obviously points towards his own grade, his own limitations, and he has associates who grovel the same, so there has never been a living role model in his esoteric life.
I'm gotten the impression that it was a matter of "I can't get to this point so it's literally impossible for anyone to do it". He also fell in to the side of the pre/trans fallacy that dismisses the transrational as being the prerational.
This is true. The Aeon Paradigm Concept does appear to be a Crowley invention.
Joachim of Fiore had a three ages system, which I think may have influenced Maria de Naglowska's idea of ages too.
I agree that the 2000 year, and the Zodiac ages, systems don't hold up to scrutiny. I interpret the Aeon of Isis as being the age where hunter-gatherer cultures were predominant, with Osiris representing the takeover of agriculture and more social structure. Dominant paradigms rather than specific lengths of time. Compare with phases of human development. Horus would be the time of adulthood and taking our development in to our own hands. But the Aeon is still young and unfolding, we're still in a transitional period, with the now-toxic previous Aeon still trying to hold on.
I had to locate a "telephone booth" - this experience will not be unfamiliar to most readers - younger readers may think, "how strange."
I remember seeing a couple of pay phones when I was little.
Your point is taken. I know of no specific references that sort out Aeons, Laws. Words of Aeons. Words of the Laws.
I tend to think that a Law is characteristic of an Aeon.
I think there are a few different lists of these Magi
I was going by the list in Liber Aleph. You do raise an interesting point about Jesus.
I tend to think that a Law is characteristic of an Aeon.
I do, too. But nobody has written out, or yelled, "The Law is dependent upon the nature of any Aeon.
Or, "An Aeon is defined by the nature of the prevailing Law."
Since there is a Word for an Aeon, and another Word for the Law, I sense some sort of duality trying to distract us here. I shall have to go out (or in) and receive a transmission that plainly says, "The Word of the present Timespan Compartment and the Word of the Law are always the same ... once you get your head of our your asylum and up into Oz, the land of No Different, except one."
Something like that.
I was going by the list in Liber Aleph.
Aleph and Lies (111 and 333) cite the same list.
Like the Aeon Theory, the Magi List makes perfect sense when viewed from the chair of a European mountain-climber. That is, the list starts with Lao and then adds a couple more Orientals (Gautama, Krishna) ... but then veers off into Moshe and the Greco-Roman dia-tribe.
In The Heart of the Master, he gives an more detailed list, but he doesn't say, "this fellow was a Magus, and that one was a Magister ... etc." He simply lists points of historical light ... as registered by the European mountaineer.
I was forced (forced) to attend The History of Oriental Medicine, a one-unit required course. I thought it was so cool that I studied further, in unrequired territory, and ended up installing that data, with a few pictures, as my first (dues-collecting) continuing education website course.
Um, if one examines the history of Asia (comparing it to European-Near East-AEgyptian progress), one might come up with a modified list.
... and which numbering system is used - once the spelling is straightened out.
You would think it's a foregone conclusion Hebrew letters will be computed using their traditional values, but such is the wacky state of Thelema.
One can indeed debunk simply with sarcasm and mockery. Because....
No you cannot, given that applying piss & vinegar is not a substitute for genuine analysis, and accomplishes nothing but stinking up the place.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.
And of, course, what you really mean by "disprove" is "provide evidence that will convince any crank or nut True Believer in whatever crank/nut argument is at issue". There is no duty to disprove things to the satisfaction of cranks and nuts before we can say they are not true.
The only thing the person making the claim can do is present evidence and make arguments; it is up to someone else to examine the evidence and draw conclusions from it. If such an examiner agrees with the arguments, then they consider the assertions to be proven. If someone disagrees with the arguments made, then in order to be part of the discussion and be taken seriously, such an individual is required to form an alternate opinion based on the evidence, and be able to voice it: in other words, they must disprove the original argument.
Golly, sounds fascinating.
Condescension, how familiar.
Ain't no one ever offered anything that can reasonably be called "data" with regard to any QBL claims whatsoever in human history. What you meant to say is "Other systems have also made claims..."
If can't distinguish between data, evidence, and especially proof, you should consider sitting this one out.
I am sure, as a proponent of the argument that you have made that the burden of proof lies on the those who disagree with a claim, that you will immediately agree that i have proven the claim that "Timothy Moss, once or currently of Amarillo Texas, is mostly purple in color, with large green spots on some portions of his body". I have proven this claim by making it, and you cannot disprove this claim to my satisfaction.
One of your calling cards is conjuring false analogies, as exampled above. That you are unaware whether Timothy Moss still resides in Amarillo or not shows you are lacking data. You have presented no data, evidence, or proof that he is purple in color with green spots, whereas my output is not only teeming with data, but demonstrably fact-filled. Apples and oranges Jethro.
"Proving" things to your own satisfaction is no more valid WRT to your nutty claims than WRT to the even-nuttier claims of the other nutty "cypher solver" you are currently battling with in this thread.
I don't battle with Leo, I like and respect him despite our disagreements: I hope he lives the rest of his life in peace and happiness. You on the other hand...
Your tendency to spew vitriol and engage in ad hominem attacks suggests you are ill-equipped to take certain subjects seriously because they threaten you predispositions, such as solving the II:76 puzzle. Instead of addressing any puzzle data with specific criticisms, you resort to attacking those making the arguments by calling them nuts and kooks:its called gaslighting in the Woke-world.
You see, that is what a mathematical "proof" is- a claim that is accepted by all/nearly all mathematicians.
You wouldn't know what proof is if someone showed it to you.
I see. You chose to be the anal sphincter muscle this morning. Maybe some clock-cleaning is in the works ...
Actually, mine was a statement of fact.
Big words. Grand ideas. But does it work ?
Manana.
I tend to think that a Law is characteristic of an Aeon.
I do, too. But nobody has written out, or yelled, "The Law is dependent upon the nature of any Aeon.
Or, "An Aeon is defined by the nature of the prevailing Law."
Since there is a Word for an Aeon, and another Word for the Law, I sense some sort of duality trying to distract us here. I shall have to go out (or in) and receive a transmission that plainly says, "The Word of the present Timespan Compartment and the Word of the Law are always the same ... once you get your head of our your asylum and up into Oz, the land of No Different, except one."
Something like that.
Dwtw
One source of confusion is that the Word of the Law isn't the same as the Law itself. We are told in Liber AL that 'Love is the Law', qualified by 'love under will', but that 'The word of the Law is Thelema'. And that furthermore 'the whole of the law' is 'Do what thou wilt', which phrase doesn't mention Love at all.
Now you compound that by the problem of a 'word of an aeon'. AC took a long time deciding on Theléma as that Word, (though some claim he didn't utter a word at all). This is curious because afaik the concept of a 'word of the aeon' started in The Vision and the Voice 27th Aethyr, called ZAA:
"It is not possible that one should come to ZAA. Give me thy face. Let me kiss it with my cold kisses. Ah! Ah! Ah! Fall back from me. The word, the word of the æon is MAKHASHANAH."
