The abrogation of b...
 
Notifications
Clear all

The abrogation of blood sacrifice in the new Aeon


 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

There's probably a very simple answer to this question, but it's been puzzling me for some time so I thought I'd put it out there....

If we accept what is written in the Holy Books, that the vicarious atonement of the bloody sacrifice, or the model of perfection through suffering is abrogate in the Aeon of Horus, then how are we to view the many passages in Liber CDXVIII which say that the adept must pour his/her blood into the cup of Babalon in order to cross the abyss and become masters of the temple?

"But they have given their blood, even to the last drop, to fill the cup of BABALON."

Can anyone explain the fundamental difference between this and the old Aeon concept of redemption and perfection through blood sacrifice?

I don't think it's enough to say that it is metaphorical, because the old aeon concept of blood sacrifice could be taken in the same way.

I'd be interested in what people here have to say about this.


Quote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"DAO" wrote:
Can anyone explain the fundamental difference between this and the old Aeon concept of redemption and perfection through blood sacrifice?

I don't think it's enough to say that it is metaphorical, because the old aeon concept of blood sacrifice could be taken in the same way.

Short answer: the fundamental difference is that in the “old Aeon” the emphasis is on denying your True Self, and in the “new Aeon” the emphasis is on fulfilling your True Self.

Longer answer: You’re absolutely right that one of these (Thelemic “blood sacrifice”) is obviously meant to be taken metaphorically and that the other (Christian blood sacrifice) is obviously meant to be taken strictly literally (i.e. there really was a Jesus who really did die for your “sins” and he really did return as a zombie and if you eat of his zombie flesh and telepathically tell him that he is your master, then your ghost will one day party with him forever).

That difference – between the metaphorical and the strictly literal – is a huge difference, and one you shouldn’t just brush away.

But second, you’re also right that someone could appropriate the Christian legend and use it as a symbol for metaphorical self-sacrifice (i.e. “die to yourself and your selfish desires to open yourself to God’s will”).

I don't know if you're aware, but Crowley himself specifically uses Christian crucifixion imagery in several places to represent the discovery of the True Will. The most obvious example is this one, from Crowley's Old Comment to AL I:40 (You know, the verse that contains the sentence "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"):

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
"Do what thou wilt" need not only be interpreted as license or even as liberty. It may for example be taken to mean Do what thou (Ateh) wilt; and Ateh is 406 = {Taw-Vau} = T, the sign of the cross. The passage might then be read as a charge to self-sacrifice or equilibrium.

I only put forward this suggestion to exhibit the profoundity of thought required to deal even with so plain a passage. All the meanings are true, if only the interpreter by illuminated; but if not, they are false, even as he is false.

But the really important point is that while we can use crucifixion imagery to symbolize discovering the True Will – and while we can use the words “die to yourself” to summarize discovery of the True Will (“die daily,” Crowley writes in the Book of Lies) – what we’re actually talking about is something entirely different from what Christians usually mean when they talk about “dying to themselves.”

Christianity is the religion of self-denial. In its conception, your natural inclinations and desires are “sinful,” and to undergo a “symbolic death” like that of Christ is to put off your human nature and to accept Christ as your model of virtuous behavior.

Under this way of thinking, we might say that the Khu is in the Khabs. The goal (the Khabs) is thought of as “out there” somewhere, outside of our consciousness (Khu)…the goal is some model that we have to live up to. And if we fail to live up to that model…if we dare do what we want instead of what God wants us to do…well, then we are bad.

Thelema holds the exact opposite ideas. It is the philosophy of self-fulfillment. In Thelema’s conception, your natural inclinations are good and holy. The only thing that keeps your from fulfilling these inclinations are the restrictions of your own mind: the ignorance of your own nature and/or the thought that you ought to be different from what you are.

Under the Thelemic way of thinking, the Khabs is in the Khu. The goal of our system isn’t “out there” somewhere. It’s inside what we normally think of as the “self.” Do you see the difference?

We might even go so far as to say that Thelemic attainment is a kind of de-attainment. We don’t have to become something else, as in the Old Aeon. We have to get rid of the false ideas of “self” that we have learned, the false ideas that veil the glory of our True Self – and its authentic desires, its True Will – from us.

Seen in this light, to “die to yourself” in a Thelemic context doesn’t mean to give up your natural desires. It means to get rid of your false ideas of self – or, more accurately, to learn to see through them, to pierce the illusions created by your consciousness and discover those things that you actually do find authentically fulfilling.

Now, as Crowley notes -- both in that quote above and in many other places -- this True Will is also the "strictest possible bond" because you're not just doing whatever whims strike your mind. You're discovering and carrying out those activities that are in line with your True Nature, and discovering this takes work, and it takes giving up a lot of silly ideas that you have about yourself.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"DAO" wrote:
"But they have given their blood, even to the last drop, to fill the cup of BABALON."

Oh, and this probably goes without saying, but this specific reference to blood sacrifice is symbolic of crossing the abyss, which is a different attainment entirely than discovering the True Will. Both Thelemic attainments are totally distinct from the Christian idea of "dying to oneself," which in the context of Christianity is usually a process of veiling/restricting one's True Will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Many thanks for your thoughtful response.

So by extrapolation, it could said that the LVX formula now represents this annihilation of ego and rebirth of the perfected self? That it is freed from being a symbol or cipher of the crucifixion? I'm just having difficulty doing this in a ritual context (specifically the hexagram rituals...)

I don't know if it's as a result of my Catholic upbringing but I find it difficult to liberate the formula from the old aeon death cult context...

I know Crowley reformatted the hexagram ritual into the star sapphire but I personally find it less useful for daily work.

I'd be curious to know if others have similar issues (although I suspect that I might be alone here).


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

There is an element of metaphor (as opposed to a strictly literal interpretation) with all of these things: the blood being offered unto the Cup of Bablon being a prime example.  But what about the Thelemite carving him/herself up with a razor blade (as A.C. recommends) in order to exert some control over their thought processes, or using Cakes of Light to “staunch the blood” flowing as a result of their carrying out a performance of the Thelemic Mass of the Phoenix?  These practices cannot be construed as metaphorical.

In The Book of the Law it is stated that “nor do I ask aught in sacrifice” (I:58), which would presumably embrace any sort of blood sacrifice.  However, like many things in the Book, there are contradictions within which it is up to each reader’s ingenium to discriminate – for instance, the Heruvian command to “let blood flow to my name” (III:11) and the one about “the best blood…” (III:24) stand out. 

