Perhaps not harsh, but a little ill-mannered of me. My apologies.
Back to the Cairo Working.
Best wishes,
Michael.
So your point was . . . ?
Dwtw
I've seen a similar sentiment made many times in many forums. That Liber AL has traces of Crowley in it, because it was filtered through his mind. But I have to disagree that this is necessarily true.
This may have been the case in the other Holy Books, inspired by Aiwass, but how could it be true in the case of a Book that was literally dictated to him? If it IS true, then that implies some of the words in the text were not dictated by Aiwass, (we know of a couple cases for sure, such as the Five Pointed Star).
I think it's a fair question to ask whether there is any information in Liber AL that A.C. could not have known; if there is, it would certainly bolster the claim that the Book was dictated, not just written by A.C.
So you may be correct to say much of the material was an upwelling from A.C's unconscious, but if so, then the 'dictation' story isn't quite as it has been porrayed by A.C.
Litlluw
R.Leo Gillis
"If it IS true, then that implies some of the words in the text were not dictated by Aiwass, (we know of a couple cases for sure, such as the Five Pointed Star)."
Aside from the lines scribbled in by Rose, AC did write (I believe in The Equinox of the Gods) that II:69 was entirely his own thought, not the dictation of Aiwass.
93,
In A.C.'s commentary to AL III 19, he gives the account of how he discovered the true meaning of this verse and that, "The circumstances are so striking that it is well worth the while of the lay reader to become acquainted with the nature of the reasoning which attests the praeter-human character of the Author of this Book." Motta makes the following commentary to A.C.'s account, which I thought might be of interest to this thread in general, but also it light of the past couple of posts.
One asks oneself, could he really be so naive as to believe this reasoning? And that this was sufficient proof of the existence of discarnate intelligence to a truly sceptical mind? The answer is yes in both cases. It would never have occurred to him that a careful preparation on his part of all the keys in the MMSS, and a steady 'play-acting' for the rest of his life, would be just as possible.
The point of the matter is, the Book has been fulfilling itself in the life of mankind steadily, ever since the days of its dictation. This is a much more convincing proof than any that could have been presented by the scribe. Also, personal research brings evidence of the Intelligence behind the writing, and of other Intelligences who evidently "are of us".
More: even had Crowley prepared all the keys himself, and 'play-acted' the rest of his life, the extraordinary reach of the hidden meanings of the Book of the Law, its psychological depth, the almost unbelievable wealth of its insight, would be sufficient evidence of the exceptional quality of the Mind who wrote it. Were we to believe that it was the "scribe and prophet" himself the author, this would just be added justification for obeying him. For surely this would have been a man much more worthy of obedience than Jesus, Buddha, or Karl Marx.
And yet, what is the injunction given by this man to each who would obey him? "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
93 93/93
phthah
I fail to see what is "reductionist" or "dreary" in such a view.
The imagination, the intuition, and "hunches" can't tell us anything about the world...I never would have imagined that this would be a controversial view. Guess I imagined wrong.
This can only be a commentary upon your own personal experience, Los. That of others will differ markedly. Myself, I rely upon a balance between the two, and would be lost without either tool for information gathering purposes. Frankly, I don't see how a valid argument can be made for either one - to the exclusion of the other. Man would be a blind beast indeed if guided by intellect without intuition, or by intuition without intellect.
93,
What has to be taken into account with the reference to the discovery of the benzene molecule, Einstein's thought-experiment about light, or even the discovery of the double helix structure through LSD use (Watson & Crick recently admitted as much) is that scientists could have 200 different thoughts but only 1 could pass scientific scrutiny. These people didn't just take an intuition or a dream and push it onto people or even accept it as truth for themselves (subjectively or as an objective fact). They took that intuition and submitted it to rational, scientific, and in many cases, extremely rigorous scrutiny. This also shows the flip side that science & scientists is not 'cold' or 'rationalistic' entirely as someone put it before - it takes imaginative and daring human beings to be able to do the things we've done with scientific theory (people used to be threatened with their lives with this kind of stuff, also, and people like Giordano Bruno died because of their 'insolence' in such matters).
Also I dont understand why people are getting upset at Los or whomever said that we are talking about how we know things in this thread. We certainly were talking about it although it was also certainly contained in a thread about the Cairo Working. Is it so hard to acknowledge that we might have to discuss how one knows things in a subject like this? i.e. how does Crowley know it was a praeterhuman intelligence & how do we know that it wasn't all just Crowley's mind? They seem like pertinent topics.