I have never been able to understand why AC didn't just go with the Word he was given in this aethyr. It has a gematria of 418, no problem there, and doesn't really mean anything in Hebrew, so it could be a purely barbarous or magical word, (which has its pluses and minuses). But rather than taking this low hanging fruit, he agonized for a long time over what Word he should utter. And this was entirely a self-generated problem.
AC was the one who came up with the idea that a Magus (or some high initiate, let's say) would condense the essence of his message in a Word. It's actually a brilliant idea, but he then had to come up with a Word of his own. And once he did, since he used the same term that was the 'word of the Law', it became more difficult to sort it all out, (he probably would have liked that). Especially since Theléma is so closely allied with Love, and presumably agapé, which itself could be said to be the Word of the previous Magus, Jesus. Or was agapé also the Word of the previous Aeon? It all starts to get pretty convoluted.
If Agape was the Word of Jesus, and it then became (in 1904) the Law, whose Word was Thelema, which is allied with agapé in "love under will', it all just folds back into itself. Because Jesus said in John 13:34
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."
The word for love in this verse is Agapate, ultimately related to Agapé. If this commandment is, in effect, a 'law', then it's fair to say that either the Law itself is love, or the word of that Law is love. Either way, when the next aeon came, it didn't really abrogate this law. We are told explicitly in Liber AL 2:24 to "Love one another with burning hearts". Not much difference there.
So what then of this Aeon of Horus? There wasn't really a new Law pronounced; more like an enhanced version. There are some nuances to keep things interesting, related to Theléma, which also appears in the NT very frequently, referring to the Will of God.
Litllwtw
O.L.
I have never been able to understand why AC didn't just go with the Word he was given in this aethyr. It has a gematria of 418, no problem there, and doesn't really mean anything in Hebrew, so it could be a purely barbarous or magical word, (which has its pluses and minuses). But rather than taking this low hanging fruit, he agonized for a long time over what Word he should utter. And this was entirely a self-generated problem.
I agree to some extent. In the first place, though, I think Crowley was very impulsive, and not as rational as some like to think. Bearing in mind the outwardly appealing aspects, especially the numeration as 418, it suggests that it simply didn't feel right to him, for whatever reason. The oft-quoted letter to Achad, in which Crowley agonised over the absence of the Word, and said that if only he could learn to wait for the Word then it would come, indicates that he was expecting a new Word. It's my opinion that because this didn't come, that's the reason that he fell back on the word Thelema. The fact that he didn't fall back on MAKHASHANAH suggests to me that, for whatever reason, he wasn't happy with it.
The only thing the person making the claim can do is present evidence and make arguments; it is up to someone else to examine the evidence and draw conclusions from it.
In Academia, a Masteral or Doctoral Candidate will present a thesis or dissertation (some disciplines allow clinical or laboratory investigations) in written form. A committee then hauls the can.'. up before them, and asks oral questions that may allow the can.'. to further reinforce [explain] his her theory or results, or whatever ... or the questions may disable or destroy the can.'. who fumbles about - because he/she doesn't really know his/her subject. Pity not the fallen.
Note: Said document has to solve a problem, present a breakthrough, or come to a conclusion. Otherwise, it's just a data dump.
So, yes, the burden of proof lies upon the can.'., when he/she gets before the committee. Before that, he/she can simply cite a conclusionary "fact," supported by data (dates, names, correspondences. Of course, if there is erroneous data in the support bank, then a committee member may refuse to even accept the hesis or Dessert.
If the "someone else" examines the evidence (the doc, the supporting data) and finds a conclusion indicating error, then again come the time for the original perpetrator to post the watermark, provide a copy of the diary, or explain what they mean.
Defending a bold stated position is the same in court, in academia, in science, and on LAShTAL. It is always a bitch, because the first thing the committee does is "throw stones." Well, not really ... but it's a tough call in any arena. Unless the can.'. really knows his/her stuff.
One source of confusion is that the Word of the Law isn't the same as the Law itself.
Yes, I indicated that in what you quoted, which was actually brought by a Beam of Light into my mind by you pointing it out in the first place, much farther upstream.
I tend to think that a Law is characteristic of an Aeon.
Dwtw
Returning to this idea again; it's an easy conclusion to make, since the Aeon of Horus was announced with a 'Book of the Law'. But there doesn't seem to be any necessary connection between them, that I can find in the literature.
We know that the G.D. Equinox Ritual was the template for the changing of officers in rotation. The seat in the East is the throne of Ra, the Sun God. It is occupied by Horus (a sky god), in his form of Re-Horakhty - "Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods". But the key function of this seat is to be the Initiator. So it is stated that Horus fulfills this function: "Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating."
Then at the 'fall' of this Great Equinox (= Aeon, according to AC), the next officer will come, and this is the 'double-wanded' one who is Themis. Then it is she who takes over as Initiator. Liber MA says "Ma in her second name and grandeur is the true Initiator." This 'second name' of Ma is Ma'at.
So for the Aeon of Horus, Hoor is the Initiator, and for the Equinox of MA, or the MA-ION, it is Ma'at who is the Initiator. And this is the reason for having a new Aeon. The Law seems to be an adjunct to this.
And as I noted before, the Law of the Aeon of Horus is also the Word or Law of the previous Aeon of Osiris, for which presumably Jesus, (and Attis, Adonis, et. al.) was the Initiator. ("Let Asar be with Isa who also are one"). The prior Aeon, that of Isis, might be characterized by the Eleusinian Mysteries, in which the Initiator was Demeter, a goddess of fertility like Isis was
The progression of Mother-Father-Child would logically be followed by the Daughter. Ma'at is traditionally the daughter of Ra, whose seat in the East she now assumes. But it may be that she concludes the cycle by subsuming the whole family; thus the Theban Triad speaks the words of Liber MA, as Ma'at plays the role of Arbiter. She balances out the forces of the three previous aeons and brings them into a synchrony.
Fr. Achad used to call the MA-ION the "Aeon of Truth and Justice". According to Merriam-Webster, definition '1-c' of Justice is "the administration of law; especially: the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity ". So, in our modern terminology, Justice is not about making the Law itself; it's about administering it fairly. With that in mind, it is no surprise that the Aeon of MA does not pronounce a new Law. It seems more concerned about Speaking the Truth regarding the existing law. This aligns with definition 3 of Justice: "conformity to truth, fact, or reason."
Litllwtw
O.L.
the G.D. Equinox Ritual was the template for the changing of officers in rotation.
Yes. Again and again, we see that various elements in AL are drawn directly from the constructs embedded in Perdurabo's mind. The Golden Dawn, the Tree, Nietzsche, Rabelais, The Revelation of St John, a few Muslim terms -Kaaba, Qiblah, an Egyptian cosmology in which he writes names differently from the archeologists.
All this goes to reinforce a certain Universal Principle, a duh!, which relates to channeling, auto-writing, and other terms about hating the hand and the pen, which is ...
Whatever the original message is,
it will be limited to the contents
available in the channel's mind
So for the Aeon of Horus, Hoor is the Initiator, and for the Equinox of MA, or the MA-ION, it is Ma'at who is the Initiator. And this is the reason for having a new Aeon.
Okay, I've always had that version pretty straight in my mind. But then there'e The Seat in the East, and Hrumachis, which is another version, and that's cool. But how does Themis-Hrumachis get reconciled?