As usual, Los writes about 93% good sense (but there is that which remains… For example:)

"Los" wrote:
I don't know if you're aware, but Crowley himself specifically uses Christian crucifixion imagery in several places to represent the discovery of the True Will. The most obvious example is this one, from Crowley's Old Comment to AL I:40 (You know, the verse that contains the sentence "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"):

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
"Do what thou wilt" need not only be interpreted as license or even as liberty. It may for example be taken to mean Do what thou (Ateh) wilt; and Ateh is 406 = {Taw-Vau} = T, the sign of the cross. The passage might then be read as a charge to self-sacrifice or equilibrium.

The Tau cross, having the top vertical section missing, is not the same thing as the cross of Calvary (the model commonly used as “Christian crucifixion imagery”).  Also, a true cross shape would be one whose arms are balanced both vertically and horizontally.  Supplanting it with a circle or an oval/ vesica piscis would also then transform it into an ankh.

"DAO" wrote:
So by extrapolation, it could said that the LVX formula now represents this annihilation of ego and rebirth of the perfected self? That it is freed from being a symbol or cipher of the crucifixion? I'm just having difficulty doing this in a ritual context (specifically the hexagram rituals...)

I don’t quite follow this attribution of the LVX formula here – IAO (or FIAOF, for purists) or even INRI would fit better.  Presumably the reference is in connection with the hexagram ritual which you go on to mention, but your ‘extrapolation’ is not as clear as it might be.  Or maybe it’s just me that’s not ‘getting it’?!

"DAO" wrote:
I don't know if it's as a result of my Catholic upbringing but I find it difficult to liberate the formula from the old aeon death cult context...

This never helps of course!  (And especially if one happens to be under seven years of age and of the Jesuit persuasion.)

Tchaw!  Bloody verses! (to be uttered in a Pythonesque Pepperpot accent)
Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"DAO" wrote:
There's probably a very simple answer to this question, but it's been puzzling me for some time so I thought I'd put it out there....

If we accept what is written in the Holy Books, that the vicarious atonement of the bloody sacrifice, or the model of perfection through suffering is abrogate in the Aeon of Horus, then how are we to view the many passages in Liber CDXVIII which say that the adept must pour his/her blood into the cup of Babalon in order to cross the abyss and become masters of the temple?

"But they have given their blood, even to the last drop, to fill the cup of BABALON."

Can anyone explain the fundamental difference between this and the old Aeon concept of redemption and perfection through blood sacrifice?

I don't think it's enough to say that it is metaphorical, because the old aeon concept of blood sacrifice could be taken in the same way.

I'd be interested in what people here have to say about this.

I'd say that this is in the old aeon we wrongly seek, "out there" to the Father (even though the prophet said seek ye Heaven within) and we (wrongly) believed that we could affect change in reality by killing animals and  people in ritual  but in the new aeon we face reality i.e. ,"out there"/magic spells/sacrifice won't get you anywhere in terms of affecting the external.  "In there", (observing how we distort our perceptions that cloud our True Will) will.  Once we consistently know we are not kidding ourselves with metaphysical distractions then we can find our True Will.  Then we can give up our True Selves to something even greater (metaphorically represented as a blood-transfusion to BABALON).

There will be many people who, "take the oath of the Abyss" even though they still don't know how to really go about finding their True Will first, therefore that , "oath" will be fake without them knowing.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"DAO" wrote:
Many thanks for your thoughtful response.

You're welcome.

So by extrapolation, it could said that the LVX formula now represents this annihilation of ego and rebirth of the perfected self? That it is freed from being a symbol or cipher of the crucifixion?

Yes, although I hate terms like “ego” and “perfected self” because they give the wrong idea. Too many people interpret them along Christian lines (i.e. “ego” means [what their mind arbitrarily considers to be] “bad” and “selfish” actions while “perfected self” means [what their mind arbitrarily considers to be] “good” and “selfless” actions). I’m not accusing you of making that mistake – just warning you to be on guard against it. The goal here isn’t to stop doing things that your mind might arbitrarily call “selfish.”

That’s why I prefer to use a term like “self-image” or “false idea of the self,” as opposed to “ego.” The idea is to stop confusing the things you really want with the things you’ve talked yourself into thinking that you want (or worse, things that you’ve talked yourself into thinking you should want because good people want those things).

It’s tricky because a lot of New Agey types just continue to practice Christianity under different terms, and while you're absolutely right to break away from one symbolic meaning of the death symbolism, it’s important not to let other language fool you too.

I'm just having difficulty doing this in a ritual context (specifically the hexagram rituals...)

Well, like you were saying above, if you see the LVX signs as a “dying” to your false way of looking at yourself, that might help.

It also might be useful – considering the Isis, Apophis, Osiris myth encoded in LVX – to think about it in terms of the IAO formula and the difference between the Aeons in their interpretations of it.

The three elements represent the natural cycle of the sun (dying and reborn), which was figured as a “catastrophe” in the Old Aeon, a calamity to be vanquished by the supernatural. In the New Aeon, we’ve gotten rid of both the idea of catastrophe and the idea of the supernatural. Under this new interpretation, the sun does not undergo a calamity at all (and thus there is no need for supernatural redemption). Rather, it’s simply our perceptions (or, more precisely, our interpretations) that were all wrong: the sun is perfectly still, constantly giving off light. Its (apparent) phases are simply partial perceptions of the truth that underlies them.

We can apply this solar symbolism back onto the idea of “dying to the self.” In the Old Aeon, the “sinful desires” of the “carnal self” are the catastrophe to be overcome by the intervention of a supernatural Christ. In the New Aeon, we understand this “carnal self,” with all of its natural desires, to be the True Self, the sun that is veiled by our faulty self-image. Our thoughts veil the True Self, interpreting the events of our life as problems to be solved (calamities to be overcome). We even mistakenly think of the process of attainment in these terms (the “problem” of being separated from the True Self, seeking the “solution” of reuniting with the Self).

We could view making the signs of LVX as a way of “stepping back,” as it were, from the cycle of calamity created by the mind’s interpretations of phenomena. Seen in this way, the signs model the process of piercing the veil of the false ideas about the self – just as they model the process of overcoming any “problem” whatsoever – but when you succeed in piercing that veil, the very process by which you did it can be seen as just one more iteration of those false ideas.

