Home Forums Aleister Crowley Writer the ending of the word

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 65 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32285

    Michael Staley
    Participant
    "bibs_mcgee" wrote:
    Secondly it is that Maat, if anything, is the next Aeon and not a completion of this one (I wrote: “there is a difference between saying that Maat is the completion of Horus … and that Maat will rule the next Equinox when Horus is entirely gone.”)

    I’m fast losing the will to live. Just how many times do I have to reiterate that I never suggested that Maat is the completion of Horus?

    πŸ™„

    #32286

    bibs_mcgee
    Participant
    "MichaelStaley" wrote:
    "bibs_mcgee" wrote:
    Secondly it is that Maat, if anything, is the next Aeon and not a completion of this one (I wrote: “there is a difference between saying that Maat is the completion of Horus … and that Maat will rule the next Equinox when Horus is entirely gone.”)

    I’m fast losing the will to live. Just how many times do I have to reiterate that I never suggested that Maat is the completion of Horus?

    πŸ™„

    Do What Thou Wilt, Mr. Michael Staley!

    I see that my sensing of indignance was right… but oh well, I dont care!

    In relation to this same sentiment I wrote to you in my post above: “Sure, and I am telling you that Hrumachis is not Maat – then I went on to say that not only is Hrumachis not Maat but Maat is not the ‘completion’ of Horus but the successor.”

    I actually went on to repeat myself to make sure you understood me (and you did not), and I said: “There are two points that I made, one in relation to your comments, one that is an extension thereof. “

    Im not sure how much clearer one can be! There is no need for your rolling of emoticon eyes nor is there need to be exasperated. The fact that your will to live hinges on your lack of ability to see you don’t need to explain yourself is quite frightening to me!

    #32287

    KCh
    Participant

    It is puzzling that Staley would be misunderstood in this instance. Read his original comment again, he is making an identification of Hrumachis and Maat based on a few quotes. Not that one completes the other.

    I never thought of him as taking a stance of ‘taking up’ for the author of this book and his conclusions. However, it is interesting that Crowley is more consistent in subscribing the period of 2000 years so much more overwhelmingly than otherwise.

    Also, read III:34 carefully(I will bold the important distinctions, and also notice what I underline and how the use of Hrumachis could be used to signify the dawning sun rather than the actual one who assumes the throne):

    “But your holy place shall be untouched throughout the centuries: though with fire and sword it be burnt down & shattered, yet an invisible house there standeth, and shall stand until the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place. Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies; 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!”

    #32288

    Disingenuous@
    Participant
    "KCh" wrote:
    It is puzzling that Staley would be misunderstood in this instance. Read his original comment again, he is making an identification of Hrumachis and Maat based on a few quotes. Not that one completes the other.

    I recognize that hes not doing it. I am saying Hrumachis is NOT Maat, nor is Maat the completion of Horus. BTW dont expect me to respond anymore – LAShTAL (Paul) bans me on sight because he does not enjoy these ideas apparently.

    I never thought of him as taking a stance of ‘taking up’ for the author of this book and his conclusions. However, it is interesting that Crowley is more consistent in subscribing the period of 2000 years so much more overwhelmingly than otherwise.

    Yes, thats why I said it was ‘consistent.’

    Also, read III:34 carefully(I will bold the important distinctions, and also notice what I underline and how the use of Hrumachis could be used to signify the dawning sun rather than the actual one who assumes the throne):

    Exactly – this is my point. He is the dawning of the sun before someone arises: Thmaist. Hrumachis arose in 1904 too technically.

    “But your holy place shall be untouched throughout the centuries: though with fire and sword it be burnt down & shattered, yet an invisible house there standeth, and shall stand until the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place. Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies; 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!”

    Right. Maat is not equal to Hrumachis, but it says Hrumachis AND (not Maat but) Thmaist (but I will allow the discrepancy since they are both Gods of Justice and such, even though it doesnt mention “Justice” or “Maat” anywhere in that line). Its not saying Hrumachis is Thmaist, its saying they are together perhaps but not the same thing. Thats my point. I made a further point saying theres little justification (beyond Acahd & Nema) for saying the Maat aeon is already here (aside from other considerations like the poster above mentioned about war and such).

    Anyways, farewell. 93.

    #32289

    SteveCranmer
    Participant

    Not to be too pestilential here, but..

    If Hrumachis is the same as the Greek “Harmachis” (or Heru-em-makht, Horus of the Horizon), then it seems pretty close to the idea of Ra-Hoor-Khuit (Heru-Khuti, Horus of the two horizons).

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

    My interpretation:

    In 1904, Osiris “gets up” from the Throne of the East, and Horus sits down. 2000 years hence, Horus will get up from the Throne (i.e., “Hrumachis shall arise”) and Maat will sit down to start her reign.

    Many people seem to interpret the key word “arise” as “arrive,” but I think it essentially means “depart!” πŸ™‚

    And welcome back, Frater Victus. I hope you can stay for a while.

    EDIT: Geez, I guess not. I know this isn’t a democracy, but I for one do enjoy Aum418’s posts, even if I disagree with some of what he has to say.

    Steve

    #32290

    lashtal
    Keymaster
    "Disingenuous@" wrote:
    LAShTAL (Paul) bans me on sight because he does not enjoy these ideas apparently.

    I have no opinion about your voluminous observations and comments and I don’t ban you on sight. You were banned from the site for reasons that were made clear some time ago: since that time you’ve used numerous usernames, but you – the anonymous individual – remain banned.

    #32291

    sethur666
    Participant

    93 all.

    Where in Liber Al does it state that the Aeon of Horis will last a specified period of time? Crowley may have thought so, but then according to 777 (snipped):

    “The Spider is particularly sacred to Tiphereth. She has six legs.

    93 93/93

    Steve W

    #32292

    spike418
    Participant
    "sethur666" wrote:
    93 all.

    Where in Liber Al does it state that the Aeon of Horis will last a specified period of time? Crowley may have thought so, but then according to 777 (snipped):

    “The Spider is particularly sacred to Tiphereth. She has six legs.

    93 93/93

    Steve W

    Thelema Steve

    Many thanks for this ! I don’t think you will ever appreciate just how timely your posting was to me πŸ˜†

    Its enabled me to tie together a couple of “loose ends” that have been dangling in the cosmic winds for some months now…….

    Right am off to my temple now to call the spiders up/in/out and continue the experiment…….

    ALWays (with thanks)

    Spike

    #32293

    Martialis
    Participant

    While the magical “aeons” are to be differentiated from astrological ones (according to some) it is nevertheless evident that there does or should exist a relationship between them. The 2000 marker period is, in my mind, based on the inception/fall of Christianity and since magical/gnostic/theosophical, etc. tradition teaches the law of periodic change it’s supposed to seem reasonable that the aeons preceding and proceeding the Aeon of Osiris should themselves consist of roughly 2000 yrs. Going back to the magical aeon vs astrological aeon dilemma I think it should be noted that while the latter is fixed and immutable the former seems to have the potential to manifest sporadically and perhaps it’s “life” may last as long as it takes in order for it’s Will to be carried out.

    #32294

    OliverStJohn
    Participant

    My book, “The Ending of the Words – Magical Philosophy of Aleister Crowley”, is effectively a new commentary on Liber AL (or L) vel Legis. I would concede that the title could be somewhat misleading, therefore. If I were to have been publishing it now, I might call it “Magical Book of…” or something like that. However, it was never intended to reflect the views of Aleister Crowley – who was more than capable of doing that for himself. Any biographical content is strictly limited to an account, in my Introduction to the book, of the reception of the transmission of Liber AL by Aleister and Rose Crowley.

    With the subject of magical and precessional Aeons, I never found Crowley’s explanation of the “three Aeons of Isis, Osiris and Horus” to be in any way satisfactory. This scheme is only mentioned briefly in my book, before being dismissed. Much more space is given to the Aeon of Hormaku or Hrumachis that is mentioned in Liber AL.

    While I was much gratified to find this post and to see that my work has inspired some intelligent (if somewhat heated!) discussion, I would like to clarify some inaccuracies:

    The title of my book, first published 2007, is “The Ending of the Words – Magical Philosophy of Aleister Crowley”. The price mentioned, in US dollars, only applies to the edition with full colour illustrations. It should not be more than about 50 dollars US at the current exchange rate; I fixed the retail price at Β£31 Stirling. The black and white edition of the book is retailed at Β£14.99, that’s about 25 US dollars currently. There is usually a discount when this book is ordered direct from Lulu. Sellers on Amazon, however, can charge whatever they like! And they do… The book is now in its 3rd Edition and the illustrations, cover art etc. are much improved. It is certainly not overpriced.

    #32295

    Camlion
    Participant

    This was a good little thread in its time, as it demonstrated relatively concisely Crowley’s aeonics theory and how some few would seek to contradict that theory supported (in part) by two brief statements from AC himself, one an abstract quip concerning the relativity of time in the Magical Universe and another a doubt-ridden note on the possible failure of his efforts as Magus, certain misinterpretations of verses from Liber AL – plus a pile of stuff written by others, mostly related to post-AL visions and voices of their own – in an effort to circumvent AC, Liber AL and the Aeon of Horus for their own ends, ends which are often summarized as “Thelema Beyond Crowley.”

    I have my own problems with the uneven nature of AC’s aeonics vs actual historical patterns, but I tend to see the aeonic trinity to date in terms of polytheism-monotheism-Thelema, regardless of timeframe, so I don’t fret too much over it.

    #32296

    Noctifer
    Participant

    πŸ™„

    Yes, Thelema begins and ends with Aleister Crowley, I agree.

    The same way that evolution began and ended with Charles Darwin.

    #32297

    Patriarch156
    Participant
    "Noctifer" wrote:
    πŸ™„

    Yes, Thelema begins and ends with Aleister Crowley, I agree.

    The same way that evolution began and ended with Charles Darwin.

    I would be interested in knowing who made such a assertion and quotes demonstrating such a serious accusation? Otherwise it is just a demonstration of straw-man and have more to do with your own insecurities than the one you project these ideas into.

    The only thing I have seen here is an attempt at demonstrating that one can’t really (if read carefully and in context) use Crowley as an source of authority for claiming heterodox ideas about his Aeonic procession of world history. While you might disagree with the notion that this attempt was successfull, doing such a thing is a far cry from declaring that Thelema begins and ends with Aleister Crowley.

    In fact, considering that those that advanced such heterodox ideas were the ones bringing in Crowley as a source of authority for their own heterodox ideas in the first place, by quoting him, taking them to task over such quotations is an entirely valid part of this discourse as it focus on the argument rather than the person. It is a legitimate expression of disagreement in an entirely civil form adhering to the rules of rational discourse.

    In the future, please go after the ball rather than the person when someone has the nerve to express views you find calls your own into question and I think you will soon find discussion to be much more pleasant and we will all find that we will learn a little bit more as well about the strengths or weaknesses of arguments rather than the perceived flaws of your adverseraries and that you harbor an need to call attention to these.

    #32298

    Camlion
    Participant
    "Noctifer" wrote:
    πŸ™„

    Yes, Thelema begins and ends with Aleister Crowley, I agree.

    The same way that evolution began and ended with Charles Darwin.

    It won’t surprise you to learn that I’ve heard this snide shit a number of times before, but I always reply simply that if it weren’t for Crowley we wouldn’t be discussing the Word of the Law, Thelema, today – hardly anyone would be discussing the word at all. The antecedents would be fading even more quickly into oblivion than they already are and ‘those who came after’ AC would be much less than they are for never having known of him.

    #32299

    lashtal
    Keymaster

    Meanwhile, back to the thread…

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 65 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.