AL says "Hrumachis," and neither Themis nor Maat are mentioned ... at all. They came as a Crowley afterthought (or re-interjection) in Commentaries and other places.
=================
So I sat back and pondered this stuff.
Certain players are playing The Glass Bead game. I don't know its intricacies, but it's like three-dimensional chess, but more sublime.
But then there'e The Seat in the East, and Hrumachis, which is another version, and that's cool. But how does Themis-Hrumachis get reconciled?
AL says "Hrumachis," and neither Themis nor Maat are mentioned ... at all. They came as a Crowley afterthought (or re-interjection) in Commentaries and other places.
Dwtw
"the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place."
Hrumachis is Hor-em-akhet, the Sphinx, whose other name is Re-Horakhty according to the Dream Stele. The passage is saying that Hrumachis (i.e. Ra-Hoor-Khuit) will arise out of the seat in the East to make way for the double-wanded one.
You're right that AC only later commented that this double-wanded one was "‘Thmaist of dual form as Thmais and Thmait’, from whom the Greeks derived their Themis, goddess of Justice.”
And Themis is simply the Greek cognate to Ma'at as a goddess of Justice. And I think the term 'double-wanded' refers to the Halls of Ma'ati or Hall of Double Truth, where the Two Ma'ats would preside over judging the dead.
Litllwtw
O.L.
And Themis is simply the Greek cognate to Ma'at as a goddess of Justice. And I think the term 'double-wanded' refers to the Halls of Ma'ati or Hall of Double Truth, where the Two Ma'ats would preside over judging the dead.
I remember a Kemetic Reconstructionist friend once saying that the title "Double Wanded One" could refer to Thoth, who is frequently seen as the consort of Ma'at.
Hrumachis is Hor-em-akhet, the Sphinx, whose other name is Re-Horakhty according to the Dream Stele. The passage is saying that Hrumachis (i.e. Ra-Hoor-Khuit) will arise out of the seat in the East to make way for the double-wanded one.
That's very clever. Crowley tried to get around Hrumachis being a god by claiming the name means any new course of events. You equate Hrumachis with Ra-Hoor-Khuit, that way you can dispose of both them simultaneously--two hawks with one stone so to speak. Your theory relies on the interpretation of the word arise. While the word can mean to stand up as you suggest, it can also mean: to begin, to occur or to exist; in the case of the latter meaning, Hrumachis will be the sun god that arises at the fall of the Great Equinox, which would make it an event indicative of Egyptian sun worship.
Ra-Hoor-Khuit introduces himself as the Lord of the Double-Wand of Power, thus showing he is the double-wanded one, which lends further credence to the conclusion that a form of Horus is the god that will arise/rise on the morning of the Great Equinox. Given the meaning of both god names is Horus of the horizons, it explains why they both wield a double-wand, with it consisting of a symbol for the horizons.
It's interesting that Crowley treated Ra-Hoor-Khuit and Hoor-paar-kraat as different faces of Horus, while exercising a double-standard in his treatment of Hrumachis by denying him Horus-status. Crowley does so in order to project the quasi-egyptoid freemasonry of The Golden Dawn into verse III:34, when there is no real evidence for it. One of Crowley's limitations was an inability to introduce anything truly new to the paradigm, always reverting to what he already knew to explain things, as opposed to embracing new potential and possibilities, and breathing life into them.
I feel obligated to point out the absurdity in a futuristic aeon 2000 years or more away, being structured around, or somehow another defined by a Golden Dawn ritual. How does that work exactly? Did the Egyptian gods observe the Equinox ritual of the Golden Dawn, and were so flattered by their quasi-egyptian role-playing, they decided to model a rather lengthy futuristic period after it? Or did members of The Golden Dawn, by dint of their extraordinary magical abilities, literally conjure not one, but two aeonic time periods into existence that comprise thousands of years? It's a real mess from the standpoint of religion or magick!
Your theory and Crowley's both die on Occam's Razor.
it explains why they both wield a double-wand, with it consisting of a symbol for the horizons.
The Horizons (Horus-zones) are two - rising and setting, east and west. It seems that once the eastern horizon is cleared, Ra takes over. At eventide, Horus resumes.
Horus, being Mars, is always fighting somebody. At dawn, it's Set (darkness gives way to light - Horus wins.
But at sunset, which is the hour of the Phoenix, who may be compared to Horus (see 333), who is the antagonist? Some versions of the legend say it's Set, and the battle goes on eternally, every morn and dusk.
Hrumachis is Hor-em-akhet, the Sphinx, whose other name is Re-Horakhty according to the Dream Stele. The passage is saying that Hrumachis (i.e. Ra-Hoor-Khuit) will arise out of the seat in the East to make way for the double-wanded one.
That's very clever. Crowley tried to get around Hrumachis being a god by claiming the name means any new course of events. You equate Hrumachis with Ra-Hoor-Khuit, that way you can dispose of both them simultaneously--two hawks with one stone so to speak. Your theory relies on the interpretation of the word arise. While the word can mean to stand up as you suggest, it can also mean: to begin, to occur or to exist; in the case of the latter meaning, Hrumachis will be the sun god that arises at the fall of the Great Equinox, which would make it an event indicative of Egyptian sun worship.
Dwtw
I won't post the whole text of the Dream Stele, but it's readily available, and it clearly call the Sphinx by two different names, Hor-emakhet and Re-Horakhty.
And yes, the theory rests on the interpretation of 'arise'. I always thought it meant that Hrumachis would follow on RHK at the next Equinox of the Gods. But eventually I realized that it made no sense to follow one Aeon of Horus with another Aeon of a different Horus. And that it also made no sense to conclude that since RHK is the "lord of the Double Wand of Power", that he would be replaced by a "double-wanded one" who is just himself in another guise.
I was asked 'why have a new aeon without a new law?", when a similar question is 'why have a new aeon without a new god in the East?' I don't think the successive aeons are just a macrocosmic imitation of the journey of the sun across the sky. If that were the case, then the alleged previous Aeons of Isis and Osiris would not fit into the pattern at all.
Ra-Hoor-Khuit introduces himself as the Lord of the Double-Wand of Power, thus showing he is the double-wanded one, which lends further credence to the conclusion that a form of Horus is the god that will arise/rise on the morning of the Great Equinox. Given the meaning of both god names is Horus of the horizons, it explains why they both wield a double-wand, with it consisting of a symbol for the horizons.
It is interesting to speculate that the Double Wand of Power makes RHK the 'double-wanded one', but again, succeeding Horus with himself doesn't make a lot of sense. Also, the terminology is ambiguous. RHK does not say he wields the 'Double Wands' in the plural, but 'double-wanded' could be construed as meaning a god bearing two wands, (which is very rare in egyptian iconography).
It's interesting that Crowley treated Ra-Hoor-Khuit and Hoor-paar-kraat as different faces of Horus, while exercising a double-standard in his treatment of Hrumachis by denying him Horus-status. Crowley does so in order to project the quasi-egyptoid freemasonry of The Golden Dawn into verse III:34, when there is no real evidence for it. One of Crowley's limitations was an inability to introduce anything truly new to the paradigm, always reverting to what he already knew to explain things, as opposed to embracing new potential and possibilities, and breathing life into them.