This is why the final secret is that the Great Work is unnecessary. Your True Self *is* the Light (LVX) – and in fact, you always were the Light (just as the sun is always shining). The process of forgetting this fact and working to discover it again was just a pleasant adventure you dreamed for yourself, a way for you to reveal your True Self to itself.

Now, of course, it ironically takes a great deal of work to get to the point where you can appreciate just how unnecessary the Great Work actually is. Merely telling someone that the Great Work is unnecessary doesn’t really do much to help – any more than telling a drunk guy that he’s drunk will instantly cure his condition – but it does offer an instructive hint.

I don't know if it's as a result of my Catholic upbringing but I find it difficult to liberate the formula from the old aeon death cult context...

Well, it can be good practice to appropriate symbols you find distasteful and use them for purposes antithetical to the way you were originally taught them. In part, it’s useful for cultivating an attitude of indifference. At the very least, it teaches you about how the preferences of your mind operate, and it can furnish an opportunity to overcome them.

If you’re really struggling with this idea, you could search around for “Thelemic” versions of the analysis of the keyword. Some people have tried their hand at writing some, but I have no idea if any of them are any good. You might try some of them out or write your own.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Yes, although I hate terms like “ego” and “perfected self” because they give the wrong idea.

Yes I should have made it clearer- for want of better terms - but I'm glad you saw what I was getting at.

It’s tricky because a lot of New Agey types just continue to practice Christianity under different terms, and while you're absolutely right to break away from one symbolic meaning of the death symbolism, it’s important not to let other language fool you too.

Yes. It's incredible how difficult it can be to rid yourself of those early lessons. I'm 40 years old now and still struggle with the lies spoon fed to me as a child. Particularly those which are echoed in the ghastly prison we call society: concepts like sacrifice, service and duty.

Well, like you were saying above, if you see the LVX signs as a “dying” to your false way of looking at yourself, that might help.

It also might be useful – considering the Isis, Apophis, Osiris myth encoded in LVX – to think about it in terms of the IAO formula and the difference between the Aeons in their interpretations of it.

The three elements represent the natural cycle of the sun (dying and reborn), which was figured as a “catastrophe” in the Old Aeon, a calamity to be vanquished by the supernatural. In the New Aeon, we’ve gotten rid of both the idea of catastrophe and the idea of the supernatural. Under this new interpretation, the sun does not undergo a calamity at all (and thus there is no need for supernatural redemption). Rather, it’s simply our perceptions (or, more precisely, our interpretations) that were all wrong: the sun is perfectly still, constantly giving off light. Its (apparent) phases are simply partial perceptions of the truth that underlies them.

We can apply this solar symbolism back onto the idea of “dying to the self.” In the Old Aeon, the “sinful desires” of the “carnal self” are the catastrophe to be overcome by the intervention of a supernatural Christ. In the New Aeon, we understand this “carnal self,” with all of its natural desires, to be the True Self, the sun that is veiled by our faulty self-image. Our thoughts veil the True Self, interpreting the events of our life as problems to be solved (calamities to be overcome). We even mistakenly think of the process of attainment in these terms (the “problem” of being separated from the True Self, seeking the “solution” of reuniting with the Self).

We could view making the signs of LVX as a way of “stepping back,” as it were, from the cycle of calamity created by the mind’s interpretations of phenomena. Seen in this way, the signs model the process of piercing the veil of the false ideas about the self – just as they model the process of overcoming any “problem” whatsoever – but when you succeed in piercing that veil, the very process by which you did it can be seen as just one more iteration of those false ideas.

This is why the final secret is that the Great Work is unnecessary. Your True Self *is* the Light (LVX) – and in fact, you always were the Light (just as the sun is always shining). The process of forgetting this fact and working to discover it again was just a pleasant adventure you dreamed for yourself, a way for you to reveal your True Self to itself.

Now, of course, it ironically takes a great deal of work to get to the point where you can appreciate just how unnecessary the Great Work actually is. Merely telling someone that the Great Work is unnecessary doesn’t really do much to help – any more than telling a drunk guy that he’s drunk will instantly cure his condition – but it does offer an instructive hint.

I don't know if it's as a result of my Catholic upbringing but I find it difficult to liberate the formula from the old aeon death cult context...

Well, it can be good practice to appropriate symbols you find distasteful and use them for purposes antithetical to the way you were originally taught them. In part, it’s useful for cultivating an attitude of indifference. At the very least, it teaches you about how the preferences of your mind operate, and it can furnish an opportunity to overcome them.

If you’re really struggling with this idea, you could search around for “Thelemic” versions of the analysis of the keyword. Some people have tried their hand at writing some, but I have no idea if any of them are any good. You might try some of them out or write your own.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Sorry about this post above. I'm in a bad internet zone and it sent without me finishing. For some reason I can't edit it now.... Back to the sandbox...


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
"DAO" wrote:
So by extrapolation, it could said that the LVX formula now represents this annihilation of ego and rebirth of the perfected self? That it is freed from being a symbol or cipher of the crucifixion? I'm just having difficulty doing this in a ritual context (specifically the hexagram rituals...)

I don’t quite follow this attribution of the LVX formula here – IAO (or FIAOF, for purists) or even INRI would fit better.  Presumably the reference is in connection with the hexagram ritual which you go on to mention, but your ‘extrapolation’ is not as clear as it might be.  Or maybe it’s just me that’s not ‘getting it’?!

Please ignore my comment here, DAO. I knew what I was trying to say when I wrote it, but I was not as clear as I might have been myself!  And while I could now put it “in whiter words” it was/is only a fairly minor point unless you wanted to pursue your extrapolation further.
Meanwhile, as it seems to have been not the version you wanted either, I won’t respond to any of the material in your last post!

"david" wrote:
There will be many people who, "take the oath of the Abyss" even though they still don't know how to really go about finding their True Will first, therefore that , "oath" will be fake without them knowing.

Slightly off-topic point – yeah I know, it’s unusual that – but I wonder what the “sceptic” school’s take on taking the Oath of the Abyss is?  What would be their intention/ the grounds of their “reasoning” behind swearing it, and would any sceptic care to admit to having done so?  (The answer I predict: no.)

"Los" wrote:
"DAO" wrote:
Many thanks for your thoughtful response.

You're welcome.

And “well come” in your Introduction too, of course.  (But since Los doesn’t tend to do “Greetings” I wouldn’t take that too personally and feel left out!)

