@shiva – You’ve been (metaphysically) banging your head against Crowley’s system for, what... six decades, yet the best you, or anyone else can do is employ terms like: “lacunae... dictionary definitions not applicable... discrepancies... proof-reading marks... logical mind will logically break down... angel gave permission for that alteration... Rose filled that bit in... I am not clear as to how... It seems to me like that... I translate that as...” etc., etc., in defence of a fabrication that is clearly just that and which demonstrably does not work, at all. Conversely, my alternate timeline (the Greater Heresy, as described in Liber Bogus) fits the historical paper-trail seamlessly. It leaves no jagged-edged lacunae, or sink-holes. It reveals Crowley’s wholly unique position as predicting, defining and even precipitating a New Aeon that doesn’t just waft around a Magick circle, but which is currently reformulating all aspects of life on this planet, including us. Oh, yes, and my fully functional version (as described in the forthcoming 666, Sex and the New Aeon of Horus) comes with the Horus Toy™ As Crowley should have said... “The Horus Toy™ is for all!”
Crowleyean orthodoxy can bang its collective head against 666’s construct for another six decades. If so, it will achieve precisely the same degree of success... Or, it can get with the New Aeon it’s been touting for so long!
@lashtal – I’ve been giving your “proof-reading marks” theory a bit of thought and wondered if you’re onto something. Given the editorial attention Crowley / Aiwass lavished on just two incidental pairs, it struck me that the manuscript must be littered with hundreds, if not thousands of comparable technical prompts. Dang thing is, I can’t locate another instance. Can you point me in the right direction, of course, without breaking your sacred vow to the cipher-crackers zip-lip guild? 😣
@ignant666 - How many days is it, now? 🤪
You’ve been (metaphysically) banging your head against Crowley’s system for, what... six decades, yet the best you, or anyone else can do is employ terms like: “lacunae... dictionary definitions not applicable... discrepancies... proof-reading marks... logical mind will logically break down... angel gave permission for that alteration... Rose filled that bit in... I am not clear as to how... It seems to me like that... I translate that as...” etc.,
I'm gladyou mentioned "anyone else," because only two of your quotes can be applied to myself, and one was in ref to a side issue (v5 convincing DDS), and the other one of my clever sarcasms. If you wo9uld only name a few other names, we'd have a basis for a class action suit, charging "context fiddling."
in defence of a fabrication that is clearly just that and which demonstrably does not work
WTF is "defending" what? ("W" stands for WHO). I have certainly not set up any defense for the "Official Cairo Story." In fact, I have a few posts running loose in older threads that explain the source of the conflicting data.
Ignant has told you outright that he don't believe in no Cairo story, nor Wholly Books as well, and that he's interested in what you have to say, if you'll ever get around to saying it.
You are painting a picture of multiple assailants with low IQs and bad intentions. You are either paranoid or throwing out false accusations in order to keep "name recognition" parading constantly before potential clients.
If so, it will achieve precisely the same degree of success..
Success in What? ("W" stands for what? Since there is only one legitimate, proper, and true goal in all this widespread circus show, it seems like success in anything else is just plain ole Black Magic. If you're talking about anything other than getting out of this gravity well, that charge (Black Magic) can be included in the pending class action extravaganza.
Regarding the Cairo story and any other metaphysical mysteries involving deceit, forgery, false witnessing, channeling, auto-writ, etc (and another etc because there's a LOT of these tales), you have obviously confused me (et al) with someone who GAS ("GA" = Gives A)("S" = Sovereign).
I had, some notion that this thread had to do with an open sourced challenge or concern to solve a certain riddle, to which I presume had been started by some hints put forth by a certain "Faustian"....So in case any one missed it, here is what Faustian posted the other day...On a different thread with an interesting hint!
@hadgigegenraum this thread seemed far more interesting (and researched) than the gibberish being promoted in the other thread.
This is the other thread!
Have fun and take three step back...
HG
I had, some notion that this thread had to do with an open sourced challenge or concern to solve a certain riddle
93, HG!