I would have to agree with that. He does seem to skirt the issue of Hrumachis, but he was either confused himself, or knew that Hrumachis was not the next god to come. After all, he called the next aeon 'the Equinox of MA', which doesn't seem to refer to Horus at all.
I feel obligated to point out the absurdity in a futuristic aeon 2000 years or more away, being structured around, or somehow another defined by a Golden Dawn ritual. How does that work exactly? Did the Egyptian gods observe the Equinox ritual of the Golden Dawn, and were so flattered by their quasi-egyptian role-playing, they decided to model a rather lengthy futuristic period after it? Or did members of The Golden Dawn, by dint of their extraordinary magical abilities, literally conjure not one, but two aeonic time periods into existence that comprise thousands of years? It's a real mess from the standpoint of religion or magick!
This is a valid criticism. It's also a chicken-and-egg problem. I don't think the G.D. conjured anything into existence; but they were in the right place at the right time to sense an energetic shift in the world. The same is true of Fr. Achad. He had an inkling that something was changing, and called it 'the incoming of the Aeon of Ma'at'. Crowley was instructed to write about this shift in terms of the changing officers of the G.D. ritual, because that's what he understood. And one of the first things he recognized, even before Liber AL was written, was that Horus was the new Hierophant.
Given the limitations of describing these successive 'aeons' in terms of the G.D. ritual, it remains the case that that is exactly what Crowley wrote down in Liber AL. And the next god in line in that ritual is Themis/Ma'at. I think your criticisms of the paraphernalia are valid, but that's what we have to work with. Despite the limitations and seeming absurdity, AC made it clear in his commentaries that the next Aeon would be related to Ma'at.
Litllwtw
O.L.
It is now my duty as ask a final question - the answer to which will determine the next mini-yuga ...
During his initiation into daily life, To Mega Therion declared (wrote) that he had come across some "truth," and it was so terrible that he wondered how his previous, fellow Magi were able to continue doing the work.
The 64-Trillion (inflation, you know) dollar question is ...
Can you give up the
Terrible Secret of a Magus
or Not
?
Dwtw
The secret you refer to is dealt with in the last chapter of Liber Luxorat, one of the Holy Books of the MA-ION. These consist of about a dozen channeled writings from 2020-2022, culminating in Liber MA vel Laudum, which in total are about the same length as the Holy Books of Theléma. They can be found on lulu: Holy Books of the MA-ION
The compilation also includes a commentary on Liber Luxorat, which is a sevenfold regimen of alchemy that is structured in a similar way to Liber Ararita.
These Holy Books also appear (without the commentary) scattered throughout the text of the book explaining the revelations of the Next Aeon, also on lulu: The Aeon of Amon.
Unlike the 93 Current, in which Liber AL forms the beginning and the other Holy Books are based on this foundation, in the 97 Current, The Book of the Seven Spirits and Liber Carrus form the foundation, and the rest of the books elaborate on these, culminating in Liber MA. So The Book of the Lauds did not appear in a vacuum, but is the result of the successive revelations of Nuit, Amun, and Ma'at.
Litllwtw
O.L.
@threefold31 Forgive my intrusiveness but, thank you for the references cited. NOW IT IS STARTING TO MAKE SENSE.
The secret you refer to is dealt with in the last chapter of Liber Luxorat
But it has not been revealed, in plain everyday lingo without accent or nasal twang. I will make this easier.
The terrible secret of a Magus, described in no detail by Therion, which caused him to pause, wondering how his previous fellow Magi could continue (knowing this terrible secret), previously posted by me on some thread in some lonely hall, but nobody retorted, can be made plain and openly disclosed in three words - with or without a period or exclamation at the end.
Note: If the word "It's" is de-conjuncted to form It is, then there will be four words in the cold clear truth.
it also made no sense to conclude that since RHK is the "lord of the Double Wand of Power", that he would be replaced by a "double-wanded one" who is just himself in another guise
Gods change and develop over time. One can be a higher manifestation of another. Maybe coming more in to fullness as the Aeon itself unfolds.
But I also think that the claims of new Aeons or currents are manifestations of the current Aeon being mistake for something new. Babalon and Maat's currents could be the manifestation of balancing forces that Crowley neglected due to his phallocentrism.
But I'm a heretic and a Black Soror too. 😉
Note: If the word "It's" is de-conjuncted to form It is, then there will be four words in the cold clear truth.
But is not Maya the Magician's tool when some things are understood fully?
Kenneth Grant states in The Magical Revival-
"In The Book of the Law appears a reference to the Egyptian god Hrumachis or Hor-Makhu. The name means 'Horus of the Star' and Hrumachis is described by Aiwaz as being beyond the present Aeon, as Sirius is beyond the Sun, for this can be interpreted in terms other tan those involving the sequential flow of time. It is probable that in this concept Crowley saw an adumbration of the Hidden God who will not therefor eventually "assume my throne and place," as is written in The Book of the Law, but wo is already throned, hs been and will be, forever." -Kenneth Grant
Gods change and develop over time. One can be a higher manifestation of another. Maybe coming more in to fullness as the Aeon itself unfolds.
But I also think that the claims of new Aeons or currents are manifestations of the current Aeon being mistaken for something new. Babalon and Maat's currents could be the manifestation of balancing forces that Crowley neglected due to his phallocentrism.
Dwtw
That's an interesting perspective about something 'new', but it seems like it might be a distinction without a difference. People can disagree about which god will arise, and when it will happen, but at the very lest we can agree that Liber AL indicated there would be another expression of a 'magical current' (for lack of a better term) after the energy that erupted in 1904 had run its course; or that it would be enhanced by another energetic structure. I believe this is why the Ma'atians speak of a 'double current'.
Whether it's called a new 'aeon' or not (a word that is not in Liber AL), something is going to change. That could be Babalon coming to the fore (or Babalamun); and/or that could be Ma'at stepping up as the arbiter of the Law that was established. And as you say, these could be forces that balance out the emphasis on the 'force and fire' of RHK. And although this is mitigated to some extent already by Nuit the Star Goddess, she is not a mother goddess (the word 'mother' is not in Liber AL). This lack is balanced by Maut, whose name means 'mother'.
If one is willing to paint with a very broad brush, it would be fair to say that Liber AL exemplifies the Love of the Serpent, and Liber MA exemplifies the Love of the Dove, as per AL 1:57
In Liber AL, the words snake or serpent appear 9 times; dove appears only once.
In Liber MA the word dove or doves appears 9 times; snake or serpent or cobra appears 11 times, mostly in the same context that it appears in Liber AL.
These figures suggest that while not denying the power of the snake, Liber MA is balancing it with the power of the dove.
Litllwtw
O.L.
threefold31, does Book of the Lauds (from now called botl), in any sense whatsoever pertain to this statement within AC's BOTL?:
"Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies; another woman shall awakethe lust & worship of the Snake; another soul of God and beast shall mingle in the globed priest; another sacrifice shall stain the tomb; another king shall reign; and blessing no longer be poured To the Hawk-headed mystical Lord!"
threefold31, does Book of the Lauds (from now called botl), in any sense whatsoever pertain to this statement within AC's BOTL?:
"Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies..."