"Los" wrote:
Yes, although I hate terms like “ego” and “perfected self” because they give the wrong idea. Too many people interpret them along Christian lines (i.e. “ego” means [what their mind arbitrarily considers to be] “bad” and “selfish” actions while “perfected self” means [what their mind arbitrarily considers to be] “good” and “selfless” actions). I’m not accusing you of making that mistake – just warning you to be on guard against it.

(Your being a one-time Catholic and all…)

"Los" wrote:
Well, like you were saying above, if you see the LVX signs as a “dying” to your false way of looking at yourself, that might help.
It also might be useful – considering the Isis, Apophis, Osiris myth encoded in LVX – to think about it in terms of the IAO formula and the difference between the Aeons in their interpretations of it.

Yes, it might be useful.  It might also be useful if Los were to explain in more detail what he meant by this.

"Los" wrote:
The three elements represent the natural cycle of the sun (dying and reborn), which was figured as a “catastrophe” in the Old Aeon, a calamity to be vanquished by the supernatural. In the New Aeon, we’ve gotten rid of both the idea of catastrophe and the idea of the supernatural.

What does this mean?  And who are these “we” when they’re at home?

"Los" wrote:
Under this new interpretation, the sun does not undergo a calamity at all (and thus there is no need for supernatural redemption). Rather, it’s simply our perceptions (or, more precisely, our interpretations) that were all wrong: the sun is perfectly still, constantly giving off light.

The sun is not “still” at all: it revolves around in the Milky Way in its own orbit.  And it does not “constantly” give off light either – apart from the rate it converts hydrogen into helium, which varies marginal, it is roughly half-way through its life and middle-aged now, and has approximately another 5 billion (=thousand million) years to run.

"Los" wrote:
In the New Aeon, we understand this “carnal self,” with all of its natural desires, to be the True Self, the sun that is veiled by our faulty self-image. Our thoughts veil the True Self, interpreting the events of our life as problems to be solved (calamities to be overcome).

But couldn’t this True Self be construed to be more like ‘the sun behind the sun’ – i.e., Kether behind Tiphereth (or – yes, Los, you will like this – Sirius behind Sol?)

"Los" wrote:
This is why the final secret is that the Great Work is unnecessary.

Who said anything about a “final secret” in this regard?

"Los" wrote:
Your True Self *is* the Light (LVX) – and in fact, you always were the Light (just as the sun is always shining).

Compounding the felony (vide supra.)

"Los" wrote:
The process of forgetting this fact and working to discover it again was just a pleasant adventure you dreamed for yourself, a way for you to reveal your True Self to itself.

Incidentally, this is the cosmological point-of-view of Scientology® in a nutshell, too (although they unnecessarily dress up the “True Self” to be a “Thetan”, etc.)

"Los" wrote:

I don't know if it's as a result of my Catholic upbringing but I find it difficult to liberate the formula from the old aeon death cult context...

Well, it can be good practice to appropriate symbols you find distasteful and use them for purposes antithetical to the way you were originally taught them. In part, it’s useful for cultivating an attitude of indifference. At the very least, it teaches you about how the preferences of your mind operate, and it can furnish an opportunity to overcome them.
If you’re really struggling with this idea, you could search around for “Thelemic” versions of the analysis of the keyword. Some people have tried their hand at writing some, but I have no idea if any of them are any good. You might try some of them out or write your own.

I wonder what the flip this is supposed to mean here – don’t you?  (What the heck is this ‘keyword’ [not even ‘key word’ here], anyhow? An illustrative example or two might have helped.  And then again, it might well not.  It may be best not to ‘encourage’ him!)

Although you say you have lurked DAO, and you may know this already, I feel it only decent to warn you that you are the latest in a long line of ‘innocent’ newbies drawn into an initial amiable-seeming, chatty conversation with Los until you ( 😮 shock horror) then make the dreadful & enormous faux pas of writing something stupid (to Los’s way of looking at things) by giving credence (or even credulence) to anything “ooky” (=supernatural).  Then you will be (literally) rapidly abused of your delusion.  In fact it is a shameful but noticeable fact that so many ‘newbies’ to the Lash, once they have been on the end of an unexpected lashing from Los for the idiocy of their own personal belief system, seem to have then be put off & deterred from contributing further to the forums.  (It is odd, though, that also of late those fellow monomaniacal ‘skeptics’ of his own persuasion have also gone quiet, leaving him in splendid isolation.  To say nothing of his apparent guru [this is probably not the right word, but still] a Mr Erwin Hessle).

“ ’What is the law?’ ‘No spill blood… Are we not men?’ ” – Oingo Boingo, after The Island of Dr Moreau (H.G. Wells)
N Joy


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 288
 

Blood doesnt mean `blood` in Crowleys work usually. Unless it is of the moon.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"newneubergOuch2" wrote:
Blood doesnt mean `blood` in Crowleys work usually. Unless it is of the moon.

Perhaps not, Ouch (if you have in mind the alternative being semen? - I am not sure), but certainly it did in the examples which I gave (e.g., the Mass of the Phœnix).

'N Joy


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"newneubergOuch2" wrote:
Blood doesnt mean `blood` in Crowleys work usually. Unless it is of the moon.

Yes, “blood” is often code for semen, much as references to blood sacrifice are code for various kinds of sex magick.

I’ve even seen a website where someone gave a personal version of Crowley’s “Mass of the Phoenix” (a ritual whose text instructs the practitioner to cut himself or herself). This personal version involves masturbating on the cake of light instead of cutting oneself and putting a drop of blood on the cake.

I hope it won’t be too cringe-worthy if I say “Different strokes for different folks.”

Of course, the OP’s question was about the use of blood sacrifice *symbolism*, but it’s worth noting that absolutely nothing about Thelema requires one to use literal blood in a ritual context, either.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 523
 

Great question, and great responses.  I'd just reinforce or paraphrase what some have said above: that there is (or may be, and probably for most people is) a point in one's development where the Osirian formula is actually quite appropriate in "feeling tone", and it feels like there is a kind of sacrifice, it's kinda-sorta real, or at the very least the "drama" of it is psychologically powerful and real, and the symbolism still has some validity.  There is a perfectly good sense in which "All words are sacred and all prophets true". 

It's just that the central discovery of the New Aeon is that that which is sacrificed is not one's essential self.  Rather, what's being "given up", renounced, etc., never existed in the first place.  There is no boogeyman and nobody for the boogeyman to axe-murder (the snake and mongoose in the story - or "a thief in an empty house" in the Dzogchen system).