IAO131
What has to be taken into account with the reference to the discovery of the benzene molecule, Einstein's thought-experiment about light, or even the discovery of the double helix structure through LSD use (Watson & Crick recently admitted as much) is that scientists could have 200 different thoughts but only 1 could pass scientific scrutiny. These people didn't just take an intuition or a dream and push it onto people or even accept it as truth for themselves (subjectively or as an objective fact). They took that intuition and submitted it to rational, scientific, and in many cases, extremely rigorous scrutiny. This also shows the flip side that science & scientists is not 'cold' or 'rationalistic' entirely as someone put it before - it takes imaginative and daring human beings to be able to do the things we've done with scientific theory (people used to be threatened with their lives with this kind of stuff, also, and people like Giordano Bruno died because of their 'insolence' in such matters).
Also I dont understand why people are getting upset at Los or whomever said that we are talking about how we know things in this thread. We certainly were talking about it although it was also certainly contained in a thread about the Cairo Working. Is it so hard to acknowledge that we might have to discuss how one knows things in a subject like this? i.e. how does Crowley know it was a praeterhuman intelligence & how do we know that it wasn't all just Crowley's mind? They seem like pertinent topics.
IAO131
Great post IAO131, I agree with both your themes.
Epistemologically I'm a Popperian, I think the source of knowledge is irrelevant - there is no source of knowledge that guarantees what's said or written will be 100% reliable, neither the senses nor the intellect nor the intuition. What these sub-systems do is produce potential patterns. Whether those patterns match reality has to be tested, and tested to destruction - i.e. we think up ways of proving ourselves wrong, and if our idea stands up, well, there's still no guarantee it's true, but it's the last candidate standing.
Both the mind and Nature (parent, after all, of the mind) work on a "generate and test" principle. The whole vast system is blind, but one "half" throws out potential patterns, and the other "half" critiques them, and from this process of mutual adjustment, stable patterns come to be, extraordinary complexity arises.
And this is relevant to the subject matter. What we have is a book that people have bothered about enough to reproduce through time. We know the guy who penned it, but it's strongly possible to doubt his story about how he penned it. This is about as much as we can be absolutely sure of.
Intuitively, many here feel the book to be a new Scripture, to be special, just like other religions think they have special texts inspired by God. It's kind of on a level with the Sutras and Tantras of Asia, or some of the magickal Daoist texts, or certain parts of the Holy Bible. But actually, if you look into the history of the production of those kinds of texts from other traditions, it's just as shady and mystifying as the background of the production of Liber AL, with characters just as colourful as Crowley (well, maybe not quite, he's a bit special 🙂 ).
Ultimately those texts stand by themselves; as does Liber AL. The ultimate "authorship" is always the Universe anyway, and whether authored through this or that mouthpiece is a lesser matter (though fiendishly interesting).
And there is always only ever One thing being said by the Universe anyway 🙂
May I remind the readers that 'praeterhuman' is not a word.
Well put. As I have said several times in this thread, I don't think we will ever 'prove' authorship of Liber AL, and I don't care. The point is that the message of the little Book works when put into practice, and failure results when its message is ignored. This is the only thing that can be proven, and so it is the only thing that matters to me.
"Intuitively, many here feel the book to be a new Scripture, to be special, just like other religions think they have special texts inspired by God. It's kind of on a level with the Sutras and Tantras of Asia, or some of the magickal Daoist texts, or certain parts of the Holy Bible. But actually, if you look into the history of the production of those kinds of texts from other traditions, it's just as shady and mystifying as the background of the production of Liber AL..."
I'm inclined to think as Crowley did on this matter, that The Book of the Law represents a new and far greater step in the evolution of religion than has ever been taken by any previous religion, an atheological religion totally independent of theistic focus or obligation, that is instead centered on the unlimited potential of mankind. It is not only far superior to all the religious texts that have preceded it, but also clearly beyond Crowley's abilities as well, in so many ways. It is itself its own testament to the existence of praeterhuman intelligence, which is in my estimation the seat of human potential and --- beyond the scope of time and space yet at once the ultimate basis of all human consciousness --- exactly what we are evolving into, via both magick and mysticism with all that implies --- e.g. art, science, and of course intuition.
Very well put, Aleisterion.
"When I use a word," said Humpty Dumpty [HD] it means precisely what I want it to mean; neither more nor less."
"Therein am I as a babe in an egg" [HaD, at AL 2:49] 🙂
Did Crowley include a HaD/Humpty reference in his "Interlude" in Book Four I don't have it to hand.
Seriously, "praeter" is a perfectly good prefix meaning "beyond". Besides which, "praeterhuman" has 1476 Google references. That settles it; it's a word.
In Crowley's system, as I understand it, the first major task is attaining the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel ... whatever that is ... it seems to belong to the praeterhuman realm. So making contact with the HGA gives tangible experience of praeterhuman intelligence. Having this experience makes it more likely to allow the possibility that others have had this type of experience and can even receive books or other communications from this realm.
Didn't the Eaglet in Alice and Wonderland say "Speak English! I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and I don't believe you do either!".
My own theory is that the intelligence is ante-human no praeter-human.
At the beginning of this thread, lashtak, Owner and Editor, describes "three main possibilities", with respect to "the reality, truth or significance of the Cairo Working".
The second of these are "2: That Crowley, on his third (?) visit to Egypt in a matter of a year or so, had become sufficiently absorbed in Egyptology that his experimentation with "automatic writing" (which term I use here to describe the process of producing documents from the subconscious) inevitably resulted in a shadow play featuring the gods and priestcraft of that time."
AC did describe The Book of the Law as "a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing.", on a title page he prepared for it. AC never used this title page, nor include it, in any of the editions of his The Book of the Law published during his life.
AC does in his December 1907 diaries in reference to rest of "the Sacred Writings." that The Book of the Law is listed together with in Liber 61 or Liber vel Causae, written by AC in 1907, state that “Looking back on the year, it seems one continuous ecstasy … I am able to do automatic writing at will.” The title page that AC prepared for The Book of the Law, the Appendix of Volume III of The Works of Aleister Crowley, and all other documents which contradicted AC's later statements from 1909 about how The Book of the Law was written, were never published.
(source: – An Open Epistle On The Cover To Liber AL vel Legis by Frater Achad Osher 583 - - - An Open Epistle on the Cover to Liber AL vel Legis - Red Flame (corneliuspublications.com) )
I have wondered if his extensive and varied experience with drugs, influenced the ability "... to to do automatic writing at will.", mentioned in the above quote from an diary by AC, about writing other Class A texts, or holy books, for his Thelema.
But on the other hand, why shoud AC's drug use have ant influence on his ability "... to to do automatic writing at will.", if many other individuals can the same at will, without any use of drugs?
With respect to Crowley regarding Aiwass as an independent “spiritual creature” or to use his words, "a praeter-human intelligence.", this has some resemblance to DMT user's experiences of receiving communication of information from beings or entities, like for example angels. but "DMT users [...] receive no clear message or revelation.(75) [...] [Endnote 75):] Strassman, DMT & the Soul, 5, 107 - 08.]"
(Source: DMT and Entity Encounters - - - DMT and Entity Encounters - Think Anomalous )
Is there any kind of drug[-s], that can induce the reception of a clear message or revelation of some length?
Is there any kind of drug[-s], that can induce the reception of a clear message or revelation of some length?
No.
Ex cathedra, as one of lashtal's two elderly American druggies.
Drugs + work of some sort maybe. In general i distrust revelations (including AL).
Liber Legis is far too lucid to be anything written on drugs, yet far too elusive, arcane and bizarre (and yes prophetic) to be anything Crowley consciously wrote. The actual contents of Liber Legis, with it's dissonance towards Crowley himself places great difficult in framing the text in the kind of 'con-man' scenario (of which writers like RTC and Peter Grey have tended to do, given that Aiwass doesn't see Crowley with rose-tinted-glasses). The fact of not only Crowley himself struggling with the book on many levels, but Thelemites generation after generation (myself included) having to deal with both the same extreme levels of both aversion and allure towards this particular text, cannot be taken out of the equation when evaluating what Liber Legis is, whether from a devout or a 'skeptics' position.
Though it's quite apparent when given the influence of Thelema on occult-related movements after it (such as Satanism, Wicca and Chaos Magic) that Liber Legis, the Aeon of Horus and the goddess Babalon all have left an inescapable imprint on the world we live in, and that it forms the undercurrent from which movements after it have tried to escape from (only to somehow embrace it within their own attempts to rebel against To Mega Therion 666). The work of figures like Anton LaVey, Peter Carroll and Anton Long (yes I know), all come to mind as figures trying to desecrate Thelema in their own respective ways, as well as create their own worldviews, yet somehow ending up validating certain fundamental aspects of Thelema.