Dwtw
The passage you cite from verse 3:34 follows directly after the mention of Hrumachis. Examination of the holograph shows no break in the continuity of the writing, and yet the wording suggests a poetic interlude in the Crowleyan style. It seemingly refers to the conditions which will prevail when the current of energy shifts to a new Aeon, with a new officer as Hierophant.
Liber AL gives AC a few different titles, one of which is the Prophet, both capitalized and not. The word is used a total of 25 times, and once more as a generic term for the ‘prophets’ of the past (and future?), who are ‘true’.
In the present case, this future prophet is supposed to bring ‘fresh fever’, which could mean a lot of things (COVID-19?); the word fever is ultimately from Latin fovere, to heat or warm. But here it might be taken poetically. Nevertheless, its presence helps to define the role of this ‘prophet’. Using the English gematria of Trigrammaton, and comparing it with a Greek equivalent:
601 = Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies
601 = Mantis – meaning ‘one who divines, a seer, a prophet’
My motto as a Magus is Omega Logion, with a gematria of 1082, which is identical with the word Iatromantis – a physician and seer (Iatros – physician; mantis – seer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatromantis
As defined in classical Greek, a Mantis could be loosely called a ‘prophet’, but the term Prophétés has a more specific meaning than Mantis. A prophétés is”:
A.1. one who speaks for a god and interprets his will to man,
A.2. title of official keepers of the oracle at Branchidae
A.3 interpreter, expounder of the utterances of the Mantis
A.4 possessor of oracular powers,
A.5 generally, interpreter, declarer
It is the third definition that is most interesting here, and shows the distinction between the Mantis, who performs a divination or has a vision, and the Prophet, who interprets or expounds on it.
Crowley being Crowley, he worked within his known parameters; if there was a prophet in the Aeon of Horus, then there would be a prophet in the Next Aeon too. But In Liber MA, the word ‘prophet’ does not appear. It is changed to Seer, and this is a different function. The gematria of the sentence above (601) itself supports this change. Where Liber MA says ‘seer’, it might just as well say ‘mantis’.
But I imagine what you are really getting at is whether or not this passage refers to me. The answer is yes, IF the passage is referring to the person who will announce the Next Aeon and assume the function of the previous prophet (and scribe - per verse 1:53) of the words of the gods. But the caveat is that this function is no longer one of a prophet, but of a mantis. I make no claim to be a Prophet, as I have already said. That is Crowley’s role, with a capital P and a lower-case p. He fulfilled this role along the lines of definitions A.1 and A.5. In Liber MA, this role has been changed to a Seer. I interpret this in the sense of a Mantis. And as the seventh child of a seventh daughter, I’ve had second sight my whole life.
Litllwtw
O.L.
at the very lest we can agree that Liber AL indicated there would be another expression of a 'magical current' (for lack of a better term) after the energy that erupted in 1904 had run its course; or that it would be enhanced by another energetic structure. I believe this is why the Ma'atians speak of a 'double current'.
I prefer the latter, believing that the Aeon is still unfolding and manifesting "new" elements in the world. Certain people, like Parsons, Achad, and Nema, and perhaps outside of the Thelemic world, de Naglowska, manifesting balancing "feminine" aspects, and others bringing through initiatory and other magickal aspects. I just personally believe that its too early for an entirely new Aeon at this point.
Whether it's called a new 'aeon' or not (a word that is not in Liber AL),
But a word that we all know here and can use for convenience and clarity of communication
That could be Babalon coming to the fore (or Babalamun); and/or that could be Ma'at stepping up as the arbiter of the Law that was established.
Or they could be manifestations of the same element or current withing the main current. The Dove to complement the Serpent, to use your metaphor.
And although this is mitigated to some extent already by Nuit the Star Goddess, she is not a mother goddess
I see Nuit more like the unmanifest, from which the manifest emerges, while the others take a more direct hand.
In Liber AL, the words snake or serpent appear 9 times; dove appears only once.
Unsurprising given that it's articulated through Crowley's consciousness.
threefold31, earlier in this thread you state that "all the Holy Books are open to interpretation.", does this mean that you regard The Book of the Lauds as a new addition to The Holy Books of Thelema?
("The Holy Books of Thelema is a collection of 15 works by Aleister Crowley, the founder of Thelema, originally published in 1909 by Crowley under the title Θελημα, and later republished in 1983, together with a number of additional texts, under the new title, The Holy Books of Thelema, by Ordo Templi Orientis under the direction of Hymenaeus Alpha." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Books_of_Thelema )
And with (AC's BOTL, Chapter 3: verse 34.) "... Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies...", pertaining to you threefold31, how does the following from the same verse pertain to you?:
"34. [...] another woman shall awakethe lust & worship of the Snake; another soul of God and beast shall mingle in the globed priest; another sacrifice shall stain the tomb; another king shall reign; and blessing no longer be poured To the Hawk-headed mystical Lord!"
a word that we all know here and can use for convenience and clarity of communication
By using the O.M.-defined Aeon system of 2000 years, where Horus is aligned with Aquarius, and women ruled the societies starting 4000 years ago, which is the one "we all know," we indeed know what is meant by an Aeon. The same may be said for QBL.
Then some people make changes, in concepts and numbering or words fill/kill, and that's fine. I'm sure everybody will scramble to support and personally adopt any changes in our definition of reality as soon as the "proof" is displayrf.
In this case, I do not mean proving a point by argument or by numbers, or by philosophical stance. I merely refer to something issued that strikes a spark in some other person's brain. It's like when you're a writer, an artist, a starving actress, or anything else ... if you have the gift, you will set fires in people's minds.
Then further, along come heretics like myself and others I won't name and drag into the ring (octagon), and we see that Aeons vary, even by AC's own standards, from 2400 years to 1900 years; that Aquarius starting and 1904 are separated by ~600 years; and that the history books have been re-written to hide the Queens, Empresses, and High Priestesses who ruled the planet from 2000 BCVE to 0 (zero) BC/ADVE ... or maybe 500 BC, when Ankh lived and brought in the Aeon of Osiris (overthrowing the rule [aeon] of Isis and those clucking women who ran everything, everywhere).
So, yeah, we recognize an Aeon in general communication. But bring one detail into perspective for anal-ysis (Aeons or QBL, your choice), and multiple warheads war-threads may be launched.
threefold31, earlier in this thread you state that "all the Holy Books are open to interpretation.", does this mean that you regard The Book of the Lauds as a new addition to The Holy Books of Thelema?
Dwtw
No, I don't, and I'm not sure why you would ask that. The Holy Books of Thelema were scribed by the Prophet through the mediation of his Holy Guardian Angel. See my note above. Liber MA is one of the Holy Books of the MA-ION. These were scribed by me through the mediation of my own Angel. But Liber MA in particular is so closely allied with Liber AL, that it suggests they are derived from the same Source.