The difference is that in the Osirian Aeon (and this doesn't necessarily mean "long historical period" - one major meaning of "Aion" in Ancient Greek is eternity - think of "Every number is infinite; there is no difference", Cantorian infinities, etc.), that which is sacrificed was thought to be one's most intimate, essential self.  Sort of the Schopenhauerian view that there's no value to life, it's all a horrible, grotesque farce, and you might as well give it up and draw the curtain down on the whole miserable show, or jump off it or escape it (some concepts of "escaping Samsara", also cf. the notion of "Twice Born", Trance of Sorrow, etc.).  (Note that while this appears a gloomy, almost gothically heavy prospect to the Once Born, it's a sought-after bliss of nescience to the Twice Born when one is "ready for it".)

i.e. there's been a kind of progress or evolution in spirituality.  When I say "central discovery of the New Aeon" above, it's not that "no (real) atonement, no (real) sacrifice" is a totally new message - i.e. it's all a phased process, and some "early adopters" amongst enlightened people cottoned onto it probably a few thousand years ago (e.g. non-dual mysticisms in Eastern religions) - but rather, the purport of the New Aeon is that this is going to be the "received wisdom" from now on, it's what the common man or woman is going to know and live by.

"Aye! feast! rejoice! there is no dread hereafter. There is the dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu."

"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."

VIAOV  AUMGN


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

The point about blood being used as a possible blind for semen is well taken and gurugeorge has added some further fuel for thought, however there are still a few central aspects behind the topic which do not yet seem to have been fully addressed.  For example, I suppose A.C. must have had his own very good reason for it at the time, but I can’t quite determine the purpose of going through with the actual (as opposed to metaphorical) crucifixion of a toad, as he did in America in 1916 and subsequently detailed in Liber LXX and which also then featured as a linked with part of the VI[sup:33rxy42v]o[/sup:33rxy42v] initiation featured in his O.T.O. rituals.  I imagine that the blood of the amphibian - whether of a cold or warm-blooded animal is slightly beside the main point here - would have been spilt, which appears to go directly against the main injunction in terms of Liber AL I:58 as previously outlined.  But during his lifetime A.C. himself was also not averse to sacrificing goats, cocks, pigeons, etc on several occasions, mainly in his more ‘salad days’ – while the case against Mischette, the unfortunate feral moggy occasionally fed forbidden scraps at the Cefalu Abbey by Betty May remains still open and substantially unproven either way. 

Nevertheless the stance of A.C. towards cats in general altogether does seem a little jarring imo, considering the veneration with which they were held in Ancient Egypt, often being accorded divine status (– e.g., consider the deities Bast, Sekhmet…)

But in answer to the main thrust behind the thread topic, no, going by that available evidence, detailed in part above and including the recommendations in Liber III vel Jugorum {Part III.2, which goes into the control of Thought (Ox); Word (/Speech – Unicorn) and Deed (/Action – Horse) are also included as touched upon previously} and The Mass of the Phœnix - and whether sensitive animal-rights’ Thelemites actually like or agree with it not - the “vicarious atonement” of the bloody sacrifice […] would appear to be NOT completely Abrogate in the Aeon of Horus.  Thankfully we do seem to be well past the idea & enactment of human sacrifice in the New Aeon, popularity of “The Wicker Man” notwithstanding :D.  - And does anybody know of any exceptions with Obeah?  The sacrifice of cockerels is still acceptable in voudoo rites here, and on occasion goats too.  But where do the most legitimately extreme of its practitioners “draw the line”?  And in what service is “sacrifice cattle little and big” (Liber AL III:12) to be taken? – let alone “after a child”?  Does anyone care (dare!) to give an alternative-to-metaphorical explanation of that?  Of which there are obvious actual manifestations, even in the present time as just mentioned; while the Stele of Revealing itself directly shows the priest making offerings of meat unto RHK, including horned cattle.
 
Although Nuit utters “nor do I demand aught in sacrifice” (I:58), the operative word there seems to be demand; ‘she’ is not saying there is no place at all for [blood] sacrifice, simply that ‘she’ does not expect it as a matter of procedure (especially if other better alternatives are available.)  This can extend beyond the metaphorical sacrifice of the lower self in service of the higher – the supposition is that it could (should!) be taken as read: an undeclared, unlusted-for-reward offering as an unostentatious display of one’s Bhakti-yoga. And finally, there is of course no need for any sacrifice when (as part of “[not] aught”) there will in the end be “no difference” made between any one thing and any other.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Los" wrote:
This is why the final secret is that the Great Work is unnecessary. Your True Self *is* the Light (LVX) – and in fact, you always were the Light (just as the sun is always shining). The process of forgetting this fact and working to discover it again was just a pleasant adventure you dreamed for yourself, a way for you to reveal your True Self to itself.
Now, of course, it ironically takes a great deal of work to get to the point where you can appreciate just how unnecessary the Great Work actually is. Merely telling someone that the Great Work is unnecessary doesn’t really do much to help – any more than telling a drunk guy that he’s drunk will instantly cure his condition – but it does offer an instructive hint.

Serendipitously and synchronistically I just “chanced” across the following short extracts whilst checking through Liber LXXI, A.C.’s commentary on Helena Blavatsky’s “The Voice in the Silence”, and several things there struck me as having a bearing on the remark made above (q.v.) and other related remarks in similar recent threads (such as the “10 Buddhist Fetters and Thelema”). All bold emphases are mine.  A.C.’s initial remarks below relate to the Grade of Magus 9[sup:1f1bosre]o[/sup1f1bosre]□[/sup:1f1bosre], yet there is a wider application of its context, here – the “Atman and the Atomic Chokmah”, as Shiva might, and has, put it:

[…T]he fact is that one has reached a stage when the Path becomes almost meaningless.  The illusion of Sorrow has been exposed so ruthlessly that one can hardly realize that one, or anyone else, can ever have been in such a silly muddle.  It seems so perfectly natural that everything should be just as it is, and so right, that one is quite startled if one contemplates the nature of one’s Star, which led one into these “grave paths”.  The only “wrong” is the thinking about anything at all; this is of course the old “Thought is evil” on a higher plane.  One gets to understand the Upanishad which tells us how The Original It made the error of contemplating itself, of becoming self-conscious […]

(A.C.’s Commentary to Liber LXXI (Part III, v.84) in Gems from The Equinox, pp. 840-1)[/align:1f1bosre]

What follows must be regarded as the device of the poet, for of course the ‘Voice of the Silence’ cannot be interpreted in words.  What follows is only its utterance in respect of the Path itself.
(A.C.’s Commentary to Liber LXXI (Part I, v.13) in Gems from The Equinox, p. 743)

Everything should be enjoyed to the full, but always with the reservation that the absence of the thing enjoyed shall not cause regret.  This is too hard for the beginner, and in many cases it is necessary for him to abandon pleasures in order to prove to himself that he is indifferent to them, and it may be occasionally advisable even for the Adept to do this now and again.  Of course during periods of actual concentration there is no time whatever for anything but the work itself; but to make even the mildest asceticism a rule of life is the gravest of errors, except perhaps that of regarding Asceticism as a virtue.  This latter always leads to spiritual pride […] “Ascetic” comes from the Greek Askio, ‘to work curiously, to adorn, to exercise, to train.’  The Latin Ars is derived from this same word.  Artist, in its finest sense of creative craftsman, is therefore the best translation.  The word has degenerated under Puritan foulness.

(A.C.’s Commentary to Liber LXXI (Part I, v.14) in Gems from The Equinox, pp. 743-4)[/align:1f1bosre]

Whether you agree with it or not the matter is addressed in terms of that dreaded Word Logos , Los.  (I am drawn to type Los Lobos here for some crazy reason.  Please ignore it.) -

The word of a Magus is always a falsehood, for it is a creative word; there would be no object in uttering it if it merely stated an existing fact in nature.  The task of a Magus is to make his word, the expression of his Will come true.  It is the most formidable labour that the mind can conceive.

(Confessions, Chapter 81)[/align:1f1bosre]

It all comes back to those twin spectres Suffering and Desire, pale sisters of Thanat-Eros,  Death and Love:

There is one method of meditation in which the Student kills thoughts as they arise by the reflection ”That’s not it”, which Frater Perdurabo indicated by taking as his Exemptus Adeptus motto “OY MH”, “No, certainly not!”

(A.C.’s Commentary to Liber LXXI (Part I, v.31) in Gems from The Equinox, p. 749)[/align:1f1bosre]

The way to conquer any desire is to understand it, and freedom consists in the ability to decide whether or no you will perform any given action.  The Adept should always be ready to abide by the toss of a coin, and remain absolutely indifferent

as to whether it falls head or tail.
(A.C.’s Commentary to Liber LXXI (Part II, v.23) in Gems from The Equinox, p.773[/align:1f1bosre]

By ‘desire’ {which means unnatural attraction to an ideal, unlike Love, which is natural Motion} in all mystic treatises of any merit is meant tendency.

(A.C.’s Commentary to Liber LXXI (Part I, v.54) in Gems from The Equinox, p. 755)[/align:1f1bosre]

Incidentally, it seems remarkable how frequently some Lashtalians can use the word ‘preferences’, where Crowley clearly and more consistently uses “tendencies” (Los in particular, take note!)

Tendencies – the forces which make [man] what he is

(A.C.’s Commentary to Liber LXXI (Part II, v.19) in Gems from The Equinox, p. 771)[/align:1f1bosre]

Some food for thought, perhaps
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

The abrogation of blood sacrifice my arse!

How many years has there been not one war on the planet since 1904?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 

Very noble of you to offer up a part of your anaromy in this way, Azidonis.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6827
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
How many years has there been not one war on the planet since 1904?

Anywhere on the planet? None-Nada-Zero. "Nothing [no years] is a secret key of this law.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
How many years has there been not one war on the planet since 1904?

Anywhere on the planet? None-Nada-Zero. "Nothing [no years] is a secret key of this law.

So if the blood sacrifice has not stopped, and in some places has amplified, how does it logically follow that blood sacrifice has been abrogated (done away with)?

Some answer other than those like, "remnants of the Dying God that are dying out", or "one last push for the Dying God", or even "Ra Hoor Khuit is purging us by fire" please.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

There are difference practices practiced today. The latest variant is probably Chumbley's where the sorcerer uses his/her own blood. The cult is alive!  😉


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
So if the blood sacrifice has not stopped, and in some places has amplified, how does it logically follow that blood sacrifice has been abrogated (done away with)?

Who has claimed, on this thread or elsewhere, that every war is a "blood sacrifice"?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
Who has claimed, on this thread or elsewhere, that every war is a "blood sacrifice"?

How is it not?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
How is it not?

You might as well ask how an ice cube is not a lake. The two are entirely different things.

Pay attention.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
How is it not?

You might as well ask how an ice cube is not a lake. The two are entirely different things.

Pay attention.

Don't be that word you love so much, obtuse.

Every war is a sacrifice of lives for an idea. War itself is an idea. Don't believe me, read the definitions:

": a state or period of fighting between countries or groups [over an idea]

: a situation in which people or groups compete with or fight against each other [over an idea]

: an organized effort by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad [over an idea]"


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Every war is a sacrifice of lives for an idea. War itself is an idea.

And every ice cube is a bunch of molecules of H2O put together, just as a lake is. Therefore, an ice cube is as much a lake as war is a "blood sacrifice."

You're reading these terms far too literally, in ways that distort the subject that the OP actually wants to discuss.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Every war is a sacrifice of lives for an idea. War itself is an idea.

And every ice cube is a bunch of molecules of H2O put together, just as a lake is. Therefore, an ice cube is as much a lake as war is a "blood sacrifice."

You're reading these terms far too literally, in ways that distort the subject that the OP actually wants to discuss.

I'm saying that formula has not changed, and its use has not stopped.

The whole dying god thing is akin to the Rosy Cross, which has been included in the "new aeon" curriculum.

The practice of actual blood sacrifice has not stopped either.

So how anyone can claim that the idea is actually abrogate is a misnomer at best, as blood sacrifice (inner and outer) remains functional to this very day, and continues to have its uses. The use of the formulas varies by aspirant, but the formula itself remains. It is not the "highest" formula, but it never was either, only perceived as such.


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 157
 

I'm not sure I agree that abrogate means to have deleted something from existence, Azidonis. Rather, it would seem to indicate that something has been invalidated.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"arthuremerson" wrote:
I'm not sure I agree that abrogate means to have deleted something from existence, Azidonis. Rather, it would seem to indicate that something has been invalidated.

It's not invalid. It is still very much in use today. And for it as it is, it has still proven effective.

abrogate:

": to end or cancel (something) in a formal and official way" [It has not ended, as evidenced by the formula still be used and still being of use.]