The role of Liber Legis in the modern world reminds me of the famous saying that all western philosophy is "footnotes to Plato", in the same sense everything in the modern world has had the same kind of relation to Liber Legis. All these movements and actual history in so many ways just validates elements (either directly/referentially or indirectly/circumstantially) irrespective on what one's personal views on the reception of Liber Legis actually is.
"There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was." - Liber Legis 2:58
"To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss." - Liber Legis 3:62
Liber Legis is far too lucid to be anything written on drugs
It depends on the drug(s). That is, which one(s)? And, of course, the dharana (shall I say, dhyana)=?) of the writer/scribe.
writers like RTC and Peter Grey ...
RTC has disgraced himself and will not face the music or the muses. I am not familiar with Mr Grey or his comments toward Mr Crowley, but it seems, um, perhaps, biased?
I am not familiar with Mr Grey or his comments toward Mr Crowley, but it seems, um, perhaps, biased?
Yes it is biased actually given that he writes with the agenda of de-Thelemizing Babalon, and so he has a particular antagonism towards Liber Legis while favoring the visions of Babalon in The Vision & The Voice as Crowley's only particular worthy contributions (Prophetic, mystical or otherwise).
It is interesting in that though that Grey shares this paradoxical nature with RTC in the way that he wants to validate a central idea while also trashing everything else (for RTC it's the Aeon itself, for Grey it's Babalon, whereas for Peter J. Carroll it's a mismash of Thelemic things divorced from their contexts and texts).
"There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was." - Liber Legis 2:58
"To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss." - Liber Legis 3:62
However I will admittedly add that I do like Peter Grey's musings over the Babalon Working, there still hasn't been enough literature yet out there which really goes over the content and implications of what Parsons and Hubbard did there.
"There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was." - Liber Legis 2:58
"To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss." - Liber Legis 3:62
Yes it is biased actually given that he writes with the agenda of de-Thelemizing Babalon, and so he has a particular antagonism towards Liber Legis while favoring the visions of Babalon in The Vision & The Voice as Crowley's only particular worthy contributions (Prophetic, mystical or otherwise).
I'm not too familiar with Grey's work, so I can't intelligently comment, but in all fairness, Dee made first contact with Babalon under that name, so she does kind of predate Thelema, and the Vision and the Voice is probably second to AL the most significant document in the shaping of Thelema.
It is interesting in that though that Grey shares this paradoxical nature with RTC in the way that he wants to validate a central idea while also trashing everything else (for RTC it's the Aeon itself, for Grey it's Babalon, whereas for Peter J. Carroll it's a mismash of Thelemic things divorced from their contexts and texts).
At least Aquino gave Crowley more credit, even if he does disagree on the nature of the Aeon
However I will admittedly add that I do like Peter Grey's musings over the Babalon Working, there still hasn't been enough literature yet out there which really goes over the content and implications of what Parsons and Hubbard did there.
This sounds very interesting! I might have to get that book! I've read Freedom Is A Two Edged Sword, Sex and Rockets, Demons of the Flesh,and Jack Parsons and the Fall of Babalon.
Dee made first contact with Babalon under that name
Ooh - more hidden info brought to light. WQhy there's hardly anything AC wrote that had not been writ before. < This statement does not reduce my opinion of AC's capacity to organize and explain things.
Dee made first contact with Babalon under that name
Ooh - more hidden info brought to light. WQhy there's hardly anything AC wrote that had not been writ before. < This statement does not reduce my opinion of AC's capacity to organize and explain things.
"I am the daughter of Fortitude, and ravished every hour from my youth. For behold I am Understanding and science dwelleth in me; and the heavens oppress me. They cover and desire me with infinite appetite; for none that are earthly have embraced me, for I am shadowed with the Circle of the Stars and covered with the morning clouds. My feet are swifter than the winds, and my hands are sweeter than the morning dew. My garments are from the beginning, and my dwelling place is in myself. The Lion knoweth not where I walk, neither do the beast of the fields understand me. I am deflowered, yet a virgin; I sanctify and am not sanctified. Happy is he that embraceth me: for in the night season I am sweet, and in the day full of pleasure. My company is a harmony of many symbols and my lips sweeter than health itself. I am a harlot for such as ravish me, and a virgin with such as know me not. For lo, I am loved of many, and I am a lover to many; and as many as come unto me as they should do, have entertainment.
