of effectiveness), as those made for the elite (source: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/egypt-art/beginners-guide-egypt/a/egyptian-art). "

With respect to "the actual image which is ON the stele", Egyptian artists in the Ancient Egypt followed "Modes of representation for two-dimensional art", where "... scenes are complex composite images that provide complete information about the various elements, rather than ones designed from a single viewpoint, which would not be as comprehensive in the data they conveyed (source: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/egypt-art/beginners-guide-egypt/a/egyptian-art) ."


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 479
 

Aleister Crowley’s The Book of the Law contains descriptions about one man named Ankh-f-n-Khonsu who lived in the Ancient Egypt, and and about this man’s burial stele. This Ankh-f-n-Khonsu is within Crowley’s The Book of the Law described as having comitted suicide: “… The self-slain Ankh-af-na-khonsu Whose words are truth. I invoke, I greet Thy presence, O Ra-Hoor-Khuit (Source: The Book of the Law, chapter III, verse 37.)!”).

The phrase 'self-slain' is not present in the text written on the Stele of Revealing; the phrase originates with Crowley through his paraphrasing of the stele translation. To conclude Ankh-f-n-khonsu committed suicide based on Crowley's paraphrasing is original--I'll give you that--but is not what Crowley meant; he was referring to mystical annihilation, or what some would call ego death.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Aleister Crowley claiming and/or indicating that the text written on a burial stele of an Ancient Egyptian person named Ankh-f-n-Khonsu referred to in Crowley's The Book of the Law, describes this Ancient Egyptian person as having experienced "... mystical annihilation", is original - I’ll give Crowley that. But annihilation was not this Ancient Egyptian person's purpose and intention with providing himself with a proper burial in the form of his own personal burial stele (= miniature tomb (= the burial stele referred to in Crowley's The Book of the Law)). As this Ankh-f-n-Khonsu's purpose with doing so was to secure the continuity of his individuality and civil status in the life beyond death into perpetuity.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Jamie J Barter: "... you haven’t stated whether it’s the actual image which is ON the stele, or the physical SHAPE of the stele — as miniature tomb/ the doorway for the deceased to the afterlife (as well as the land of the living) itself — which acts as a guarantor for perpetual life? Or whether it may be both, in which case which do you reckon would have the greater importance? (And like I enquired, what if the actual drawing of Ankh-af-na-khonsu wasn’t a very good likeness of what he was really like [=the old voudun poppet problem]?)

N Joy " [Source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/my-quotes-from-comment-to-download-timothy-moss-squaring-the-circle/page/5/#post-100168 ]

"Introduction [...] Art as, defined by European standards, did not exist, the decoration of the tomb had a specific function and, as such, artistic considerations were not important. According to Aldred (1980 p15) the artist “… represented not what could be seen transiently, but what he expected to exist for perpetuity, symbols rather than images”.

This does not mean the tombs are devoid of beauty but rather should be viewed with an unprejudiced eye. The tomb craftsman used two dimensional art to fully represent what he was trying to show. It was ‘fit for purpose’; indeed it was more than that as some of the small vignettes are testimony to skill to the largely unknown craftsman. Indeed “to represent was, in a way, to create” (Robins 1997 p12) so they needed to represent the clearest picture of the object or figure, so it was instantly recognisable. [...] Groups of Figures [...] Adults are always shown in their prime, women are slim, and men are muscular. “The owner could be displayed either as a young man with a short kilt or a mature man with a calf length kilt. The wife was always displayed young as maturity might indicate lack of fertility.” (Robins 1997 p76). “The elite have no disease, deformity or old age…identity was established by the inscriptions” (Robins 1997 p75). [...] The Tomb [...] The central figure was usually male, accompanied by wives, parents and offspring. His titles and name would be constantly repeated and a biography would be included. There would be a false door connecting the dead with the living. The deceased would be shown before a table of offerings and there could be a procession of offering bearers. "

Source: Describe the conventions of representation used in Egyptian two-dimensional art. Demonstrate this with reference to the wall scenes in ONE non-royal tomb of the later Old Kingdom. Jane Akshar 01 Mar, 16 - - - https://www.sailthenile.com/river-nile-cruises-what-to-see-and-do/describe-the-conventions-of-representation-used-in-egyptian-two-dimensional-art-demonstrate-this-with-reference-to-the-wall-scenes-in-one-non-royal-tomb-of-the-later-old-kingdom/


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1863
 

@Wellread
nice to see you getting out of the library
you will find that tour guides only know a little about art and religion
and if you get to a museum that the curators knowledge of religion is on the verge of embarrassing .

Let alone show you
“the doorway for the deceased to the afterlife (as well as the land of the living) itself — which acts as a guarantor for perpetual life? Or whether it may be both, in which case which do you reckon would have the greater importance? “
and the obscured places of interest .


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: