The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn
333
"Re O'Stat" <us...@mediaone.net>:
>>>> The G.D. is Osirian.
"Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com>:
> At last -- a statement of definition!
with Osiris presiding over an Oriental (Eastern) kiblah,
this has some staying power as a hypothesis.
>>>> By changing it to a Horus orientation it is no longer the G.D.
>
> It can be, since the G.D. is not "Osirian" in that sense -- any more
> than it is "Isisian" or "Setian" or even "Horusian".
>
> The original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's *outer form* as
> developed by Mathers et al. for the Isis-Urania Lodge was indeed based
> on the Osirian mythological cycle. But this is not found in the *source*
> material that Mathers drew from, which is the Cipher Manuscript.
so the buck stops at the Cipher Ms (Mackenzie?)?
> In fact, the whole idea of the "resurrected god"
I think Re O'Stat argued that the reason that this resurrected god
motif was important to GD rites was on account of the importance
attached to transformation and how the death-and-rebirth resonance
mated with 'initiation'. I'm not hearing from you about a specific
replacement for this motif as regards the phenomenon of initiation
or why the methodology can survive intact without it.
> doesn't even become
> relevant until you get to Mathers' Second Order system, which by
> definition is not Golden Dawn, it's R.R. et A.C. Our Order makes no
> claim of being based in any way, shape or form on Mathers' R.R. et A.C.
so are you saying that the original GD never constructed rituals for
those degrees you (and presumably they) identify as RRetAC?
"cock" <cere...@ev1.net> replied to "Re O'Stat":
>>> This thread would have been a lot less annoying if you had just said that
>>> from the beginning. If I understand you correctly, your premise is that the
>>> original G.'.D.'. was a product of the Aeon of Osiris, and a representative
>>> of Osiris. IF this IS what you mean, would I be correct in assuming that
>>> you would have little problem with them if they took the name of an Aeon of
>>> Horus organization, such as Open Source Order of the A.'.A.'.?
>
> A good question! ....
but you didn't directly address it here. so you'd have no objections?
>>> If that is
>>> true, the argument then becomes whether the name Golden Dawn is limited to a
>>> particular godform/Aeon, rather than a system of methodology that can be
>>> adapted for different deities. I would be of the opinion that the
>>> methodology/structure is what makes it the Golden Dawn, not the godforms
>>> involved,
interesting. in religion that would be off-base, because so often the focus
of worship would be the deciding factor. in GD/et al, why does 'methodology'
exclude god(form)s?
> ...The godforms used by Mathers and
> Westcott are allegories for the Forces being invoked, and since
> allegories are only applicable if they are used in context, when the
> context changes, so must the allegories....
why doesn't changing the context also change the methodology?
>>> but I can also see validity in the Osirian/G.'.D.'. :
>>> Horus/A.'.A.'. approach. The debate changes and might become interesting
>>> again. Thoughts?
there's about 4 'systems' wound up and/or attempting to vie
for superiority/concentricity here. Crowley's AA, for example,
attempted to incorporate/replace the Golden Dawn, Rosicrucians,
and, by extension, the Great White Brotherhood as borrowed from
Von Eckharthousen(sp?). why any of these ought to be connected other
than in name is a discussion I don't see happening yet either.
one might compare Crowley's attempt to co-opt Hindu yogic lineages
or Jewish Kabbalistic lineages through adoption of some of their
pieces, misrepresenting them to potential converts.
> Re is correct when he says that Crowley's intention with the A.A. was
> to "supplant" the old Aeon formula used by the original H.O.G.D. Our
> intention is not the same as Crowley's -- our goal is to redact, not
> to replace.
in other words, you didn't shift the whole previous system down into
'precursors' to your own set-up, en par with how the Scottish Rite
and the OTO attempted to do with the Freemasonry, or how the AA
attempted it as detailed above.
> Here's the rub: we're using the G.D. methodology and structure,
at what point must you admit of a departure? that is the real issue,
from what I can see.
> not the A.A.'s.
both the GD and the AA were fashioned as secret societies. by virtue
of Open Source aren't you destroying the methodology of the GD? this
seems the most logical trajectory of argument which someone like Re
might take after disputing particulars of rite that you've admitted.
> Crowley went the whole hog and created a new structure, changing
> the "knowledge" teachings, the Grades, the requirements for advancement,
> the core rituals, the tools, etc.
thanks for detailing these. all of these remain the same in the OSGD?
you've already said that the rites have changed somewhat. I think you
also mentioned that you've changed the knowledge lectures, though I
may be mistaken.
> And in any case, the A.A. is far more
> precisely "tuned" to a particular set of godforms than is the core
> system of the Golden Dawn, as described in the Cipher Manuscript.
there's that buck-stops-at-Cypher-Ms thing again. ok.
> Which is to say, the system revealed in the Manuscript is *much*
> less specific than the one Crowley obviously 'micro-engineered'
> to conform with Thelemic religion, and is therefore more malleable.
extracting the Cypher Ms. from the tradition and extending off of it
according to Thelemic interests seems to be what you're saying is
"redacting the Golden Dawn".
"Secretary ECT":
>> ...the 'magic' of the 'Golden Dawn' has to do with the 'resurrected god'.
>
> We disagree with this view.
so it seems that this is definitely one of the points of disagreement
over the character of what you are creating (godforms involved).
> Our position is based on the fact that such allegorical symbolism
> was wrapped around the fundamental training system of the
> Golden Dawn by Westcott and Mathers.
I thought they were pretty much considered the fashioners of the GD.
you're saying that only the Cypher Ms. matters, it seems.
> It's an outer form, not the core of the system.
> The core of the system is found in the Cipher Manuscript.
how did you determine where the "core" ended and the "outer" began?
it seems rather arbitrary to me, because like Re one might select
something larger and call it "core" and arrive at the opposite
conclusion. is there some precedent for determining this "core"?
> Since most operating GD groups *are* based on Osirian orientation,
this argues for the orientation being "core".
> this sometimes leads to confusion.
it sounds to me as if it may undermine your argument here.
> The most popular versions of the GD
> materials available are from the Stella Matutina, who were clearly
> religious Christians,
did they self-identify as such? I've sometimes desired to identify
others as such but out of respect I realized that my evaluations
would be extreme and tried to keep them at bay. here, you seem to
be evaluating their religion while simultaneously maintaining that
religion isn't really the issue when dealing with "godforms". I'm
not sure you're being consistent and I'd like to hear your response.
> so most people take this to mean that whatever is
> contained in them is *the* "Golden Dawn". It seems as if few people --
> including many GD practitioners -- have ever actually read the Cipher
> Manuscript itself. It can be quite revealing. Many people are surprised
> to find that no godforms whatsoever are represented in the 0=0 Neophyte
> Ritual and Initiation, for example.
so your argument really comes down to the contention that the Cypher
Manuscript constitutes the "core" and nothing else need be maintained
in order to link, methodologically, to the GD in name-brand?
> Most people don't realize how much Mathers et al. layered on top of the
> Mss. There are no godforms in the 0=0 Hall. There are Angelic Names in
> the 1=10 (and throughout all the Grades), used as metaphors for the
> Forces being invoked (expressed in the meanings of their Hebrew letters
> and gematra.) Osiris appears in the 2=9, and again in the 4=7. "Christ"
> appears *once*, and it's a passing metaphoric reference in the 4=7, and
> it's *not* a reference to Osiris. The Main Officers play many godforms,
> even swapping roles -- the Heirus speaks as Osiris in the 2=9. The
> Hegemon assumes the form of Isis instead of Ma'at in one Path, even
> though (theoretically) Isis can't leave the Dais -- she's behind the
> Veil. There are other similar examples. The operative function appears
> to be that the Officers simply assume various godforms (Hebrew, Egyptian
> and/or Hellenic) as required by the Work of the particular Hall.
why isn't this the methodology? what clearly delineates "method" from
"variation on the method"?
> Here's a useful comparison: Any Muslim accepts that the Koran is the
> canonical basis of Islam. However, some Muslims give equal standing to
> other historical Muslim teachings which came later, such as the
> Shari'ah, which dictates the "Islamic Law" meant to govern earthly
> affairs.
the Hadith is probably a better illustration here. Shariah seems
to vary somewhat in its content depending on the court system(s).
> Therefore, to such strict fundamentalists as the Taliban,
> anyone who does not adhere to the Shari'ah is not practicing 'real'
> Islam and has no right to call themselves Muslim. Many Muslims strongly
> disagree with this position, and believe the Shari'ah may have been a
> useful part of Islam *in its time*, but it is no longer a necessary
> guide to life in the 21st century. They believe that anyone who accepts
> only the Koran as the basis of their religion may properly be called
> "Muslim", regardless of whether or not they follow the Shari'ah or other
> subsequent teachings.
but you're dealing in religions again, so this is somewhat confusing.
you see what I'm getting at, don't you? you're using religious analogies
while claiming that what you're doing is not religion per se (in order
to shift the godforms and not be accused of conversion to Thelema).
> Using this metaphor, the Cipher Manuscript = The Koran. All the material
> written by Mathers and others that is NOT in the Cipher Manuscript = The
> Shari'ah. Our Order follows the "Koran", but considers the "Shari'ah" to
> no longer be a necessary guide in the 21st century.
so you're basically Mackenzieist Golden Dawn, were you to agree with some
writers on the subject and come to the logical conclusion that Kenneth
Mackenzie created the document and ciphered it in Trimethian code before
sending it along to Westcott (or passing it on in his paperwork
inherited by him from KM's wife), despite Westcott's subsequent
mythologizing via the fictitious 'Fraulein Sprengel'.
> So this all comes down to (oh the horror!) a sectarian debate.
not quite. Mackenzie didn't ever claim to have created the GD, whereas
I think Mathers and Westcott *did* identify the entirety of what they
created as the Golden Dawn. subtract anything from it or change a part
of it and you have an argument for why you're not doing the same thing
as long as you're not directly connected via lineage. I haven't under-
stood from you why you have selected the Cipher Ms. as a stop-point.
> It's like
> the Catholic theologians telling the Protestants that since they don't
> accept the Holy Trinity, the veneration of Mary, and the apostolic
> succession of the Pope, they aren't practicing "real" Christianity and
> shouldn't call themselves "Christian".
or is it more like Muslims telling Christians that since their prophet
died on the cross or was ferretted away prior to actually dying, he
deserves a prominent place as a teacher but not as God Himself? there's
more than one direction you can come at this (from behind or in front).
> There's a line in the Cipher Manuscript that says, "Avoid Roman
> Catholics, but with pity." Perhaps there is an occult meaning of
> those words that can illuminate this debate.
I gather it is intended to imply the masonic character of the document.
y
r B
o l b
n e e
w s a
o s s
d e t
e d !
.com@nagasiva (333)
Joshua Geller
> I think Re O'Stat argued that the reason that this resurrected god
> motif was important to GD rites was on account of the importance
> attached to transformation and how the death-and-rebirth resonance
> mated with 'initiation'.
It lends itself to a specific, practical, intensely powerful initiatory
rite.
(0) Entomb the candidate so that it is impossible to get free unaided:
bits of rotting corpse optional.
(1) Leave the candidate alone for a good long while. At least overnight,
maybe as many as three days.
(2) Dig the candidate up. Optionally, have sex with the candidate.
This is a very old practice, and has been used by any number of different
groups over the past few thousand years.
.
Joseph
> 50021230 VII let's get back to this again, shall
> we? :>
>
>
> I thought they were pretty much considered the
> fashioners of the GD.
> you're saying that only the Cypher Ms. matters,
> it seems.
>
> > It's an outer form, not the core of the
> system.
> > The core of the system is found in the Cipher
> Manuscript.
The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud, but then
so is the bible, the koran, the torah, the
bhagavigita etc. etc. however i would tend to
class it more with mss like, the donation of
constatine, the protocols of the elders of zion,
various rosecrucian manifestos, the "grimeor" of
your choice, liber legis, and various other
assorted be all end all documents.
i sometimes think there all adult expresions of
marasmus. the only differance between them is in
the amount or number of people espousing the
individual documents.
a need recognized in the indivdiual that religion
is a cutural, collective expression of.
(snipping a whole bunch of my own sciological
snobbery i decided not to post along with a long
winded distertation drawing upon the literature of
child psycholgy to make a point of comparision
about ritual magick & childrens play and the
psychology of magick/religion which i would guess
has all been said before but which however i
saved to file if any ones even vaguely
interested.)
--
Joseph ( The probability for an event which can
happen in two indistinguishable ways is the sum of
the probability for each way considered
separately) Count de Money.
Fr. A.o.C.
I'm going to drop a short note on this one, since it's been brought up.
Our Lodge has NOT eliminated the "dying-and-reborn god" formula from our
rites. Unlike Crowley, we look at incorporating Thelemic elements to the
basic GD foundation much the same way the originators looked at
incorporating the Chaldean materials -- to expand, not to eliminate.
Everyone seems to assume that since we place Horus on the Throne of the
East in our Hall, we've kicked Osiris out completely. Not so.
Our Aspirants encounter Osiris and his Formula in the Portal Grade
(since there is nothing higher than 4=7 in the Ciphers, we can do what
we wilt with it.) The Aspirant dies and is reborn, BUT that is not the
end of the journey. In the 5=6 rite he connects to his or her Divine
Genius, and takes the Throne of the East as the Crowned and Conquering Child.
- Fr. A.o.C.
Fr. A.o.C.
I'm taking a copy of your posting with me tonight as I celebrate the New
Year with Sam (Fr. IO). We'll go over it point-by-point and post a reply
in a day or so.
Hey, let me know next time you (and Cat) make it up this way -- we'll do
caffinated beverages or something. I haven't seen you guys since the
party at Tim's place.
- Fr. A.o.C. (555)
Fr. A.o.C.
Joseph wrote:
> The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud, but then
> so is the bible, the koran, the torah, the
> bhagavigita etc. etc. however i would tend to
> class it more with mss like, the donation of
> constatine, the protocols of the elders of zion,
> various rosecrucian manifestos, the "grimeor" of
> your choice, liber legis, and various other
> assorted be all end all documents.
Absolutely correct! And your point is...?
It's a tenet of Logic that the validity (or lack thereof) of any
statement has nothing to do with it's source; it must be evaluated on
it's own terms. The biggest fool in the world might say it's raining,
but that in itself does not prove the sun is shining.
> (snipping a whole bunch of my own sciological
> snobbery i decided not to post along with a long
> winded distertation drawing upon the literature of
> child psycholgy to make a point of comparision
> about ritual magick & childrens play and the
> psychology of magick/religion
Magick and religion are two different pursuits, IMHO. (However, by own
Chief Adept would not put it this way.YMMV.) So the psychology of each
is different. That's certainly been my experience anyway.
As a professional Tarot reader, does it bother you that what you do
bears such a strong resemblence to "children's play"? (Got any threes?
Go fish!) Does that make it any less valid or useful for the comparison?
Maybe I'll show up on Telegraph Ave. some afternoon and anonymously put
you to the test! See if you can guess who I am! Bwawhahahah...
- Fr. A.o.C.
Joseph
> Joseph wrote:
>
> > The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud, but
> then
> > so is the bible, the koran, the torah, the
> > bhagavigita etc. etc. however i would tend to
> > class it more with mss like, the donation of
> > constatine, the protocols of the elders of
> zion,
> > various rosecrucian manifestos, the "grimeor"
> of
> > your choice, liber legis, and various other
> > assorted be all end all documents.Absolutely
> correct! And your point is...?
the same one you make below
>
no it does not bother me at all, it is a form of
play, i wuppose it i was a state oracle or a
religious oracle i might have a differant
orientation twords what i do, however im convinced
that the ability to "play" is an integral part of
successfull divination as well as magick.
>
>
> Maybe I'll show up on Telegraph Ave. some
> afternoon and anonymously put
> you to the test! See if you can guess who I am!
> Bwawhahahah...
>
> - Fr. A.o.C.
weather permitting, though you might find yourself
in a bit of a guessing game, as its not called
tarot corners due to a paucity of diviners. on
some occasions theres as many differant readers as
there are t-shirt sellers on the ave.
Joseph
no it does not bother me at all, it is a form of
> play, i suppose it, is, or was, a state oracle
Re O'Stat
wrote:
> Hi Josh!
>
> I'm going to drop a short note on this one, since it's been brought up.
>
> Our Lodge has NOT eliminated the "dying-and-reborn god" formula from our
> rites. Unlike Crowley, we look at incorporating Thelemic elements to the
> basic GD foundation much the same way the originators looked at
> incorporating the Chaldean materials -- to expand, not to eliminate.
> Everyone seems to assume that since we place Horus on the Throne of the
> East in our Hall, we've kicked Osiris out completely. Not so.
>
> Our Aspirants encounter Osiris and his Formula in the Portal Grade
> (since there is nothing higher than 4=7 in the Ciphers, we can do what
> we wilt with it.) The Aspirant dies and is reborn, BUT that is not the
> end of the journey. In the 5=6 rite he connects to his or her Divine
> Genius, and takes the Throne of the East as the Crowned and Conquering Child.
>
That's what everyone says when they taken something and put a new spin
on it.
The question is, when does the new spin indicate a completely new path?
When the One who comes from the East is Horus, not Osiris, you have a
thelemic structure, not a G.D. structure.
There's nothing wrong with having any particular structure, as long as
it works. If this structure works for you, great!
It's just not the G.D...open source or otherwise.
Re
Re O'Stat
>
> > The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud,...
>
"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net>
wrote:
> Absolutely correct!
So you're involved with a group which considered the documents upon
which they are founded to be a pious fraud.
Hmmmmmm....
Re
aethyr
what is literally true that is not a priori true?
aa
Deqvf
aethyr
If you have reason for your faith (apologetics) its not faith
wind the mort!
aa
Deqvf
Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat wrote:
That's right, a pious fraud! (At least in the way that they were framed
and promoted by Westcott et al.) Which has nothing whatsoever to do with
the usefulness or accuracy of the information contained in them.
My personal opinion is that Westcott's tale of the Mss coming from
mysterious German Secret Chiefs was a load of dingo's kidneys, second
only to Mathers' subsequent tales of his Second Order material coming
from mysterious French Secret Chiefs. (Why is it they always write their
ciphers in English?) At least Westcott bothered to forge some written documentation.
- Fr. A.o.C.
"The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And
vice versa." -- Lazarus Long
Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat wrote:
> It's just not the G.D...open source or otherwise.
Yes, we know how you feel about it.
However, on a similar note, we take pride in our recent addition to the
Griffin-HOGD™ rogue's gallery of "false" Golden Dawn orders!
http://www.golden-dawn.com/temple/index.jsp?s=articles&p=goldendawn
Huzzah! Fame at last! Call Oprah...
- Fr. A.o.C.
"The opinions that are held with great passion are always those for
which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the
holder's lack of rational conviction." -- Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays
{ Secret Chief }
> Re O'Stat wrote:
>
> > > Joseph wrote:
> > >
> > > > The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud,...
> > >
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Absolutely correct!
Yes, at least insofar as Mathers and Westcott's story about finding
them goes.
But the consensus these days seems to be that they were some of
Kenneth Mackenzie's sketches for one of his various occult orders,
which Westcott picked up when he was looking for the Swedenborg Rite
rituals. And in and of themselves, there's no particular fraud in
them.
But yeah, the story's phony. Is Re surprised at this? Or perhaps
he's located Fraulein Sprengel with the help of his mysterious
'current'.
SwAmI
>
>
> Re O'Stat wrote:
>
> > It's just not the G.D...open source or otherwise.
>
> Yes, we know how you feel about it.
>
> However, on a similar note, we take pride in our recent addition to the
>
What did you expect? "I will respect all religions, seeing that all faiths
contain a ray of the ineffable Light which i seek" and "I spit on your
crapulous creeds" just don't mix, really. How does your Order reconcile
these opposites?
So who runs that particular GD (the link you gave) and which one is run by
the Cicero's? It's all just so confusing. heh
Fr. A.o.C.
SwAmI wrote:
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> news:3E180FDB...@slip.net...
>
> > However, on a similar note, we take pride in our recent addition to the
> > Griffin-HOGD™ rogue's gallery of "false" Golden Dawn orders!
> >
>
> What did you expect? "I will respect all religions, seeing that all faiths
> contain a ray of the ineffable Light which i seek" and "I spit on your
> crapulous creeds" just don't mix, really. How does your Order reconcile
> these opposites?
What opposites?
But seriously folks... one is an admonishment given to an Aspirant
during Initiation: "Remember to treat all religions with reverence, for
there is none that does not contain a ray of the ineffable Light you are
seeking", which was Westcott's rendering of the line from Cipher Folio
8: "Never condemn others religion."
The other statement is a transcript of a godform speaking only for
itself. The godform does not ask anyone else to join it in its spitting
upon the crapulous creeds. So they are not comparable in context or
application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed. Similarly, in many
myths Isis tricked Ra into revealing his secret name by slipping him
poison, and even though we also work with Isis as a godform, we feel no
need to trick or poison anyone either. If working with a variety of
invocatory godforms require that we also adopt every mannerism and
function of the godform as an ongoing personal belief system, we'd be in
a bit of a sticky wicket.
> So who runs that particular GD (the link you gave) and which one is run by
> the Cicero's? It's all just so confusing. heh
David Griffin runs the particular GD which posted that (mostly
incorrect) description of our Order. Chic and Tabitha Cicero run the
particular GD that simply has a link to our site on its Links page.
Avoiding confusion is easy: "By their fruits, so shall ye know them."
- Fr. A:.o:.C:.
"A great warrior, hmm? Wars not make one great." -- Yoda
aethyr
>
> SwAmI wrote:
>
>
>>"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
>>news:3E180FDB...@slip.net...
>>
>>
>>>However, on a similar note, we take pride in our recent addition to the
>>>
>>
>>What did you expect? "I will respect all religions, seeing that all faiths
>>contain a ray of the ineffable Light which i seek" and "I spit on your
>>crapulous creeds" just don't mix, really. How does your Order reconcile
>>these opposites?
>
>
> What opposites?
more 'opposites' on the path? also : portae lucis (liber x) and hamus
heremeticus similarly dominate the text with metaphors along these lines
>
> But seriously folks... one is an admonishment given to an Aspirant
> during Initiation: "Remember to treat all religions with reverence, for
> there is none that does not contain a ray of the ineffable Light you are
> seeking", which was Westcott's rendering of the line from Cipher Folio
> 8: "Never condemn others religion."
>
you mean i can't twist your(my!) metaphors to mean whatever i want? what
kind of a coalition is this, the communist league of america?
republicans are us? <g>
> The other statement is a transcript of a godform speaking only for
> itself. The godform does not ask anyone else to join it in its spitting
> upon the crapulous creeds. So they are not comparable in context or
> application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed.
unless it is of the regular thien tao lesson? see liber xli
> Similarly, in many
> myths Isis tricked Ra
yup
> into revealing his secret name by slipping him
> poison, and even though we also work with Isis as a godform, we feel no
> need to trick or poison anyone either. If working with a variety of
> invocatory godforms
you mean we can't assume Ares was a nice fellow to be around? :)
> require that we also adopt every mannerism and
> function of the godform as an ongoing personal belief system, we'd be in
> a bit of a sticky wicket.
trading one horrible dogma for another?
>
>
>>So who runs that particular GD (the link you gave) and which one is run by
>>the Cicero's? It's all just so confusing. heh
>
>
> David Griffin runs the particular GD which posted that (mostly
> incorrect) description of our Order. Chic and Tabitha Cicero run the
> particular GD that simply has a link to our site on its Links page.
>
> Avoiding confusion is easy: "By their fruits, so shall ye know them."
>
> - Fr. A:.o:.C:.
>
>
> "A great warrior, hmm? Wars not make one great." -- Yoda
great sig! Fr. A:.o:.C:.
aethyr
SwAmI
>
>
> SwAmI wrote:
>
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E180FDB...@slip.net...
> >
> > > However, on a similar note, we take pride in our recent addition to
the
> > >
> >
> > What did you expect? "I will respect all religions, seeing that all
faiths
> > contain a ray of the ineffable Light which i seek" and "I spit on your
> > crapulous creeds" just don't mix, really. How does your Order reconcile
> > these opposites?
>
> What opposites?
>
Well, one seeks to spit on the ineffable Light and the other seeks it.
> But seriously folks... one is an admonishment given to an Aspirant
> during Initiation: "Remember to treat all religions with reverence, for
> there is none that does not contain a ray of the ineffable Light you are
> seeking", which was Westcott's rendering of the line from Cipher Folio
> 8: "Never condemn others religion."
This is something i've been thinking about and having a hard time with. What
if parts of a Religion condemn other religions and/or blinds people to the
Light?
>
> The other statement is a transcript of a godform
I have grave doubts about wether the Entity in Liber Al is what it claims it
is. If Crowley didnt just make it up of course.
speaking only for
> itself. The godform does not ask anyone else to join it in its spitting
> upon the crapulous creeds.
Are you saying that Liber AL hasn't encouraged people to do this? What is
the saying, "Lead by example".
So they are not comparable in context or
> application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed.
So you are expecting your Aspirants to take a serious and solemn oath in the
presence of a god-form [1] that does not respect that oath? How odd.
[1] I doubt very much that the Entity speaking in Liber AL is the same
god-form used by the original Golden Dawn somehow.
<snips red herring>
The Entity in Liber Al also says something like "I scratch out the eyes of
Jesus while on the cross" (I've only read the document once so my quotes may
not be exact.)
An esoteric explanation of a body on the cross is that it symbolises the
Soul crucified on/in the body. The unfolded cube. And the eyes symbolise
ones ability to see and seek the Light.