Purge your streets, O ye sons of men, and wash your houses clean; make yourselves holy, and put on righteousness. Cast out your old strumpets, and burn their clothes; abstain from the company of other women that are defiled, that are sluttish, and not so handsome and beautiful as I, and then will I come and dwell amongst you: and behold, I will bring forth children unto you, and they shall be the Sons of Comfort. I will open my garments, and stand naked before you, that your love may be more enflamed toward me"
Compare with the Nag Hammadi text Thunder, Perfect Mind, believed to have been written some time before 350 ev:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/thunder.html
Compare with the Nag Hammadi text Thunder, Perfect Mind, believed to have been written some time before 350 ev:
YES! Well spotted, I was always struck by the echoes of familiarity in that text.
Some of the Nag Hammadi stuff is quite fascinating. I particularly find the prayer of the Apostle Paul very moving. I'd be willing to bet that it's actually perfectly authentic, something handed down from the earliest days, from Paul himself (bit of an awkward translation but it's translating jargon terms and one assumes it's solid):-
(Approximately two lines are missing.)
... your light, give me your mercy! My Redeemer, redeem me, for I am yours; the one who has come forth from you. You are my mind; bring me forth! You are my treasure house; open for me! You are my fullness; take me to you! You are (my) repose; give me the perfect thing that cannot be grasped!
I invoke you, the one who is and who pre-existed in the name which is exalted above every name, through Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords, the King of the ages; give me your gifts, of which you do not repent, through the Son of Man, the Spirit, the Paraclete of truth. Give me authority when I ask you; give healing for my body when I ask you through the Evangelist, and redeem my eternal light soul and my spirit. And the First-born of the Pleroma of grace -- reveal him to my mind!
Grant what no angel eye has seen and no archon ear (has) heard, and what has not entered into the human heart which came to be angelic and (modelled) after the image of the psychic God when it was formed in the beginning, since I have faith and hope. And place upon me your beloved, elect, and blessed greatness, the First-born, the First-begotten, and the wonderful mystery of your house; for yours is the power and the glory and the praise and the greatness for ever and ever. Amen.
Prayer of Paul (the) Apostle.
In Peace.
Christ is holy.
YES! Well spotted, I was always struck by the echoes of familiarity in that text.
Thank you! Especially striking when you take in to account that the Nag Hammadi library wasn't discovered until 1945.
I'm not sure if Parsons knew of Thunder, Perfect Mind, but he would have known of The Daughter of Fortitude.
Some of the Nag Hammadi stuff is quite fascinating.
Indeed so! I have a hard copy of the translations.
I particularly find the prayer of the Apostle Paul very moving. I'd be willing to bet that it's actually perfectly authentic, something handed down from the earliest days, from Paul himself (bit of an awkward translation but it's translating jargon terms and one assumes it's solid):-
Thank you for sharing, I am familiar that one. In return, you may find this interesting:
https://pentamegistus.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-seven-stelae-daily-hermetic.html?m=1
The one thing about it being authentic is that a lot of texts get attributed to well known figures in order to give them a feeling of authenticity, so while it may be possible, it's no certainty. That said, Paul probably had more contact with the Mystery cults of his day that the actual original Apostles would have, and would show more of an influence from them in his writings.
Indeed so! I have a hard copy of the translations.
Do these texts consider the entire Old Testament God to be an evil ensnarer of human souls?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Do these texts consider the entire Old Testament God to be an evil ensnarer of human souls?
They come from a variety of sects, and therefore represent a variety of beliefs. They also include some Hermetic texts, like the Asclepius, and the Prayer of Thanksgiving.
Here's a lot of everything:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library#List_of_codices_and_tractates
Indeed so! I have a hard copy of the translations.
Do these texts consider the entire Old Testament God to be an evil ensnarer of human souls?
😆
Here's a lot of everything:
"Here's a LIST of everything". Damned predictive text!
Indeed so! I have a hard copy of the translations.
Do these texts consider the entire Old Testament God to be an evil ensnarer of human souls?
Sounds like the "evil Jews rule the world" conspiracy theory.
Antisemitism always finds new ways to reinvent itself.
Aryan-Jesus amirite?
"There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was." - Liber Legis 2:58
"To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss." - Liber Legis 3:62
They come from a variety of sects, and therefore represent a variety of beliefs. They also include some Hermetic texts, like the Asclepius, and the Prayer of Thanksgiving.