": to fail to do what is required by (something, such as a responsibility)" [It continues to do exactly what it has done in the past.]

I'm saying it is not abrogate.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6827
 

abrogate: "to abolish by formal or official means; annul by an authoritative act; repeal: to
abrogate a law. 2. to put aside; put an end to."

😀 Stop it! Oh, stop it! Abrogate it right now!


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
[...] The practice of actual blood sacrifice has not stopped either.
So how anyone can claim that the idea is actually abrogate is a misnomer at best, as blood sacrifice (inner and outer) remains functional to this very day, and continues to have its uses. The use of the formulas varies by aspirant, but the formula itself remains. It is not the "highest" formula, but it never was either, only perceived as such.

It is interesting to note in the context of the practice of blood sacrifice not being Abrogate, that in The Magical Revival Kenneth Grant mentioned that Dion Fortune, no less, “asked Crowley’s advice about ritual procedure in a blood sacrifice that involved two young cocks” (p.173)…

In connection with Liber III vel Jugorum

You must find a practice for Liber III which will not become automatic so easily.  If, when I see you, you can show an arm with 50 or 60 honest cuts, I shall begin to have hopes of you.  If the cut doesn’t hurt, how are you to build up the sentry at the gate of your mind?

(Letter from A.C. to Kenneth Grant dated 1st June, 1945, cited in Remembering Aleister Crowley, p. 38)[/align:4dmu7r6u]

it appears A.C. remained pretty hardline in the 30+ years since first publishing it in The Equiinox, and that there were no acceptable alternatives (Israel Regardie’s innovative use of his little hand-held joke-shop-type electric-shock gadget notwithstanding) as he saw it to ‘blood being spilt’, therefore 'sacrificed', in the process.

Are there any known cases on record of anybody getting blood poisoning (septicaemia, tetanus, gangrene, etc.) as a direct result of engaging in this practice (or the Mass of the Phœnix, or anything else in a similar "vein":-[ *Groan*) – and is it known whether A.C. would have regarded any alternative procedure (to the razor cuts) as acceptable?

Also, with regard to A.C.’s customary habit of branding his Scarlet Women with “the Mark of the Beast” (a diagonal ‘St Andrew’s Cross’ enclosed within a double banded circle – unless anyone is aware of other variations being different?) between their breasts: can anybody confirm whether this was simply drawn with the equivalent of a marker pen or ink dye (say), or was it actually more 'permanently' gouged into the flesh with an athame or similar knife-like instrument, thereby spilling blood in carrying out this practice?

“What a carve-up!” (as they say)
[sup:4dmu7r6u]'N[/sup:4dmu7r6u] [sub:4dmu7r6u]Joy[/sub:4dmu7r6u]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
“What a carve-up!” (as they say)

That was certainly worth a chuckle!  ;D And if you do it on your breast it can indeed feel more like 'carving'!!

Liber Jugorum is not a ritual unless you count shaving and setting your alarm clock as a ritual, sacrifice, and emphasise it with a shout of "bloody hell" or whatnot. It's just basic behaviour modification, or rather, exercising the mental muscle that allows you to make behaviour modification. Psychotherapy will only use positive reinforcement on patients as negative stimuli are seen (quite rightly) as pretty unethical. But what you do to yourself is your own business. It's an optional practice, but a very effective one. Nothing to do with spirituality or magick or yoga: just about being able to control one's own speech, acts and thoughts (which happens to be a good preparation for those other things). I don't think anyone seriously doubts the theory, do they(?) even if they haven't tried it. Those that have, know that using a clean razor blade, straight out of the packet, is not unhygeinic, that the skin of the forearm is usually quite soft so not horrifically traumatic, and any fool will put some paper surgical tape over a cut so as not to bleed all over grandmother's carpet. I really don't know about rubber bands and electric devices and whatnot and there's nothing to stop anyone trying them and seeing if they work (just as long as they don't say they are doing Liber Jugorum, which would be literally untrue of course, much as I respect that people like to reinterpret and assuage everything to "make life easier" lol.) My general rule is that if you read Crowley and it seems to tell you to do something illegal, life-threatening or that would interfere with someone else's will, don't bother. Apart from that, it's up to you!  😉


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"galangal" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
“What a carve-up!” (as they say)

That was certainly worth a chuckle!  ;D And if you do it on your breast it can indeed feel more like 'carving'!!

Thanks for that demonstration of your impeccable taste and judgement, galangal.  From your postings you are clearly a Lashtalian of rare discernment & perspicacity.

"galangal" wrote:
Liber Jugorum is not a ritual unless you count shaving and setting your alarm clock as a ritual, sacrifice, and emphasise it with a shout of "bloody hell" or whatnot.

The practices constitute ritualistic behaviour though, in the sense of it being repetitious and formulaic…
I like the exclamation of ‘bloody hell' - - tho’ can think of worse!

"galangal" wrote:
It's just basic behaviour modification, or rather, exercising the mental muscle that allows you to make behaviour modification. Psychotherapy will only use positive reinforcement on patients as negative stimuli are seen (quite rightly) as pretty unethical. But what you do to yourself is your own business. It's an optional practice, but a very effective one.

Unfortunately a lot of nosey interfering people would disagree with this simple statement of one’s rights. ‘Man has the right to do to him (or her) self as he wills…’ This includes (what’s that term the medical establishment use?  Oh yes – intentional self-harm. (They’ll even be telling you you can’t jump off a tall building or in front of an express train, next…)

"galangal" wrote:
Nothing to do with spirituality or magick or yoga: just about being able to control one's own speech, acts and thoughts (which happens to be a good preparation for those other things). I don't think anyone seriously doubts the theory, do they(?) even if they haven't tried it.

The control does overlap and have points of similarity with some branches of yoga especially though.

"galangal" wrote:
Those that have, know that using a clean razor blade, straight out of the packet, is not unhygeinic,

Not as much as an olde-fashioned cut-throat strap razor and its accoutrements, ‘tis true.  These can become dirty and therefore a health-and-hygiene concern with regular use. (= That Was A Public Service Announcement. 😀 )

"galangal" wrote:
that the skin of the forearm is usually quite soft so not horrifically traumatic, and any fool will put some paper surgical tape over a cut

Unless you happen to be an unfortunate clumsy clot and sever the artery in your wrist, of course.  That would never do.  Oh no, no no, dearie me! No.

"galangal" wrote:
so as not to bleed all over grandmother's carpet.