And with (AC's BOTL, Chapter 3: verse 34.) "... Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies...", pertaining to you threefold31, how does the following from the same verse pertain to you?:
"34. [...] another woman shall awake the lust & worship of the Snake; another soul of God and beast shall mingle in the globed priest; another sacrifice shall stain the tomb; another king shall reign; and blessing no longer be poured To the Hawk-headed mystical Lord!"
I don't think the rest of the passage refers to me, assuming that the globéd priest is not the same personage as the prophet that will arise. This seems ambiguous. We might assume that the woman to come is another priestess such as the Scarlet Woman, but if so, is she consorting with the prophet or the priest? Or both? If she is supposed to consort with the Seer to come, then this person has yet to manifest, but I'd be happy to encounter her.
469 = another woman shall awake the lust & worship of the Snake
469 = Nuith (in Greek)
In Liber AL, the scribe is called 'the prince-priest the beast', and this seems to be echoed in the coming of the 'globéd priest' who mingles both 'god and beast'. So one could argue that the prophet and priest are one and the same in this passage. I don't know what 'globéd' is supposed to mean. And I'm not sure who the 'king' of the Aeon of Horus was ( a generic kingly person?), so I have no clue who it might be this time around. Since the whole section is poetry, it's deliberately vague on specifics.
On the topic of changing aeons, I hold the view that the aeons are not necessarily all the same length. The Hindu Yugas get increasingly shorter, for example. And the conditions on earth in 1904 were so radically different from now that it seems silly to assume the aeons will be identically long. If the previous Aeon started ca. 5 BCE, then it took ~1760 years to manifest the industrial revolution. But it didn't take that long to make the next big leaps.
We are in an age of not only increasing change, but an increasing rate of change. Compare how the world changed from ca. 50 BCE to 70AD. Not a whole lot was different. But the last 120 years has seen the rise of so much technology that it is mind-boggling. A person from 1904 would scarcely recognize this world, if dropped into a big city.
And by the way, there is still one person left alive who was born before the Aeon of Horus. The oldest human being was born on February 11, 1904. An amazing 118 years old. When she dies, the last living link to that era will be finally gone.
Litllwtw
O.L.
When you offer some of your interesting Cabalistic number equivalences, should it be assumed that you are using Trigrammaton order and values?
Yes things change, but human nature is a basically the same, with the same potentials and same temptations, only the tools of oppression against human freedom are much more sophisticated.
When you offer some of your interesting Cabalistic number equivalences, should it be assumed that you are using Trigrammaton order and values?
Yes things change, but human nature is a basically the same, with the same potentials and same temptations, only the tools of oppression against human freedom are much more sophisticated.
Dwtw
Yes, I use Trigrammaton if we're talking about English. But it's curious that Liber MA says that capital letters increase the value, and I've never given them any higher value than a lower-case letter; so there may be a new layer of gematria hidden in this work. So I did a test.
We know that Hebrew and Greek run 1-9; 10-90; 100-900, so multiplying by 10 gets you a 'higher octave' as the numerologists like to say. In base 3, the equivalent is to multiply by 3. So what if capital letters are worth 3 times their normal value? I chose to test the word 'Concealed', since this equals 93. And since the letter C is normally = 2, it would then = 6, making Concealed = 97, the value of the name אמון Amun in Hebrew, whose name means Concealed.
But one can also use the Nun final value for Amun to get 747. And this made me ponder again the question posed by WRWB, which may provide a clue to the passage about the next aeon:
In Hebrew, אמון Amun = 747, thus באבאלאמון Babalamun = 783.
A right triangle with legs of 747 and 783 has a hypotenuse of 1082.17
1082 = Omega Logion = Iatromantis.
Therefore, if 'another prophet' (now called the Seer - 1082) is related to 'another woman' (the Scarlet Woman, now called the Babalamun = 783), the result is 'the soul of God and beast' (the god being Amun = 747), mingling in the globéd priest. This mingling makes the hypotenuse, because instead of Babalon astride the Beast, you now have the Babalamun as the gate of Amun. This automatically entails the 1082 by the Pythagorean theorem. So by this logic, the globéd priest is also the coming 'prophet' who is called the Seer.
And then we can revert to Trigrammaton values to show the continuity envisioned by Crowley:
586 = the chosen priest & apostle of infinite space is the prince-priest the Beast
586 = another soul of God and beast shall mingle in the globéd priest
Litllwtw
O.L.
threefold31: "Therefore, if 'another prophet' (now called the Seer - 1082) is related to 'another woman' (the Scarlet Woman, now called the Babalamun = 783), the result is 'the soul of God and beast' (the god being Amun = 747), mingling in the globéd priest."
In the sentence above you state "the god being Amun".
To you as Seer, how does the beast mentioned in the following words quoted from AC's BOTL: "another soul of God and beast", pertain to you?
There has been, and is, much controversy over the nature of the A.'.A.'. and the O.T.O., and over the matter of AC's Thelema being a religion or not.
You state threefold31, that "... Liber MA in particular is so closely allied with Liber AL, that it suggests they are derived from the same Source."
Does this Source provide guidance, advice or instruction[-s], with respect to the lingering controversies[*] surrounding the nature of the A.'.A.'.. the nature of the O.T.O., and the nature of AC's Thelema?
( [*] For example persistent controversies concerning the supposedly original intention of there being only one earthly A.'.A.'., and for example controversies surrounding the nature of AC's Thelema as a being a religion, or not being a religion? )
the Scarlet Woman, now called the Babalamun
I missed this one. 3x31 wrote it - WRWB quoted it - I noted it (now).
There comes a point. This might be it ...
.
There has been, and is, much controversy over the nature of the A.'.A.'.
"The Invisible Order that has no name among men" (and women, too).
Crowley put a name (A.'.A.'.) on it. So, obviously, it's not the real thing (which has no name). It is of the category: Attempted Revelations of the No Name Order in Names and Descriptions.
... and the O.T.O.
Are you referring to the "serious and secret Order" that once was lost, but then got found, Amazing Grace and Me, that re-assessed its public persona and decided to crank up the secrecy par, and become a truly occult org?
... and over the matter of AC's Thelema being a religion or not.
It has gods, worship, and do me reverence ... Of course it's a religion.
For example persistent controversies concerning the supposedly original intention of there being only one earthly A.'.A.'., and for example controversies surrounding the nature of AC's Thelema as a being a religion, or not being a religion?
Aren't you ashamed for posting three controversies in one (A.'.A.'., OTO, Religion) can of worms ?
Shiva: "Aren't you ashamed for posting three controversies in one (A.'.A.'., OTO, Religion) can of worms ?"
My point is that this site is a "... service for visitors and members with an interest in Thelema and/or in the life, works and legacy of Aleister Crowley." (Quoted from this site's Guidelines.)
And with respect to the just mentioned "Thelema" and "legacy of Aleister Crowley.", I wonder if threefold31's statement that "... Liber MA in particular is so closely allied with Liber AL, that it suggests they are derived from the same Source.", is supported by this Source giving threefold31 clarifying and upgrading guidance, advice or instruction[-s] concerning the "legacy of Aleister Crowley", and concerning the "Thelema" pertaining to it?