Here's a lot of everything:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library#List_of_codices_and_tractates
Thanks, interesting that these texts that are averse to the oppressive Piscean/Dying God Aeon were discovered as the Aeon of Maat was commencing.
Do these texts consider the entire Old Testament God to be an evil ensnarer of human souls?
Sounds like the "evil Jews rule the world" conspiracy theory.
Antisemitism always finds new ways to reinvent itself.
Aryan-Jesus amirite?
It is not the case that I made an anti-semitic statement there and if I would've alternatively stated that Loki and Odin try to ensnare all human souls it would not follow that therefore I hate all Scandinavians either. Furthermore, is that same 'Old Testament God' (which , might I add, Crowley labelled as 'a demon') the basis of Christianity and Islam, religions which encompasses many different races? Besides, Judaism also contains diverse racial groups for that matter so no, when we discuss the Gnostic belief about Archons *(the enemy of....all human not just some) we're not giving credence to Neo-Nazi propaganda. If I'm, not mistaken you committed a fallacy of association there.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Typos here and there in my post are noted.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Thanks, interesting that these texts that are averse to the oppressive Piscean/Dying God Aeon were discovered as the Aeon of Maat was commencing.
All part of the unfolding of the Aeon, and remember that Gnosticism, along with the Mysteries, also formed part of the synthesis of Hermeticism.
It is not the case that I made an anti-semitic statement there and if I would've alternatively stated that Loki and Odin try to ensnare all human souls it would not follow that therefore I hate all Scandinavians either. Furthermore, is that same 'Old Testament God' (which , might I add, Crowley labelled as 'a demon') the basis of Christianity and Islam, religions which encompasses many different races?
"Gnosticism" predates Islam, and was a growing competitor with the gentile religion of Christianity (of note, Christianity also had a dissonant relationship with Judaism as evident as early as Paul's Epistles). Gnosticism derided the Judaism and Jewish culture more than Christianity did, sometimes to the extreme point of denying the Jewishness of Jesus like a certain group in the 20th century did. Christianity hyjacked Judaism, whereas Gnosticism vilified it as the evil of all evils, with YHWH as being negatively seen as justification for prejudices against Jews.
Remember Christians worship Jesus, Jews worship YHWH - strictly speaking (the law of identity, in logic). This just highlights cognitive dissonance in the exotic fetishism in the popular appeal in modern Gnostic propagation. You like Gnosticism because you dislike Christianity, but you vilify Jews themselves within the exact same, identical antisemitic archetype at merely the expense of trashing a separate group who only worship that God in name. Give the Jews a break, they've been through enough.
On Crowley, he actively utilized both YHWH and IAO in Thelemic formula and ritual. He didn't attack Moses or Judaism on any broad level, he respected them (also note Moses is regarded as one of the great Magus' whereas Jesus is regarded by Crowley as a composite myth of deities like Dionysus, which isn't historically accurate but sums Crowley's view on those matters), rather he attacked Christianity especially the fanatical forms of Protestantism he was exposed to. He mocked Gnostic fanaticism in many places, several within Liber Aleph.
"There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was." - Liber Legis 2:58
"To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss." - Liber Legis 3:62
Gnosticism vilified it as the evil of all evils, with YHWH as being negatively seen as justification for prejudices against Jews.
Well, yeah. YHVH was (is) one of those olden time tribal deities, who are always fighting for supremacy over the "lesser" gods. Always remember the first rule - I, your god, am a jealous god. You better not put any of those other dorks ahead of me [my translation].
Frankly, I became ashamed to use YHVH in a banishing, so I switched to Star Ruby to get away from Ye-Ho-Wau. But, then, it would not be appropriate to punish all the Jews. But you were describing a band of Gnostics in the early "Old Aeon," and that was a rough time (sort of like now), and the Gnostics didn't win the ball game.
At that I find it ironic when fellow Thelemites get too caught up in the same old aeon moralism that they criticize Christian fanatics of. You can't really say you've "progressed" beyond them if you've only reversed what they're doing back onto them, that just affirms a dichotomy.
"There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was." - Liber Legis 2:58
"To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss." - Liber Legis 3:62
Frankly, I became ashamed to use YHVH in a banishing,
Really? YHVH is a verb, not the demon of the Old Testament. You don't have to be into Judaism to practice Cabbalistic exercises.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Frankly, I became ashamed to use YHVH in a banishing,
Really? YHVH is a verb, not the demon of the Old Testament. You don't have to be into Judaism to practice Cabbalistic exercises.