This would never do either.  (If it was a red carpet, that might not be so bad, though... Keep granny sweet, are the watchwords here...)

"galangal" wrote:
I really don't know about rubber bands and electric devices and whatnot and there's nothing to stop anyone trying them and seeing if they work (just as long as they don't say they are doing Liber Jugorum, which would be literally untrue of course, much as I respect that people like to reinterpret and assuage everything to "make life easier" lol.)

Lol indeed!  In fact I would go so far as to say ‘rotfl’.

"galangal" wrote:
My general rule is that if you read Crowley and it seems to tell you to do something illegal, life-threatening or that would interfere with someone else's will, don't bother. Apart from that, it's up to you!  😉

But illegal here could also mean legitimising unnecessary bourgeoisification as well as socially necessary legislation which might be needed at this time in humanity’s development & progression for the compassionate protection of the relatively disadvantaged.

Returning to the main topic, it seems a shame that there appears to be nobody sufficiently au fait with their studies in the Obeah that could offer an informed opinion here regarding the relevance of the abrogation of blood sacrifice & if it would still include a human offering (as for instance the Ancient Druids themselves indulged in the previous Aeon, see J.G. Frazer, etc.)

'N Joy


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

Christians argue that blood sacrifice was abolished by Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross. He was the perfect, stainless offering that God the Father demanded, and the only thing he could be satisfied with - his own son. Who was himself, of course, but under another guise. Jesus is the final blood sacrifice.

That's the theology, in any case.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"belmurru" wrote:
Christians argue that blood sacrifice was abolished by Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross.

Yes, they will say that and argue that, but it's not reality.

On another note, there is plenty of bloody sacrifice in Liber 156. Bring a friend!


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
Christians argue that blood sacrifice was abolished by Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross.

Yes, they will say that and argue that, but it's not reality.

Of course, as you know, this will immediately become a purely semantic and legalistic argument where, if we don't agree on the meaning of the terms, any discussion is pointless.

If any point remains to be preserved in my observation, it is that the idea that deity demanding blood for propiation of sins or thanksgiving offerings is no longer required (the law of blood sacrifice is abrogated) is not a new one.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 1098
 

not a necessary condition - but perhaps fun nonetheless!


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

While I think a literal interpretation of Liber Legis is misguided from the outset (read it like a dream, made of metaphors), I guess I'm not unwilling to get into a semantic argument over the meaning of "sacrifice".

Nuit says "nor do I demand aught in sacrifice", then immediately adds "my incense is of resinous woods and gums, and there is no blood therein".

So, when I burn resin to her, am I "sacrificing" the incense to her? Or is there a difference between an offering and a sacrifice?

Or - is only blood a "sacrifice"?

Ra-Hoor-Khuit, on the other hand, says explicitly "Worship me with fire & blood; worship me with swords & with spears... let blood flow to my name."

"Let blood flow to my name" - this would seem to be your (Azidonis) definition of sacrifice. Is this correct? If bloodletting in the name of a deity is the definition, de facto, of sacrifice, then I have to agree with you that religions such as Christianity and Islam continue to practise it despite the fact that theologically their gods do not demand it for propitiation of sins or thanksgiving offerings, even though "Holy War" may be done to God's pleasure and even add to the warrior's merit. But it is not, strictly, necessary.

But I have to ask, who thinks that Liber Legis suggests blood sacrifice is abrogated?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

But what you put in your wanga bag depends on what result you want to achieve surely... Ra-Hoor-Khuit, being obeah-like and solar, expects nothing less than blood sweat and toil, fire & blood, your blood of course, cakes of light, and eat until there's not an itty bitty of the old 'you' left ('xcept a little wet patch on your Rosy Cross where your soul used to be). Whereas if you are choosing a perfume for Nuit, you can't mess up that nice Sand with a headless chicken! Noooooo.... just a sweet-smelling perfume of sweat with resinous woods and gums flowing with inspiration; and as you know if you've camped out in the desert accompanied only by your own skin and the stars, the 'toil' is actually getting there. A circle of nothing as far as the eye can see (well maybe your one-man – or woman – tent) and it's quite peachy until you run out of water and decide it's time to get out again. Even the mosquitoes don't want your blood.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Liber L 1:49" wrote:
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.

To me, the word "all" means, effectively, "all".

But when we are talking about rituals, ordeals, words, and signs, the general assumption is that the verse is referring to those rituals, ordeals, words, and signs, which had up until that point in 1904 been used to "accomplish the Great Work", as Crowley said...

"Crowley" wrote:
The Old Comment

49. Declares a New System of Magic, and initiation. Asar-Isa is now the Candidate, not the Hierophant. Hoor -- see Cap. III -- is the Initiator.

The New Comment

This verse declares that the old formula of Magick -- the Osiris-Adonis-Jesus-Marsyas-Dionysus-Attis-etcetera formula of the Dying God -- is no longer efficacious. It rested on the ignorant belief that the Sun died every day, and every year, and that its resurrection was a miracle.

The Formula of the New Aeon recognizes Horus, the Child crowned and conquering, as God. We are all members of the Body of God, the Sun; and about our System is the Ocean of Space. This formula is then to be based upon these facts. Our "Evil", "Error", "Darkness", "Illusion", whatever one chooses to call it, is simply a phenomenon of accidental and temporary separateness. If you are "walking in darkness", do not try to make the sun rise by self-sacrifice, but wait in confidence for the dawn, and enjoy the pleasures of the night meanwhile.

The general illusion is to the Equinox Ritual of the G.'. D.'. where the officer of the previous six months, representing Horus, took the place of the retiring Hierophant, who had represented Osiris.

Isa is the Legendary "Jesus", for which Canidian concoction the prescription is to be found in my book bearing that title, "Liber DCCCLXXXVIII".

...and whatever. It says ALL. It doesn't say that all rituals, ordeals, words, and signs in the past have been declared outdated and will be replaced soon by my prophet, who has come up with something much better (though it does say as much elsewhere).

Granted, if one takes the entire Book in context, then one can read a great many things into the verse, which is fine, I suppose, and it helps us create things like this thread about bloody sacrifice (in the name of God, or Gods, or money, or women, or whatever the strapping boys like to fight about), but I do not think it addresses the actual charge in this particular verse.

And so, I digress, as I'm not going to spell it all out by writing a 10 page forum post. Plus, didn't that naughty fat guy say on every turn that we each have to figure it out ourselves, with only so many clues as to what it even is? Of course. Adieu.


ReplyQuote
Share: