Ultimate Secret of the OTO (Liber 333 Ch 36; was Question re The Vision ...)
333
Joel Biroco <bir...@nospamhotmail.com>:
>As Reuss visited Crowley in 1912 and accused him of revealing the
>ultimate secret of the OTO in Liber 333, so making him Head of the
>MMM, I am thankful you have not revealed the secret of OUR ORDER to
>the World, but perhaps delicately hinted that you know what it is. But
>never cease penetrating the Mystery, for understanding ever deepens.
this is the chapter of 333 to which you refer.
[81]
36
{Kappa-Epsilon-Phi-Alpha-Lambda-Eta Lambda-Sigma}
THE STAR SAPPHIRE
Let the Adept be armed with his Magick Rood [and
provided with his Mystic Rose].
In the centre, let him give the L.V.X. signs; or if
he know them, if he will and dare do them, and
can keep silent about them, the signs of N.O.X.
being the signs of Puer, Vir, Puella, Mulier. Omit
the sign I.R.
Then let him advance to the East, and make the
Holy Hexagram, saying: PATER ET MATER
UNIS DEUS ARARITA.
Let him go round to the South, make the Holy
Hexagram, and say: MATER ET FILIUS UNUS
DEUS ARARITA.
Let him go round to the West, make the Holy
Hexagram, and say: FILIUS ET FILIA UNUS
DEUS ARARITA.
Let him go round to the North, make the Holy
Hexagram, and then say: FILIA ET PATER
UNUS DEUS ARARITA.
Let him then return to the Centre, and so to The
Centre of All [making the ROSY CROSS as he
may know how] saying: ARARITA ARARITA
ARARITA.
In this the Signs shall be those of Set Triumphant
and of Baphomet. Also shall Set appear in the
Circle. Let him drink of the Sacrament and let him
communicate the same.]
Then let him say: OMNIA IN DUOS: DUO IN
UNUM: UNUS IN NIHIL: HAE NEC
QUATUOR NEC OMNIA NEC DUO NEC
UNUS NEC NIHIL SUNT.
GLORIA PATRI ET MATRI ET FILIO ET
[82]
FILIAE ET SPIRITUI SANCTO EXTERNO
ET SPIRITUI SANCTO INTERNO UT ERAT
EST ERIT IN SAECULA SAECULORUM SEX
IN UNO PER NOMEN SEPTEM IN UNO
ARARITA.
Let him then repeat the signs of L.V.X. but not the
signs of N.O.X.; for it is not he that shall arise in
the Sign of Isis Rejoicing.
COMMENTARY ({Lambda-Sigma})
The Star Sapphire corresponds with the Star-Ruby
of Chapter 25; 36 being the square of 6, as 25 is of %.
This chapter gives the real and perfect Ritual of the
Hexagram.
It would be improper to comment further upon an
official ritual of the A.'.A.'.
===================
from http://www.luckymojo.com/crowley/333lies.txt
would anyone like to translate the Latin, analyze the entirety,
and explain WHY it is 'the ultimate secret of the OTO', and why
publishing it warrants conscripting AC so as to subject him to
the 'proper obligations', as he describes in his 'hagiography'?
secret-divulger,
333
Gnome d Plume
******This is slightly misleading. Liber 333 is titled *The Book of
Lies* (also called *Breaks*) and the "Secret" is in Chapter 69! *****
Gnome, the secret-secret divulger.
93 93/93
David Cantu
"Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b523f5d...@trialnews.peoplepc.com...
so I thought
and thar she blows:-)
69 111/45
THE WAY TO SUCCEED -- AND THE WAY TO SUCK EGGS!
This is the Holy Hexagram.
Plunge from the height, O God, and interlock with Man!
Plunge from the height, O Man, and interlock with Beast!
The Red Triangle is the descending tongue of grace; the Blue Triangle is the
ascending tongue of prayer.
This Interchange, the Double Gift of Tongues, the Word of Double Power --
ABRAHADABRA! -- is the sign of the GREAT WORK, for the GREAT WORK is
accomplished in Silence. And behold, is not that Word equal to Cheth, that
is Cancer, whose Sigil is 69
This Work also eats up itself, accomplishes its own end, nourishes the
worker, leaves no seed, is perfect in itself.
Little children, love one another!
COMMENTARY (XQ)
The key to the understanding of this chapter is given in the number and
the title, the former being intelligible to all nations who employ Arabic
figures, the latter only to experts in deciphering English puns.
The chapter alludes to Levi's drawing of the Hexagram, and is a
criticism of, or improvement upon, it. In the ordinary Hexagram, the
Hexagram of nature, the red triangle is upwards, like fire, and the blue
triangle downwards, like water. In the magical hexagram this is reversed;
the descending red triangle is that of Horus, a sign specially revealed by
him personally, at the Equinox of the Gods. (It is the flame descending upon
the altar, and licking up the burnt offering.) The blue triangle represents
the aspiration, since blue is the colour of devotion, and the triangle,
kinetically considered, is the symbol of directed force.
In the first three paragraphs this formation of the hexagram is
explained; it is a symbol of the mutual separation of the Holy Guardian
Angel and his client. In the interlocking is indicated the completion of the
work.
Paragraph 4 explains in slightly different language what we have said
above, and the scriptural image of tongues is introduced.
In paragraph 5 the symbolism of tongues is further developed.
Abrahadabra is our primal example of an interlocked word. We assume that the
reader has thoroughly studied that word in Liber D., etc. The sigil of
Cancer links up this symbolism with the number of the chapter.
The remaining paragraphs continue the Gallic symbolism.
catherine yronwode
>
> Joel Biroco wrote:
>
> > As Reuss visited Crowley in 1912 and accused him of revealing the
> > ultimate secret of the OTO in Liber 333, so making him Head of the
> > MMM,
>
>
> <quote>
>
> FOREWORD
>
> THE BOOK OF LIES, first published in London in 1913,
>
> </quote>
>
> No wonder Crowley was surprised.
Whoa. Back up.
This thread is going in a bazillion different directions at once. I'm
moving this portion of it over into the pile reserved for
Re: Ultimate Secret of the OTO (Liber 333 Ch 36; was Question re The
Vision ...)
Whew. That's better. Okay.
Now.
You were saying?
Or rather -- WTF?
Care to explain any of this -- 'cause i am certainly very familiar with
the mythic scenario that begins: "Reuss visited Crowley in 1912 and
claimed that he had published the so-called secret of the OTO..." but
from there on out, your post raises more questions that i even knew i
had:
According to Crowley's account of what Reuss said, was the so-called
secret to be found in chapter 36 of The Book of Lies as nagasiva says?
(and if so, where is that stated?)
According to Crowley's account of what Reuss said, was the so-called
secret to be found in chapter 69 of The Book of Lies as Gnome says? (and
if so, where is that stated?)
If either of the above, had the Book of Lies previously been srialized
in magazine form, and thus made available to Reuss in 1912?
Was the Book of Lies really published in 1913?
Is Sprigg's copy from a well-known edition that contains a dating error
and he is just having us on?
According to Crowley's account of what Reuss said, was the so-called
secret to be found in ANOTHER book of Crowley's? (and if so, where is
that stated?)
Was Crowley caught in a mistake or a lie about the date? About Reuess?
About what book the so-called secret was to be found in?
So many questions!
Now it's time to steam some chicken tamales and go watch a video about
the making of the movie The Exorcist. It's been a fun Sunday in usenet,
and i look forward to returning to a pile of replies!
cat yronwode
The Sacred Landscape ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
Hoodoo and Blues Lyrics --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/blues.html
No personal e-mail, please; just catch me in usenet; i read it daily.
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
Send e-mail with your street address to cata...@luckymojo.com
and receive our free 32 page catalogue of hoodoo supplies and amulets
David Cantu
"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:3B5266...@luckymojo.com...
69 - 36 = 33 but I think that was still another thread:-)
I recall getting it (69) from RAW.
Chapt. 69 is pretty discriptive of what has come to be known as sex magick.
.
> THE WAY TO SUCCEED -- AND THE WAY TO SUCK EGGS!
> This is the Holy Hexagram.
> Plunge from the height, O God, and interlock with Man!
> Plunge from the height, O Man, and interlock with Beast!