That's what I hoped for too but unfortunately a) the thread degraded into some personal battles at times b) it now sounds more like a big fun advertising alley for RTC and c) I fear that the solution to the riddle that was intended to prove without a doubt that AC faked it all and would introduce some mysterious adept and would sink Crowley's ship forever is now only a small footnote to the Liber Bogus Greater Heresy which "is the best anyway", although it had not a real impact so far to Crowley Researchers, Adepts, Fans and Scholars worldwide as far as I see it until now, because while interesting, stays unproven.
Well, let's see
Love=Law
Lutz
I had, some notion that this thread had to do with an open sourced challenge or concern to solve a certain riddle,
No, it's only to do with "For Sale and Wanted" - hadn't you heard?
the gibberish being promoted in the other thread.
This is the other thread!
Nutti, Nutti? Neti, Neti?
put forth by a certain "Faustian"...
Is faustian therefore (the holder of the real secrets solution) in his apparent certainty the true "Magickal Heir" (& if so, what's his "Authority")?!
Have fun and take three step back...
… and then take away the first cabbalistically significant number you thought of
Yours with jiggery-pokery,
N Joy
Nutti,Nutti?Neti, Neti?
Naughty Netty! These double negatives with juxtapositioning are beyond the scope of my practice. I don't know whether to Shinola or go blind.
Here's a thought: What if somebody hints at some concept that is not in the thread, and furthermore is not defined by the poster his/herself, and everyone else avoids them like the cryptovirus?
Implication is neither the whole of the Law, nor even part of the Law.
if so, what's his "Authority")?!
We (you and I and those other fellows, maybe a lady if there's one in sight) will review the evidence at the Grand Tribunal, or was it the Class Action Suit? There's so many committees, councils, courtrooms, cultural biases, and covert agendas that I can't keep up. Let me channel a message (not a Law) from myself when I was ...
"The authority, synchronized with all other aspects of his holiness, will arise of its own accord, and it will be self-evident in the power of his radiant aura. The solutions he brings to daily life, longevity without senility, and assorted mental puzzles, will also be simple, practical, and self-evident. Even the dimmest bulb will say, "Oh, that's what it means!"
That authority. It's the only one that will actually fly.
… and then take away
"NeighI None shall be taken away except those who imply, insinuate, insult, or otherwise hint or openly proclaim that they are "next" in line to be the great pretender."
Yeah.
this thread has derailed into personal sniping and battles too much.
Sadly.
Faustian gave some hints to a solution, paul lashtal seemed to agree and rtc followed them and his nose.
that is where my enjoyment has come from.
...physically printing from my computer the Cairo map and the page from Liber A/L (and Stele) and trying to see where they fit.
this thread has derailed into personal sniping and battles too much.
Sadly.
Oh, c'mon. It happens to every thread. It's not derailed, though. You see, it's like waiting at a train station. The announcer sez: "No train 'til April." So what will the waiters do? Drink Alcohol, play card games. Eventually some body insults another body. It's the waiting!
Now, you can put it on track by adding something new, or revelatory, or mystery solving, or like those.
I guess its one reason why the population of lashtal continues to wane and a small core continues on.
its a waste of a great resource and shame of what could be.
but as you say ‘c’mon it happens to every thread..’ which gives one pause.
True the waiting to the April unveil may be irritating to some. I guess the early books sent out to Kidneyhawk and (?) are a chance for feedback and outside proofreading and fact checking. Plus feedback on the ‘solution’ and whether it works,...or not.
As to putting it back on track i have frequently referred to this thread and the 1904 thread with posts by paul lashtal and faustian as giving hints to the possible solution.
along with RTC in this thread (whichever way he may rub you) - has also offered via pm to give hints towards the solution - which i took him up on.
also i keep going back to the Cairo Map, the line and circle squared page (and the Stele) as starting points).
rtc has recently let loose which letters and numbers he is using as to the cipher.
i think there is more than enough instructions and hints to set us to work (without any brooding or noodling).
so lets get to it, we have more than enough people here well familiar with Crowley and his written works to do this.
*in before someone quotes ‘as brothers fight ye’.