The story of Jesus healing the blind man is, to me at least, symbolic of
Initiation. Like taking off the blindfold once inside the Temple. On the
other hand though, we have the Entity in Liber AL that prefers to blind the
Aspirant by straching out the eyes.
So you're working with an Entity that disrepects the oaths being taken and
would blind one to the Light. Or am i just twisting things to suit an a
prioi purpose? I have absolutely nothing against you or your order, just
sharing a pov.
>
> Avoiding confusion is easy: "By their fruits, so shall ye know them."
Oh how apt. So what is the fruit like of the Entity talking in Liber AL one
wonders?
--
---
SwAmI Sathyasaishivashaktianandadadevi
aethyr
basic questions:
liber ccc konx om pax (Greek) 'Light in Extention' Eleusian mysteries
liber cl lege de libellum (Latin) 'Law of Liberty'
also called nol (Hebrew) 'sandal strap'
less basic questions:
hamus hermeticus: (Latin) secret fish-hook
<www.hermetic.com>
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib90.html
ultimate questions:
liber liberi
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib7.html
>
> --
> ---
> SwAmI Sathyasaishivashaktianandadadevi
>
>
>
aa
Deqvf
SwAmI
"aethyr" <nospamaethy...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3E1F0600...@cox.net...
"25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the
tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them."
Did Hitler write that? Silver Star= SS? Aiwaz is suspiciously similar to the
rune Iwaz that Hitlers SS used.
I am beginning to wonder of Crowley and the Nazi's were in touch with the
same Demonic entities.
--
---
SwAmI Sathyasaishivashaktianandadadevi
aethyr
the martial language is figurative and is plainly justified or explained
by the title and is sufficiently explicated in the surrounding text to
not be coumfusing in this particularly peurile manner. if this is the
sense you have received from the words, I would start to also question
the martial aspects of the New Testament, and numerous other more
familiar usual suspects. if you insist on twisting the perfectly clear
meaning in Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, conflating it with stupid
Naziism, I am not altogether sure how seriously anyone in the forum is
gonna regard you. Just an FYI.
look at the title again.
liber xc (xc is a roman numeral adding to the arabic 90)
essoterically, this is significant, especially, alongside the latin
words in the title:
hamus hermeticus
Tzaddi is the trump associated with both the numeral 90
Tzaddi is further referred specifically to the trump of the King or
Emperor, assigned astrologically to Aries, hence the martial tone should
be the last thing we are questioning in this liber.
this is by no means the most incisive or orignal of readings proferred
for liber 90, indeed, it is saying almost nothing new at all.
so as to your original question, namely:
So what is the fruit like of the Entity talking in Liber AL
>>
> one
>
>>>wonders?
I will quote directly from liber 90:
20. I ask you to sacrifice nothing at mine altar; I am the God who
giveth all.
Aa
Deqvf
Fr. A.o.C.
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> news:3E1C5871...@slip.net...
>
> > But seriously folks... one is an admonishment given to an Aspirant
> > during Initiation: "Remember to treat all religions with reverence, for
> > there is none that does not contain a ray of the ineffable Light you are
> > seeking", which was Westcott's rendering of the line from Cipher Folio
> > 8: "Never condemn others religion."
>
> This is something i've been thinking about and having a hard time with. What
> if parts of a Religion condemn other religions and/or blinds people to the
> Light?
It may be possible that you are misunderstanding it, as you are doing in
this case. Hence the admonishment.
> > The other statement is a transcript of a godform
>
> I have grave doubts about wether the Entity in Liber Al is what it claims it
> is. If Crowley didnt just make it up of course.
Which really doesn't matter. Any mythology is a story that enlightens,
whether the events actually happened or not. Does it matter to the GD
practitioner if there really was a physically incarnate Isis who
reassembled the dead body of Osiris and reanimated it? Or is it allegory
as an instrument of enlightenment? Which is more important?
> > speaking only for
> > itself. The godform does not ask anyone else to join it in its spitting
> > upon the crapulous creeds.
>
> Are you saying that Liber AL hasn't encouraged people to do this? What is
> the saying, "Lead by example".
Then those people are misunderstanding it, the same way you are. Many
Christians believe that they should murder Jews, homosexuals and
abortion doctors (among other examples), based on their 'reading' of
Christian scripture. Do we blame the scripture, or those that
misunderstand it and use it as an excuse to commit atrocities?
> > So they are not comparable in context or
> > application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed.
>
> So you are expecting your Aspirants to take a serious and solemn oath in the
> presence of a god-form [1] that does not respect that oath? How odd.
What does that have to do with it? Unless you're also a wrathful god,
you can't be expected to act like one -- not even by a wrathful god.
> [1] I doubt very much that the Entity speaking in Liber AL is the same
> god-form used by the original Golden Dawn somehow.
Of course not. They were Christians.
> <snips red herring>
Heh. No answer for that one, eh?
> The Entity in Liber Al also says something like "I scratch out the eyes of
> Jesus while on the cross" (I've only read the document once so my quotes may
> not be exact.)
So much for any claim of understanding it -- "I read it once,
superficially, so now I am qualified to comment on its esoteric meaning."
It's "peck at". If you're going to critique something you ought to quote
from it directly. There's plenty of on-line sources. That you can't be
bothered to look them up doesn't add credence to your analysis.
> An esoteric explanation of a body on the cross is that it symbolises the
> Soul crucified on/in the body. The unfolded cube. And the eyes symbolise
> ones ability to see and seek the Light.
Well, Okaaaaaaaay. And your point is...?
> The story of Jesus healing the blind man is, to me at least, symbolic of
> Initiation. Like taking off the blindfold once inside the Temple. On the
> other hand though, we have the Entity in Liber AL that prefers to blind the
> Aspirant by straching out the eyes.
Pecking at. No indication that the eyes were "scratched out." And again,
you're twisting the text that you don't bother to read, taking it out of
context and applying it in an inappropriate manner. Why would you assume
that Ra-Hoor-Khuit is referring to "the Aspirant"? Where does it say
that? It's very specific, and misquoting it to "prove" some esoteric
meaning that isn't there just makes you look silly.
> So you're working with an Entity that disrepects the oaths being taken and
> would blind one to the Light. Or am i just twisting things to suit an a
> prioi purpose?
Yes, you are. "The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and its comment; &
he understandeth it not."
> I have absolutely nothing against you or your order, just
> sharing a pov.
Could have fooled me. But I accept your rude comments as a manifestation
of your soul crying out for enlightenment.
> > Avoiding confusion is easy: "By their fruits, so shall ye know them."
>
> Oh how apt. So what is the fruit like of the Entity talking in Liber AL one
> wonders?
Same as the Wrathful Buddhas of Compassion. Sometimes wrath is what's
called for. In certain circumstances, utter destruction is an act of
supreme compassion. (Keep in mind that when he 'received' Liber AL,
Crowley was a practicing Buddhist, so Buddhism is an appropriate 'lens'
to use to study it.)
In The Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism, the beings referred to as
"deities" perform different types of functions for the practitioner.
They may be a focus or aid to individual meditation and transformation,
in which case they are called yidams, or they may function as a
protector of the dharma and/or of an entire class of being. In all
cases, they are understood as a means to the liberation and
enlightenment of all.
Any Buddhist deity may manifest in four ways: benign, active,
semi-wrathful and wrathful. That is, their activity is pacifying,
enriching, magnetizing, or subduing/destroying. (A parallel can be
found in the Thelemic deities of Nuit, Aiwass, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.)
The four-armed form of the protector, Maharaja, demonstrates by means of
his gestures or mudras, all four.
An example of a wrathful deity or heruka is Guru Drakpur. This is a
manifestation of Amitabha Buddha's activity via Padmasambhava (patron
saint of Tibetan Buddhism) as Vajrakilaya, vanquisher of malevolent
obstructions [lit.>Sanskrit: indomitable sin-eliminator]. See http://www.tibetart.com/image.cfm/463.html
Vajrakilaya (also, Benzarkila or Vajrakila. Tibetan: Dorje Purba) is a
winged dark blue wrathful deity whose characteristic implement is the
phurba, the 3-sided 'spirit nail.' He is said to have appeared as an
aspect of Padmasambhava to subdue the opposing and chaotic forces which
tried to prevent all activities motivated by compassion and generosity
from penetrating Tibetan culture.
Vajrakilaya is also considered the wrathful embodiment of bodhisattva
(supreme compassion), as he acts to subdue, purify and transform the
actions of those, whether they be gods, spirits or people, who seek
accomplishment or power for selfish or irresponsible reasons. To the
Buddhist, who believes in reincarnation (as does the Thelemite, and the
majority of GD practitioners, I would guess), being destroyed by a
wrathful Buddha is like being thrown out of the game by the referee.
It's simply being sent back to the 'starting line' to try again.
We can view those words of Ra-Hoor-Khuit as the expression of His role
as "vanquisher of obstructions". The old Aeon monotheist religions are
the obstructions (in this case, obstructions to the liberation and
enlightenment of humanity) and they must be subdued and vanquished. They
had already proven themselves to be corrupted and polluted beyond all
redemption, even in Crowley's time. The raging evil of Fundamentalism
(be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish -- all targets of
Ra-Hoor-Khuit's wrath) is even more starkly obvious in our post-9/11 era.
"The wrathful deities ... enact the enormous power of cosmic rage, a
primal anger without hatred, which cuts through doubts... confusions,
and all the turbulence of this increasingly dark age. Their mouths are
open, fangs bared in a primordial scream so ferocious it is like an
electric shock. They are black and wear bone ornaments and tiger or
leopard skins, treading on the corpse of ego. In their hands they hold
cutting objects - the drigu or curved knife, the phurba, or three sided
dagger, and the katvanga or trident with impaled skulls. But in the huge
round orbs of their eyes there is stillness, the small quiet space of
compassion. Because we have more negative than positive energy, these
wrathful forms are a truer representation of the Buddha for these
times." --Norma Levine, "Blessing Power of the Buddhas"
- Fr. A.o.C.
"The term 'myth', as we know, is merely a polite euphemism." -- Robert Bloch
Joseph
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> news:3E1C5871...@slip.net...
> >
> >
> > SwAmI wrote:
> >
> > > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in
> message
> > > news:3E180FDB...@slip.net...
>
> >
> > Avoiding confusion is easy: "By their fruits,
> so shall ye know them."
>
> Oh how apt. So what is the fruit like of the
> Entity talking in Liber AL one
> wonders?
this posting is one of them, as are all the
reissues of the book itself to say nothing of the
various groups of people (or individuals) that
have come together to use the book for their own
purpose. for good or ill, right or wrong, truth or
lies, one does not have to look far to find the
fruits of, if not the entity, than at least the
book, Liber AL.
also if one is abel to see in the message of the
book an expression of fundamental human nature
shorn of its romantic trappings, and expressing an
evaluation of the human animals psychotic need to
worship something, anything, good or bad, it can
be seen as a seminal work, if not original, than
at least honest in its assessment of the animals
nature of man. Confucius is perhaps a nobler
attempt at codifying human nature but liber al is
IMO more honest.
Joseph
> "aethyr" <nospamaethy...@cox.net> wrote
> in message
> news:3E1F0600...@cox.net...
> > SwAmI wrote:
> > > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in
> message
> > > news:3E1C5871...@slip.net...
> > >>SwAmI wrote:
> > >>>"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in
> message
> > >>>news:3E180FDB...@slip.net...
>
> > less basic questions:
> > hamus hermeticus: (Latin) secret fish-hook
> > <www.hermetic.com>
> >
> http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib90.html
>
> "25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the
> cowardly, the poor, the
> tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am
> come to destroy them."
>
> Did Hitler write that? Silver Star= SS? Aiwaz is
> suspiciously similar to the
> rune Iwaz that Hitlers SS used.
>
> I am beginning to wonder of Crowley and the
> Nazi's were in touch with the
> same Demonic entities.
consider, if you will, that the nazi's are only
demonized cause they lost. had they won, conquered
europe & russia and went on to world domination &
having won the war in europe and given enough time
to develop missiles that could reach the east
coast of america the history of them would
undoubtedly be written differently than it is.
if the one world government is to be considered
demonic in origin, and as many people consider
government of even the most limited sort demonic,
than an argument could be made for satanic origins
of not only the nazis but bonapart, carolus
magnus, Caesar, alexander, marx, the great khan,
etc.etc.etc.
as an organizing principal in nature seems evident
in human evolution of social structures i tend to
think those forces and powers that succeed in
thwarting world domination are the demonic forces
resisting an inevitable and natural trend in human
culture.
--
Joseph ( Swami Havenagoodtimevishnuwerehere) Count
de Money.
333
333:
>> I thought they were pretty much considered the fashioners of
>> the GD. you're saying that only the Cypher Ms. matters,
>> it seems.
555:
>>> It's an outer form, not the core of the system.
>>> The core of the system is found in the Cipher Manuscript.
Joseph <jos...@pacbell.net>:
> The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud,
what constitutes a fraud? the claims surrounding its
composition? its interior seems to have been constructed
by someone familiar with rituals of the type to which it
was subsequently applied (written by Mathers apparently).
this is why many claim the author was Kenneth Mackenzie.
> but then so is the bible, the koran, the torah, the
> bhagavigita etc. etc. however i would tend to
> class it more with mss like, the donation of
> constatine, the protocols of the elders of zion,
> various rosecrucian manifestos, the "grimeor" of
> your choice, liber legis, and various other
> assorted be all end all documents.
if it were inherited from papers by Mackenzie, then the
presentation by Westcott was certainly fraudulent. this
contains much less controversial assertions than may be
found in books like the Protocols, however, and the type
of documents to which you compare it seem unsustainable.
corrections welcome.
>...the only differance between them is in
>the amount or number of people espousing the
>individual documents.
they are easily distinguished by type, contrariwise.
>a need recognized in the indivdiual that religion
>is a cutural, collective expression of.
religious trappings informing a magical and/or
mystical document are quite different than
the espousals of ancient prophets (however well-
sourced) or the lies intending to convert and
slander a competing religion (e.g. Protocols).
nagasiva
Fr. A.o.C.
333 wrote:
> > The original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's *outer form* as
> > developed by Mathers et al. for the Isis-Urania Lodge was indeed based
> > on the Osirian mythological cycle. But this is not found in the *source*
> > material that Mathers drew from, which is the Cipher Manuscript.
>
> so the buck stops at the Cipher Ms (Mackenzie?)?
In a manner of speaking. But there's much more to it than that, and it
has to do with the nature of the Mss and of the Western Magical
tradition itself.
When we approached this project, we decided we had to establish a
"baseline" on which to rest the concept of a "Golden Dawn Order", and
for this the logical choice was the most fundamental document in the GD
canon. We had two motivations for doing this: to establish a rational
position on which we could call ourselves a "Golden Dawn Order" in actual
fact, and to "draw the line" in such a way that allows us to liberate a
magical tradition that, in our opinion, had been polluted and distorted
in a dangerous and harmful manner, even by the so-called "original"
members of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
Our own intuition and research led us to believe that the system as
described in the Mss (and all of Western Magic in general, of which the
Mss details a functional microcosm) was (and is) fundamentally Pagan in
nature. Examination of the Mss proved this out. Furthermore, that
aspiring magicians who belonged to the Christian Church, unwilling or
unable to free themselves from their monotheistic cage, were compelled
to appropriate Pagan-based invocations of godforms and other pagan
traditions and techniques to actually do Magical Work. They tried as
best they could to cover their practices with a patina of Christianity,
while simultaneously denying the tenets of the own religion, which
explicitly forbids ALL magic to its followers. (Dr. John Dee was a
master at this kind of revisionism, as his Enochian Angels told him
explicitly that "Jesus is not God" and that "No prayer should be made to
Jesus", among other blasphemies. Somehow this didn't induce Dee to give
up his Christian rendering of Enochian Magic. He can be forgiven for
this though, since in his time it didn't mean getting flamed on Usenet,
but rather getting flamed at the stake.)
They were trapped between their quite natural desire to do the Work
of Magic, while at the same time aware (at least subconsciously) that
what they were doing was blasphemy in the eyes of their own faith. The
inner psychological conflict, and the outer organizational conflict,
caused by their attempt to be ersatz Pagans and faithful
Christians at the same time contributed greatly to all the schisms,
intracine warfare, personality clashes and abuses of power that began
with the original Hermetic Order and basically continues to this day.
They were cursed by their own insistence on clinging to 19th century
Christian dogma. As we all know, Yahweh is a jealous god...
So we look on our satrap of the GD not so much as changing something of
the old Aeon into something new, but rather as returning the Current to
the original roots of its nature -- *purifying* a strain of Magick that
had been inappropriately hijacked in it's formative stages by religious
dogmatics and turned into something it was *not* meant to be in the
first place.
> > In fact, the whole idea of the "resurrected god"
>
> I think Re O'Stat argued that the reason that this resurrected god
> motif was important to GD rites was on account of the importance
> attached to transformation and how the death-and-rebirth resonance
> mated with 'initiation'.
Here's some stuff from an essay Sam has been working up for our
website library, along with some of my own editorial comments:
First, I'm not sure we agree on how to describe the process of
Initiation, as regards the elevation of a mundane human being to
Magickal Adepthood.
Why should the Osirian Myth be offered as a template for the path of
Adepthood in the first place? It is a particularly unsuitable model.
The main problem with this approach is that while the weighing of the
heart is about the induction of the dead person into the Underworld,
it is not about the initiation of a Magician into the Adept's path.
Osirus is a god of vegetation. All green up-thrusting things are His.
In the north we would call Him the Green Man, well known to Pagans as
the God who is born, flowers, and is cut down in His season only to
spring up again in His turn. Osiris' suffocation, dismemberment by
Set and later renewal is akin to the story of John Barleycorn (and
many other mythological cycles.) What does this have to do with the
study and mastery of Magick?
In the story behind the Hall of Great Truth, Osiris is even less
benevolent than John Barleycorn. After His various misadventures at the
hands of Set and Isis, Osiris ends up as ruler of the Land of the Dead.
He then blackmails the rest of the Gods into putting His son on the
Throne of Ra, threatening them with ill judgment otherwise when they die
and come before Him. Incidentally, throughout this process, Osiris never
really comes back to life. He sires the Younger Horus while dead and
later His wife Isis reassembles and 'reanimates' Him (while still
missing an important, and I would say rather magically significant,
portion of His anatomy), but then He goes off to rule the Underworld,
never to return.
Hmmm, gullible dead eunuch god who makes the grass grow, rules the
land of the dead and blackmails His fellow Gods. Now is that the
godform I wish to emulate as a magician?
It can be surmised that the original Hermetic Order used the Hall of
Great Truth because the imagery (they thought) resonated with the
Christian Mythos of the slain and risen God, who then becomes the judge
of the dead. The GD members of the time were Victorian Christians, and
this interpretation of the Hall of Great Truth (and it's not the only
one, though they didn't know that in 1888) looked a lot like what they
were used to; they were comfortable with it. Since the RR & AC (their
second order) used Christian-styled symbolism, Osiris seems like a good
Outer Order echo of their Inner Rites. Perhaps this suited the time, but
that time has passed.
So the question remains: what does the Osiris myth have to do with the
study of Magick and the path to Adeptship? What about the Osiris story
makes him a good model for the mage? If taken on its own merits, apart
from the original Hermetic Order's use, would it make any sense? We can
find no Egyptian source that used the Hall of Great Truth as a
telesterion, a hall of Initiation. Osiris is a god of the vegetative
cycle. Even taken in its broadest sense, ever returning from the dead
has no necessary correlation with the process of acquiring magickal
wisdom, power, and skill. Nor is there any particular value to being
'purified through suffering' or 'glorified through trial' to the process
of learning magick. (These are Christian moral dogmas, not practical
magickal instruction.) So why use Osiris and the Hall of Great Truth at
all?
> I'm not hearing from you about a specific
> replacement for this motif as regards the phenomenon of initiation
> or why the methodology can survive intact without it.
Ok, take it away, Frater IO:
"Since [our] Hall of Initiation is not presided over by Osiris who's
proper place is in the Hall of Great Truth, that layer of the 0=0 rite
(that was added on to the basic form of the Ciphers) will need to
change. The most logical setting for the Son of Ra is at the helm of His
father's boat, as is traditional. Being a long-time sailor myself, this
is an especially fruitful image. The boat symbolizes the vehicle that
takes us on the river, the long journey through darkness into light. The
Hierophant is the captain of the boat, accompanied by His crew of fellow
gods. The passenger is the Sun, Ra-Hoor Himself, but also is the self of
the aspirant, aspiring to become a crewmember on the ship of Ra called
"The Barque of Millions of Years". Initiation is to repeat the
cosmogonic process with the Aspirant as the world being created and
simultaneously, the deity doing the creation. Similarly, it is the
process of being welcomed as a member of the crew, which is being
welcomed as a member of the Order, the company of those traveling
towards 'the light' (literally the 'golden dawn' of a new day.)
"One other advantage of this scheme is its ability to reintegrate Set
into the company of the gods after a bitter absence. By placing Horus in
the East we leave a vacancy in the West. With Ra-Hoor at the helm of the
Barque of Ra, we can remember the old 19th Dynasty telling of the story
that places Set at the prow (with His spear) to fend off the Serpent
Apep, who would devour the Barque and keep Ra from being reborn again at
the dawn. Set defeats this 'lurker on the threshold' permitting the Sun
to rise. As Hierus in the 0=0 hall, Set truly shows His power as the
Master of Darkness. This corrects the problem well understood by the
psychologically inclined of the 'return of the repressed'. That which is
split off and denied will rise again later in new form to wreak havoc.
By including Set, the Shadow is given a place to be projected. With Set
in the Hall, the Shadow has it place and is brought into the service of
the evolving soul."
> so are you saying that the original GD never constructed rituals for
> those degrees you (and presumably they) identify as RRetAC?
I'm not sure I understand the question. If by "original GD" you mean
Westcott, Mathers, et al of Isis-Urania Temple No.3 and its affiliated
lodges, then of course they constructed rituals for their Second Order
grades. If you mean the unknown authors of the Cipher Manuscript, then
we don't know. All that is certain is that the Ciphers stop at 4=7. One
page in French describing the L-V-X (the Key of the Portal) is part of
the Cipher folio, but it's considered to be a later insertion, probably
by the Francophilic Mathers.
My own tendancy would be to NOT assume that any fixed rituals or
instructions for Grades beyond the Portal were ever composed, or
even *needed*. Once one reaches Adeptship, one knows one's True Will
and is under the direct guidance of one's own Divine Genius. Every man
and every woman's Will is unique and self-directing, which is the
point. I would venture that once one attains direct contact with the
Genius, any 'intiation' required will surely occur, whether a formal
ritual framework is provided or not.
> "cock" <cere...@ev1.net> replied to "Re O'Stat":
> >>> This thread would have been a lot less annoying if you had just said that
> >>> from the beginning. If I understand you correctly, your premise is that the
> >>> original G.'.D.'. was a product of the Aeon of Osiris, and a representative
> >>> of Osiris. IF this IS what you mean, would I be correct in assuming that
> >>> you would have little problem with them if they took the name of an Aeon of
> >>> Horus organization, such as Open Source Order of the A.'.A.'.?
> >
> > A good question! ....
>
> but you didn't directly address it here. so you'd have no objections?
I'll have to leave that one for Re, as it was he who didn't address his
own statement.
Anyone can take any name they wish, and as long as they can demonstrate
rational reasons as to why, I'll grant it has validity.
> >>> If that is
> >>> true, the argument then becomes whether the name Golden Dawn is limited to a
> >>> particular godform/Aeon, rather than a system of methodology that can be
> >>> adapted for different deities. I would be of the opinion that the
> >>> methodology/structure is what makes it the Golden Dawn, not the godforms
> >>> involved,
>
> interesting. in religion that would be off-base, because so often the focus
> of worship would be the deciding factor.
Sam (Fr. IO) and I don't always agree on the definition of "religion".
(In our Order, people are allowed to disagree with the Chief Adept.) My
answer would be that magick and religion are two different fields of
human endeavor, and should not be confused with each other or evaluated
in the same way. To me, mixing magick and religion is like mixing
politics and religion. Bad juju. Sam would argue (I think) that defining
"religion" as requiring an "object of worship" is not a valid
definition, that "magick" itself is a sub-set of "religion".
But here's his take on it:
"The religion vs magick is a problem I would like to leave for another
day (very deep water). What we are discussing here is the relative
centrality of godforms vs methods.
"What we have here is a form vs content problem. The godforms layered on
the ritual offices are content being carried by the form or method of
the rites. What we are doing is maintaining the form or container while
changing the content through our interpretation of it in light of
Thelema.
"333's comment [above] is simply not true. It is only taken as a
given in this region of the planet because we are in a creedal and
monotheistic culture. However, in less primitive locations, a
plurality of worship foci are recognised. One can be a worshiper of
Krisha or Rama (or Kali, or Lakshmi, or Ganesha) while any of them are
still Hindu. What makes them all recognisably Hindu is the methodology
used to do that practice. A classic GD practitioner would recognise
our method, our teachings, and our practices as being 'Golden Dawn'."
> in GD/et al, why does 'methodology' exclude god(form)s?
It doesn't exclude them, but it leaves a lot of room for interpreting
them. Especially when the original versions of the rituals have no
godforms mentioned at all.
A bit more from Sam's essay:
"The only good reason I can see for [the old Hermetic Order] using
Osiris is that for a time our world dwelt in the Aeon of Pisces of which
the Slain and Risen God, Osiris or Jesus, was the Archon or Aeonic
ruler. For this time period the path of Initiation was presided over by
this God and His formula. Fortunately we have received (to use the
language of the classical GD) a new dispensation: Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath
taken His seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods. While this may
appear 'to change everything', it really is a return to the older more
traditional approach to the evolution of the soul into becoming a magick
user.
"In Egypt there were many deity cults, as is appropriate in a
polytheistic land. At different times in Egyptian history different
deities rose to ascendancy only to be replaced by another. The cults of
Osiris and Ra were two of these. In the latter years of Egypt the
Osirian cult had, in keeping with the Aeon, come to dominate religious
thought. However, long before that the Pharaonic cult was particularly
that of Ra. This is important as it touches upon the nature and purpose
of Initiation.
"Initiation is no vain hope to escape death by assimilating one's self
to the ever-repeating vegetative cycle or by placating the Judge of the
Dead. Initiation into the Magickal Art is to enter into the supreme role
a being can aspire to in existence: participation in the process of
creation itself. What does the God of the Dead have to do with creation?
Nothing.
"Ra is the Egyptian demiurge, the creator, and for a time, ruler of the
manifest world. Ra embodies the great cosmological cycles of the day and
year. It is with gods of a creative and bountiful nature that we should
be assimilated to in the process of initiation, not death (unless we are
trying to form a death-cult). Because Osiris can be seen as fulfilling
that role during His Aeon we can forgive the classical Golden Dawn their
use, but we today have no excuse to follow this ill-fitting approach.
"The Pharaoh was assimilated to Ra as the archetype of the ideal man and
the embodiment of the demiurge incarnate, as well as the First King. In
being assimilated to Ra, the Aspirant takes his place as the agent of
the Creator in the world. To the world this looks like a king.
"Ra's story is not about getting himself tricked into His own death,
siring a son while dead, getting cut to pieces, reassembled and then
blackmailing His peers. Ra's story is about traveling through the day,
the world of men, 'giving life unto the dwellers of earth' and then
through the night, the otherworld in the company of good companions on a
ship passing the Pylons of the Hours, being welcomed or challenged by
the doormen, defeating or subduing the obstacles of the way, and
eventually breaking forth in the Dawn. This is a great model of the
magickal learning process. In the outer world we share our lives with
our fellows helping them on their way. In the inner world we face the
challenges of our lives and 'by subtlety or by force,' and the help of
our companions, subdue our opponents, and attain to such realizations as
is the coming of the dawn. As an allegory of Magickal Inititation, the
Osirian myth can't hold a candle to Ra."
> > ...The godforms used by Mathers and
> > Westcott are allegories for the Forces being invoked, and since
> > allegories are only applicable if they are used in context, when the
> > context changes, so must the allegories....
>
> why doesn't changing the context also change the methodology?
Why should it, if the methodology comes first? The methodology is the
technology, the tools for construction. The Golden Dawn in the Outer is
about learning to use the tools. The Second Order is about using them to
build a Magickal Being. The only 'context' that matters is that what one
builds should fit into it's environment and also be pleasing and useful
to its occupant.
> > Re is correct when he says that Crowley's intention with the A.A. was
> > to "supplant" the old Aeon formula used by the original H.O.G.D. Our
> > intention is not the same as Crowley's -- our goal is to redact, not
> > to replace.
>
> in other words, you didn't shift the whole previous system down into
> 'precursors' to your own set-up, en par with how the Scottish Rite
> and the OTO attempted to do with the Freemasonry, or how the AA
> attempted it as detailed above.
I think I see what you're getting at, and the answer is no. The
cirriculum of training and its graded multi-level structure -- and the
Golden Dawn is first and foremost a teaching order -- as described in
the Ciphers is what we still use. Crowley really did toss the whole
thing out and start over. The cirriculum of the AA is quite different
from that of the GD.
> > Here's the rub: we're using the G.D. methodology and structure,
>
> at what point must you admit of a departure? that is the real issue,
> from what I can see.
Let's define the Golden Dawn as being a college of classic Western
Magickal technique, and attaining to all the Grades as equivalent to
getting your 'bachelor's degree' in Western Magick. If you have a degree
in anything, it's assumed that means you've been schooled in certain
areas of knowledge and technique. In the case of the Golden Dawn
'degree', these include the Qabalah, the Hebrew alphabet, the Planetary
godforms, Alchemy, Astrology, Tarot, Geomancy, Enochiana and Tattvas,
as well as the basic knowledge of meditation, visualization,
vocalization and so on.
By this measure, a "graduate" of the old Hermetic Order's school (the
Outer Order) and a graduate of the OSOGD's school would be trained in
the same knowledge and techniques. Anyone who could pass the old Order's
Grade examinations could use the same knowledge to pass our examinations
and vice versa -- it's the same curriculum.
The points of departure are in the rituals used to signify the
Aspirant's attainment of each Grade. For this we analyzed what the
symbolism of each Grade ritual is supposed to represent in the path of
the Aspirant, by referencing the original Cipher documents and building
on the framework defined in them. This is exactly what Westcott and
Mathers did. The difference being that they interpreted it in the light
of their 19th century Christian world-view. We don't share that
world-view. So naturally our redaction is not going to be the same as
theirs.
> > not the A.A.'s.
>
> both the GD and the AA were fashioned as secret societies. by virtue
> of Open Source aren't you destroying the methodology of the GD? this
> seems the most logical trajectory of argument which someone like Re
> might take after disputing particulars of rite that you've admitted.
Someone else I've corresponded with pointed this out, but also pointed
out that by removing the word "Hermetic" -- which at its root means
"sealed in" (read:secret) -- from our name and replacing it with "Open
Source", we clearly indicate our paradigm shift.
In the old Aeon, secrecy was required to protect the safety of the
members. Westcott was "outed" and had to publicly resign from the Order
to avoid losing his livelihood. Scandal came anyway as a result of the
Horos case. The text of the Neophyte ritual was read into the court
record and the proper Victorian Christians of the time were properly
horrified. In that era (when anti-witchcraft laws were still on the
books) such practices, if made public, had serious personal
consequences. The secrecy served an actual purpose. (We do of course
respect of member's privacy, and declaring themselves publically is
entirely up to the individual.)
These conditions no longer obtain. In the first place, the "secrets"
are no longer secrets anyway -- the Golden Dawn has been "open
source" in actual fact since Crowley's publication in 1914. To
swear Initiates to oaths of secrecy regarding GD materials today
is ludicrous.
In the second place, our is the Information Age, and secrecy is
contraindicated. The only purpose ritual secrecy serves now is the
hoarding of information for personal advantage and profit. This is a
very practical example of "the rituals of the old time are black."
> > Crowley went the whole hog and created a new structure, changing
> > the "knowledge" teachings, the Grades, the requirements for
> > advancement,the core rituals, the tools, etc.
>
> thanks for detailing these. all of these remain the same in the OSGD?
With some very minor adjustments, yes. (Example: the Wand of the Hegemon
bears the Feather of Ma'at on it's head rather than the Cross of
Christianity.)
> you've already said that the rites have changed somewhat. I think you
> also mentioned that you've changed the knowledge lectures, though I
> may be mistaken.
The Knowledge Lectures have been "changed" only in that we have added to
them. We took nothing out. We did add quite a bit of explanatory text to
certain sections, such as explaining what the Houses and Aspects signify
in Astrology; the old Order simply required these things be learned by
rote, without explaining what they meant.
Our requirements for Grade advancement are actually more stringent than
the old Hermetic Order. Our Aspirants must learn all the things theirs
had to, and then some. And unlike so many Orders today, our Grade exams
must be taken in the presence of a proctor and answers given from memory
without books or notes. They even include essay questions!
> > And in any case, the A.A. is far more
> > precisely "tuned" to a particular set of godforms than is the core
> > system of the Golden Dawn, as described in the Cipher Manuscript.
>
> there's that buck-stops-at-Cypher-Ms thing again. ok.
Well, we're being honest and open about our sources, again unlike so
many manifestations of the Order today. A certain group, for example,
touts their "pre-GD esoteric sources" and is loth to publicly reveal
these sources in their entirety, or give an unambiguous accounting of
where and from whom they were obtained. In our era, there is simply
no compelling reason to withhold esoteric knowledge except to use it
as a 'hook' to attract followers (usually of the paying variety) and
coerce compliance in the internal ranks.
By contrast, anyone can obtain our sources on-line or in several
published books. Open Source.
> > Which is to say, the system revealed in the Manuscript is *much*
> > less specific than the one Crowley obviously 'micro-engineered'
> > to conform with Thelemic religion, and is therefore more malleable.
>
> extracting the Cypher Ms. from the tradition and extending off of it
> according to Thelemic interests seems to be what you're saying is
> "redacting the Golden Dawn".
"Extracting the Cypher Ms. from the tradition" is non-sequitor -- the
Cipher IS "the tradition." Westcott and Mathers built an "extended"
tradition on that original tradition. We are doing the same thing they
did, though naturally with different results.
> "Secretary ECT":
> >> ...the 'magic' of the 'Golden Dawn' has to do with the 'resurrected god'.
> >
> > We disagree with this view.
>
> so it seems that this is definitely one of the points of disagreement
> over the character of what you are creating (godforms involved).
Of course. We aren't using the Outer Order of the GD as a prep school
for a Christian Rosicrucian Inner Order, so we aren't compelled to ram
the square peg of the Pagan mysteries revealed in the Mss. into the
round hole of Christianity -- for example, by pasting the Osirian Myth
on top of it. It could even be possible that Mathers' "Continental
contacts" were Rosicrucians who deliberately and underhandedly used a
gullible Mathers to hijack the current of a non-Christian mystery
tradition and convert it to a tool of their own dogma.
> > Our position is based on the fact that such allegorical symbolism
> > was wrapped around the fundamental training system of the
> > Golden Dawn by Westcott and Mathers.
>
> I thought they were pretty much considered the fashioners of the GD.
> you're saying that only the Cypher Ms. matters, it seems.
That is correct, though somewhat over-simplified. The Mss. gives a
baseline description of what is "Golden Dawn". Westcott and Mathers
didn't invent the name "Golden Dawn", it's named as such in the Mss
itself. They were the fashioners of the HERMETIC ORDER of the Golden
Dawn, a specific manifestation.
It's kind of like how so many people think that Henry Ford invented
the automobile. He didn't, he simply came up with the most popular
manifestation of it, and almost all subsequent manifestations have
followed Ford's general pattern (for example, steering wheels instead
of joysticks or cranks, and brake pedal on the left.)
> > It's an outer form, not the core of the system.
> > The core of the system is found in the Cipher Manuscript.
>
> how did you determine where the "core" ended and the "outer" began?
> it seems rather arbitrary to me, because like Re one might select
> something larger and call it "core" and arrive at the opposite
> conclusion. is there some precedent for determining this "core"?
One has to draw the line somewhere. The Cipher self-identifies as "the
name and order/Golden Dawn." (Folio 1). So it's not illogical to take it
at face value and say, "what's in this document that calls itself
"Golden Dawn" is what is 'Golden Dawn'."
> > Since most operating GD groups *are* based on Osirian orientation,
>
> this argues for the orientation being "core".
So does that mean that only Fords should be properly called
"automobiles", just because they were a rarity before Henry started mass
producing them? In some way, shape or form, "Golden Dawn"
existed before Westcott found their coded manuscripts, just as the
automobile existed before Ford started cranking out Model Ts. They even
styled their lodge "No. 3", implying there were precedents. If the
Cipher Mss is considered the record of the first precedent, then what's
in the Ciphers must define the form.
> > The most popular versions of the GD
> > materials available are from the Stella Matutina, who were clearly
> > religious Christians,
>
> did they self-identify as such?
They certainly had all the trappings of Christian religion, including
the belief in Jesus as the incarnated God and Savior. It can all be
found in Regardie's 'black doorstop'. Read the description of the Rose
Cross Lamen, for example, or the benediction at the end of any of
their Z2 based ritual forms.
> I've sometimes desired to identify
> others as such but out of respect I realized that my evaluations
> would be extreme and tried to keep them at bay. here, you seem to
> be evaluating their religion while simultaneously maintaining that
> religion isn't really the issue when dealing with "godforms". I'm
> not sure you're being consistent and I'd like to hear your response.
I'm certainly not trying to invalidate what Westcott/Mathers and their
successors built on the basic core of the GD system. Religion isn't an
"issue" in the sense that it doesn't matter what one builds on the
bare-bones framework of the Ciphers as far as "validity" goes. All we're
saying is that our redaction is every bit as valid as Westcott and
Mathers' version, not that it is "better" or "the only true way". We
happen to think it's better, but that's just our opinion and YMMV. The
"traditionalists" argue that the GD system is Osirian/Christian
exclusively, and we argue that it *can* be INclusive of that
interpretation (although we think it's a particularly bad fit) but that
it doesn't EXclude other interpretations.
So the response is that religion isn't an issue because more than one
religious interpretation can be redacted onto the basic framework of the
Ciphers, so evaluation of religions doesn't enter into the equation.
> > so most people take this to mean that whatever is
> > contained in them is *the* "Golden Dawn". It seems as if few people --
> > including many GD practitioners -- have ever actually read the Cipher
> > Manuscript itself. It can be quite revealing. Many people are surprised
> > to find that no godforms whatsoever are represented in the 0=0 Neophyte
> > Ritual and Initiation, for example.
>
> so your argument really comes down to the contention that the Cypher
> Manuscript constitutes the "core" and nothing else need be maintained
> in order to link, methodologically, to the GD in name-brand?
As I said, that's simplistic, but fairly accurate.
> > Most people don't realize how much Mathers et al. layered on top of the
> > Mss. There are no godforms in the 0=0 Hall. There are Angelic Names in
> > the 1=10 (and throughout all the Grades), used as metaphors for the
> > Forces being invoked (expressed in the meanings of their Hebrew letters
> > and gematra.) Osiris appears in the 2=9, and again in the 4=7. "Christ"
> > appears *once*, and it's a passing metaphoric reference in the 4=7, and
> > it's *not* a reference to Osiris. The Main Officers play many godforms,
> > even swapping roles -- the Heirus speaks as Osiris in the 2=9. The
> > Hegemon assumes the form of Isis instead of Ma'at in one Path, even
> > though (theoretically) Isis can't leave the Dais -- she's behind the
> > Veil. There are other similar examples. The operative function appears
> > to be that the Officers simply assume various godforms (Hebrew, Egyptian
> > and/or Hellenic) as required by the Work of the particular Hall.
>
> why isn't this the methodology? what clearly delineates "method" from
> "variation on the method"?
Adding something (such as specific godform assignment to the 0=0
officers of the Hall) is a "variation" because no godforms were originally
specified. When they *are* specified (in the higher Grades), it's clear
they are specific to the particular work of that Grade initiation, for
the same Officers adopt different godforms in different Grades.
> > Here's a useful comparison: Any Muslim accepts that the Koran is the
> > canonical basis of Islam. However, some Muslims give equal standing to
> > other historical Muslim teachings which came later, such as the
> > Shari'ah, which dictates the "Islamic Law" meant to govern earthly
> > affairs.
> > Therefore, to such strict fundamentalists as the Taliban,
> > anyone who does not adhere to the Shari'ah is not practicing 'real'
> > Islam and has no right to call themselves Muslim. Many Muslims strongly
> > disagree with this position, and believe the Shari'ah may have been a
> > useful part of Islam *in its time*, but it is no longer a necessary
> > guide to life in the 21st century. They believe that anyone who accepts
> > only the Koran as the basis of their religion may properly be called
> > "Muslim", regardless of whether or not they follow the Shari'ah or other
> > subsequent teachings.
>
> but you're dealing in religions again, so this is somewhat confusing.
> you see what I'm getting at, don't you? you're using religious analogies
This seems like splitting hairs to me. I used an analogy to
automobiles also. Does that mean I think that the GD is a car, or can
only be discussed or understood as compared to cars? Or simply there is
something in the analogy that could illustrate the point?
> while claiming that what you're doing is not religion per se (in order
> to shift the godforms and not be accused of conversion to Thelema).
Eh? I don't understand where you got all that from. Why would "claiming
that what you're doing is not religion per se" preclude one from using a
analogy to religion? Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the
people". Was he precluded from using the analogy to make a point simply
because he saw what he was doing not as religion but as sociology? (One
could argue the 'religious' nature of Marxism, but that's beside the point.)
If anyone wants to accuse us of "conversion to Thelema" they're welcome
to do so. We happen to think that Thelema is the natural development
from the GD system into our age. But then, we've incorporated elements
of boddhichitta and the Vajrayana into our rituals as well. So are we
accused of converting to Buddhism? Our Adoration in the 0=0 has
distinct elements of the Tao Te Ching. Are we also accused of converting
to Taoism? Some of our training includes using Spare's Sigil system in
the GD context. Are we also Chaos Magicians? And our Portal Grade
requires the death-and-rebirth of the Aspirant according to the Osirian
formula. So are we Christians too?
See what I'm getting at here?
Our redactions are based on effacy and reason, rather than religious
restrictions. Everything the old Hermetic Order did with the core
teachings of the GD Mss had to serve the over-arching purpose of
conforming to Christian doctrine. Our's serve the over-arching purpose
of what makes sense (to us) for our time, and what works in practice.
> so you're basically Mackenzieist Golden Dawn, were you to agree with some
> writers on the subject and come to the logical conclusion that Kenneth
> Mackenzie created the document and ciphered it in Trimethian code before
> sending it along to Westcott (or passing it on in his paperwork
> inherited by him from KM's wife), despite Westcott's subsequent
> mythologizing via the fictitious 'Fraulein Sprengel'.
>
> > So this all comes down to (oh the horror!) a sectarian debate.
>
> not quite. Mackenzie didn't ever claim to have created the GD,
This is making me dizzy. Do you mean the writer(s) of the Mss (Mackinzie
or whomever) didn't claim to be "the" Golden Dawn? Yes they did, it's
named as such in the document, in the first lines of the first page.
> whereas
> I think Mathers and Westcott *did* identify the entirety of what they
> created as the Golden Dawn.
As the HERMETIC ORDER of the Golden Dawn. Number three. They were quite
clear that they were not the originators.
> subtract anything from it or change a part
> of it and you have an argument for why you're not doing the same thing
> as long as you're not directly connected via lineage. I haven't under-
> stood from you why you have selected the Cipher Ms. as a stop-point.
Because it self-identifies itself as being such, and Westcott/Mathers
took that core and added on to it.
> > It's like
> > the Catholic theologians telling the Protestants that since they don't
> > accept the Holy Trinity, the veneration of Mary, and the apostolic
> > succession of the Pope, they aren't practicing "real" Christianity and
> > shouldn't call themselves "Christian".
>
> or is it more like Muslims telling Christians that since their prophet
> died on the cross or was ferretted away prior to actually dying, he
> deserves a prominent place as a teacher but not as God Himself? there's
> more than one direction you can come at this (from behind or in front).
You've totally lost me now. I'd need that clarified in non-allegorical
terms before I could even comment on it. I *think* I agree with that,
but
I'm not sure...
> > There's a line in the Cipher Manuscript that says, "Avoid Roman
> > Catholics, but with pity." Perhaps there is an occult meaning of
> > those words that can illuminate this debate.
>
> I gather it is intended to imply the masonic character of the document.
I'm sure that was the point of it. But taken in a "higher sense",
perhaps it serves as a lesson in "don't let this happen to you": avoid
turning the system detailed in the Mss into some form of "Magical
Catholicism", which the Stella Matutina seems to have tried to do, and
HOMSI does unabashedly in our time.
I hope this long-winded response answers your questions. Fr. IO sends a
tip of the pointy hat. It's good to have thoughtful introloqutors.
- Fr. A.o.C.
'The old beauty is no longer beautiful; the new truth is no longer
true', is the eternal cry of a developing and really vitalised life. Our
civilisation has passed through the First Empire of pagan sensualism;
and the Second Empire of mistaken sacrifice, of giving up our own
independence, our own courage. And the Third Empire is awaiting those of
us who can see -- that not only on Olympus, not only nailed to a Cross,
but IN OURSELVES is God. For such of us, the bridge between flesh and
spirit is built; for such among us hold the Keys of Life and Death. --
Soror S.S.D.D (Florence Farr), Chief Adept of Isis-Urania No.3
aethyr
>>>There's a line in the Cipher Manuscript that says, "Avoid Roman
>>>Catholics, but with pity." Perhaps there is an occult meaning of
>>>those words that can illuminate this debate.
>>
>>I gather it is intended to imply the masonic character of the document.
>
>
> I'm sure that was the point of it. But taken in a "higher sense",
> perhaps it serves as a lesson in "don't let this happen to you": avoid
> turning the system detailed in the Mss into some form of "Magical
> Catholicism", which the Stella Matutina seems to have tried to do, and
> HOMSI does unabashedly in our time.
>
> I hope this long-winded response answers your questions. Fr. IO sends a
> tip of the pointy hat. It's good to have thoughtful introloqutors.
>
> - Fr. A.o.C.
>
>
> 'The old beauty is no longer beautiful; the new truth is no longer
> true', is the eternal cry of a developing and really vitalised life. Our
> civilisation has passed through the First Empire of pagan sensualism;
> and the Second Empire of mistaken sacrifice, of giving up our own
> independence, our own courage. And the Third Empire is awaiting those of
> us who can see -- that not only on Olympus, not only nailed to a Cross,
> but IN OURSELVES is God. For such of us, the bridge between flesh and
> spirit is built; for such among us hold the Keys of Life and Death. --
> Soror S.S.D.D (Florence Farr), Chief Adept of Isis-Urania No.3
Hey, is the Women of the Golden Dawn book
(Women of the Golden Dawn
by Mary K. Greer 1994) readable?
aa
deqvf
Gnome d Plume
>
>333 wrote:
>
>> > The original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's *outer form* as
>> > developed by Mathers et al. for the Isis-Urania Lodge was indeed based
>> > on the Osirian mythological cycle. But this is not found in the *source*
>> > material that Mathers drew from, which is the Cipher Manuscript.
>>
>> so the buck stops at the Cipher Ms (Mackenzie?)?
>
>In a manner of speaking. But there's much more to it than that, and it
>has to do with the nature of the Mss and of the Western Magical
>tradition itself.
>
****Care Frater:
I'm not going to repost all of this but I do want to say that it was
one of the best , most informative and insightful posts we've had on
this NG in quite a while--even though I don't completely agree with
you on the minimal importance of Osiris, either in the background of
the G.D. or the Western Tradition in general. The Osirian concept was
spiritually in advance of Moses at a much earlier date, and the direct
precursor of the Christ myth and the Hiram Abiff legend. The R.R. et
A.C.'s candidate crucifixion is not an exercise in Christianity.
Christians cannot become Christ, they can only be Christ-like. R.R. et
A.C. resurrection symbolism is essentially Osirian. No matter! Your
awareness of the key importance of the Cypher Manuscript as the
foundation of modern Western Magick is certainly correct. Keep up the
Great Work. And for those who would like to study the original G.D.
Cyphers, we just completed the third printing of *Secrets of the
Golden Dawn Cypher Manuscript*. Check it out at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965488128/qid%3D1042433127/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-9248619-6336619
Good Magick!
Gnome d Plume
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html
Fr. A.o.C.
Let me point out that your book on the Ciphers is the reference we use
when working on our redacted rituals. (You bumped Darcy K. from that
exalted position!) Your insights in the footnotes, as well as the
chapters of history and analysis, have been a highly valuable resource
for us, and we recommend your book highly.
- Fr. A.o.C.
catherine yronwode
From: "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net>
[everything snipped, all of it. go back and read it in google.]
Hey, Max, that was an entertaining and enlightening response to siva's
questions. Thanks to Sam for contributing, also.
I think that this series of exchanges is beginning to clarify my
understanding of what the OSOGD is up to when replacing Horus with Set
and Osiris with Horus. I especially appreciate the inclusion of the
(Jungian) Shadow represented by Set.
I do have a small quibble still re: your reference to "paganism" and
Osiris as the "green man" or vegetation god. The emasculation of
Osiris is consonant with Christian myth, as you bolted, but it is
certainly not the paradigm for all pagan religions. See, for instance,
Tamuuz / Dumuzi -- a vegetation god and shepherd god (two in one)
whose penis was not ever chopped off but was said to spring up like a
bolting lettuce stalk growing by the water. Sure, he dies and goes to
become king of the underworld (playing on his carnelian flute to
please the women there), but there is no way to correlate either his
lettuce stalk or his flute with the Osirian cock-less wonder. As far
as i know, Osiris is somewhat of an anomaly in that regard. Even Jesus
was said to have boffed Mary Magdalen, thus giving rise to the
Merovingian kings of France!
I am not denying the valid interest you have in retaining the paganist
elements in the HOGD, which were rescinded for the initiate who joined
the Christianized RR+AC -- just pointing out that you might have
chosen another godform than Horus for the East. What about Min, for
instance. There was guy who knew how to wield his staff!
Yours from the sidelines,
cat yronwode
catherine yronwode
>
> Hey, is the Women of the Golden Dawn book
> (Women of the Golden Dawn
> by Mary K. Greer 1994) readable?
Yes it is, quite so, and i highly recommended it. I would augment it
with one other item, the lengthy and well illustrated essay on Pamela
Colman Smith's life and art that appears in the third volume of Stuart
Kaplan's illustrated "Encyclopedia of Tarot". If tarot is not your
interest, then see if someone will photocopy Kaplan's bio of Smith for
you from the book and use it to supplement your copy of Greer's book.
For a 1999-era peek into the depth of Kaplan's researches on Smith
(which were published after Greer published her book in 1994 and so
are not part of her work) see this interview with Kaplan:
http://www.lightworks.com/MonthlyAspectarian/1999/June/699-02.htm
Cordially,
cat yronwode
52-week interactive online Hoodoo Rootwork Correspondence Course
http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocourse.html
Fr. A.o.C.
> aethyr wrote:
> >
> > Hey, is the Women of the Golden Dawn book
> > (Women of the Golden Dawn
> > by Mary K. Greer 1994) readable?
>
> Yes it is, quite so, and i highly recommended it.
So do I. An excellent history with a lot of information not available in
one place otherwise. I found he astrological digressions a wee bit
distracting though, and started skimming over them about halfway through
the book.
> I would augment it
> with one other item, the lengthy and well illustrated essay on Pamela
> Colman Smith's life and art that appears in the third volume of Stuart
> Kaplan's illustrated "Encyclopedia of Tarot". If tarot is not your
> interest, then see if someone will photocopy Kaplan's bio of Smith for
> you from the book and use it to supplement your copy of Greer's book.
I was dissapointed that there wasn't more about Smith in Greer's book.
It was nice to finally see a picture of the woamn! And honestly, looking
just as she did in the photo, she could have walked through the East
Village today and no one would look at her twice. A woman out of time.
> For a 1999-era peek into the depth of Kaplan's researches on Smith
> (which were published after Greer published her book in 1994 and so
> are not part of her work) see this interview with Kaplan:
>
> http://www.lightworks.com/MonthlyAspectarian/1999/June/699-02.htm
Thanks for the reference!
- Fr. A.o.C.
Gnome d Plume
>Thank you, Frater.
>
>Let me point out that your book on the Ciphers is the reference we use
>when working on our redacted rituals. (You bumped Darcy K. from that
>exalted position!) Your insights in the footnotes, as well as the
>chapters of history and analysis, have been a highly valuable resource
>for us, and we recommend your book highly.
>
>- Fr. A.o.C.
>
****Thanks much for the recommendation. Darcy's book is good and I
would recommend it also. He reprints the first Gilbert article on the
origin of the Cypher MS. which is otherwise hard to find. As you know
we asked Gilbert to write an updated article with later data
especially for *Secrets* with the facsimiles from Westcott's note
book, but both Gilbert pieces are worth studying.
Please understand I have great respect for the Horus myth and
its modern proponents, I just like to give Osiris a little credit for
old times' sake. ****
SwAmI
> SwAmI wrote:
>
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E1C5871...@slip.net...
> >
> > > But seriously folks... one is an admonishment given to an Aspirant
> > > during Initiation: "Remember to treat all religions with reverence,
for
> > > there is none that does not contain a ray of the ineffable Light you
are
> > > seeking", which was Westcott's rendering of the line from Cipher Folio
> > > 8: "Never condemn others religion."
> >
> > This is something i've been thinking about and having a hard time with.
What
> > if parts of a Religion condemn other religions and/or blinds people to
the
> > Light?
>
> It may be possible that you are misunderstanding it, as you are doing in
> this case. Hence the admonishment.
Would you mind helping me to understand it then?
>
> > > The other statement is a transcript of a godform
> >
> > I have grave doubts about wether the Entity in Liber Al is what it
claims it
> > is. If Crowley didnt just make it up of course.
>
> Which really doesn't matter.
I prefer to go by the advice to "test your spirits". If the entity in
question is lying i would want to know why and for what purpose.
Any mythology is a story that enlightens,
> whether the events actually happened or not.
Well i guess i do have to admit that Liber Al has made me think.
>
> > > speaking only for
> > > itself. The godform does not ask anyone else to join it in its
spitting
> > > upon the crapulous creeds.
> >
> > Are you saying that Liber AL hasn't encouraged people to do this? What
is
> > the saying, "Lead by example".
>
> Then those people are misunderstanding it, the same way you are.
I think most Christians would wonder about folks who work with a god that
attacks thier god.
Many
> Christians believe that they should murder Jews, homosexuals and
> abortion doctors (among other examples), based on their 'reading' of
> Christian scripture.
Well theyre idiots then aren't they?
>Do we blame the scripture, or those that
> misunderstand it and use it as an excuse to commit atrocities?
>
> > > So they are not comparable in context or
> > > application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed.
> >
> > So you are expecting your Aspirants to take a serious and solemn oath in
the
> > presence of a god-form [1] that does not respect that oath? How odd.
>
> What does that have to do with it?
A lot IMO. I can only speak for myself but i wouldn't take an oath in the
presence of an entity that has attacked the Light i see within the various
religions. By working with the entity in Liber Al you are aligning
yourselves with It and its actions IMO. One would think a new religion would
attempt to bring all religions together rather than causing more of the
same.
Unless you're also a wrathful god,
> you can't be expected to act like one -- not even by a wrathful god.
>
> > [1] I doubt very much that the Entity speaking in Liber AL is the same
> > god-form used by the original Golden Dawn somehow.
>
> Of course not. They were Christians.
Not your normal everyday kind of Christian though eh? I see you call
yourselves Pagan and yet you still have Christian symbolism in your Neophyte
ritual.
>
> > <snips red herring>
>
> Heh. No answer for that one, eh?
I didnt see the point in following a detour.
>
> > The Entity in Liber Al also says something like "I scratch out the eyes
of
> > Jesus while on the cross" (I've only read the document once so my quotes
may
> > not be exact.)
>
> So much for any claim of understanding it -- "I read it once,
> superficially, so now I am qualified to comment on its esoteric meaning."
>
Heh. I read it once because that is what the commentary suggests. Plus the
energy of it made me feel ill. I didnt say i read it "superficially". And i
can comment on it if i wish to.
> It's "peck at".
OK thanks.
If you're going to critique something you ought to quote
> from it directly. There's plenty of on-line sources. That you can't be
> bothered to look them up doesn't add credence to your analysis.
*Erm, its not about "cant be bothered". I hold my memory sacred and am
trying to be careful what i allow in there. I am too busy banishing memes i
have aqcuired throughout my life to allow more bullshit to get cluttered in
my head.
Unless i consider it of importance of course.
>
> > An esoteric explanation of a body on the cross is that it symbolises the
> > Soul crucified on/in the body. The unfolded cube. And the eyes symbolise
> > ones ability to see and seek the Light.
>
> Well, Okaaaaaaaay. And your point is...?
You missed it? Heres another attempt, a quote from the Zohar regarding
creation;
"the face of God, crowned with Light, rose over the vast sea and was
reflected in the waters thereof. His two eyes were manifested, radiating
with splendour, darting two beams of light which crossed with those of the
reflection. The brow of God and his eyes formed a triangle in heaven, and
its reflection formed a second triangle in the waters."
So is your entity pecking at the Light emanating from the eyes of God? Why
does it peck at the eyes?
>
> > The story of Jesus healing the blind man is, to me at least, symbolic of
> > Initiation. Like taking off the blindfold once inside the Temple. On the
> > other hand though, we have the Entity in Liber AL that prefers to blind
the
> > Aspirant by straching out the eyes.
>
> Pecking at. No indication that the eyes were "scratched out."
I explained that my quotes might not be exact. You're clutching at straws.
And again,
> you're twisting the text that you don't bother to read, taking it out of
> context and applying it in an inappropriate manner.
I am? How?
Why would you assume
> that Ra-Hoor-Khuit is referring to "the Aspirant"? Where does it say
> that?
It is in the Esoteric symbolism of it pecking at the eyes of Jesus on the
cross. The Archetypal Man on the cross of the elements, LBRP etc. "Christ in
you". Look within, thou art Christ. Would your opinion change if it was
Buddhas eyes it was pecking at?
It's very specific, and misquoting it to "prove" some esoteric
> meaning that isn't there
Well, my interpretation may or may not be what was originally intended but
the symbolism is definitely there. I have tried to get a more positive
interpretation from it but don't see it. If you can come up with something
positive about pecking at the eyes of Jesus on the cross i'm all ears.
>just makes you look silly.
Heh. I'm used to that. Maybe i will write a book titled "The Art of
Silliness" or some such. When i can say 100% that i dont care if you or
anyone else thinks i look silly, then maybe i will have achieved something
of value. The fact you think i would care tells me a little something about
yourself.
>
> > I have absolutely nothing against you or your order, just
> > sharing a pov.
>
> Could have fooled me.
Heh.
>But I accept your rude comments as a manifestation
> of your soul crying out for enlightenment.
Well, of course i long for enlightenment. Don't you?
<snips other interesting stuff>
So you think a Buddhist deity would criticize and/or attack other religions?
Could you show me one example of this?
SwAmI D'Artagnan
---
All is One and One is All.
David R. Jones
The R.R. et
>A.C.'s candidate crucifixion is not an exercise in Christianity.
>Christians cannot become Christ, they can only b
This is an awfully protestant POV. The point of the Mass is for the
Priest to become Christ. It has no essential efficacy without this
transformation. Gnostic and other more heretical Christians do indeed
become Christ, for real Christians Christianity is meaningless without
this identity.
Love Jones
Odysseus
>
> I do have a small quibble still re: your reference to "paganism" and
> Osiris as the "green man" or vegetation god. The emasculation of
> Osiris is consonant with Christian myth, as you bolted, but it is
> certainly not the paradigm for all pagan religions. See, for instance,
> Tamuuz / Dumuzi -- a vegetation god and shepherd god (two in one)
> whose penis was not ever chopped off but was said to spring up like a
> bolting lettuce stalk growing by the water. Sure, he dies and goes to
> become king of the underworld (playing on his carnelian flute to
> please the women there), but there is no way to correlate either his
> lettuce stalk or his flute with the Osirian cock-less wonder. As far
> as i know, Osiris is somewhat of an anomaly in that regard.
I imagine that some of Osiris's 'anomalous' characteristics in
comparison with other agricultural gods might have to do with his
association with the Nile, whose annual floods played at least as
great a role in the fertility cycles of Egyptian farmlands as did the
solar cycle.
The "Fisher King" from the Arthurian / troubadour legends is another
'mutilated god'; he doesn't fit the "John Barleycorn" pattern very
well either.
> Even Jesus was said to have boffed Mary Magdalen, thus giving rise to the
> Merovingian kings of France!
>
That's indeed been said, but that doesn't make it a genuine myth, let
alone a plausible claim. ;)
--Odysseus
SwAmI
"David R. Jones" <drj...@uci.net> wrote in message
news:3e22c1c8....@news.uci.net...
Yay, someone i agree with for a change.
aethyr
literally. It is symbolic, metaphorical, etc.
Sheesh!
>
>
> Many
>
>>Christians believe that they should murder Jews, homosexuals and
>>abortion doctors (among other examples), based on their 'reading' of
>>Christian scripture.
>
>
> Well theyre idiots then aren't they?
The idea here is that we need not read Literally what can just as well
be read Figuratively. Do you know what figurative language is?
>
>
>>Do we blame the scripture, or those that
>>misunderstand it and use it as an excuse to commit atrocities?
>>
>>
>>>> So they are not comparable in context or
>>>>application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed.
>>>
>>>So you are expecting your Aspirants to take a serious and solemn oath in
>>
> the
>
>>>presence of a god-form [1] that does not respect that oath? How odd.
>>
>>What does that have to do with it?
>
>
> A lot IMO. I can only speak for myself but i wouldn't take an oath in the
> presence of an entity that has attacked the Light i see within the various
> religions.
It hasn't attacked any light.
It is the Light.
> By working with the entity in Liber Al you are aligning
> yourselves with It and its actions IMO. One would think a new religion would
> attempt to bring all religions together rather than causing more of the
> same.
>
> Unless you're also a wrathful god,
>
>>you can't be expected to act like one -- not even by a wrathful god.
>>
>>
>>>[1] I doubt very much that the Entity speaking in Liber AL is the same
>>>god-form used by the original Golden Dawn somehow.
>>
>>Of course not. They were Christians.
>
>
> Not your normal everyday kind of Christian though eh? I see you call
> yourselves Pagan and yet you still have Christian symbolism in your Neophyte
> ritual.
>
>
>>><snips red herring>
>>
>>Heh. No answer for that one, eh?
>
>
> I didnt see the point in following a detour.
>
>
>>>The Entity in Liber Al also says something like "I scratch out the eyes
>>
> of
>
>>>Jesus while on the cross" (I've only read the document once so my quotes
>>
> may
>
>>>not be exact.)
>>
>>So much for any claim of understanding it -- "I read it once,
>>superficially, so now I am qualified to comment on its esoteric meaning."
>>
>
>
> Heh. I read it once because that is what the commentary suggests.
The comment is not to be taken literally either. It's all figurative
language, mainly.
If you see the Buddha walking on the Road, Kill the Buddha.
Similarly, after 2000+ years of abuse, Jesus is an abused god (we have
plenty of Catholics and plenty o Protestents to thank for this). We are
pointing out the obvious. Notice please, this 'pecking' quote is more
figurative language. The idea is not to commit violence or otherwise
disrespect other's religion.
>
>
>
>
>>just makes you look silly.
>
>
> Heh. I'm used to that. Maybe i will write a book titled "The Art of
> Silliness" or some such. When i can say 100% that i dont care if you or
> anyone else thinks i look silly, then maybe i will have achieved something
> of value. The fact you think i would care tells me a little something about
> yourself.
>
>
>
>>>I have absolutely nothing against you or your order, just
>>>sharing a pov.
>>
>>Could have fooled me.
>
>
> Heh.
>
>
>>But I accept your rude comments as a manifestation
>>of your soul crying out for enlightenment.
>
>
> Well, of course i long for enlightenment. Don't you?
>
> <snips other interesting stuff>
>
> So you think a Buddhist deity would criticize and/or attack other religions?
> Could you show me one example of this?
>
>
> SwAmI D'Artagnan
> ---
> All is One and One is All.
>
>
aa
Deqvf
J. Karlin
> aethyr wrote:
> > Hey, is the Women of the Golden Dawn book
> > (Women of the Golden Dawn
> > by Mary K. Greer 1994) readable?
> Yes it is, quite so, and i highly recommended it.
Why? Mary K. Greer is an awful writer.
> I would augment it with one other item, the lengthy and
> well illustrated essay on Pamela Colman Smith's life---
How would these two things augment each other?
> and art that appears in the third volume of Stuart
> Kaplan's illustrated "Encyclopedia of Tarot". If tarot is not your
> interest---
Tarot is my interest. That's why I don't recommend Mark K. Greer's
books to anyone.
> , then see if someone will photocopy Kaplan's bio of Smith for
> you from the book---
Why not purchase Kaplan's book?
> and use it to supplement your copy of Greer's book.
Or you could not do these things.
> For a 1999-era peek into the depth of Kaplan's researches on Smith---
You figure a 2003-era peek would be ever so much more enlightening
regarding this alleged "depth"?
> (which were published after Greer published her book in 1994 and so
> are not part of her work) see this interview with Kaplan:
> http://www.lightworks.com/MonthlyAspectarian/1999/June/699-02.htm
And what can we learn about Tarot through reading this interview other
than "about how it was possible for [Kaplan] to sell $100 million worth
of Tarot cards."?
(jk)
**********************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Read The most important Tarot essays ever written:
http://jktarot.com/jkbooks.html
**********************************************
aethyr
can i vote this the most irrelevant post to these groups in Quite Some
Time (At Least 24 Hours?!)
get on to the book review already, or rename this thread, sheesh!
aa
Deqvf
Blazin' Tommy D.
Gnome d Plume <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in article
<3e2343a6...@trialnews.peoplepc.com>...
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 03:20:23 GMT, "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >333 wrote:
> >
> >> > The original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's *outer form* as
> >> > developed by Mathers et al. for the Isis-Urania Lodge was indeed
based
> >> > on the Osirian mythological cycle. But this is not found in the
*source*
> >> > material that Mathers drew from, which is the Cipher Manuscript.
> >>
> >> so the buck stops at the Cipher Ms (Mackenzie?)?
> >
> >In a manner of speaking. But there's much more to it than that, and it
> >has to do with the nature of the Mss and of the Western Magical
> >tradition itself.
> >
> ****Care Frater:
>
> I'm not going to repost all of this but I do want to say that it was
> one of the best , most informative and insightful posts we've had on
> this NG in quite a while--even though I don't completely agree with
> you on the minimal importance of Osiris, either in the background of
> the G.D. or the Western Tradition in general. The Osirian concept was
> spiritually in advance of Moses at a much earlier date, and
BTD: G_d preceded the whole 9 yards. Raspberries to Astarte. I'm far more
beautiful anyway
http://www.FaceLink.com/blazintommyd
[clip]
J. Karlin
> Tarot is my interest. That's why I don't recommend Mark K. Greer's
> books to anyone.
Or Mary K. Greer's either.
J. Karlin
> can i vote this the most irrelevant post to these groups in Quite Some
> Time (At Least 24 Hours?!)
What would the basis of this vote be?
> get on to the book review already, or rename this thread, sheesh!
I did rename the thread.
I'm sure Catherine will be forthcoming with a review of the
book she recommended, or at least some answers to my questions
concerning why she recommended the book.
So, be patient.
J. Karlin
> BTD: G_d preceded the whole 9 yards. Raspberries to Astarte. I'm far more
> beautiful anyway
>
> http://www.FaceLink.com/blazintommyd
Well, it ALMOST looks like a really ugly woman,
instead of a transvestite.
What is that? A cellulite removal practice dummy?
{ Secret Chief }
> "J. Karlin" wrote:
>
> > Tarot is my interest. That's why I don't recommend Mark K. Greer's
> > books to anyone.
>
> Or Mary K. Greer's either.
What about Mary R. Greek's?
Fr. A.o.C.
> Would you mind helping me to understand it then?
Sure, but this is the last time. After this you're on your own, because
to go any further is futile. You've already made up your mind, so I will
stop confusing you with the facts.
III,51: With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon
the cross.
III,52: I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
III,53: With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the
Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
"Peck at the eyes of Jesus", etc. is a criticism of organized
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Yes, RHK is not being nice.
Frankly, I don't think you've studied much at all of comparative
religion, any more than you've studied Thelema. Most religious writing
is filled with criticism of other religions. Many religions and most
sects begin as reform movements, criticizing, sometimes in very strong
terms, the others. Buddhism is no exception. Neither is Christianity,
which came "not to bring peace, but a Sword."
As I've said repeatedly, you are taking the passages out of context.
Even after I explain the context to you, you continue to take it out of
context in exactly the same way, and argue from the same position that
has already been disposed of. Here it is one more time in simple words:
in Liber AL, "Jesus" is not an emblem of initiation or of an Aspirant
but of a failed religious and political system. I do not see in Jesus or
his teaching any religion I would want in my house. Frankly I doubt it
has any of the 'light' attributed to it anymore (if it ever really did,
especially after Saul of Tarsus got ahold of it), save that fell corona
shared by Evil.
You are confusing a creed with the 'ineffable light', the same thing
that killed what ever good was once in Christianity. Creeds are a
technique of brainwashing, whether Christian, Islamic, Hindu or
Buddhist. So, our Lord of Liberation tears at the eyes of Jesus as he
hangs upon the cross and flaps his wings in the face of Mohammed in
criticism of their WORLD-VIEW, and tears at the flesh of the Hindu,
Buddhist, Mongol and Din in criticism of their RELATIONSHIP TO THE BODY
(Yes, Buddhists were included on RHK's "hit list" -- happy now?) Or at
least this is one way to read it -- the Comment you so scrupulously
follow says that each person must interpret the Book "each for himself".
Being Polytheist, we may admit of a plurality of interpretations. Being
Post-Modern, we can understand that there is no choice but a plurality
of meanings.
If you still don't get it, then you should go back and study what has
already been said.
Since you claim to have read our 0=0 ritual and 'found' Christian
symbolism in it, perhaps you may have also noticed that our oaths do not
contain any admonition to give "reverence" to any religion at all. We
seek True Will, it's guise is irrelevant. The guide to correct behavior
is the True Will, as revealed by one's own Divine Genius. Since I/we are
not monotheists, and therefore don't have a creed that says what we are,
there is no need to admonish our Aspirants. They will take the Good and
True where ever they find it. Only those hamstrung by a monotheistic
tradition would need the admonition to look beyond its petty boundaries.
Therefore this entire argument is moot, but I thought I'd indulge you,
on the off chance you were actually sincere in wanting to learn
something, and for the sake of any third party who might be taken in by
your 'arguments'.
My poor faith has been dashed, but I promise not to get too upset about
it. Meanwhile, you can congratulate yourself on your cleverness at
whipping up specious, time wasting arguments. Since you proclaimed that
you have no desire to learn or study anything for fear of "more bullshit
to get cluttered in my head", I don't see why I should bother any further.
And no, I don't care if you care that you look silly. That was for
anyone else listening who might have been silly enough you seriously.
If Liber AL made you "ill", then by all means you should stay far away
from it. It has that effect on the weak, the timid and the slaves. Heck,
it had that effect on Crowley at first too, Buddhist that he was. Save
yourself the anguish. Don't worry. Be happy.
- Fr. A.o.C.
An English judge, growing weary of the barrister's long-winded
summation, leaned over the bench and remarked, "I've heard your
arguments, Sir Geoffrey, and I am none the wiser!" Sir Geoffrey
responded, "That may be, Milord, but at least you're better informed!"
Fr. A.o.C.
Gnome d Plume wrote:
> I'm not going to repost all of this but I do want to say that it was
> one of the best , most informative and insightful posts we've had on
> this NG in quite a while--even though I don't completely agree with
> you on the minimal importance of Osiris, either in the background of
> the G.D. or the Western Tradition in general.
I don't want to give the impression that the Osirian Mythos is
completely devoid of magickal value. We still use it, in the Portal
Grade. The Aspirant still has to deal with the Dead Guy -- and get
beyond Him. He's a vehicle, not the destination; a means, not an end.
> The Osirian concept was
> spiritually in advance of Moses at a much earlier date, and the direct
> precursor of the Christ myth and the Hiram Abiff legend. The R.R. et
> A.C.'s candidate crucifixion is not an exercise in Christianity.
> Christians cannot become Christ, they can only be Christ-like.
> R.R. et A.C. resurrection symbolism is essentially Osirian.
I take your point. Frankly, there are many Pagans (at least those who
were raised in a Christian culture and rejected it) who have to come to
terms with and understand the difference in order to transcend it.
Relating it to Osiris helps, just as in a similar but inverted way,
relating Osiris to Christ helped Christians come to terms with Osiris
and Paganism.
- Fr. A.o.C.
"I know that I am mortal by nature and ephemeral; but when I trace, at my
pleasure, the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch
earth with my feet; I stand in the presence of Zeus himself, and take my
fill of ambrosia." -- Claudius Ptolemy
catherine yronwode
>
> catherine yronwode wrote:
>
> > aethyr wrote:
>
> > > Hey, is the Women of the Golden Dawn book
> > > (Women of the Golden Dawn
> > > by Mary K. Greer 1994) readable?
>
> > Yes it is, quite so, and i highly recommended it.
>
> Why? Mary K. Greer is an awful writer.
Our opinions on that differ. I found information in the book not
available elsewhere and i enjoyed reading it.
> > I would augment it with one other item, the lengthy and
> > well illustrated essay on Pamela Colman Smith's life---
>
> How would these two things augment each other?
Smith was a member of the HOGD and is mentioned as such in Greer's
book, but at the time Greer wrote, not as much was known about Smith's
life as about some of the other female GD members; Kaplan's later
research fills out the bio of Smith given by Greer, particularly with
regard to her artwork prior to illustrating the Rider tarot.
> > and art that appears in the third volume of Stuart
> > Kaplan's illustrated "Encyclopedia of Tarot". If tarot is not your
> > interest---
>
> Tarot is my interest. That's why I don't recommend Mark K. Greer's
> books to anyone.
My interest is practically the whole world. I recommend all kinds of
things.
> > , then see if someone will photocopy Kaplan's bio of Smith for
> > you from the book---
>
> Why not purchase Kaplan's book?
We own all three volumes and i recommend them too -- but did you miss
where i wrote above "if tarot is not your interest" ? -- the original
querent wanted to know about a book about the women in the HOGD, not
about tarot per se, so i was trying to stay on topic.
> > and use it to supplement your copy of Greer's book.
>
> Or you could not do these things.
Well, of course.
That's what makes life so individualistic, i'd say.
> > For a 1999-era peek into the depth of Kaplan's researches on Smith---
>
> You figure a 2003-era peek would be ever so much more enlightening
> regarding this alleged "depth"?
I know of no 2003-era peek. The virtue of the 1999 interview with
Kaplan is that it is on the web. If you know of another, more recent
interview with him, please oblige with a URL.
> > (which were published after Greer published her book in 1994 and so
> > are not part of her work) see this interview with Kaplan:
>
> > http://www.lightworks.com/MonthlyAspectarian/1999/June/699-02.htm
>
> And what can we learn about Tarot through reading this interview other
> than "about how it was possible for [Kaplan] to sell $100 million worth
> of Tarot cards."?
We can learn quite a bit about Pamela Colman Smith, tarot artist.
Enjoy yourself,
cat yronwode
Hoodoo Correspondence Course http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocourse.html
SwAmI
> SwAmI wrote:
>
> > Would you mind helping me to understand it then?
>
> Sure, but this is the last time. After this you're on your own, because
> to go any further is futile. You've already made up your mind, so I will
> stop confusing you with the facts.
>
> III,51: With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon
> the cross.
Now see. That above sentence automatically pisses off over 2 billion people.
If, It is bringing in a new Aeon, as it claims, it seems to be excluding
those that follow the major religions, which is a pretty dumb thing to do
really seeing as they make up the majority of folks on this planet. It seems
to me it is only bringing in a very low-level kind of Aeon for those who are
against the current major religions. It also causes more friction between
people with different beliefs and does *nothing* to alleviate that. More
division = more suffering and misunderstanding. Go to a Christian church or
Muslim Mosque and read Liber Al out and let me know what response you get.
>
> III,52: I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
>
> III,53: With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the
> Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
>
> "Peck at the eyes of Jesus", etc. is a criticism of organized
> Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
It doesnt say that though does it? I am not a member of any organized
religion and yet i still find it offensive.
>Yes, RHK is not being nice.
Which wouldn't be too bad if it was being a little more constructive.
> Frankly, I don't think you've studied much at all of comparative
> religion, any more than you've studied Thelema.
You can think what you like.
Most religious writing
> is filled with criticism of other religions. Many religions and most
> sects begin as reform movements, criticizing, sometimes in very strong
> terms, the others.
Exactly. You are here criticizing what other religions do, and YET, are
defending Liber Al *for doing just that*!!
Dare i say hypocrasy?
Buddhism is no exception. Neither is Christianity,
> which came "not to bring peace, but a Sword."
The sword represents the Word of God. Not literally a sword.
Revelation 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his
mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun
shineth in his strength.
>
> As I've said repeatedly, you are taking the passages out of context.
> Even after I explain the context to you, you continue to take it out of
> context in exactly the same way, and argue from the same position that
> has already been disposed of. Here it is one more time in simple words:
> in Liber AL, "Jesus" is not an emblem of initiation or of an Aspirant
This is just your interpretation though isnt it?
> but of a failed religious and political system.
Then why doesnt this entity attack the church instead? Surely a "God" would
have thought about the complications that might arise from the provocative
symbolism it was using?
I do not see in Jesus or
> his teaching any religion I would want in my house. Frankly I doubt it
> has any of the 'light' attributed to it anymore (if it ever really did,
> especially after Saul of Tarsus got ahold of it), save that fell corona
> shared by Evil.
Your failure to see the Light has no effect whatsoever on the Light itself.
>
> You are confusing a creed with the 'ineffable light', the same thing
> that killed what ever good was once in Christianity. Creeds are a
> technique of brainwashing, whether Christian, Islamic, Hindu or
> Buddhist.
Ok well i admit that religion has been used for purposes other than
enlightening the followers of that religion. But if those followers are
happy with it who are we to judge?
>So, our Lord of Liberation
Yadda yadda. Your Lord of Liberation is doing the exact same thing as what
all the other religions are doing. If you were a fundamentalist christian
you would probably enjoy it if your Lord criticized other religions. It
gives a sense of 'belonging' and a false sense of "being right". There is no
difference in essence of it really, except you are of a different belief.
tears at the eyes of Jesus as he
> hangs upon the cross and flaps his wings in the face of Mohammed in
> criticism of their WORLD-VIEW,
How the hell would anyone, including your Lord, know what thier World-view
is? Maybe you're talking about the world-view of the followers?
and tears at the flesh of the Hindu,
> Buddhist, Mongol and Din in criticism of their RELATIONSHIP TO THE BODY
Care to explain this more?
> (Yes, Buddhists were included on RHK's "hit list" -- happy now?)
I noticed it mentions "Buddhists" but not Buddha. Yet he attacks Christ and
not Christians. Not very consistent is it?
Or at
> least this is one way to read it -- the Comment you so scrupulously
> follow
I don't "follow" anything. I am just commenting and sharing some thoughts. I
reserve the right to change my mind at any moment without prior warning.
>says that each person must interpret the Book "each for himself".
> Being Polytheist, we may admit of a plurality of interpretations. Being
> Post-Modern, we can understand that there is no choice but a plurality
> of meanings.
Is this a roundabout way of saying my comments may not be wrong?
>
> If you still don't get it, then you should go back and study what has
> already been said.
>
> Since you claim to have read our 0=0 ritual and 'found' Christian
> symbolism in it,
There is, yes. Read Liber HHH for a clue about the Hanged Man.
> If Liber AL made you "ill", then by all means you should stay far away
> from it. It has that effect on the weak, the timid and the slaves.
Maybe i am just a weak, timid slave wandering in the darkness of a complex
labyrinth in need of guidance. Would you turn your back because i am weak
and timid or that i don't agree with everything you believe in? Would you
destroy me because i am weak and timid?
Frater D'Artagnan
SwAmI
--
---
SwAmI Sathyasaishivashaktianandadadevi
"J. Karlin" <j...@jktarotX.com> wrote in message
news:3E2315A0...@jktarotX.com...
Asiya
news:b0156e$cd2$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Even after I explain the context to you, you continue to take it out
of
> > context in exactly the same way, and argue from the same position
that
> > has already been disposed of. Here it is one more time in simple
words:
> > in Liber AL, "Jesus" is not an emblem of initiation or of an
Aspirant
>
> This is just your interpretation though isnt it?
Oh boy, these kinds of threads are always jolly good fun. Hey Mark, you
oughta read Crowley's commentary on the Book of the Law. It's online
here:
http://www.geocities.com/s_azreal_belial/commentary.html
'Course there's all kinds of "naughty" stuff in the commentary too that
you'd no doubt throw a fit over, but perhaps if you actually read it
you'd understand bits here and there. Copy and paste for the three
verses you're so concerned about:
AL III,51: "With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs
upon the cross."
THE NEW COMMENT.
We are to consider carefully the particular attach of Heru Ra Ha against
each of these 'gods' or prophets; for though they be, or represent, the
Magi of the past, the curse of their Grade must consume them.
Thus it is the eyes of 'Jesus' -- his point of view -- that must be
destroyed; and this point of view is wrong because of his Magical
Gesture of self-sacrifice.
One must not for a moment suppose that this verse supports the
historicity of 'Jesus.' 'Jesus' is not, and never was, a man; but he was
a 'god,' just as a bundle of old rags and a kerosene tin on a bush may
be a 'god.' There is a man-made idea, built of ignorance, fear, and
meanness, for the most part, which we call 'Jesus,' and which has been
tricked out from time to time with various gauds from Paganism, and
Judaism.
The subject of 'Jesus' is, most unfortunately, too extensive for a note;
it is treated fully in my book 888.
AL III,52: "I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him."
THE NEW COMMENT.
Mohammed's point of view is wrong too; but he needs no such sharp
correction as 'Jesus.' It is his face -- his outward semblance -- that
is to be covered with His wings. The tenets of Islam, correctly
interpreted, are not far from our Way of Life and Light and Love and
Liberty. This applies especially to the secret tenets. The external
creed is mere nonsense suited to the intelligence of the peoples among
whom it was promulgated; but even so, Islam is Magnificent in practice.
Its code is that of a man of courage and honour and self-respect;
contrasting admirably with the cringing cowardice of the
damnation-dodging Christians with their unmanly and dishonest acceptance
of vicarious sacrifice, and their currish conception of themselves as
'born in sin,' 'miserable sinners' with 'no health in us.'
AL III,53: "With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the
Buddhist, Mongol and Din."
THE NEW COMMENT.
"The Indian." The religion of Hindustan, metaphysically and mystically
comprehensive enough to assure itself the possession of much truth, is
in practice almost as superstitious and false as Christianity, a faith
of slaves, liars and dastards. The same remarks apply roughly to
Buddhism.
'Mongol:" presumably the reference is to Confucianism, whose
metaphysical and ethical flawlessness has not saved its adherents from
losing those ruder virtues which are proper to a Fighting Animal, and
thus yielding at last a civilization coeval with history itself to the
barbarous tribes of Europe.
"Din" -- 'severity' or 'judgment' may refer to the Jewish Law, rather
than to the Faith (ad 'din') of Islam. Assuming this, the six religions
whose flesh must be torn out cover the whole globe outside Islam and
Christianity.
Why assault their flesh rather than their eyes, as in the other cases?
Because the metaphysics, or point of view, is correct -- I take Judaism
as Qabalistic -- but the practice imperfect.
Asiya
**********
http://www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
Tom
>
>
> I prefer to go by the advice to "test your spirits". If the entity in
> question is lying i would want to know why and for what purpose.
You better make sure your tests actually give you accurate answers.
"Purpose" may be the wrong word to use with spirit utterances, since many
spirits do not have enough consciousness to actually have a purpose of
their own. They're pretty much automatons. They don't have a reason why.
They just are what they are.
So, if they tell "lies", it could be merely because you don't understand
their nature and thus can't put what they say into the context of their
existence. Regarding spirits as autonomous and sentient entities is often
a mistake.
SwAmI
"Asiya" <asiya_...@SATNAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:N8VU9.41713$p_6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "SwAmI" <too_fr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b0156e$cd2$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E2365D1...@slip.net...
> > >
> > > As I've said repeatedly, you are taking the passages out of context.
> > > Even after I explain the context to you, you continue to take it out
> of
> > > context in exactly the same way, and argue from the same position
> that
> > > has already been disposed of. Here it is one more time in simple
> words:
> > > in Liber AL, "Jesus" is not an emblem of initiation or of an
> Aspirant
> >
> > This is just your interpretation though isnt it?
>
> Oh boy, these kinds of threads are always jolly good fun. Hey Mark, you
> oughta read Crowley's commentary on the Book of the Law. It's online
> here:
Hi Asiya, good to see you're still around. Thanks for the link. I'll
probably get around to it in-between reading the Holy Hitchhikers Guide to
the Galaxy (42!) and Liber 888. Doesn't Liber Al say something about the
scribe not understanding it himself?
I like this from Crowley i just read;
"If the Bible be the Word of god, Mr. Shaw is damned, and I am damned
myself. May I hope that we may be permitted to argue in hell? For this small
attempt on earth has been exceedingly amusing. "
Now that's the kind of sense of humor i like. Maybe he's not such a bad old
toad after all. Heh.
> Thus it is the eyes of 'Jesus' -- his point of view -- that must be
> destroyed;
Oh i dunno about this comment though. How on earth does Crowley know what
Jesus' point of view is? His followers' point of view maybe. I prefer the
Gnostic Christ who laughs at those who think they have crucified him to
point out that the body on the cross is an illusion. Kinda Buddhist in a
way.
Acts of John 97-102;
"You heard that i suffered, but i suffered not.
An unsuffering one was i, yet suffered.
One pierced was i, yet i was not abused.
One hanged was i, and yet not hanged.
Blood flowed from me, yet did not flow."
"Had you known how to suffer, you would have been able not to suffer. See
through suffering, and you will have non-suffering."
The Apocalypse of Peter shows Jesus 'glad and laughing' on the cross while
nails are being driven into his hands and feet and Jesus says;
"He whom you see on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus.
But this one into whose hands and feet they drive nails is his fleshy part,
which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in
his likeness. But look at him and me".
"But i was rejoicing in the height and laughing at thier ignorance."
Frater NowWhat
-------
"There is no damn[ation]". Heh.
SwAmI
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:csWU9.9791$Qr4.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "SwAmI" <too_fr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:avtuvr$a16$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > I prefer to go by the advice to "test your spirits". If the entity in
> > question is lying i would want to know why and for what purpose.
>
> You better make sure your tests actually give you accurate answers.
>
> "Purpose" may be the wrong word to use with spirit utterances, since many
> spirits do not have enough consciousness to actually have a purpose of
> their own. They're pretty much automatons. They don't have a reason why.
>
You have proof for your above assertions i gather? Care to share?
mika
> I do have a small quibble still re: your reference to "paganism" and
> Osiris as the "green man" or vegetation god. The emasculation of
> Osiris is consonant with Christian myth, as you bolted, but it is
> certainly not the paradigm for all pagan religions. See, for instance,
> Tamuuz / Dumuzi -- a vegetation god and shepherd god (two in one)
> whose penis was not ever chopped off but was said to spring up like a
> bolting lettuce stalk growing by the water. Sure, he dies and goes to
> become king of the underworld (playing on his carnelian flute to
> please the women there), but there is no way to correlate either his
> lettuce stalk or his flute with the Osirian cock-less wonder. As far
> as i know, Osiris is somewhat of an anomaly in that regard. Even Jesus
> was said to have boffed Mary Magdalen, thus giving rise to the
> Merovingian kings of France!
Remember that Osiris was only cockless for a brief period of time, a
time which can be considered an intermediate stage of a magickal or
alchemical process. Prior to Set chopping Osiris to pieces, he had a
penis. After Isis refashioned and animated a replacement penis,
Osiris sired himself as Horus, who has a penis. So cockless Osiris is
only a transitory phase. Well, that's just one myth version, but
personally I'm not aware of any Osiris myth that maintains him as a
cockless God.
There is a very direct and easy way to associate Tamuz/Dumuzi's
'bolting lettuce stalk growing by the water' with Osiris, as Isis
fashioned Osiris' new penis from wood that had grown by the Nile.
And, it's this new penis, not his previous one, that is associated
with Osiris' fertility. Osiris was not emasculated, he died and was
reborn. His penis only wasn't chopped off, his whole entire body was
chopped up.
Joe Cosby
To me, personally, it seems to represent an intermediate stage in a
fairly symmetrical symbolism:
- Osiris alive
- Osiris slain
- Osiris scattered (and thus, I think growing cycles, crops, are
implied)
- Osiris resurrected, but in a form which is not capable of -giving-
life
I mean, the scattering of Osiris seems to imply his body used,
literally, as fertilizer, giving fertility to the land, which is
fairly archetypal in Divine Kings, then brought back, but without the
fertile principal
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"Who cares what you think?" - President George W. Bush, July 4, 2001
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=20010808192029.17667.00003400%40ng-cn1.aol.com
SwAmI
"mika" <mik...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb921f.0301...@posting.google.com...
Maybe it was a Buddhist act of chod or whatever it's called.
mika
> On 14 Jan 2003 11:35:04 -0800, mik...@yahoo.com (mika) wrote:
>
> >
> >Remember that Osiris was only cockless for a brief period of time, a
> >time which can be considered an intermediate stage of a magickal or
> >alchemical process. Prior to Set chopping Osiris to pieces, he had a
> >penis. After Isis refashioned and animated a replacement penis,
> >Osiris sired himself as Horus, who has a penis. So cockless Osiris is
> >only a transitory phase. Well, that's just one myth version, but
> >personally I'm not aware of any Osiris myth that maintains him as a
> >cockless God.
> >
> >There is a very direct and easy way to associate Tamuz/Dumuzi's
> >'bolting lettuce stalk growing by the water' with Osiris, as Isis
> >fashioned Osiris' new penis from wood that had grown by the Nile.
> >And, it's this new penis, not his previous one, that is associated
> >with Osiris' fertility. Osiris was not emasculated, he died and was
> >reborn. His penis only wasn't chopped off, his whole entire body was
> >chopped up.
>
> To me, personally, it seems to represent an intermediate stage in a
> fairly symmetrical symbolism:
>
> - Osiris alive
> - Osiris slain
> - Osiris scattered (and thus, I think growing cycles, crops, are
> implied)
> - Osiris resurrected, but in a form which is not capable of -giving-
> life
But he -is- resurrected in a form capable of giving life - he gives
life to Horus. He just doesn't have the same penis that he was born
with.
> I mean, the scattering of Osiris seems to imply his body used,
> literally, as fertilizer, giving fertility to the land, which is
> fairly archetypal in Divine Kings, then brought back, but without the
> fertile principal
Brought back -through- the fertile principal (Isis).
Osiris slain and scattered is like dross. Through the alchemical
process initiated by Isis, Osiris becomes like gold. Or, rather,
Horus is the gold that is produced.
Well, that's just one interpretation anyway. But I have a hard time
accepting a description of Osiris being infertile or incapable of
giving life. I haven't read any myths along those lines. Any
references? Yeah, he loses his first penis. But then he gets another
one. The idea that he wasn't born with it, that it was a gift from
Isis, is significant, especially as the new one is arguably more
powerful than the first.
Robert Scott Martin
mika <mik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Remember that Osiris was only cockless for a brief period of time, a
>time which can be considered an intermediate stage of a magickal or
>alchemical process.
Good point. The gold of commerce is a cockless king; to give it back the
power to reproduce, we need to find the generative organ ("little gold" or
the bather) cast onto the mercurial waters.
Petra has two daddies.
aethyr
<snip>
> http://www.geocities.com/s_azreal_belial/commentary.html
>
> 'Course there's all kinds of "naughty" stuff
> in the commentary too that
> you'd no doubt throw a fit over, but perhaps if you actually read it
> you'd understand bits here and there. Copy and paste for the three
> verses you're so concerned about:
>
<snip cogent The Law is For All quotes>
> Asiya
> **********
> http://www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
>
>
aa
Deqvf
Fr. A.o.C.
SwAmI wrote:
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote...
>
> > SwAmI wrote:
> >
> > > Would you mind helping me to understand it then?
> >
> > Sure, but this is the last time. After this you're on your own, because
> > to go any further is futile. You've already made up your mind, so I will
> > stop confusing you with the facts.
> >
> > III,51: With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon
> > the cross.
>
> Now see. That above sentence automatically pisses off over 2 billion people.
> If, It is bringing in a new Aeon, as it claims, it seems to be excluding
> those that follow the major religions, which is a pretty dumb thing to do
> really seeing as they make up the majority of folks on this planet.
"There is nothing more odious than the majority; for it consists of a
few powerful leaders, a certain number of accommodating scoundrels and
subservient weaklings, and a mass of men who trudge after them without
in the least knowing their own minds." -- Wolfgang van Goethe
Now we confront head-on the prejudice and double-standard that was
heretofore barely concealed, though clearly present, by Swami. Ah, who
says that Magick has no effect?
According to the legend, when Jesus was said to have pronounced his
message, the 'majority' of the 'world' he lived in was the Roman Empire
-- not only did he piss *them* off, but he pissed off his own ethnic
tribe to the point that both they and the Romans agreed, even though
they hated each other, that it was a good idea to execute him. A pretty
dumb thing to do, eh?
> It seems
> to me it is only bringing in a very low-level kind of Aeon for those who are
> against the current major religions. It also causes more friction between
> people with different beliefs and does *nothing* to alleviate that.
How does one alleviate a disease? By eliminating the cause. Sometimes
vaccination has some nasty side effects, but we accept them for the
greater good of eliminating the disease.
> More
> division = more suffering and misunderstanding. Go to a Christian church or
> Muslim Mosque and read Liber Al out and let me know what response you get.
Same response Jesus was said to have gotten by driving the
money-changers from the Temple. Look what response that got him.
> > III,52: I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
> >
> > III,53: With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the
> > Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
> >
> > "Peck at the eyes of Jesus", etc. is a criticism of organized
> > Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
>
> It doesnt say that though does it?
Neither does it say that we are to take "Jesus" as meaning "the
Aspirant" and "eyes" as "ineffable light". Which is even more of a stretch.
> I am not a member of any organized
> religion and yet i still find it offensive.
It's an interpretation of a mystic text. It's the interpretation that
Crowley puts forth, and I happen to agree. As Tom points out, it's a
mistake to anthropomorphize the behaviors of Gods and ascribe human
motivations to them. They don't have a reason why. They just are what
they are.
> >Yes, RHK is not being nice.
>
> Which wouldn't be too bad if it was being a little more constructive.
The 'constructive' aspect of Liber AL is found in Chapter II.
II,6: I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core
of every star. I am Life, and the giver of Life, yet therefore is the
knowledge of me the knowledge of death.
II,9: Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows
are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which
remains.
And the 'nurturing' in Chapter I:
I,28: None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.
I,29: For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.
I,30: This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as
nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.
I,58: I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty, not faith, while in
life, upon death; peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy; nor do I demand
aught in sacrifice.
> > Frankly, I don't think you've studied much at all of comparative
> > religion, any more than you've studied Thelema.
>
> You can think what you like.
I shall, based on the evidence presented.
> > Most religious writing
> > is filled with criticism of other religions. Many religions and most
> > sects begin as reform movements, criticizing, sometimes in very strong
> > terms, the others.
>
> Exactly. You are here criticizing what other religions do, and YET, are
> defending Liber Al *for doing just that*!!
> Dare i say hypocrasy?
I criticize what other religions call on their followers to do, and what
they actually do. RHK is the one "doing", not calling on humans to do
His work for Him.
I was answering your objection:
>>> I think most Christians would wonder about folks who work with a god
>>> that attacks thier god.
What Christianity and Islam do is call on their *followers* to attack
all other gods and *their* followers. Explicitly, and they continue to
do so to this day unabated.
> Buddhism is no exception. Neither is Christianity,
> > which came "not to bring peace, but a Sword."
>
> The sword represents the Word of God. Not literally a sword.
Oh ho! So there is a NON-LITERAL INTERPRETATION we are supposed to
understand here? So we are to interpret such a passage figuratively, but
when examining Liber AL, we are to take everything literally?
> Revelation 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his
> mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun
> shineth in his strength.
Ah, the Book of Revelation -- where the loving god Yahweh and his
compassionate son Jesus unleash a multitude of plagues and disasters to
destroy the world and cast the unbelievers into an eternal lake of fire.
Or am I not supposed to take that LITERALLY?
> > As I've said repeatedly, you are taking the passages out of context.
> > Even after I explain the context to you, you continue to take it out of
> > context in exactly the same way, and argue from the same position that
> > has already been disposed of. Here it is one more time in simple words:
> > in Liber AL, "Jesus" is not an emblem of initiation or of an Aspirant
>
> This is just your interpretation though isnt it?
Absolutely. (Although it's also Crowley's.) I said as much explicitly.
You are the one who refuses to accept a plurality of interpretation. I
invited you to believe what you wilt. If you choose to issue challenges
based on your interpretation, expect challenges in return. "As brothers
fight ye!"
> > but of a failed religious and political system.
>
> Then why doesnt this entity attack the church instead? Surely a "God" would
> have thought about the complications that might arise from the provocative
> symbolism it was using?
You have a very strange idea of how gods are "supposed" to behave.
Again, as Tom points out, a god is a nexus of absolutism, and cares not
what humans might think about it. Didn't Yahweh think about the
complications that would arise from giving John the Prophet his vision
of Revelation, and the proactive symbolism it was using? Revelation
makes Liber AL look like a child's fairy tale.
> > I do not see in Jesus or
> > his teaching any religion I would want in my house. Frankly I doubt it
> > has any of the 'light' attributed to it anymore (if it ever really did,
> > especially after Saul of Tarsus got ahold of it), save that fell corona
> > shared by Evil.
>
> Your failure to see the Light has no effect whatsoever on the Light itself.
I just wanted to make very clear how I stood on the issue.
> > You are confusing a creed with the 'ineffable light', the same thing
> > that killed what ever good was once in Christianity. Creeds are a
> > technique of brainwashing, whether Christian, Islamic, Hindu or
> > Buddhist.
>
> Ok well i admit that religion has been used for purposes other than
> enlightening the followers of that religion. But if those followers are
> happy with it who are we to judge?
Are you listening to yourself? Judging Thelema is exactly what you are
doing. You railed about Thelemites "following the example" of RHK, and
used that as the jumping-off point for your tirade, which included
comparisons to Nazism.
> >So, our Lord of Liberation
>
> Yadda yadda.
You attitude of mockery is noted. Thank you for the clarification of
your underlying intent.
> Your Lord of Liberation is doing the exact same thing as what
> all the other religions are doing. If you were a fundamentalist christian
> you would probably enjoy it if your Lord criticized other religions. It
> gives a sense of 'belonging' and a false sense of "being right". There is no
> difference in essence of it really, except you are of a different belief.
Except we don't see Thelemites murdering the opposition. Yahweh
personally ordered the wholesale massacre of men, women and children, as
did Allah. And the love of Jesus? "Next he will say to those on his left
hand, 'Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire
prepared for the devil and his angels... And they will go away to
eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.'" Mat. 25:41-46
RHK doesn't command anyone to kill the infidel, or condemn anyone to an
eternal torture chamber. He essentially says that He will take care of
it Himself.
> tears at the eyes of Jesus as he
> > hangs upon the cross and flaps his wings in the face of Mohammed in
> > criticism of their WORLD-VIEW,
>
> How the hell would anyone, including your Lord, know what thier World-view
> is? Maybe you're talking about the world-view of the followers?
Since the interpretation is a critique of the organized monotheist
religions, and they consist of the "body of their followers", then
that's a fair assessment. Congratulations, you're beginning to think
outside the box.
> > and tears at the flesh of the Hindu,
> > Buddhist, Mongol and Din in criticism of their RELATIONSHIP TO THE BODY
>
> Care to explain this more?
See Aethyr's posting of Crowley's commentary.
> > (Yes, Buddhists were included on RHK's "hit list" -- happy now?)
>
> I noticed it mentions "Buddhists" but not Buddha. Yet he attacks Christ and
> not Christians. Not very consistent is it?
Because it is the Christians and the Muslims that built a cult of
personality out of their "human" avatars. Christians assimilate the
blood and body of their avatar directly in their highest magical rite.
Buddha and Krishna only pointed the way, rather than offering themselves
as "examples".
> > Or at
> > least this is one way to read it -- the Comment you so scrupulously
> > follow
>
> I don't "follow" anything.
You stated explicitly, "I read it once because that is what the
commentary suggests." You were *following* the suggestion of the Comment.
> I am just commenting and sharing some thoughts. I
> reserve the right to change my mind at any moment without prior warning.
Including claiming you do something, and later claiming you don't?
> > says that each person must interpret the Book "each for himself".
> > Being Polytheist, we may admit of a plurality of interpretations. Being
> > Post-Modern, we can understand that there is no choice but a plurality
> > of meanings.
>
> Is this a roundabout way of saying my comments may not be wrong?
Right or wrong doesn't enter into it.
In order to claim your right to interpret the Book as you will, you must
also grant the right for others to interpret it as THEY will. Instead
you insist that yours is the only way to interpret it, and all others
are wrong. The sword cuts both ways, or it does not cut at all.
> > If you still don't get it, then you should go back and study what has
> > already been said.
> >
> > Since you claim to have read our 0=0 ritual and 'found' Christian
> > symbolism in it,
>
> There is, yes. Read Liber HHH for a clue about the Hanged Man.
Reading the Holy Books of Thelema now? Aren't you worried about
cluttering your mind with bullshit?
"Then let his body be in the position of the Hanged Man, and let him
aspire with all his force unto the Holy Guardian Angel. The grace having
been granted unto him, let him partake mystically of the Eucharist of
the Five Elements and let him proclaim Light in Extension; yea, let him
proclaim Light in Extension."
So what are you referring to here? The HGA? A concept as old as Plato.
The "Eucharist of the Five Elements"? A concept as old as Mithrasism.
I never said there wasn't anything in it that couldn't be also found in
Christian philosophy. What passes for Christian philosophy is ersatz
Platonic philosophy (an idealized perfect world in the beyond, and a
corrupt material one here on earth), based on an adulterated
appropriation of Mithrasism by Saul of Tarsus ("St. Paul"), upon which
he built his apocalyptic death-cult. When the Christ myth was new,
Mithras and Mithraism were already ancient. Mithras was worshiped for
centuries as God's Messenger of Truth, long revered by the Persians
(Zoroastrianism) and the Indians (see the Vedic literature) and imported
to Rome around 70 BCE. Christian apologist Justin Martyr (1 Apologia,
66, 4) denounced the devil for having sent a God so similar to Jesus --
yet Mithras preceded him! So the Christians, once they converted the
Roman Emperor, proceeded to establish the dominance of their religion by
exterminating the followers of Mithras, razing His temples and burning
His sacred texts. So, sadly, our knowledge of Mithras is somewhat
limited and comes to us from mostly Persian sources. We do know the
great Mithraic festivals celebrated His birth (on December 25th) and His
death and resurrection (at the spring solstice), and He was invoked by a
ritual taking of wine and bread -- sound familiar?
Frankly, I don't think Christianity has ever produced a single original
thought, but has stolen every aspect of its philosophy from ancient
Pagan precursors -- and then paid homage to them by destroying them.
> > If Liber AL made you "ill", then by all means you should stay far away
> > from it. It has that effect on the weak, the timid and the slaves.
>
> Maybe i am just a weak, timid slave wandering in the darkness of a complex
> labyrinth in need of guidance. Would you turn your back because i am weak
> and timid or that i don't agree with everything you believe in?
What bothers me is not what YOU believe in. My problem is that you
insist on telling *me* what *I* believe in. For example:
>>> I am beginning to wonder of Crowley and the Nazi's were in touch
with the
>>> same Demonic entities.
How nice. So I am supposed to take pity on and wish to offer guidance to
someone who, based on the most specious of comparisons (like the "Silver
Star" with Hitler's SchutzStaffel) purports that I am a follower of Nazi
"demonic entities"?
Unlike Christians, neither Pagans nor Thelemites have any compunction to
proselytize. "Saving souls" is not in our job description.
> Would you destroy me because i am weak and timid?
Leaving you to your ignorance is punishment enough. Unlike the religions
you revere, I don't believe in personally destroying others for their
beliefs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit shall deal with them in His own time. I have faith.
- Fr. A.o.C.
"If I had undeniable proof of the existence of Yahweh, aka Jehovah, aka
Adonai, aka El Shaddai, aka Yahweh Elohim, the father of Jesus and the
ancient leader of the Semitic peoples, I still would not worship the
bastard. If an angel appeared to me and removed my appendectomy scar so
I could never deny the reality of divine power, I still would not be a
Christian. My primary reason for not being a Christian has nothing to do
with my lack of belief in their god. My primary reason is that the Bible
is a disgusting book describing the behavior of a god without the
morality of the average high school student." -- Tim Maroney
aethyr
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> news:3E2365D1...@slip.net...
>
>>SwAmI wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Would you mind helping me to understand it then?
>>
>>Sure, but this is the last time. After this you're on your own, because
>>to go any further is futile. You've already made up your mind, so I will
>>stop confusing you with the facts.
>>
>>III,51: With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon
>>the cross.
>
>
>
> Now see. That above sentence automatically pisses off over 2 billion people.
> If, It is bringing in a new Aeon, as it claims, it seems to be excluding
> those that follow the major religions, which is a pretty dumb thing to do
> really seeing as they make up the majority of folks on this planet.
circular argument
> It seems
> to me it is only bringing in a very low-level kind of Aeon for those who are
> against the current major religions.
Isn't 500 years long enough to wait? 'With Us, a day is as two thousand
years'- Heart of the Master
> It also causes more friction between
> people with different beliefs
The OTO is officially very tolerant with the religious beliefs of their
members. The AA has liber librae, thien tao, liber nu, liber cheth, and
many other books that recommend tolerance, largess, liberalness,
expansiveness, and inclusiveness. As soon as you get the figurative
language concept, you'll be fine. Afterall, couldn't one make the same
case for all the existing major world religions (people won't like it
cuz... a, b, or c)
Bernard Russell, Nietsche and numerous others have already done this to
a greater or lesser degree. You can either get on the cluetrain, or try
to find another destination, but this train is moving...
> and does *nothing* to alleviate that. More
> division = more suffering and misunderstanding. Go to a Christian church or
> Muslim Mosque and read Liber Al out and let me know what response you get.
Admittance to the mysteries of Thelema would be incompatible generally
with this piece of mental tromp de l'oeil. One may as well say, bring
the Torah to a Christian church and ask God which part of the Law is
Done, Finis, or out-moded. Bring your I Ching sticks to cathechism! Ask
the rabbi what he thinks of your rosarie, etc.
>
>
>>III,52: I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
>>
>>III,53: With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the
>>Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
>>
>>"Peck at the eyes of Jesus", etc. is a criticism of organized
>>Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
>
>
> It doesnt say that though does it? I am not a member of any organized
> religion and yet i still find it offensive.
excellent, it has done it job
because while you may not be a nominal Christian, a nominal Buddhist,
etc. you prolly have one or another world religion's old tired ism's
operating as mental operating software. feel free to speak up if you can
credibly correct my assumption here.
>
>
>
>>Yes, RHK is not being nice.
>
>
> Which wouldn't be too bad if it was being a little more constructive.
>
>
>>Frankly, I don't think you've studied much at all of comparative
>>religion, any more than you've studied Thelema.
>
>
> You can think what you like.
>
>
> Most religious writing
>
>>is filled with criticism of other religions. Many religions and most
>>sects begin as reform movements, criticizing, sometimes in very strong
>>terms, the others.
>
>
> Exactly. You are here criticizing what other religions do, and YET, are
> defending Liber Al *for doing just that*!!
> Dare i say hypocrasy?
>
>
>
> Buddhism is no exception. Neither is Christianity,
>
>>which came "not to bring peace, but a Sword."
>
>
> The sword represents the Word of God. Not literally a sword.
>
> Revelation 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his
> mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun
> shineth in his strength.
>
>
>
>
>
>>As I've said repeatedly, you are taking the passages out of context.
>>Even after I explain the context to you, you continue to take it out of
>>context in exactly the same way, and argue from the same position that
>>has already been disposed of. Here it is one more time in simple words:
>>in Liber AL, "Jesus" is not an emblem of initiation or of an Aspirant
>
>
> This is just your interpretation though isnt it?
Thelemites who are over the age of 30 will prolly get what is being
said. Younger initiates are as dumb as anyone else, as smart as any
other group. I know plenty of 'over-30' Thelemites who'd be able to
understand. A meme is not merely an interpretation, just like a religion
is not merely a meme. Trends are clearly against you.
>
>
>
>>but of a failed religious and political system.
>
>
> Then why doesnt this entity attack the church instead? Surely a "God" would
> have thought about the complications that might arise from the provocative
> symbolism it was using?
>
> I do not see in Jesus or
>
>>his teaching any religion I would want in my house. Frankly I doubt it
>>has any of the 'light' attributed to it anymore (if it ever really did,
>>especially after Saul of Tarsus got ahold of it), save that fell corona
>>shared by Evil.
eh?
consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds-
> Or at
>
>>least this is one way to read it -- the Comment you so scrupulously
>>follow
>
>
> I don't "follow" anything. I am just commenting and sharing some thoughts. I
> reserve the right to change my mind at any moment without prior warning.
>
>
>
>>says that each person must interpret the Book "each for himself".
>>Being Polytheist, we may admit of a plurality of interpretations. Being
>>Post-Modern, we can understand that there is no choice but a plurality
>>of meanings.
>
>
> Is this a roundabout way of saying my comments may not be wrong?
ill-supported, but certainly not wrong!
>
>
>
>>If you still don't get it, then you should go back and study what has
>>already been said.
>>
>>Since you claim to have read our 0=0 ritual and 'found' Christian
>>symbolism in it,
>
>
> There is, yes. Read Liber HHH for a clue about the Hanged Man.
liber dclxxi is the AA's Probationer 0=0 rite
this is a good book to study (preferably the water color version
published in 1998, the 2nd recent equinox title from weiser)
>
>
> > If Liber AL made you "ill", then by all means you should stay far away
>
>>from it. It has that effect on the weak, the timid and the slaves.
>
>
> Maybe i am just a weak, timid slave wandering in the darkness of a complex
> labyrinth in need of guidance. Would you turn your back because i am weak
> and timid or that i don't agree with everything you believe in? Would you
> destroy me because i am weak and timid?
>
>
The Law is For All also suggests another interpretation:
-->weak parts of _one self_ are meant to be destroyed, not others
innocently being a nuisance to themselves.
after awhile, if one is persistently close enough to my sphere, i
recognize his existence. if i do not, lack of understanding of orbits
may precipitate imperiling my own course in space.
hadit is also defined in the classical hermetic definition of god: 'in
the sphere i am everywhere the center, as she the circumference is never
found' ever-widening circles of Dante etc. etc.
if i do my will, i encourage hir to do the same
this habit or custom works as a virtuous circle
all else being equal, this is obviously a program of individual
attainment amidst the maelstrom and chaos of every day living. it works
for you or it doesn't.
there will be no bending of knees. the chosen here, are self chosen.
clue number one:
# of verses in Liber AL:
ccxx= nplim (elect)
> Frater D'Artagnan
>
>
aa
Deqvf
Joe Cosby
Well the losing-his-penis thing is what I was referring to, in
referring to his being without the fertile principal.
It isn't so much that I think Osiris represents an infertile god,
rather that that part of the story seems, to me, to have an agrarian
reference, a reference to the cycles of crops born, dying, and born
again.
I think the analogy between Osiris and alchemical gold is very
interesting;, purified, dissolved then recoagulated. Maybe that's the
point of having no penis, gold doesn't mix, it remains "noble", aloof,
maybe the implication is that he generates life without copulating (as
the alchemical medicine is said to generate new things without losing
it's own mass).
That he gets his cock back from an Earth Mother Goddess too is
interesting, I agree. It carries a sense of the divine twins, and
also as you say, again it implies the process of purification.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic to it."
- Goethe
Fr. A.o.C.
mika wrote:
> Remember that Osiris was only cockless for a brief period of time, a
> time which can be considered an intermediate stage of a magickal or
> alchemical process. Prior to Set chopping Osiris to pieces, he had a
> penis. After Isis refashioned and animated a replacement penis,
> Osiris sired himself as Horus, who has a penis. So cockless Osiris is
> only a transitory phase. Well, that's just one myth version, but
> personally I'm not aware of any Osiris myth that maintains him as a
> cockless God.
I think you all have the order of events mixed up.
First, Set tricked Osiris into getting into the "ornate box" -- the
first sarcophagus -- and locked him inside it, then cast it into the
Nile, where Osiris died of suffocation. The box drifted down the Nile
until it came to rest in the land of Lebanon, where a great cedar tree
grew around it. So magnificent was this tree that the king of Lebanon
had it cut down to make the central pillar of his palace. When Isis
discovered the deed of Set, She and Anubis searched wide in the world to
find the corpse of Her husband with hopes of resurrecting Him. With the
help of Anubis (and His great sense of smell) She found Her mate in the
pillar of the Hall of the King of Lebanon. Isis posed as a nurse maid in
service to the Queen of Lebanon to aid her with the sickly child she had
born. Isis bided Her time until She could be alone in the feasting hall
and rescue Her Husband.
One night when the Moon was dark and the whole world was quiet, Isis
stole silently into the Feasting Hall. Using Her great craft She cracked
open the shell of the Great Cedar and released the Sarcophagus of Set
which held the body of Osiris. She loosed the pins that held fast the
door and swung it open. Within She beheld the face of Her Brother, Her
lover, Her Husband, the Green God, indeed now truly Green of Flesh.
She wailed in sorrow so piercingly that the son of the King died of
fright and the Great Cedar cracked further and the very roof began to
collapse. Shedding Her enchantment disguise of a nurse maid, Isis swept
Her wings about the body of Osiris and lifting Her skirts She entered
His coffin to kneel over His body.
So great, so profound is the Beauty of Isis the Divine that even in
death the Phallus of Osiris attended to Her call. She mounted Him and
danced the bitter sweet dance of mourning until the Great God did come
forth into Her. Thus Horus the Younger was conceived. Then She gathered
up His Body, the box and the boy Anubis and fled back to Khem, as the
roof the Feasting Hall of the King of Lebanon collapsed behind them.
When Set heard that Isis was to attempt to revive Osiris He set out to
hunt down and destroy the body of Osiris. He found the body and cut it
into 12 pieces and scattered them around the land of Khem. Isis, with
the help of both Nephthys and Thoth, gathered all the pieces together
save one, His sacred Phallus. Then with Her magick She re-animated
Osiris, but having died He could not return to the land of the living,
for He could not bear the light of the Sun. So He became the Lord of the
Underworld, never to return.
And He never did get His Phallus back, for it was lost in the delta of
the Nile, where it gives forth life with each Spring, and is cut off
again with each harvest.
> There is a very direct and easy way to associate Tamuz/Dumuzi's
> 'bolting lettuce stalk growing by the water' with Osiris, as Isis
> fashioned Osiris' new penis from wood that had grown by the Nile.
It should also be mentioned that Tamuz was not a God, but a mortal man.
So the parallel is not exact.
- Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat
bloodo...@goddamnfruit.com ({ Secret Chief }) wrote:
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> news:<3E180D48...@slip.net>...
> > Re O'Stat wrote:
> >
> > > > Joseph wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud,...
> > > >
> > > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Absolutely correct!
>
> Yes, at least insofar as Mathers and Westcott's story about finding
> them goes.
>
> But the consensus these days seems to be that they were some of
> Kenneth Mackenzie's sketches for one of his various occult orders,
> which Westcott picked up when he was looking for the Swedenborg Rite
> rituals. And in and of themselves, there's no particular fraud in
> them.
>
> But yeah, the story's phony. Is Re surprised at this? Or perhaps
> he's located Fraulein Sprengel with the help of his mysterious
> 'current'.
I'm just surprised that people would work so strongly to say they're
members of an Order, yet change the teaching to reflect something
entirely different and claim the documents which founded the order were
a "pious fraud,"
Re
Re O'Stat
wrote:
>
> When we approached this project, we decided we had to establish a
> "baseline" on which to rest the concept of a "Golden Dawn Order", and
> for this the logical choice was the most fundamental document in the GD
> canon. We had two motivations for doing this: to establish a rational
> position on which we could call ourselves a "Golden Dawn Order" in actual
> fact, and to "draw the line" in such a way that allows us to liberate a
> magical tradition that, in our opinion, had been polluted and distorted
> in a dangerous and harmful manner, even by the so-called "original"
> members of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
So you decided what other groups were doing didn't fit you and decided
to come up with your own system and rationalize that it could be the GD.
:-)
> They were cursed by their own insistence on clinging to 19th century
> Christian dogma. As we all know, Yahweh is a jealous god...
And yet, you decided to follow in the footsteps of these accursed people.
:-)
>
> So we look on our satrap of the GD not so much as changing something of
> the old Aeon into something new, but rather as returning the Current to
> the original roots of its nature -- *purifying* a strain of Magick that
> had been inappropriately hijacked in it's formative stages by religious
> dogmatics and turned into something it was *not* meant to be in the
> first place.
Ahhhh. The old "You're not the REAL XYZ. We're the real, "pure" (C) GD.
LOL!
:-)
>
> Why should the Osirian Myth be offered as a template for the path of
> Adepthood in the first place? It is a particularly unsuitable model.
>...Hmmm, gullible dead eunuch god who makes the grass grow, rules the
> land of the dead and blackmails His fellow Gods. Now is that the
> godform I wish to emulate as a magician?
> ...So the question remains: what does the Osiris myth have to do with the
> study of Magick and the path to Adeptship? What about the Osiris story
> makes him a good model for the mage? If taken on its own merits, apart
> from the original Hermetic Order's use, would it make any sense? We can
> find no Egyptian source that used the Hall of Great Truth as a
> telesterion, a hall of Initiation. Osiris is a god of the vegetative
> cycle. Even taken in its broadest sense, ever returning from the dead
> has no necessary correlation with the process of acquiring magickal
> wisdom, power, and skill. Nor is there any particular value to being
> 'purified through suffering' or 'glorified through trial' to the process
> of learning magick. (These are Christian moral dogmas, not practical
> magickal instruction.) So why use Osiris and the Hall of Great Truth at
> all?
I think that's an excellent question.
There is certainly no reason to whatsoever.
Unless you want to follow the GD tradition.
>
> "Since [our] Hall of Initiation is not presided over by Osiris
Again, a step away from the Golden Dawn.
You're long post indicates that you are clearly concerned about the
abandonment of Osiris and the need to rationalize your action.
But in truth, there is no need to rationalize your action. You could put
Mickey Mouse on the Throne of the East (as long as Disney didn't object,
of course) if you wish. You could be Spongebob Squarepants there or a
tunafish sandwich. Work with it and make it work.
Do what you want.
But take Osiris off the Throne and it's not the G.D.
HieroGnome 747
Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat wrote:
> Unless you want to follow the GD tradition.
>
> Again, a step away from the Golden Dawn.
>
> But take Osiris off the Throne and it's not the G.D.
>
> But it's not the Golden Dawn in any way.
>
> By changing it to a Horus orientation it is no longer the G.D.
>
> Another Thelemic group masquerading as the G.D.
>
> It's just not the Golden Dawn tradition.
>
> It's just not the G.D...open source or otherwise.
>
> And you're not the G.D.
>
> But you're still not the G.D.
>
> The changes make it clear that you are not doing the G.D. work.
>
> They AREN'T the GD.
>
> Duh!
Is anyone NOT clear about Re's opinion in this mattter?
Anyone? Hands?
OK, just checking...
- Fr. A.o.C.
"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as being shot at without effect." --
Winston Churchill
Asiya
> "Asiya" <asiya_...@SATNAMatt.net> wrote in message
> news:N8VU9.41713$p_6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
Mark, you
> > oughta read Crowley's commentary on the Book of the Law. It's
online
> > here:
>
> Hi Asiya, good to see you're still around.
Thanks.
> Thanks for the link. I'll
> probably get around to it in-between reading the Holy Hitchhikers
Guide to
> the Galaxy (42!) and Liber 888. Doesn't Liber Al say something about
the
> scribe not understanding it himself?
No. There's two or three verses that say Crowley won't know the
meaning of those specific verses, but it doesn't apply to the whole
book.
> > Thus it is the eyes of 'Jesus' -- his point of view -- that must
be
> > destroyed;
>
> Oh i dunno about this comment though. How on earth does Crowley know
what
> Jesus' point of view is? His followers' point of view maybe.
I think Fr. A.o.C. already pointed out that interpretation to you.
Crowley also says as much, right at the part you snipped:
"Thus it is the eyes of 'Jesus' -- his point of view -- that must be
destroyed; and this point of view is wrong because of his Magical
Gesture of self-sacrifice.
"One must not for a moment suppose that this verse supports the
historicity of 'Jesus.' 'Jesus' is not, and never was, a man; but he
was
a 'god,' just as a bundle of old rags and a kerosene tin on a bush may
be a 'god.' There is a man-made idea, built of ignorance, fear, and
meanness, for the most part, which we call 'Jesus,' and which has been
tricked out from time to time with various gauds from Paganism, and
Judaism."
Asiya
**********
http://www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
Asiya
news:3E249776...@cox.net...
> Asiya wrote:
>
> > http://www.geocities.com/s_azreal_belial/commentary.html
>
> Great Link! Thanks!
You're welcome. Online versions are good for copy and paste moments
like these.
Asiya
**********
http://www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
Asiya
Yeah, both Jesus and Crowley riled up the crowds with "blasphemous"
teachings.
> > It seems
> > to me it is only bringing in a very low-level kind of Aeon for
those who are
> > against the current major religions. It also causes more friction
between
> > people with different beliefs and does *nothing* to alleviate
that.
>
> How does one alleviate a disease? By eliminating the cause.
Sometimes
> vaccination has some nasty side effects, but we accept them for the
> greater good of eliminating the disease.
Yet to a religious Thelemite, those side effects aren't necessarily
considered "nasty", are they?
Asiya
**********
http://www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
Asiya
context.
> >>Even after I explain the context to you, you continue to take it
out of
> >>context in exactly the same way, and argue from the same position
that
> >>has already been disposed of. Here it is one more time in simple
words:
> >>in Liber AL, "Jesus" is not an emblem of initiation or of an
Aspirant
> >
> > This is just your interpretation though isnt it?
>
> Thelemites who are over the age of 30 will prolly get what is being
> said. Younger initiates are as dumb as anyone else, as smart as any
> other group. I know plenty of 'over-30' Thelemites who'd be able to
> understand. A meme is not merely an interpretation, just like a
religion
> is not merely a meme. Trends are clearly against you.
What does age have to do with it?
Asiya
**********
http://www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
aethyr
Tammus, Damuzi;like Dionysus and Bacchus; see Chaos, Gaia, Eros- 1994 R.
Abraham
aethyr
> "aethyr" <nospamaethy...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3E24A02E...@cox.net...
>
>>SwAmI wrote:
>>
>>>"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3E2365D1...@slip.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>As I've said repeatedly, you are taking the passages out of
>
>
> What does age have to do with it?
>
> Asiya
> **********
> http://www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
>
>
aa
deqvf
Fr. A.o.C.
aethyr wrote:
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote:
> > I do not see in Jesus or
> > his teaching any religion I would want in my house. Frankly I doubt it
> > has any of the 'light' attributed to it anymore (if it ever really did,
> > especially after Saul of Tarsus got ahold of it), save that fell corona
> > shared by Evil.
>
> eh?
eh? eh wot? what part of the above makes you go "eh"?
- Fr. A.o.C.
"We are the knights who say........ NIE!!!"
William Tucker
Is that what really happened?
I wonder if you could see on all levels if that was really what was going on
in the realms visible and invisible
his tale fits the alchemical process...the only problem I have is that the
message he tried to deliver was used in the reverse sense...which to my mind
means purposeful meddling
> > It seems
> > to me it is only bringing in a very low-level kind of Aeon for those who
are
> > against the current major religions. It also causes more friction
between
> > people with different beliefs and does *nothing* to alleviate that.
>
> How does one alleviate a disease? By eliminating the cause. Sometimes
> vaccination has some nasty side effects, but we accept them for the
> greater good of eliminating the disease.
in healing another way one eliminates a disease is by having good health
eliminating something becomes moot if it doesn't want to hang around because
it doesn't fit in doesn't get fed because the attention is somewhere else
how does one lose weight...by going past that idea and thinking about having
good health
by focusing on losing weight you never really address the problem of an out
of balance system
part of the reason that I address using dialogue instead of debate is
because it goes past the idea of win or lose and focuses energy on the
desired result...within context of the system...
in other words the system may be come more important than the specific...or
at least understanding of it
if attention is the agent of delivery of resourceputit where it's effective
you want to put a fire out...put water where the flames start...not on the
flames themselves
or dampen areas of danger
> > More
> > division = more suffering and misunderstanding. Go to a Christian church
or
> > Muslim Mosque and read Liber Al out and let me know what response you
get.
>
> Same response Jesus was said to have gotten by driving the
> money-changers from the Temple. Look what response that got him.
same old same old...was the response beause of the people or the sytem of
ecology built up around the exchange
an iron is plugged in and on, when you pull a plug out of the wall an arc
will follow the unplugged cord away from the socket...a flow has been
established and wants to continue
why is that? how do you manage that...that is the lesson that offers the
change that is effective
not people are greedy and whatever...where's the solution there...where's
the possibility...
fuckwits and saviours are made up of the same biology
what's the difference...how do we make an effective change...how do we
deliver people their full potential
> > > III,52: I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
> > >
> > > III,53: With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the
> > > Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
> > >
> > > "Peck at the eyes of Jesus", etc. is a criticism of organized
> > > Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
> >
> > It doesnt say that though does it?
>
> Neither does it say that we are to take "Jesus" as meaning "the
> Aspirant" and "eyes" as "ineffable light". Which is even more of a
stretch.
>
> > I am not a member of any organized
> > religion and yet i still find it offensive.
>
> It's an interpretation of a mystic text. It's the interpretation that
> Crowley puts forth, and I happen to agree. As Tom points out, it's a
> mistake to anthropomorphize the behaviors of Gods and ascribe human
> motivations to them. They don't have a reason why. They just are what
> they are.
perhaps...perhaps energy flows are the sameingenerallooking at cell as a
human and totality of cells of differing systems as being an
individual...one of many...in a society...on a planet in a
universe....that's perspective
not an american, a jew, a mage, a christian...those are roles...about as
important as fashion...
in fact you could use fashion as a metaphor and get more truth/clarity
another thing...as below so above...meaning that what happens on _this_
level drive sthe kind of energies of attention that we receive from other
levels
you want a revolution refocus your engergies of attention
forget the religions look at the effects...look behind the men...
step off an d upp about 70-80 feetwhy do people have the same inane
argument over and over...who benefits?
manage the energies not the events....fuck the events
look at the effects of your interaction
whatever...
fuck the book(s) what does reality tell you...
and fuck being angwy about the book...how do you effect the change
that gives us all more energy to have a fuller life(s)visible and invisible
where are the lines of force _of attention_ being used in society and how
where are the channels of the energy
what do you interpose....how do you get the wind in your sails
blaming/finger pointing are the same thing as putting up your sails and
anchoring your boat
get past _you_ and into
aethyr
last five words, can you explain this meaning?
aa
Deqvf
mika
Thanks for a beautifully written story.
Yeah, after discussing this with a friend last night I realized I had
some events mixed up, but the myth I know is still a bit different
than the one you wrote above. In the version I know, before Isis can
retrieve Osiris from the cedar, Set chops the tree and Osiris up into
pieces and scatters them. So in a way, Osiris dies twice, first when
he is buried in the tree, then when he is chopped up and scattered.
Anyway, after the long talk last night, I came up with a better way of
explaining myself - the thing about Osiris for me is that he is not a
static God to identify with, he is a -process- to identify with.
Osiris doesn't have an endless existence without a penis, that is just
a temporary state. The "Osiris" who has been cut up and put back
together with no penis is not the same "Osiris" as before - he has
been transformed. And don't forget, in many versions of the myth, his
penis is eaten by a fish. So when we talk of Osiris, who are we
talking about? To me, we talk about all of them as one process, a
process that includes the tree, the fish, the magickal phallus, Set
and Isis.
As my friend put it, Osiris isn't fertile like a corn God, he -is- the
corn, he is the seed that gets planted. His fertility is a result of
the (alchemical) process he himself goes through, it's not a spreading
the seed fertility like some kind of Green Man (if anyone gets that
pun, take ten steps towards enlightenment...).
Fr. A.o.C.
aethyr wrote:
>
> Fr. A.o.C. wrote:
> >
> > aethyr wrote:
> >
> >
> >> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>I do not see in Jesus or
> >>>his teaching any religion I would want in my house. Frankly I doubt it
> >>>has any of the 'light' attributed to it anymore (if it ever really did,
> >>>especially after Saul of Tarsus got ahold of it), save that fell corona
> >>>shared by Evil.
> >>
> >>eh?
>
> > eh? eh wot? what part of the above makes you go "eh"?
>
> last five words, can you explain this meaning?
OK, first define the terms:
"...fell corona shared by Evil."
Word: fell
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English fel, from Middle French, from Old French --
see felon
Date: 14th century
1 a : fierce, cruel terrible
b : sinister, malevolent (a fell purpose)
c : very destructive : deadly (a fell disease)
Word: co·ro·na
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, garland, crown, cornice -- see crown
Date: 1563
1 : the projecting part of a classic cornice
2 : a usually colored circle often seen around and close to a luminous
body (as the sun or moon)
Word: evil
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing
b : a cosmic evil force
2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity
The entire statement in context:
"I do not see in Jesus or his teaching any religion I would want in my
house. Frankly I doubt it has any of the 'light' attributed to it
anymore (if it ever really did, especially after Saul of Tarsus got
ahold of it), save that fell corona shared by Evil."
"Light" in this case is taken as in its esoteric meaning, ie. the Light
of wisdom, goodness, enLIGHTenment -- the "ineffable Light". So the
sentence states that neither in Jesus nor his teachings is there any of
this "Light", and further the only so-called "light" that can be found
in them is a "false" light, like the "fell" (cosmically evil) "corona"
(glow) that typifies evil forces.
For example, in the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft and other horror writers,
their powerfully evil characters often had a "sickly" light glowing
around them -- a "fell corona". So the sentence is a poetic expression,
likening the "Light" that is often attributed to Jesus and Christianity
to the "sickly" and "fell" glow of Evil forces.
- Fr. A.o.C.
SwAmI
>
> SwAmI wrote:
>
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote...
> >
> > > SwAmI wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would you mind helping me to understand it then?
> > >
> > > Sure, but this is the last time. After this you're on your own,
because
> > > to go any further is futile. You've already made up your mind, so I
will
> > > stop confusing you with the facts.
> > >
> > > III,51: With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs
upon
> > > the cross.
> >
> > Now see. That above sentence automatically pisses off over 2 billion
people.
> > If, It is bringing in a new Aeon, as it claims, it seems to be excluding
> > those that follow the major religions, which is a pretty dumb thing to
do
> > really seeing as they make up the majority of folks on this planet.
>
> "There is nothing more odious than the majority; for it consists of a
> few powerful leaders, a certain number of accommodating scoundrels and
> subservient weaklings, and a mass of men who trudge after them without
> in the least knowing their own minds." -- Wolfgang van Goethe
>
Which has more magical power. The devotional minds of 30 people or 6
billion?
> Now we confront head-on the prejudice and double-standard that was
> heretofore barely concealed, though clearly present, by Swami.
Heh. I'm just so transparent.
Ah, who
> says that Magick has no effect?
>
> According to the legend,
Uh oh.
when Jesus was said to have pronounced his
> message, the 'majority' of the 'world' he lived in was the Roman Empire
Eh? This doesn't make much sense. It's like saying "The Majority of the
world is the Earth". The Majority of folks in the Roman Empire were not
Romans.
> -- not only did he piss *them* off,
What, he pissed of the majority of the Roman Empire? If so, how come hardly
any of thier Historians mention it?
but he pissed off his own ethnic
> tribe
No, he pissed off a small number of the Elite, powerful and wealthy
Priesthood that were in the pockets of the Romans. The same priesthood that
were unpopular with the people for selling out to them.
>to the point that both they and the Romans agreed,
Where you learn all this history?
even though
> they hated each other,
They did?
>that it was a good idea to execute him. A pretty
> dumb thing to do, eh?
Now you're twisting my words. What may have been the right thing to do
*then* may not be the right thing to do *now*. Understand that?
>
> > It seems
> > to me it is only bringing in a very low-level kind of Aeon for those who
are
> > against the current major religions. It also causes more friction
between
> > people with different beliefs and does *nothing* to alleviate that.
>
> How does one alleviate a disease? By eliminating the cause. Sometimes
> vaccination has some nasty side effects, but we accept them for the
> greater good of eliminating the disease.
Oh, i'm getting a lovely impression of your Order right now. You consider
other folks and thier faith to be a disease? How nice of you. And your Lord
is going to clear us diseased ones away is he?
>
> > More
> > division = more suffering and misunderstanding. Go to a Christian church
or
> > Muslim Mosque and read Liber Al out and let me know what response you
get.
>
> Same response Jesus was said to have gotten by driving the
> money-changers from the Temple. Look what response that got him.
You are comparing Thelema with Christianity? Now that's wierd shit man. If
you want to follow in Christianity's footsteps by doing the same thing, go
ahead. But i suggest you look and learn from the history of what happened to
Christianity first.
>
> > > III,52: I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
> > >
> > > III,53: With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the
> > > Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
> > >
> > > "Peck at the eyes of Jesus", etc. is a criticism of organized
> > > Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
> >
> > It doesnt say that though does it?
>
> Neither does it say that we are to take "Jesus" as meaning "the
> Aspirant" and "eyes" as "ineffable light". Which is even more of a
stretch.
>
I think i gave very good examples of how it could be viewed in this way.
YMMV.
> > I am not a member of any organized
> > religion and yet i still find it offensive.
>
> It's an interpretation of a mystic text. It's the interpretation that
> Crowley puts forth, and I happen to agree. As Tom points out, it's a
> mistake to anthropomorphize the behaviors of Gods and ascribe human
> motivations to them. They don't have a reason why. They just are what
> they are.
Oh, ok. So we've thrown out the "As Above so below" as well then? The
"created in our image" may as well go in the dustbin too.
>
> > >Yes, RHK is not being nice.
> >
> > Which wouldn't be too bad if it was being a little more constructive.
>
> The 'constructive' aspect of Liber AL is found in Chapter II.
>
> II,6: I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core
> of every star. I am Life, and the giver of Life, yet therefore is the
> knowledge of me the knowledge of death.
>
> II,9: Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows
> are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which
> remains.
>
>
> And the 'nurturing' in Chapter I:
>
> I,28: None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.
>
> I,29: For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.
>
> I,30: This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as
> nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.
>
> I,58: I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty, not faith, while in
> life, upon death; peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy; nor do I demand
> aught in sacrifice.
Nothing in sacrifice? Not even the lower parts of ourselves? That's nice.
Sounds like an easy path, maybe i'll join.
>
> > > Frankly, I don't think you've studied much at all of comparative
> > > religion, any more than you've studied Thelema.
> >
> > You can think what you like.
>
> I shall, based on the evidence presented.
>
> > > Most religious writing
> > > is filled with criticism of other religions. Many religions and most
> > > sects begin as reform movements, criticizing, sometimes in very strong
> > > terms, the others.
> >
> > Exactly. You are here criticizing what other religions do, and YET, are
> > defending Liber Al *for doing just that*!!
> > Dare i say hypocrasy?
>
> I criticize what other religions call on their followers to do, and what
> they actually do. RHK is the one "doing", not calling on humans to do
> His work for Him.
Oh?
AL III,3: "Now let it be first understood that I am a god of War and of
Vengeance. I shall deal hardly with them."
THE OLD COMMENT.
3. This whole book seems intended to be interpreted literally. It was so
taken by the scribe at the time.
It seems from some of the commentary that Crowley was taking parts of Liber
Al literally rather than figuratively.
And;
III,4: Choose ye an island!
III,5: Fortify it!
III,6: Dung it about with enginery of war!
III,7: I will give you a war-engine.
Regarding the Island and war engine Crowley comments this is about the Great
War, mine layers, England and Tanks. So we're not to take it literally eh?
And, one wonders, who is it who fights wars but us Humans? I repeat your
sentence;
>RHK is the one "doing", not calling on humans to do
> His work for Him.
Yeah ok.
>
> I was answering your objection:
>
> >>> I think most Christians would wonder about folks who work with a god
> >>> that attacks thier god.
>
> What Christianity and Islam do is call on their *followers* to attack
> all other gods and *their* followers.
This must be an American view of what Christians do right? I hear the
Christians in America can be a bit silly. But how come Christians elsewhere
aren't so fundamentalist? It couldn't have something to do with the culture
as well as the religious views could it?
As far as i am aware there aren't many Christians in England that go around
*attacking* other religions. Why would they bother? In fact we have quite a
good inter-faith relationship over here. Even Prince Charles wants to change
the title of "Defender of the Faith" to "Defender of the Faiths" plural,
once he becomes King. Nice chap.
Explicitly, and they continue to
> do so to this day unabated.
It is probably worse in some places than others. And the folks who become
fundamentalist, i don't think it would really matter which religion they
followed.
>
> > Buddhism is no exception. Neither is Christianity,
> > > which came "not to bring peace, but a Sword."
> >
> > The sword represents the Word of God. Not literally a sword.
>
> Oh ho! So there is a NON-LITERAL INTERPRETATION we are supposed to
> understand here? So we are to interpret such a passage figuratively, but
> when examining Liber AL, we are to take everything literally?
>
Not everything maybe. Comment on AL III,3 by Crowley;
"3. This whole book seems intended to be interpreted literally. It was so
taken by the scribe at the time."
> > Revelation 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his
> > mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun
> > shineth in his strength.
>
> Ah, the Book of Revelation -- where the loving god Yahweh and his
> compassionate son Jesus unleash a multitude of plagues and disasters to
> destroy the world and cast the unbelievers into an eternal lake of fire.
> Or am I not supposed to take that LITERALLY?
Yep, you're bound for Hellfire mate. Keep yer chin up though.
>
> > > As I've said repeatedly, you are taking the passages out of context.
> > > Even after I explain the context to you, you continue to take it out
of
> > > context in exactly the same way, and argue from the same position that
> > > has already been disposed of. Here it is one more time in simple
words:
> > > in Liber AL, "Jesus" is not an emblem of initiation or of an Aspirant
> >
> > This is just your interpretation though isnt it?
>
> Absolutely. (Although it's also Crowley's.) I said as much explicitly.
> You are the one who refuses to accept a plurality of interpretation.
Where did i say this?
I
> invited you to believe what you wilt. If you choose to issue challenges
> based on your interpretation, expect challenges in return. "As brothers
> fight ye!"
>
It's just a game of inner-meta-mind-space-chess.
> > > but of a failed religious and political system.
> >
> > Then why doesnt this entity attack the church instead? Surely a "God"
would
> > have thought about the complications that might arise from the
provocative
> > symbolism it was using?
>
> You have a very strange idea of how gods are "supposed" to behave.
And why not? It's about time someone told them off for acting so silly.
> Again, as Tom points out, a god is a nexus of absolutism, and cares not
> what humans might think about it.
Well fuck em then. If they don't at least have the decency to care about our
thoughts why the hell should we pay them any attention? It seems they need
to learn some manners.
Didn't Yahweh think about the
> complications that would arise from giving John the Prophet his vision
> of Revelation, and the proactive symbolism it was using? Revelation
> makes Liber AL look like a child's fairy tale.
Yes, a very unfortunate collection of symbolism that might just cause us to
destroy ourselves, depending on how many minds believe it will happen. I'm
sure there must a be a reason somewhere though. 42?
>
> > > I do not see in Jesus or
> > > his teaching any religion I would want in my house. Frankly I doubt it
> > > has any of the 'light' attributed to it anymore (if it ever really
did,
> > > especially after Saul of Tarsus got ahold of it), save that fell
corona
> > > shared by Evil.
> >
> > Your failure to see the Light has no effect whatsoever on the Light
itself.
>
> I just wanted to make very clear how I stood on the issue.
>
Oh. clear as a bell.
> > > You are confusing a creed with the 'ineffable light', the same thing
> > > that killed what ever good was once in Christianity. Creeds are a
> > > technique of brainwashing, whether Christian, Islamic, Hindu or
> > > Buddhist.
> >
> > Ok well i admit that religion has been used for purposes other than
> > enlightening the followers of that religion. But if those followers are
> > happy with it who are we to judge?
>
> Are you listening to yourself? Judging Thelema is exactly what you are
> doing.
Heh. I know what i wrote and how it looks. No apologies.
You railed about Thelemites "following the example" of RHK, and
> used that as the jumping-off point for your tirade, which included
> comparisons to Nazism.
>
> > >So, our Lord of Liberation
> >
> > Yadda yadda.
>
> You attitude of mockery is noted. Thank you for the clarification of
> your underlying intent.
Maybe what you think my intent is, actually isn't.
>
> > Your Lord of Liberation is doing the exact same thing as what
> > all the other religions are doing. If you were a fundamentalist
christian
> > you would probably enjoy it if your Lord criticized other religions. It
> > gives a sense of 'belonging' and a false sense of "being right". There
is no
> > difference in essence of it really, except you are of a different
belief.
>
> Except we don't see Thelemites murdering the opposition.
Well we live in more enlightened times than the Dark ages.
Yahweh
> personally ordered the wholesale massacre of men, women and children,
Yeah, what a bastard eh? Or maybe it wasn't yahweh. Maybe it was some silly
little priest's ego pretending to hand down the orders of God to the people.
as
> did Allah.
He did? Damn, i was hoping Allah was a little more merciful than Yaweh.
And the love of Jesus? "Next he will say to those on his left
> hand, 'Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire
> prepared for the devil and his angels... And they will go away to
> eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.'" Mat. 25:41-46
>
A seperation of the lower and higher in each of us.
> RHK doesn't command anyone to kill the infidel, or condemn anyone to an
> eternal torture chamber. He essentially says that He will take care of
> it Himself.
AL III,7: "I will give you a war-engine."
THE NEW COMMENT.
This suggests the Tank, the Island chosen being England.
>
> > tears at the eyes of Jesus as he
> > > hangs upon the cross and flaps his wings in the face of Mohammed in
> > > criticism of their WORLD-VIEW,
> >
> > How the hell would anyone, including your Lord, know what thier
World-view
> > is? Maybe you're talking about the world-view of the followers?
>
> Since the interpretation is a critique of the organized monotheist
> religions, and they consist of the "body of their followers", then
> that's a fair assessment. Congratulations, you're beginning to think
> outside the box.
>
> > > and tears at the flesh of the Hindu,
> > > Buddhist, Mongol and Din in criticism of their RELATIONSHIP TO THE
BODY
> >
> > Care to explain this more?
>
> See Aethyr's posting of Crowley's commentary.
>
> > > (Yes, Buddhists were included on RHK's "hit list" -- happy now?)
> >
> > I noticed it mentions "Buddhists" but not Buddha. Yet he attacks Christ
and
> > not Christians. Not very consistent is it?
>
> Because it is the Christians and the Muslims that built a cult of
> personality out of their "human" avatars. Christians assimilate the
> blood and body of their avatar directly in their highest magical rite.
> Buddha and Krishna only pointed the way, rather than offering themselves
> as "examples".
Oh what Tosh! Buddha and Krishna have very similar following to Christ. In
fact, Krishna has been closely compared to Christ by the Krishna movement.
And Mohammed isn't considered an "avatar" by Muslims.
>
> > > Or at
> > > least this is one way to read it -- the Comment you so scrupulously
> > > follow
> >
> > I don't "follow" anything.
>
> You stated explicitly, "I read it once because that is what the
> commentary suggests." You were *following* the suggestion of the Comment.
>
> > I am just commenting and sharing some thoughts. I
> > reserve the right to change my mind at any moment without prior warning.
>
> Including claiming you do something, and later claiming you don't?
>
> > > says that each person must interpret the Book "each for himself".
> > > Being Polytheist, we may admit of a plurality of interpretations.
Being
> > > Post-Modern, we can understand that there is no choice but a plurality
> > > of meanings.
> >
> > Is this a roundabout way of saying my comments may not be wrong?
>
> Right or wrong doesn't enter into it.
>
> In order to claim your right to interpret the Book as you will, you must
> also grant the right for others to interpret it as THEY will. Instead
> you insist that yours is the only way to interpret it,
Where did i say this? Quote me.
and all others
> are wrong. The sword cuts both ways, or it does not cut at all.
>
> > > If you still don't get it, then you should go back and study what has
> > > already been said.
> > >
> > > Since you claim to have read our 0=0 ritual and 'found' Christian
> > > symbolism in it,
> >
> > There is, yes. Read Liber HHH for a clue about the Hanged Man.
>
> Reading the Holy Books of Thelema now? Aren't you worried about
> cluttering your mind with bullshit?
Ah well. Got to take risks every now and then. No pain no gain and all that.
>
> "Then let his body be in the position of the Hanged Man, and let him
> aspire with all his force unto the Holy Guardian Angel. The grace having
> been granted unto him, let him partake mystically of the Eucharist of
> the Five Elements and let him proclaim Light in Extension; yea, let him
> proclaim Light in Extension."
>
> So what are you referring to here? The HGA? A concept as old as Plato.
> The "Eucharist of the Five Elements"? A concept as old as Mithrasism.
>
Heh, its far more simple than that. I think i'll stay silent though. I'm
enjoying the irony.
> I never said there wasn't anything in it that couldn't be also found in
> Christian philosophy. What passes for Christian philosophy is ersatz
> Platonic philosophy (an idealized perfect world in the beyond, and a
> corrupt material one here on earth), based on an adulterated
> appropriation of Mithrasism by Saul of Tarsus ("St. Paul"), upon which
> he built his apocalyptic death-cult. When the Christ myth was new,
> Mithras and Mithraism were already ancient. Mithras was worshiped for
> centuries as God's Messenger of Truth, long revered by the Persians
> (Zoroastrianism) and the Indians (see the Vedic literature) and imported
> to Rome around 70 BCE. Christian apologist Justin Martyr (1 Apologia,
> 66, 4) denounced the devil for having sent a God so similar to Jesus --
> yet Mithras preceded him! So the Christians, once they converted the
> Roman Emperor, proceeded to establish the dominance of their religion by
> exterminating the followers of Mithras, razing His temples and burning
> His sacred texts. So, sadly, our knowledge of Mithras is somewhat
> limited and comes to us from mostly Persian sources. We do know the
> great Mithraic festivals celebrated His birth (on December 25th) and His
> death and resurrection (at the spring solstice), and He was invoked by a
> ritual taking of wine and bread -- sound familiar?
Yes it does. I used to frequent Christian Web Forums and what you wrote
above sounds a lot like the kinda stuff i used to post. Have you read "The
Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy? Good book.
>
> Frankly, I don't think Christianity has ever produced a single original
> thought, but has stolen every aspect of its philosophy from ancient
> Pagan precursors -- and then paid homage to them by destroying them.
>
> > > If Liber AL made you "ill", then by all means you should stay far
away
> > > from it. It has that effect on the weak, the timid and the slaves.
> >
> > Maybe i am just a weak, timid slave wandering in the darkness of a
complex
> > labyrinth in need of guidance. Would you turn your back because i am
weak
> > and timid or that i don't agree with everything you believe in?
>
> What bothers me is not what YOU believe in. My problem is that you
> insist on telling *me* what *I* believe in.
I am? Show me.
For example:
>
> >>> I am beginning to wonder of Crowley and the Nazi's were in touch
> with the
> >>> same Demonic entities.
Ah well i'm allowed to write what i wilt right?
>
> How nice. So I am supposed to take pity on
Stuff your pity lol.
and wish to offer guidance to
> someone who, based on the most specious of comparisons (like the "Silver
> Star" with Hitler's SchutzStaffel) purports that I am a follower of Nazi
> "demonic entities"?
Geesh. Ok i take it back. I didn't really think my little comment would hurt
someones feeling so much. Sorry.
>
> Unlike Christians, neither Pagans nor Thelemites have any compunction to
> proselytize. "Saving souls" is not in our job description.
Yes.... that is a problem about Christianity i must admit. What to do?
>
> > Would you destroy me because i am weak and timid?
>
> Leaving you to your ignorance is punishment enough.
Punishment? You think i deserve punishment now do you? You're starting to
sound like Yahweh.
Unlike the religions
> you revere,
I do? Where did i say i "revere" religions?
I don't believe in personally destroying others for their
> beliefs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit shall deal with them in His own time. I have faith.
LMFAO! You know that sentence could have been said by a fundamentalist
Christian awaiting the "End Times" if you change the god-name. How bloody
hilarious!
Frater Something
---
SwAmI
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E2365D1...@slip.net...
> >
> >>SwAmI wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Would you mind helping me to understand it then?
> >>
> >>Sure, but this is the last time. After this you're on your own, because
> >>to go any further is futile. You've already made up your mind, so I will
> >>stop confusing you with the facts.
> >>
> >>III,51: With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon
> >>the cross.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now see. That above sentence automatically pisses off over 2 billion
people.
> does it? is that critical to you? why?
It's not critical to me at all. It might be to Thelema though.
>
> > If, It is bringing in a new Aeon, as it claims, it seems to be excluding
> > those that follow the major religions, which is a pretty dumb thing to
do
> > really seeing as they make up the majority of folks on this planet.
> circular argument
I like circles.
>
> > It seems
> > to me it is only bringing in a very low-level kind of Aeon for those who
are
> > against the current major religions.
> Isn't 500 years long enough to wait? 'With Us, a day is as two thousand
> years'- Heart of the Master
Huh? What are you talking about?
>
>
> > It also causes more friction between
> > people with different beliefs
> The OTO is officially very tolerant with the religious beliefs of their
> members. The AA has liber librae, thien tao, liber nu, liber cheth, and
> many other books that recommend tolerance, largess, liberalness,
> expansiveness, and inclusiveness. As soon as you get the figurative
> language concept, you'll be fine.
Even though Crowley considers some of it literally?
Afterall, couldn't one make the same
> case for all the existing major world religions (people won't like it
> cuz... a, b, or c)
Yeah i guess.
>
> Bernard Russell, Nietsche and numerous others have already done this to
> a greater or lesser degree. You can either get on the cluetrain,
chuckle
or try
> to find another destination, but this train is moving...
I'm shoveling coal as fast as i can Sir.
>
>
> > and does *nothing* to alleviate that. More
> > division = more suffering and misunderstanding. Go to a Christian church
or
> > Muslim Mosque and read Liber Al out and let me know what response you
get.
> Admittance to the mysteries of Thelema would be incompatible generally
> with this piece of mental tromp de l'oeil. One may as well say, bring
> the Torah to a Christian church and ask God which part of the Law is
> Done, Finis, or out-moded. Bring your I Ching sticks to cathechism! Ask
> the rabbi what he thinks of your rosarie, etc.
>
> >
> >
> >>III,52: I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
> >>
> >>III,53: With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the
> >>Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
> >>
> >>"Peck at the eyes of Jesus", etc. is a criticism of organized
> >>Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
> >
> >
> > It doesnt say that though does it? I am not a member of any organized
> > religion and yet i still find it offensive.
> excellent, it has done it job
> because while you may not be a nominal Christian, a nominal Buddhist,
> etc. you prolly have one or another world religion's old tired ism's
> operating as mental operating software. feel free to speak up if you can
> credibly correct my assumption here.
Sure.
I renounce all abilities to cause harm to others.
I renounce all gods, angels and demons that claim power over me.
I renounce all gods, angels and demons that would cause me to fear them.
I renounce all gods, angels and demons that would attempt to cause me to
harm others.
In fact, i declare all the above as illusions to be ignored.
Amen.
Oh, and i bet you're over 30 right?
>Younger initiates are as dumb as anyone else, as smart as any
> other group. I know plenty of 'over-30' Thelemites who'd be able to
> understand.
Er, ok.
A meme is not merely an interpretation, just like a religion
> is not merely a meme. Trends are clearly against you.
I don't follow trends. Your comment speaks a lot about you.
Well ok then. I can live with that.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>If you still don't get it, then you should go back and study what has
> >>already been said.
> >>
> >>Since you claim to have read our 0=0 ritual and 'found' Christian
> >>symbolism in it,
> >
> >
> > There is, yes. Read Liber HHH for a clue about the Hanged Man.
> liber dclxxi is the AA's Probationer 0=0 rite
> this is a good book to study (preferably the water color version
> published in 1998, the 2nd recent equinox title from weiser)
>
Hmmm..... no i wont.
> >
> >
> > > If Liber AL made you "ill", then by all means you should stay far
away
> >
> >>from it. It has that effect on the weak, the timid and the slaves.
> >
> >
> > Maybe i am just a weak, timid slave wandering in the darkness of a
complex
> > labyrinth in need of guidance. Would you turn your back because i am
weak
> > and timid or that i don't agree with everything you believe in? Would
you
> > destroy me because i am weak and timid?
> >
> >
> The Law is For All also suggests another interpretation:
>
> -->weak parts of _one self_ are meant to be destroyed, not others
> innocently being a nuisance to themselves.
Well thats good then i guess.
SwAmI
i'm feeling generously open source about it.
"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
news:3E249BE4...@slip.net...
>
> What bothers me
What bothers you is that you allow yourself to be bothered. When i finish my
future book titled "The Silly Mage and the Art of Silliness", i'll send you
a free copy.
>is not what YOU believe in.
Well that's a positive step at least.
>My problem is
Is that you have a problem. As it states in "The Silly Mage and the Art of
Silliness";
"When someone says they have a problem with the words of the 'Silly Mage'
s/he would generally point out (if s/he is feeling so inclined) that using
the words "My" and "problem" generally means it is "thier problem". The
"problem" obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'Silly Mage' at
all but with the thought processes of the problem generating ego of thiers."
that you
> insist on telling *me* what *I* believe in.
How could i possibly tell you what you believe in unless you allow me to?
Asiya
>
> You are comparing Thelema with Christianity? Now that's wierd shit
man.
ha, ha.
Asiya
**********
http://www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
aethyr
> likening the "Light" that is often attributed to Jesus and Christianity
> to the "sickly" and "fell" glow of Evil forces.
>
> - Fr. A.o.C.
jus' wanted to make sure there wasn't typos in what i was looking at :)
aa
Deqvf
Sun Wu-K'ung
{Someone else wrote :> >}
>> > When Set heard that Isis was to attempt to revive Osiris He set
out to
> > hunt down and destroy the body of Osiris. He found the body and cut it
> > into 12 pieces and scattered them around the land of Khem. Isis, with
> > the help of both Nephthys and Thoth, gathered all the pieces together
> > save one, His sacred Phallus. Then with Her magick She re-animated
> > Osiris, but having died He could not return to the land of the living,
> > for He could not bear the light of the Sun. So He became the Lord of the
> > Underworld, never to return.
Osiris will, like Arthur Pendragon, be able to return.
It's going to take him about 23,600 years, give or take, but he'll be
back one day.
> > And He never did get His Phallus back, for it was lost in the delta of
> > the Nile, where it gives forth life with each Spring, and is cut off
> > again with each harvest.
He'll get his Phallus back too.
Right now it's someone else's Phallus.
> Anyway, after the long talk last night, I came up with a better way of
> explaining myself - the thing about Osiris for me is that he is not a
> static God to identify with, he is a -process- to identify with.
Yes.
> Osiris doesn't have an endless existence without a penis, that is just
> a temporary state. The "Osiris" who has been cut up and put back
> together with no penis is not the same "Osiris" as before - he has
> been transformed. And don't forget, in many versions of the myth, his
> penis is eaten by a fish. So when we talk of Osiris, who are we
> talking about?
The Dead King. Arthur Pendragon. Gilgamesh. Hamlet's father. Et
cetera.
> To me, we talk about all of them as one process, a
> process that includes the tree, the fish, the magickal phallus, Set
> and Isis.
The tree's up above.
The fish is down below.
The phallus is the iron rod of the monkey king, the most powerful
weapon in the universe.
Set is the backflow of the waters.
Isis is a dog. Woof!
> As my friend put it, Osiris isn't fertile like a corn God, he -is- the
> corn, he is the seed that gets planted. His fertility is a result of
> the (alchemical) process he himself goes through, it's not a spreading
> the seed fertility like some kind of Green Man (if anyone gets that
> pun, take ten steps towards enlightenment...).
Osiris is also the corn. It's two different messages, layered
together as one, like Hesiod's _Works and Days_.
Rather, its all one process.
-Pilgrim
Sun Wu-K'ung
>
> Which has more magical power. The devotional minds of 30 people or 6
> billion?
You think _people_ run the world???
Wah-hah-hah!!!
-Pilgrim
Tom
> > > 2 billion people.
> > > If, It is bringing in a new Aeon, as it claims, it seems to be
> > > excluding those that follow the major religions, which is a pretty
> > > dumb thing to do really seeing as they make up the majority of
> > > folks on this planet.
> >
> > "There is nothing more odious than the majority; for it consists of a
> > few powerful leaders, a certain number of accommodating scoundrels and
> > subservient weaklings, and a mass of men who trudge after them without
> > in the least knowing their own minds." -- Wolfgang van Goethe
>
> Which has more magical power. The devotional minds of 30 people or 6
> billion?
Is social power different from magical power?
Does the number of people who believe something make them right? Or does
it just help them intimidate dissenters?
In the words of Groucho Marx, "How many Frenchmen can't be wrong?"
SwAmI
"Sun Wu-K'ung" <barb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca6e731a.03011...@posting.google.com...
You think i was talking about the world and how it's run? lol.
Any fool knows that mice run the world and that Crowley was one of the first
to realize this.
SwAmI
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xUpV9.12586$Qr4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "SwAmI" <too_fr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b04bls$gre$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E249BE4...@slip.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Now see. That above sentence automatically pisses off over
> > > > 2 billion people.
> > > > If, It is bringing in a new Aeon, as it claims, it seems to be
> > > > excluding those that follow the major religions, which is a pretty
> > > > dumb thing to do really seeing as they make up the majority of
> > > > folks on this planet.
> > >
> > > "There is nothing more odious than the majority; for it consists of a
> > > few powerful leaders, a certain number of accommodating scoundrels and
> > > subservient weaklings, and a mass of men who trudge after them without
> > > in the least knowing their own minds." -- Wolfgang van Goethe
> >
> > Which has more magical power. The devotional minds of 30 people or 6
> > billion?
>
> Is social power different from magical power?
People, mind-power. It depends on what you consider magical power to be. If
as many people that revere the Bible revered Moby Dick then i would probably
use Moby Dick as a magical text.
>
> Does the number of people who believe something make them right?
Of course not.
Fr. A.o.C.
SwAmI wrote:
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:xUpV9.12586$Qr4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "SwAmI" <too_fr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b04bls$gre$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3E249BE4...@slip.net...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now see. That above sentence automatically pisses off over
> > > > > 2 billion people.
> > > > > If, It is bringing in a new Aeon, as it claims, it seems to be
> > > > > excluding those that follow the major religions, which is a pretty
> > > > > dumb thing to do really seeing as they make up the majority of
> > > > > folks on this planet.
> > > >
> > > > "There is nothing more odious than the majority; for it consists of a
> > > > few powerful leaders, a certain number of accommodating scoundrels and
> > > > subservient weaklings, and a mass of men who trudge after them without
> > > > in the least knowing their own minds." -- Wolfgang van Goethe
> > >
> > > Which has more magical power. The devotional minds of 30 people or 6
> > > billion?
That depends on how devoted the 30 people are as compared to how
lackadaisical the 6 billion are.
> > Is social power different from magical power?
>
> People, mind-power. It depends on what you consider magical power to be. If
> as many people that revere the Bible revered Moby Dick then i would probably
> use Moby Dick as a magical text.
Well, this we can discuss, at least until Swami invokes Das
NationalSozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei again.
By this measure, Klingon and High Elvish should be vastly more powerful
magickal languages than Enochian Keys or Goetic Names. Or is there a
qualitative factor involved, beyond mere quantity?
Referring to Goethe's quote above, is it sheer numbers that matter? Is
it simple Magickal populism? The point being, do we aggregate equal
"mind-power" to the "mass of men who trudge after them without in the
least knowing their own minds"? How much power does an army really have
if it mounts a campaign with unloaded weapons?
- Fr. A.o.C.
"Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain't that a big
enough majority in any town?"
-- Mark Twain, "Huckleberry Finn"
Tom
You could do worse than to try to understand its spiritual message.
Most people consider anything that awes and puzzles them to be magical.
Trying to decide what set of conditions has more "magical power" is often
an exercise in estimating how befuddled and impressed one is by what's
going on. And that varies widely from one individual to the next.
Fr. A.o.C.
mika wrote:
> Thanks for a beautifully written story.
I am compelled to admit that it was, for the most part, cribbed from Fr.
IO's "The Tale Of Hoor", which can be read in it's entirety at:
http://www.osogd.org/library/study/knowledge/KNL1.html . (See Part 10)
> Yeah, after discussing this with a friend last night I realized I had
> some events mixed up, but the myth I know is still a bit different
> than the one you wrote above. In the version I know, before Isis can
> retrieve Osiris from the cedar, Set chops the tree and Osiris up into
> pieces and scatters them. So in a way, Osiris dies twice, first when
> he is buried in the tree, then when he is chopped up and scattered.
There are SO many variations on the basic story. They seem to be revised
every so often to conform with whatever the reigning orthodoxy was at
the time.
Even the story of the war between Horus and Set may well be political
propaganda by the priests of Osiris; Set was "restored" to his place of
honor as protector of the Barque of Ra and slayer of Apophis in the 19th
Dynasty, though eventually he was again deposed from this positon and,
for good measure, he was EQUATED with Apophis as "god of Evil" in the
New Kingdom (1554-1085 BCE).
There is a papyrus from the era when Set was honored (Sallier IV, recto
2, 6ff), which was a 'mythically rendered short story' called "The
Contendings of Horus and Seth". The papyrus has several other literary
works on it, so it may have been used by its owner for storytelling or
entertaing himself and his guests. The text is, in fact, an odd
departure from the typical literary form used for sacred texts. The
behavior of some of the Great Gods is so shocking and strange that it's
hard to imagine it was not meant humorously, or as some form of
political satire. (Isis, for example, is depicted as harpooning the two
combatants who had assumed the forms of hippopotamii.) Yet at the same
time it conforms to the basic sacred concepts and uses the proper
hororifics. The juxtaposition of coarse humor and serious religion is
explained by some experts as a feature of the time it was set down. It's
possible that it was meant as a political satire (a common literary form
of the time) that ridiculed and reputiated the previous telling of the
tale with Set as the "villian".
As is pointed out in "The Tale of Hoor", there are many retellings of
the story, obviously altered to fit the beliefs of the dominant priesthood.
See "The Conflict of Horus and Set from Egyptian and Classical Sources"
by J. Gwyn Griffiths and "The Literature of Ancient Egypt", edited by
William Kelly Simpson.
> As my friend put it, Osiris isn't fertile like a corn God, he -is- the
> corn, he is the seed that gets planted. His fertility is a result of
> the (alchemical) process he himself goes through, it's not a spreading
> the seed fertility like some kind of Green Man (if anyone gets that
> pun, take ten steps towards enlightenment...).
It still fits the tale of John Barleycorn though, for it is His body
itself that is cut down, cut up and consumed, then the "pieces" (seeds)
are scattered to repeat the cycle.
- Fr. A.o.C.
SwAmI
Well i meant that if the 30 people were just as devotional as the other 6
billion. All things being equal etc.
> > > Is social power different from magical power?
> >
> > People, mind-power. It depends on what you consider magical power to be.
If
> > as many people that revere the Bible revered Moby Dick then i would
probably
> > use Moby Dick as a magical text.
>
> Well, this we can discuss, at least until Swami invokes Das
> NationalSozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei again.
I don't need to. You just did.
>
> By this measure, Klingon and High Elvish should be vastly more powerful
> magickal languages than Enochian Keys or Goetic Names. Or is there a
> qualitative factor involved, beyond mere quantity?
Well this is why i used the word "revere" as in Devotional Attention. And
where the attention goes the energy flows. What i mean is that if Moby Dick
was considered "Sacred" by the same amount of people who consider the Bible
sacred, then it would probably hold as much sacredness in terms of force and
energy value within the Collective Unconscious.
>
> Referring to Goethe's quote above, is it sheer numbers that matter? Is
> it simple Magickal populism?
Sometimes, yes.
The point being, do we aggregate equal
> "mind-power" to the "mass of men who trudge after them without in the
> least knowing their own minds"?
When i was studying Shamanism i realized that it partly entails (not always)
being able to "trick" the mind(s) of those seeking help from the Shamanic
practitioner.
And i think Magic is partly about tricking one's own mind to suspend
disbelief. If you don't believe your magic ritual will work, then it
probably won't. This is why i said "devotional minds" in the original
question.
How much power does an army really have
> if it mounts a campaign with unloaded weapons?
Your analogy doesn't really fit in this circumstance.
Fr. A.o.C.
SwAmI wrote:
> > That depends on how devoted the 30 people are as compared to how
> > lackadaisical the 6 billion are.
> >
>
> Well i meant that if the 30 people were just as devotional as the other 6
> billion. All things being equal etc.
But that isn't viable. You can speculate anything you want about
something that doesn't occur in reality.
You can only thing you can give to a hypothetical question is a
hypothetical answer.
> > > > Is social power different from magical power?
> > >
> > > People, mind-power. It depends on what you consider magical power to be.
> If
> > > as many people that revere the Bible revered Moby Dick then i would
> probably
> > > use Moby Dick as a magical text.
> >
> > Well, this we can discuss, at least until Swami invokes Das
> > NationalSozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei again.
>
> I don't need to. You just did.
Did what? I didn't draw any comparisons or invoke it into the debate. No
violation of Godwin's Law.
> > By this measure, Klingon and High Elvish should be vastly more powerful
> > magickal languages than Enochian Keys or Goetic Names. Or is there a
> > qualitative factor involved, beyond mere quantity?
>
> Well this is why i used the word "revere" as in Devotional Attention.
Are you going to tell me that there aren't people out there who revere
Tolkien or Star Trek?
And how do we put a quantitative value on "reverence"?
> And where the attention goes the energy flows.
Visit a sci-fi/fantasy convention sometime.
> What i mean is that if Moby Dick
> was considered "Sacred" by the same amount of people who consider the Bible
> sacred, then it would probably hold as much sacredness in terms of force and
> energy value within the Collective Unconscious.
And I offered you a more viable comparison. Trekkies and Tolkienites far
outnumber fans of "Moby Dick."
Do we throw in those billions who invested "sacredness" in Mao Tse Tung?
Or Lenin? What about their "Collective unconsciousness?"
> > Referring to Goethe's quote above, is it sheer numbers that matter? Is
> > it simple Magickal populism?
>
> Sometimes, yes.
So quantity trumps quality?
> The point being, do we aggregate equal
> > "mind-power" to the "mass of men who trudge after them without in the
> > least knowing their own minds"?
>
> When i was studying Shamanism i realized that it partly entails (not always)
> being able to "trick" the mind(s) of those seeking help from the Shamanic
> practitioner.
> And i think Magic is partly about tricking one's own mind to suspend
> disbelief. If you don't believe your magic ritual will work, then it
> probably won't.
Actually, I agree with you. But such "belief-power" is a lot more rare
than you seem to think it is.
> This is why i said "devotional minds" in the original question.
And my point is that for the most part, such "devotion" is mere herd
instinct, not gnosis.
And in so many (if not most) cases, when such "devotion" toward the
major monotheisms does hold sway over a mass of people, it takes the
form of a crusade, a jihad, a holy war, a pogrom, or a holocaust.
> > How much power does an army really have
> > if it mounts a campaign with unloaded weapons?
>
> Your analogy doesn't really fit in this circumstance.
Sure it does. A mass of people giving lip service to a religious
paradigm is like an army with unloaded weapons.
- Fr. A.o.C.
"As St. Paul says, 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission,'
and who are we to argue with St. Paul?" -- Aleister Crowley
nagasiva
mika <mik...@yahoo.com>:
> Remember that Osiris was only cockless
> for a brief period of time....
where was his cock recovered?
nagasiva
333
Re O'Stat <R...@yahoo.com> is all fangs (:>) with Fr AoC (the Maxx!):
> ...You could put Mickey Mouse on the Throne of the East....
what is the significance of the Throne of the East? is it a constant,
or does it change from initiation rite to initiation rite? is there
something sacrosanct about residence in the East as compared to
residence in the West (under the aegis of a Dark Queen, for example)
such that we should consider this more than an arbitrary assignment?
> ...You could [put] Spongebob Squarepants there
does it matter that it is more general in its description and/or
related to historical gods? I know some Discordians who've enjoyed
putting Bugs in aggrandized positions, and gods of pop-cultural
activities (Pizza Man!) etc., are fun for jokes. for doing the
EXACT kind of ritual work as the GD otherwise, what does the
character of the ritual matter as long as the core documents are
being applied toward a ceremonial and magical result? aren't there
different strands or streams of the GD which vary their init rites?
or are there certain people and documents which can be described as
'categorically integral to Golden Dawn work', requiring adherence
to their leavings or arrogantly associating therewith?
> or a tunafish sandwich. Work with it and make it work.
'work' is so vague, tho.
>Do what you want.
thanks.
>But take Osiris off the Throne and it's not the G.D.
they're a bunch of Osiris-clingers, eh? was their objective not
beyond description, their method variable depending upon the
group and the manner of rite to which they chose to become
accustomed? or is what makes the Golden Dawn what it is so
hard-wired and formalistic?
333
nagasiva
sri catyananda:
>> Even Jesus was said to have boffed Mary Magdalen,
>> thus giving rise to the Merovingian kings of France!
Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca>:
> That's indeed been said,
far more than said. it's quite popular, especially amongst
certain types of religious.
> but that doesn't make it a genuine myth,
what makes a myth 'genuine'? that it appears outside the
bounds of fiction and may be traced historically as some
kind of sacralized fancy of a culture?
> let alone a plausible claim. ;)
given the fictional nature of Jesus this is understandable.
maybe Jesus isn't a genuine myth either. what if the myths
had to conform to a standard for 'genuineness' which
required that their content need be in conformity to basic
observed natural (and any so-called supernatural) phenomenon
within recorded history? will we dispense with all of the
stories except those with archaeoastronomical bases and
those which are actual examples of human beings, rather than
ridiculous fantasies?
nagasiva
Romauld
:>> Even Jesus was said to have boffed Mary Magdalen,
:>> thus giving rise to the Merovingian kings of France!
:
: Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca>:
:> That's indeed been said,
:> but that doesn't make it a genuine myth,
The myth of the Merovigian line descending directly from
[Jesus via Mary | Joseph of Arimathea via Mrs. Joseph | Joseph
of Arimathea via Mary ] is a genuine myth.
:> let alone a plausible claim. ;)
It was *not* a plausible claim. There were several reasons for this,
which I do not have the reference material to go into now (I'm at work).
~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu
"Data" is *not* the plural of "anecdote", especially on Usenet.
David R. Jones
>what is the significance of the Throne of the East? is it a constant,
>or does it change from initiation rite to initiation rite? is there
>something sacrosanct about residence in the East as compared to
>residence in the West (under the aegis of a Dark Queen, for example)
>such that we should consider this more than an arbitrary assignment?
Simply Masonic influence because it is where the Sun rises. At least
in traditional GD formulation.
Love Jones
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 05:55:24 GMT, 333 <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote:
Re O'Stat
333 <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote:
> 500301 VII om
>
> Re O'Stat <R...@yahoo.com> is all fangs (:>) with Fr AoC (the Maxx!):
> > ...You could put Mickey Mouse on the Throne of the East....
>
> what is the significance of the Throne of the East? is it a constant,
> or does it change from initiation rite to initiation rite? is there
> something sacrosanct about residence in the East as compared to
> residence in the West (under the aegis of a Dark Queen, for example)
> such that we should consider this more than an arbitrary assignment?
>
Read the Inner Order documents. They're available in numerous locations,
such as Regardie's books.
>
> > ...You could [put] Spongebob Squarepants there
>
> does it matter that it is more general in its description and/or
> related to historical gods? I know some Discordians who've enjoyed
> putting Bugs in aggrandized positions, and gods of pop-cultural
> activities (Pizza Man!) etc., are fun for jokes. for doing the
> EXACT kind of ritual work as the GD otherwise, what does the
> character of the ritual matter as long as the core documents are
> being applied toward a ceremonial and magical result? aren't there
> different strands or streams of the GD which vary their init rites?
> or are there certain people and documents which can be described as
> 'categorically integral to Golden Dawn work', requiring adherence
> to their leavings or arrogantly associating therewith?
>
The different "streams" of which I've seen do keep the same core. The
variations I've seen consist of rewording of certain concepts to make
them, in the variation creators' minds, more understandable or perhaps
to include alliegience to the specific leaders of the group. However,
the core concepts stay the same, a core which the OS group has abandoned
in order to incorporate Crowlean concepts.
I remember seeing a tarot deck in which all of the characters were taken
from cartoons. It was a cute idea. It used the outer appearance of the
tarot to feature Bugs and Daffy. Would large numbers of people consider
it for serious spiritual or divinatory work? I seriously doubt it. So
although it had the outer form of the tarot, it wouldn't be used for
most tarot purposes (perhaps for a game, maybe?).
So should it be called a tarot deck? Simply because there are
similarities in the number of images? Are would it be more appropriate
to call it a work of "serial art"? Similarly, I don't know of anyone who
uses the Dali deck for work. I'm sure there are some, however...
So merely because somebody, even a genius like Dali does a piece of
serial art in the form of a tarot deck does not mean that it is usable
for the most common uses of a tarot deck.
Likewise, if you strip the functions of the officers from the GD
initiation rituals, it is no longer a GD initiation ritual, even if you
call it "open source."
> > or a tunafish sandwich. Work with it and make it work.
>
> 'work' is so vague, tho.
It's only vague if you don't do the work. I'm sure that the inventors of
the OSGD spent hours, if not weeks, months, or even years in spiritual
practice to come to their conclusions. I have no doubt that they didn't,
as many ritualists seem to do these days, come up with a philosophical
concept, write it up, and put it out without spending a long time
working with the energies and getting it to function as planned.
And all of that work should be celebrated! Respected! Honored!
It's just not the G.D.
>
> >Do what you want.
>
> thanks.
You're welcome.
;-)
>
> >But take Osiris off the Throne and it's not the G.D.
>
> they're a bunch of Osiris-clingers, eh? was their objective not
> beyond description, their method variable depending upon the
> group and the manner of rite to which they chose to become
> accustomed? or is what makes the Golden Dawn what it is so
> hard-wired and formalistic?
>
> 333
No, there objective was absolutely NOT beyond description. They used it
quite often. It was to help a person become "more than human."
Their method was not variable. You were required to learn and do certain
things at each stage of development.
There are many other systems. Different ones work for different people.
Frankly, I think you're coming to the same conclusion I have: a system
which is variable to meet the needs/talents/skills/abilities of an
individual is probably best suited to any person. Frankly, from what
I've read, Crowley's original design for the AA seems to fit that bill
more accurately than the G.D.
So a system which is focused on the individual, rather than on the
traditions and methods of any "order," seems superior to me than a
preset, cookie-cutter, one-size-supposedly-fits-all group.
Such a group may have some similar teachings and even ritual
similarities to a "hard-wired and formalistic" group. But their very
basis shows that they are different.
The OTO is not the GD.
The AA is not the GD
The AS is not the GD.
The ToS is not the GD
Any of those groups may work for any particular individual. But merely
because they all share some kabalistic ideas does not make them the G.D.
And when you strip the core from the GD, as has the so-called OSGD, you
don't have the GD.
Which leads, of course, to an obvious question: why is it so important
that these people, who have so changed the core of the GD to identify
themselves as GD?
Do they think that they wouldn't get any members if they didn't link
themselves to a famous name? Do they have so little faith in themselves?
Or do they simply have some psychological need to stay linked to mommy
and daddy no matter how different they are? Is it some sort of Oedipus
thing where they want to destroy daddy (by superceding) and then mating
with mommy (by taking the name)?
Sometimes it is very hard to be willing to observe ones own motivations.
I'm sure that rather than deal with this, one or more of them will come
up with rationalizations for their naming and then attack me for my
motivations.
Whatever.
My motivations have remained the same. Honesty.
If you're not the G.D., call yourself something else.
Re O'cat