In light of the Goetia, you must be admitting something positive to YHWH by calling it a 'demon'.
"There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was." - Liber Legis 2:58
"To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss." - Liber Legis 3:62
Really? YHVH is a verb, not the demon of the Old Testament. You don't have to be into Judaism to practice Cabbalistic exercises.
In light of the Goetia, you must be admitting something positive to YHWH by calling it a 'demon'.
What would you call it, a former and now obsolete guise of New Aeon Gods i.e. the skin shed by Nuit etc?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
What would you call it, a former and now obsolete guise of New Aeon Gods i.e. the skin shed by Nuit etc?
Does not the Demiurge rule over what binds everything in to forms? Forms that must be overcome in order to attain liberation?
Compare with Blake's Urizen.
if you've only reversed what they're doing back onto them, that just affirms a dichotomy.
Alas for Malkuth, where all these factions are at war.
A loose paraphrase from somewhere - probably Liber 333 (the third most-important book in the Thelemic Library (digital or hard copy).
YHVH is a verb, not the demon of the Old Testament
He is the commander of the rape of virgins and the eating of children. I was only being quaint when I said I was ashamed. Ha. I was not ashamed. I was grated-upon.
The so-called god of the early old test was/is Elohim (a plural tittle). The Burning Bush identified himself as "I Am." I don't really know when YHWH first appeared as YHWH, but I don't need that old, old aeon stuff clogging my baggage pack.
In light of the Goetia, you must be admitting something positive to YHWH by calling it a 'demon'.
This is a bit confusing. I do not believe in the Goetia, so that causes problems, right there.
Perhaps we should climb out of the YHWH pit and return to The Cairo Working?
What would you call it
I would call it a tribal deity, one among many, who said to Moshe, "I will be first"
What was it we were discudding about The Crowleys in Cairo?"
if you've only reversed what they're doing back onto them, that just affirms a dichotomy.
Alas for Malkuth, where all these factions are at war.
A loose paraphrase from somewhere - probably Liber 333 (the third most-important book in the Thelemic Library (digital or hard copy).
Book of Lies chapter 5, yes classic riddle.
"Fatherhood is unity disguised as duality"
"There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was." - Liber Legis 2:58
"To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss." - Liber Legis 3:62
). Gnosticism derided the Judaism and Jewish culture more than Christianity did, sometimes to the extreme point of denying the Jewishness of Jesus like a certain group in the 20th century did. Christianity hyjacked Judaism, whereas Gnosticism vilified it as the evil of all evils, with YHWH as being negatively seen as justification for prejudices against Jews.
........... cognitive dissonance in the exotic fetishism in the popular appeal in modern Gnostic propagation. You like Gnosticism because you dislike Christianity, but you vilify Jews themselves within the exact same, identical antisemitic archetype at merely the expense of trashing a separate group who only worship that God in name. Give the Jews a break, they've been through enough.
Fair enough, the argument that (Cathar) Gnostics were a type of breakaway gentle hippy commune region of the South of France who were unjustly brutalized by the Pope's troops doesn't tell the whole story.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Book of Lies chapter 5, yes classic riddle.
I don't think it's a riddle.
Riddle: "Something or someone difficult to understand."
Although I, myself, am difficult to understand (unless I am purposely being very clear), said Chapter 5's conclusion is not difficult at all (for me, who can be difficult). Let's see what it says ...
"Alas! for the Kingdom wherein all these are at war."
Who are "these" (implied combatants)?
Peace implies war.
Power implies war.
Harmony implies war.
Victory implies war.
Glory implies war.
Foundation implies war.
Alas! for the Kingdom
wherein all these are at war.
Bold words in color diditally extracted
from Liber 333 - Ch 5
What sayeth the Commentary?
"The rest of the chapter therefor points out the duality, and therefore the imperfection, of all the lower Sephiroth in their essence."
All this appears (to me) to be a statement of fact, not a riddle. It is another way of revealing "the strife of contending forces," as mentioned in Liber Librae.
For a logical interpretation, I would offer the following abstract ...
We are all stuck in the pit called because,
where we are assailed by contending forces,
on many levels
(some of which are unconscious)
that make us think and drive us mad.
The only way out is to stop thinking
(as implied in Ch 5)