I say..fight within against your own passions.
I guess its one reason why the population of lashtal continues to wane and a small core continues on.
I don't know if that (first part) is correct. There used to be LAShTAL and a few other sites. Now there's several other sites. Some went from here to there because there was less strict. Heru-ra-ha is very strict. But it's a "teaching site" so, you know, you gotta keep order in the classroom.
LAShTAL is semi-strict. One can get away with arrogance and the thread derailing has to be pretty strong to get locked. Some people who leave here, by virtue of resignation or "Your Account is Closed," and who have whispered in my ear, say that the rules here are way to strict. They also had fiery temperaments.
but as you say ‘c’mon it happens to every thread..’ which gives one pause.
Just because people here are interested in AC, and some try to act like him, but this is not a society where credentials are needed to get in. This site is a pretty good reflection of the whole ... the parts include almost every aspect of everything we get in both the mainstream and alternative news media. It's our job, and anybody else's who sticks around, to filter all that Shinola into relevance to AC or his associates or his work.
Let me restart you from your pause. Not every thread ends up in a digital fist-fight. Some just die of old age. Others end up coming to some consensus conclusion. Others yet get locked, usually due to one person going insane, but sometimes two will lock horns, or somebody will potty-mouth the moderator. Fiery temperaments - did I mention that?
has also offered via pm to give hints towards the solution - which i took him up on.
Insider Trading. A clear admission of complicity in occult (hidden) dealings ... via the Prime Minister, no less.
so lets get to it,
Is this a homework assignment? What if I, "or any otherguess ass," didn't enroll in this course?
Nice reply.
i always enjoy your wording and banter 🙂
- but didnt get a pass to the next pylon.
needz moar non attachment twainingz 🙂
@newneubergouch2 – You’ve been cheating on me with another group!!! There is no emoticon where I am...
@lashtal – I’ve been giving your “proof-reading marks” theory a bit of thought and wondered if you’re onto something. Given the editorial attention Crowley /Aiwass lavished on just two incidental pairs, it struck me that the manuscript must be littered with hundreds, if not thousands of comparable technical prompts. Dang thing is, I can’t locate another instance. Can you point me in the right direction, of course, without breaking your sacred vow to the cipher-crackers zip-lip guild? ☹
@ignant666 - How many days is it, now? 🤪
@rtc
an emoticon for you 🙂
and a splash of emoticons for all lashtalians
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
now everyone (and no one) is special
🙂
@lashtal – I’ve been giving your “proof-reading marks” theory a bit of thought and wondered if you’re onto something. Given the editorial attention Crowley / Aiwass lavished on just two incidental pairs, it struck me that the manuscript must be littered with hundreds, if not thousands of comparable technical prompts. Dang thing is, I can’t locate another instance. Can you point me in the right direction, of course, without breaking your sacred vow to the cipher-crackers zip-lip guild?
@ignant666 - How many days is it, now?
@lashtal – I’ve been giving your “proof-reading marks” theory a bit of thought and wondered if you’re onto something. Given the editorial attention Crowley /Aiwass lavished on just two incidental pairs, it struck me that the manuscript must be littered with hundreds, if not thousands of comparable technical prompts. Dang thing is, I can’t locate another instance. Can you point me in the right direction, of course, without breaking your sacred vow to the cipher-crackers zip-lip guild?
@ignant666 - How many days is it, now?
Other than screwing up the spacing on "Crowley/Aiwass" in two different ways (and why is the "/" in bold in both?- proofread!), these posts, on two consecutive days, are identical.
RTC is decompensating hard.
- but didnt get a pass to the next pylon.
YOU are not on trial here. Only the candidate gets pushed through the Pile-ons; or is it - only the accused or self-proclaimed soothseer get to Pile-on the barrels. Your charges of (gasp) occult communication are not serious enough to send you down Pylon Lane.
I guess its one reason why the population of lashtal continues to wane and a small core continues on.
You would have been right a year or two ago. We were down to fewer than a dozen regular posters, and the occasional drive-by.
However, this place has been busier than a hooker with bunk beds since then, with many old-timers coming out of the wood-work for the first time in years, and several new-comers as well.
There are more posts per day here than at the much-more-accessible reddit Thelema group, and of course the quality of discussion is (generally, with certain exceptions) considerably higher than is the case at over that Thelemite's kindergarten.
Now back to your regularly scheduled RTC decompensation/ narcissistic rage acting-out.
As a service to RTC, who may be unable to consult a calendar, due to his, um, issues, 38 more shopping days til RTC "drops the bomb" on the Cairo story, and "proves" (again) that "Ol' Fakey" was a big fake faker who faked AL.
No definite release dates yet claimed on publication of the Pirie watermark evidence, or the Rose Crowley diaries, or the "Horus Toy".
Now back to your regularly scheduled RTC decompensation/ narcissistic rage acting-out.
ICD (International Classification of Disease): 93-24-89-ALGMOR (messianic manic syndrome). This is an insurance code for getting reimbursement for medical/psychiatric services from health payers.
"Ol' Fakey" was a big fake faker who faked AL.
Blavatsky faked the identities and natures of the Mahatmas. This was not a praeterhuman claim ... just superhuman. But it was false spin. So, is there a "fakir" or a "make up" clause in the rules for getting one's philosophy on the road?
the Pirie watermark evidence, or the Rose Crowley diaries, or the "Horus Toy".
So many hidden aspect. Mystery upon and under Mystery. It's a good thing the final solution will (must) be simple and self-evident.
@ignant666 – How many days is it, now?
@lashtal - ... any sign of those “proof-reading marks”?
@shiva – I’ve just found a quote that should clear-up all this ‘Authority’ ambiguity to the satisfaction of even @michael-staley, @nassah, and @threefold31, but probably not @the_real_simon_iff...
““Also He conferred upon D.D.S., O.M., and another, the Authority...” - Amidst this cryptic sleight-of-hand, I note that the “He” responsible for doing all the conferring is none other than Crowley himself - In his exalted guise of “V.V.V.V.V..” (The legendary ‘V5’ Magickal engine!) Given this further plot-twist, it appears that Aiwass conferred on Crowley Authority enough only to self re-confer Authority, in order to confer on Jones (Crowley’s occult senior) Authority to immediately confer Authority on Crowley.
I bet Jones wished he’d never asked!”
(Extracted from The Race to Conquer eLGMOR – The Lesser Heresy)
It is said that the "Horus Toy" delivers on all the promises AC made- it is said to be the most powerful magickal tool yet devised.
One wonders- is the "Horus Toy" powerful enough to evoke into visible form the Rose Crowley diaries, and/or the Pirie watermark evidence?
Aiwass conferred on Crowley Authority enough only to self re-confer Authority, in order to confer on Jones (Crowley’s occult senior) Authority to immediately confer Authority on Crowley.
This is too complex. People are usually known to say, "The Devil made me do it!"
@ignant666 - It will precipitate for you these wonders. Though in strict conformity with your subconscious bias, rather than a reflection of absolute fact. During the event, you will mistake this transient morph for reality. Which, in fact, at the time, it is.
@shiva - Didn't Crowley say that that The Devil conferred Authority on Aiwass in the first instance?
@lashtal - ... any sign of those “proof-reading marks”?
Didn't Crowley say that that The Devil conferred Authority on Aiwass in the first instance?
I don't remember reading that anywhere. Do you have a reference?
He certainly dealt with the Devil in other contexts.
Not that it fits, but is some how relevant as it is related, the quote will be familiar to most lashtalians.
"let names stand as they are, and to proclaim simply that AIWAZ, the solar-phallic-hermetic ‘Lucifer,’ is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and ‘The Devil’ SATAN or HADIT, the Supreme Soul behind RA-HOOR-KHUIT the Sun, the Lord of our particular unit of the Starry Universe. This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade ‘Know Thyself!’ and taught Initiation. He is ‘the Devil’ of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is BAPHOMET, the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection."