I am in short asking threefold31, what relevance what that the selfsame threefold31 writes about in this thread, has for the "legacy of Aleister Crowley", and for the "Thelema" pertaining to it?
And with respect to the just mentioned "Thelema" and "legacy of Aleister Crowley.", I wonder if threefold31's statement that "... Liber MA in particular is so closely allied with Liber AL, that it suggests they are derived from the same Source."
This is a duh! The scribe memorized [his claim] AL, then wrote it out, allowing certain [new] words, phrases, and gods to pop into his mind and the script as he scribed.
The source of the pop-ins, as well as all of the channeled, auto-writ, holy documents is based on an abstract, undocumentable, unprovable, subjective opinion that will surely fuel one-hundred and twenty new threads by people who say "It wasn't me," attended by at least seven skeptics who say, It's all in your Mind."
In short, I am asking threefold31, what that the selfsame threefold31 writes about in this thread, has to do with the "legacy of Aleister Crowley", and with the "Thelema" pertaining to it?
Oh, he makes constant reference and comment to AL and Crowley. The Law of Thelema is still intact. A deeper question might be, How does this change anything? (My mind, your practices, his reading list, her diet) (Practical Applications).
WellRead, do have any insight into the terrible secret of a Magus that can be disclosed in 3 or 4 words?
There has been, and is, much controversy over the nature of the A.'.A.'. and the O.T.O., and over the matter of AC's Thelema being a religion or not.
You state threefold31, that "... Liber MA in particular is so closely allied with Liber AL, that it suggests they are derived from the same Source."
Does this Source provide guidance, advice or instruction[-s], with respect to the lingering controversies[*] surrounding the nature of the A.'.A.'.. the nature of the O.T.O., and the nature of AC's Thelema?
Dwtw
I have nothing to say about the 'nature' of the OTO.
As for the 'nature' of AC's Theléma, it's a religion, a philosophy and a method of theurgy.
As for the A∴A∴, let's assume that it stands for Silver Star in Greek, and use the gematria of that term as a clue:
Astron Argon = 945
Maut + Amun + Khonsu = מאוט + אמון + כונסו
In Hebrew these are 56 + 747 + 142 = 945
The Theban Triad IS the A∴A∴
Litllwtw
O.L.
Shiva: "WellRead, do [you] have any insight into the terrible secret of a Magus that can be disclosed in 3 or 4 words?"
Well, with no word[-s], as in silence, Choronzon has few means to deceive you by.
(Sorry for chain posting!)
threefold31, with respect to the purpose of this site to be a "... service for visitors and members with an interest in Thelema and/or in the life, works and legacy of Aleister Crowley.", (quoted from this site's Guidelines), what is your point with this your thread on this site?
...what is your point with this your thread on this site?
Dwtw
The 'point' was stated in the original post, which is the typical way one starts a thread on this forum.
Litllwtw
O.L.
threefold31: "The 'point' was stated in the original post, which is the typical way one starts a thread on this forum."
In the original post you state that "... scribed by scribed by Omega Logion 9°=2□ (= you threefold31), Liber MA is the continuation of the work of To Mega Therion 9°=2□ (= Aleister Crowley), and the evolution of (Aleister Crowley's) The Book of the Law.
threefold31, do this "continuation of the work of To Mega Therion 9°=2□ (= Aleister Crowley)", and "evolution of (Aleister Crowley's) The Book of the Law.", actually matter or cause any appreciable difference, concerning the selfsame Aleister Crowley's Thelema?
Well, with no word[-s], as in silence, Choronzon has few means to deceive you by.
Accepted as Insight Into the Secret. It could be trimmed to four words, No Words in Silence, and thus qualify for recognition.
threefold31, do this "continuation of the work of To Mega Therion 9°=2□ (= Aleister Crowley)", and "evolution of (Aleister Crowley's) The Book of the Law.", actually matter or cause any appreciable difference, concerning the selfsame Aleister Crowley's Thelema?
Dwtw
The 'appreciable difference' originates in the totality of words that are different in Liber MA compared to Liber AL. The most obvious examples are that the three gods are different. These are the words of the ruling gods of Thebes.
Keep in mind that the Stele of Revealing originated in Thebes, as did the scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, who is described as the "warrior-lord of Thebes". And the names of the Theban Triad all appear on this Stele; Maut in the father's name, while his mother was chantress of Amun-Re. And of course Khonsu is in the very name of the scribe, which means 'he lives for Khonsu', or more loosely 'my life is in the Moon'.
So it is no surprise that Khonsu is the speaker of chapter 3 of Liber MA, and this is quite different in tone from the voice of Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
It's also important to note that when Ankh-af-na-khonsu walked the earth, the main gods of his town of Thebes were Amun, Maut, and Khonsu. The god that he was a priest of - Montu - was small fry compared to them, and isn't even mentioned in Liber AL, except in the versification of the Stele inscription. This is a point that seems to have eluded the numerous commentators on Liber AL over the years - why was a priest of Montu the scribe of a book that doesn't even include him?
The origin of this magical current in ancient Thebes is one of the reasons that I say both Liber AL and Liber MA seem to have come from the same Source.
Another major difference is the non-English word found in verse 1:39. Where Aiwass dictated that ׳the word of the law is Theléma', Amiens dictated that 'the word of the lauds is אמונה Emunah'. One instance is Greek, the other is Hebrew. One focuses on Will, the other on Truth.
We know that the concepts of Theléma and Do what thou Wilt feature in the work of Rabelais, long before Crowley. In a sense, this part of his work is a continuation and evolution of the work of Rabelais. So we should not be surprised if this work, in turn, also continues and evolves. And part of that 'magical link' is found in Thebes. Crowley alludes to this in Liber VII, chapter 3, verse 1:
"I was the priest of Ammon-Ra in the temple of Ammon-Ra at Thebai."
Litllwtw
O.L.
... The scribe memorized [his claim] AL, then wrote it out, allowing certain [new] words, phrases, and gods to pop into his mind and the script as he scribed.
Dwtw
That's more or less what happened. I first read Liber AL in 1983, and sometime in those early years I memorized it. Much study over the years reinforced that awareness. This knowledge was taken advantage of by Amiens in order to have me scribe the work.
I hiked about 6 or 7 miles into the Badlands. Then I did a lengthy meditation of the word AMN, the only word in Liber AL that is not in an English dictionary (besides Theléma). At some point my Angel told me to write this word down, without telling me why. As soon as I did, the rest of the words began flowing as they were told to me. Each chapter took about an hour and a half to scribe, each one on a different day culminating on 22-11-22. That alone is a clue as to what the Book is about. Just take a close look at the main word of the title - LAUD.
The source of the pop-ins, as well as all of the channeled, auto-writ, holy documents is based on an abstract, undocumentable, unprovable, subjective opinion...
And yes, the source is subjective and unprovable, just like with Liber AL. In the end, all you have to go on is the content of the text.
Litllwtw
O.L.
Just take a close look at the main word of the title - LAUD.
To give an expanded view of LAUD, add APP up front.
At some point my Angel told me to write this word down, without telling me why.
Just out of curiosity: did you write it down per hand? Will there be a facsimile available to check out chapter I,verses 54 & 55?
Just out of curiosity: did you write it down per hand? Will there be a facsimile available to check out chapter I,verses 54 & 55?
Dwtw
I won't be making scans of all the pages, but I think it's legitimate to check out this passage. So it is here appended. The verses were not numbered in the original.
One thing I notice is that twice the letter 'T' almost touches the letter 'Y' above it; the first time it's sort of reminiscent of the 'circle squared' glyph in AL 3:47
Litllwtw
O.L.
And yes, the source is subjective and unprovable, just like with Liber AL. In the end, all you have to go on is the content of the text.
Right. There are two ends to this spectrum. At one end, we have Aleister, who says AL was dictated by a praeterhuman entity and our only chance is to make contact with such being(s).
At the other end, we find Dr Jung, who says all this stuff comes out of the unconscious ... to which we all have access ... if only we could find our library card.
Somewhere near the middle, we have Frater Shiva, who goes with Jung, but cites AC because my own experience(s), some of them, receive transmissions [audio, visual, or both] that seem to be coming from another being. By seem, I mean, dammit, he was talking to me and telling me this stuff.
Then i also like to quote AC where he says everything is just a projection of one's self, but it is more convenient to put it all outside.
I have gone through periods where my belief system registered ...
1. Messages and symbols delivered to me from outside my circle (of awareness).
2. The same, but with the perception that this is coming from me, but outside my normal range of awareness. A momentary expansion of awareness is implid. This is also called "shifting dimensions" by Hunbatz Men, leader of the Mayan Indiginous Community [Then he did it for our amusement or appreciation].
3. The same, but delivered by me, without any sense of the vision/words coming from anyone else, anywhere. This is the most effective. That is, other folks, to whom the message or description is delivered, display or utter things like, "What?," "How did you know that?," or "Oh, crap! I always thought that was true." This mode implies wu-wei - during and after such a delivery, there is a sense of absolute neutrality.
Guess what? Any of these methods work, depending on one's belief system and phase, but only if there's an underlying understanding that that one shares with one's self ...
for everything that arises
within one's sphere of influence
and perception
nor TV & Radio News
or Life on Mars
unless one's willing
to take that grade
Right. There are two ends to this spectrum. At one end, we have Aleister, who says AL was dictated by a praeterhuman entity and our only chance is to make contact with such being(s).
At the other end, we find Dr Jung, who says all this stuff comes out of the unconscious ... to which we all have access ... if only we could find our library card.
Dwtw
I'll take the qabalistic approach to this, and see how that goes.
Verse 1:54 of Liber MA talks about the 'touch' and the 'style' of the letters. Now on that very line we have the word 'letters' which is written with two T's that are loops. But I don't usually write my T's like that, as you can see in many other instances in just that one picture. Also on that line are the two T's that were mentioned in my last post, which touch or very nearly touch, the letter Y above them. So combining these two clues, the line is telling me to look into the T's below the Y's.
Using the trigrams, if you put the Y trigram (200) over the T trigram (100) which happen to be antigrams, then the resulting hexagram is 200100, which is decimal 495. Then you have this match:
495 = thou hast come from the majesty of dread Ammon-Ra.
The duality in this syncretic deity of Amun and Ra could be seen as the duality of the Unconscious and the Conscious - Amun means Concealed, and Ra is the Sun, which symbolizes the Light of consciousness. And I've noted before that Ammon-Ra being attributed to Zeus/Jupiter and the Sun are the Hebrew letters Kaf and Resh, which equal 220, the numeration of Liber CCXX.
So the qabalist would say that Amun is the unconscious me that wrote down those words, while Ra is the external power source that shone a light on me and I wrote down what I saw/heard.
The aggelos/Angel/messenger is the interface between those two. This would be Mercury and the letter Bet, with a value of 2. Add this to Kaf and Resh it equals 222, which might refer to Liber MA verse 1:47 "This seer is aloof with his two, two, two".
In this case, the Seer is aloof, literally meaning 'to windward' and figuratively 'at a distance, but within view'. That one word encapsulates the idea. There is something that seems at times as if it is outside our normal sphere, and yet it is close enough to see it, to receive the light from it.
Note that 'aloof' is a permutation of 'a fool', and the Fool is Air, breath, spirit, a follis or windbag. Which makes it doubly interesting that aloof means 'toward the wind'.
Merriam-Webster: "Loof is a variant of luff, which in Middle English referred to the side of a ship that faces the wind; the earliest meaning of aloof was "to windward." Soon after the word entered English it began to be used to mean “at a distance,” and soon after that, it took on the meaning of “physically or emotionally removed.”
So Lutz got me thinking about the written version, and I counted the lines in the notebook. It took 713 lines to write out Liber MA.
713 = the word of the God enthroned in Ra's seat, lightening the girders of the soul.
Litllwtw
O.L.
Just take a close look at the main word of the title - LAUD.
To give an expanded view of LAUD, add APP up front.
Dwtw
I like that app-roach. and one would think since Laud means to praise that Applaud is derived from it, but curiously it isn't. Instead it comes from Latin applaudere "to clap the hands in approbation" from ad "to" + plaudere "to clap" .
But actually, my clue was to look at the main word of the title and spell it backwards: LAUD = DUAL
Litllwtw
O.L.
Right. There are two ends to this spectrum. At one end, we have Aleister, who says AL was dictated by a praeterhuman entity and our only chance is to make contact with such being(s).
At the other end, we find Dr Jung, who says all this stuff comes out of the unconscious ... to which we all have access ... if only we could find our library card.
From a practical point of view, I think these distinctions blur at a certain point.
... there is still one person left alive who was born before the Aeon of Horus. The oldest human being was born on February 11, 1904. An amazing 118 years old. When she dies, the last living link to that era will be finally gone.
Dwtw
Lucille Randon aka Sr. André has now died, aged 118 years, 340 days. She was the oldest Catholic nun to ever live. There is now no one left alive who was born before the Aeon of Horus.
Elapsed time calculator shows:
February 11, 1904 to April 9, 1904 = 58 days
April 9, 1904 to January 17, 2023 = 43,382 days
November 20, 2022 to January 17, 2023 = 58 days
February 11, 1904 to November 20, 2022 = 43,382 days
So Lucille was born 58 days before chapter 2 of Liber AL was written;
and she passed on 58 days after chapter 2 of Liber MA was written.
Litllwtw
O.L.
... born 58 days before chapter 2 of Liber AL was written;
and she passed on 58 days after chapter 2 of Liber MA was written.
The Patroness Saint of the Aeon of Horus ... and she never once logged in to LAShTAL.
Dwtw
The MA-ION commenced on December 21, 2020
Sr. André died on January 17, 2023. This is Day 757 of the MA-ION
In Hebrew, מא–יון MA-ION = 757
The first definition of Aeon (AIŌN) is a lifetime:
a period of existence:
- one's life-time, life,
- an age, generation
- a long space of time, an age
- a definite space of time, an era, epoch, age, period
Her lifetime spanned one Aeon in the original sense, and three Aeons in the Crowleyan sense.
And on the 757th day of an epoch whose name equals 757, the last link to the prior Aeon was severed.
Litllwtw
O.L.