"I had decided on AIVAS = 78, the number of Mezla, the influence from the highest unity, and therefore suitable enough as the title of a messenger from Him."
the solar-phallic-hermetic ‘Lucifer,’ is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and ‘The Devil’ SATAN or HADIT, the Supreme Soul behind RA-HOOR-KHUIT the Sun, the Lord of our particular unit of the Starry Universe.
You bumped my memory ban, so I made a withdrawal, and (lo) remembered that one.
I can go with Luci fer he's an an angel, but fallen like me and thee. I get the Hadit part. But the DEVIL stuff loses credibility when AC says, "There is no Devil - it's an invention of the black brothers."
Thanks for the reference.
The other interesting side journey is:
“Aiwaz is not (as I had supposed) a mere formula like many angelic names, but it is the true most ancient name of the God of the Yezidis, and thus returns to the highest Antiquity. Our work is therefore historically authentic, the rediscovery of the Sumerian Tradition.“
“Aiwaz is not (as I had supposed) a mere formula like many angelic names, but it is the true most ancient name of the God of the Yezidis, and thus returns to the highest Antiquity. Our work is therefore historically authentic, the rediscovery of the Sumerian Tradition.“
That's a stirring passage.
“Aiwaz is not (as I had supposed) a mere formula like many angelic names, but it is the true most ancient name of the God of the Yezidis, and thus returns to the highest Antiquity. Our work is therefore historically authentic, the rediscovery of the Sumerian Tradition.“
Yes, this passage has been quoted or referenced quite a few times over the past decade. It is usually cited when gathering evidence that AC had a very widespread definition of who and what Aiwass was/is.
Please note that Aiwass spelled his own name as Aiwass in Liber L/AL. But then AC found that Aivas/Aiwaz added up to 78, so he changed the spelling to accommodate the numerological scenario. This is a fine example of "QBL Fiddling," which is also sometimes known as "Crowley Qabalah."
The Sumerian Tradition was essentially a tale of commerce between Sumerian Sorcerers and demons. The Summertime Agenda doesn't work the same way today, for the legends tell us that the nature of "reality" has changed since those golden olden days. For one thing, mental power (creative thinking - usually selfish) no longer results in instant gratification.
This passage is yet another example of AC talking per vas nefandum. He may well have believed these things to be true (given his advanced skills in the areas of self-delusion and selective scholarship), but scholarship in English on these matters has advanced light-years since his time.
There is no shred of evidence that there is the slightest truth to these statements. Yezidis are not, as generally supposed in AC's day (based on the slanders of their Muslim neighbors), "devil worshipers".
Nor is there any evidence that they have ever called their god anything like Aiwass/Aiwaz.
And the Yezidi religion only resembles "the Sumerian Tradition" in that Yezidis occupy a nearby geographic area.
Finally, these things (Yezidi, and Sumerian, religion) bear no resemblance whatever to Thelema/AL.
Is it so hard to imagine a God using a different name? Many gods had varying names and titles, and were often seen as a single Pantheon with direct correspondences, thus even more names!
I say Aiwaz is Set, I think it's confirmed by AL chIII. I think the name was used for its numerological value of 93, as that's the type of being Aiwaz seems to be into.
Is it so hard to imagine a God using a different name?
Like Zeus checking into a motel with another god's wife and signing in as "Mr and Mrs Smith", you mean? Yeah, maybe.
But when one makes statements like the one AC made, one is speaking in terms of historical truth, which is determined by evidence, not revelations, or numerology.
So, AC was talking out his ass, or believing false things he learned from the limited amount of scholarship about Yezidis, and Sumerian religion, available in his lifetime,
Either way, he's dead wrong, in terms of historical truth, and evidence. He very often is, about things outside his own experience; there, of course, he mostly lies.
Please note that Aiwass spelled his own name as Aiwass in Liber L/AL. But then AC found that Aivas/Aiwaz added up to 78, so he changed the spelling to accommodate the numerological scenario. This is a fine example of "QBL Fiddling," which is also sometimes known as "Crowley Qabalah."
Not true. Crowley changed the spelling Aiwass to Aiwaz because he was told by Samuel Bar Aiwaz that it is the correct spelling; it was afterwards that Crowley learned the spelling enumerates as the value 93.
There is no shred of evidence that there is the slightest truth to these statements. Yezidis are not, as generally supposed in AC's day (based on the slanders of their Muslim neighbors), "devil worshipers".
Crowley never claimed the Yezidi are 'Devil worshipers'. The recent efforts to wipe out the Yezidis by Muslims in Iraq is because their prime deity, Melek Tau, is also known as Shaitan, and Muslims most certainly correlate Shaitan with Satan.
If I'm not mistaken, it was also Samuel Aiwaz that told Crowley Aiwaz is another name for Shaitan, hence the link to the Yezidi.
Here's a lecture that touches on many interesting parallels of the Yezidi beliefs and Thelema:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIzpMYA6r84&feature=youtu.be
For those who don't want to spend the time required to watch this video, the part where this apparent (c)OTO member, speaking to an audience at a (c)OTO lodge, concludes that AC basically made this up, or was deluded by poor scholarship, starts at about 1:39.
He concludes by saying, in lots of trying to find support for Crowley's false claims re the Yezidis, the "Sumerian Tradition", and Aiwass/Aiwaz, he could find no support whatever for them, but thinks it all might be still be true anyway, in a "less literal" sense.
People whose heads are not filled with mush use the term "false" for things that are "less 'literally' true".
I say Aiwaz is Set
But you say everything is Set. You have obviously performed the Assumption of God Forms practice, and have become obsessed.
Crowley changed the spelling
"Change not the style of a letter." If L/AL was true "automatic writing," then the spelling would be correct as first written. If AC "heard" a word, then spelled it phonetically, then it wasn't "autowrit" but "dictation." Both terms have been used, and they are not the same thing.
The point is, he "changed" this (and other things) after the fact. Thus, any changes were mental, not "gnostic" channeling.
People whose heads are not filled with mush use the term "false" for things that are "less 'literally' true".
There's a lot of that going around. People don't seem to realize that all this stuff is illusion, names made up by people and attached to forces and entities that may or may not exist at any level, except the illusionary astral plane.
People whose heads are not filled with mush use the term "false" for things that are "less 'literally' true".
Isn't everything in magick where this applies (and especially in some of the work by Kenneth Grant, who wrote extensively on the 'Yezidi-Sumerian connection' and who may have actually invented the practice if not the term) known as "Creative Occultism" (the same as "Creative Gematria", "Creative Qabalah" et al), though ?
Yours creatively
N Joy
and who may have actually invented the practice if not the term) known as "Creative Occultism" (the same as "Creative Gematria", "Creative Qabalah" et al), though
What is the antithesis of Creative Occultism, Creative Gematria, or Creative Qabalah?
People whose heads are not filled with mush use the term "false" for things that are "less 'literally' true".
Have you ever read any Lakatos or Feyerabend, ignant?
Is it so hard to imagine a God using a different name?
What is a god? And more importantly, what is a name?
Not at all a philosophy-of-science guy, but i think both were pretty clear on the post-Popper idea that science proceeds by testing falsifiable hypotheses.
I don't think either would support a methodology that fails to find any evidence at all for a thing but affirms it anyway because a Goo-Roo figure said it was so.
What is the antithesis of Creative Occultism, Creative Gematria, or Creative Qabalah?
"You talkin' to me?" Assuming you are there (for the reason that you are quoting me back at me) I would say scientific illuminism, or the aim of religion conjoined with the method of science; science here being regarded as the commonly or 'traditionally' perceived consensus of reality based upon verified past hypotheses and collectively confirmed empirical observation (as distinct from a sort of solipsistic subjectivity). At its most extreme, this antithesis could manifest as degenerate mindless dogma, however.
I don't think either would support a methodology that fails to find any evidence at all for a thing but affirms it anyway because a Goo-Roo figure said it was so.
Could this be interpreted as a cue for those supporters of Kenneth Grant (in terms of the 'Yezidi-Sumerian connection' & his creative occultism already referred to) to stand up?
N Joy
For some time, I've much preferred “The Aim of Mysticism, the Method of Magick” over the maxim Crowley sought to popularize. What IS “evidence” in this regard? Austin Spare was regarded by Grant as one of those artist-magi who traveled into the Beyond and returned to give an aesthetic account of their voyage. We find in such an example: experience...which is real (a real experience). One may then argue that such experience is subjective and cannot be brought to bear upon the larger experience of the human race en masse (as one may demonstrate laws of Newtonian physics via repeat experiment). But this is not necessarily so. We may witness this phenomenon, for example, in the inspiration for, creation and manifestation of Beethoven's 9th. Subjective and inner plane creative impress serves as the mental-astral framework for a communicative expression. My point here is to simply indicate that the (ahem) “non-literal” is neither non-existent nor “false,” of necessity. The means by which we estimate the value of any such thing (or its component elements) will be relative to other factors.
One may also argue that Grant utilized Gematria in a very different way than Crowley. There is more appeal to something of Dogma or Objectivity of the system for Crowley who, indeed, wishes to PROVE certain things. Grant comes right out and says he is not interested in proving anything.
I thought the term “Crowley Qabala” was humorous and apt. For one who could write in such clean, sharp and incisive prose when it came to matters of deep mysticism, Crowley can also seem clumsy, uninventive and “try-hard” when he attempts to torture certain words and names into pet numerical evidence. Returning to the conversation at hand, Crowley's “re-interpretation” of Aiwass is a very suspicious example of the latter. This is something treated at the onset of Richard's book.
Crowley can also seem clumsy, uninventive and “try-hard” when he attempts to torture certain words and names into pet numerical evidence. Returning to the conversation at hand, Crowley's “re-interpretation” of Aiwass is a very suspicious example of the latter. This is something treated at the onset of Richard's book.
A lack of tools or language required to correctly define a phenomena has no bearing on whether it exists or not. For all of the accolades the Qabalah receives within the Thelemic community, I never viewed it as a means for determining or demonstrating truth, which is its fatal shortcoming as an instrument of science. If Crowley is to be faulted for anything, its for not developing the tools needed to explain his experiences, but he should not be criticized for trying.
Oops
now i derailed things:
here is a Yezidis thread:
https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/the-yezidis-and-the-peacock-angel/
It's been a week since we heard from RTC, hyping his book and various prophetic accomplishments- should we be concerned?
Some unkind persons might voice concerns that he may have been carried off to a padded cell, tightly strapped in a straitjacket, raving incoherently, and foaming at the mouth, but i would not be among those who would countenance such irresponsible speculation.
And anyone suggesting that all of the above may have taken place after a dramatic chase down the local high street, with RTC fleeing husky white-clad attendants from the local loony-bin wielding a giant butterfly net, just like in a cartoon, should just stop that.
should we be concerned?
YES. ouch2 derailed RTC with Yezididian concerns, which is not really a derail, because of Aiwass' former sheath, you know, in Sumeria, which turns out them Yezidis worship Shaitan not Aiwass ... so there you go. Happy, Sleepless Nights.
I predict RTC will return on or before Foolish April's Day.
i would not be among those who would countenance such irresponsible speculation.
Yeah, yeah. He also might have been taken directly into heaven/paradise, valhalla by God himself ... without suffering mortal death. This sort of thing has been historically reported, so it must be true, and MUST be considered a possibility.
butterfly net
... wielded by Indra and/or SpongeBob SquarePants.
should we be concerned?
Oh, high heavens and holy holes (pits), yes we (some of us, SWIM) should be losing sleep by now. Sleep lost to unraveling ALGMOR-STOVAL RIP, which spelled backward is ...
LAVOT-ROMGLA
LAV OT - ROM G LA
LAVA OT - ROM G LA
Wash Oriental Templars - Read Only Memory [of] G and NOT
Once data has been written onto a ROM chip, it cannot be removed and can only be read.
I have wangled an ‘uncorrected proof’ of RTCs upcoming book and i am on my second reading of it now.
Taking notes for giving feedback to the author as i go...