> The Red Triangle is the descending tongue of grace; the Blue Triangle is the
> ascending tongue of prayer.
> This Interchange, the Double Gift of Tongues, the Word of Double Power --
> ABRAHADABRA! -- is the sign of the GREAT WORK, for the GREAT WORK is
> accomplished in Silence. And behold, is not that Word equal to Cheth, that
> is Cancer, whose Sigil is 69
> This Work also eats up itself, accomplishes its own end, nourishes the
> worker, leaves no seed, is perfect in itself.
> Little children, love one another!
For a little mood music, try The Pixies, River Euphrates.
-----.
--
Theres a hole in the world like a great black pit and
its filled with people who are filled with shit and it
goes by the name of London
Renfield
> Then let him advance to the East, and make the
> Holy Hexagram, saying: PATER ET MATER
> UNIS DEUS ARARITA.
Father and Mother (are) one(s) (with? in?) God Ararita.
(Note: Unis is a plural ablative or dative, probably a typo for unus)
(Note: lack of a preposition makes translation a little tricky)
(Note: lack of a verb " " " " " )
> Let him go round to the South, make the Holy
> Hexagram, and say: MATER ET FILIUS UNUS
> DEUS ARARITA.
Mother and Son (are) one (with? in?) God Ararita
> Let him go round to the West, make the Holy
> Hexagram, and say: FILIUS ET FILIA UNUS
> DEUS ARARITA.
Son and Daughter (are) one (with? in?) God Ararita
> Let him go round to the North, make the Holy
> Hexagram, and then say: FILIA ET PATER
> UNUS DEUS ARARITA.
Daughter and Father (are) one (with? in?) God Ararita.
> Let him then return to the Centre, and so to The
> Centre of All [making the ROSY CROSS as he
> may know how] saying: ARARITA ARARITA
> ARARITA.
> In this the Signs shall be those of Set Triumphant
> and of Baphomet. Also shall Set appear in the
> Circle. Let him drink of the Sacrament and let him
> communicate the same.]
> Then let him say: OMNIA IN DUOS: DUO IN
> UNUM: UNUS IN NIHIL: HAE NEC
> QUATUOR NEC OMNIA NEC DUO NEC
> UNUS NEC NIHIL SUNT.
All in two: Two in one: One in nothing:
These are neither four, nor all, nor two, nor one, nor nothing.
> GLORIA PATRI ET MATRI ET FILIO ET
>
> [82]
> FILIAE ET SPIRITUI SANCTO EXTERNO
> ET SPIRITUI SANCTO INTERNO UT ERAT
> EST ERIT IN SAECULA SAECULORUM SEX
> IN UNO PER NOMEN SEPTEM IN UNO
> ARARITA.
Glory to the father and to the mother and to the son and to the
daughter and to the outer holy spirit and to the inner holy spirit in
order that it was, it is, it will be into all eternity. Six in one
for the name seven in one - Ararita.
-Renfield
panoptes
combination of sexes. Therefore, it is the ultimate Secret. Crowley only
vaguely alludes to this rite in Liber 333. It was meant to be the ultimate
secret of H.O.O.R., and whether Mr. Eales approves or not. It has been
pulished liberally by The Herald {me}.
Aster Argos - Herald of H.O.O.R.
Panoptes 8=3 A.'.A.'.
333
"panoptes" <pano...@worldnet.att.net>:
>Ch 36 is heterosexual. It is inferior to Liber 609, which may be done by any
>combination of sexes. Therefore, it is the ultimate Secret. Crowley only
>vaguely alludes to this rite in Liber 333. It was meant to be the ultimate
>secret of H.O.O.R., and whether Mr. Eales approves or not. It has been
>pulished liberally by The Herald {me}.
that makes sense to me. Crowley claims that this is the "supreme secret of
the O.T.O." in 'De Arte Magica' (suppressed by the Caliphate O.T.O. but
part of the Naylor publication "O.T.O. Rituals and Sex Magick", p. 383.).
333
.
Dammit, ANOTHER A:.A:.?
Which one is that then?
J. A.
> Ch 36 is heterosexual.
And youre a homo.
Panoptes 8=3 A.'.A.'. (Moron)
According to the Editor’s notes lvii in book 4, Crowley was made
a member of OTO in march 1910 after being recognized as 33* mason;
this awarded him the VII of OTO and in 1912 the IX. Further [the OTO]
is not mystical in any ordinary sense of the word. Implying that there
is no solid basis for spiritual achievement as found wherein the AA
(except if youre in the branch of fags to which panoptes belongs).
David Cantu
Of Ararat
The supreme secret of the O.T.O. is written in detail in the Book called
Agape and is also written plainly in Liber CCCXXXIII, Cap. XXXVI.
But now also do We think it fitting to add Our own comment to this book
Agape which We wrote in Our own words for the proper setting-forth of this
Secret taught Us at Our Initiation to the IX' by the O.H.O. And this Book
has received His official approbation in every word thereof.
But in this comment do We not set forth the Secret itself (rather on the
contrary guarding it by certain subtleties even from the conjecture of the
unworthy) but only Our own ideas as to its right use, with other matters
germane, thinking that those into whose hands it may come may thereby
understand more fully the utter importance of this Secret as having been the
Pivot of Our working for so long a period, and further that it may aid such
persons to attain perfectly the mastery of this Holy and Imperial Art.
-From De Arte Magica
I would post the whole thing, but it would probably cause trouble.
David Cantu
"panoptes" <pano...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1fG47.7565$gj1.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Alright, Crowley Does claim the secret can be found in Ch 36 in De Arte
Magica -
"The supreme secret of the O.T.O. is written in detail in the Book called
Agape and is also written plainly in Liber CCCXXXIII, Cap. XXXVI.
But now also do We think it fitting to add Our own comment to this book
Agape which We wrote in Our own words for the proper setting-forth of this
Secret taught Us at Our Initiation to the IX' by the O.H.O. And this Book
has received His official approbation in every word thereof."
So is this a blind?
Is there significance to Crowley claiming 33 degree and Ch. 36 + 33 = Ch 69,
or to Crowley mentioning Reuss in passing on pg. 696 of the "Ol' Hag" while
he is writing of his 33 degree role?
What is Liber 609, there is no listing of it in various Crowley
bibliographies I have perused?
IF we live in a material reality then what the hell does any of this have to
do with anything but fantasy?
Since you are a materialist who practices sex magick perhaps you can shed
light on this, or is it only about physical energy absorption and
psychology?
Enquiring minds want to know.
.
> Of Ararat
> -From De Arte Magica
Pffft. Pussy. Reuss did it.
.
> What is Liber 609, there is no listing of it in various Crowley
> bibliographies I have perused?
Ohhh now theres a secret. And it really fits in well with the current topics
of discussion on alt.magick.serious at the moment. I bet Grant wrote something
about it at some point.
David Cantu
"." <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote in message
news:9j04tv$stu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Well I haven't converted it all yet.
Oops, my hand slipped....
I
Of Ararat
The supreme secret of the O.T.O. is written in detail in the Book called
Agape and is also written plainly in Liber CCCXXXIII, Cap. XXXVI.
But now also do We think it fitting to add Our own comment to this book
Agape which We wrote in Our own words for the proper setting-forth of this
Secret taught Us at Our Initiation to the IX' by the O.H.O. And this Book
has received His official approbation in every word thereof.
But in this comment do We not set forth the Secret itself (rather on the
contrary guarding it by certain subtleties even from the conjecture of the
unworthy) but only Our own ideas as to its right use, with other matters
germane, thinking that those into whose hands it may come may thereby
understand more fully the utter importance of this Secret as having been the
Pivot of Our working for so long a period, and further that it may aid such
persons to attain perfectly the mastery of this Holy and Imperial Art.
II
Of the Importance of the Secret
This secret if the true Key to Magick; that is, by the right use of this
secret man may impose his Will on Nature herself, as will appear hereafter
in this comment.
In this way, although all recorded Knowledge were destroyed, it would be
possible for an adept of this secret to restore it.
III
Of the Mind of the Adept
In Our holiest isle Ierne is found a being called Leprechaun. This
creature, once seen, is easy to catch; and once caught must lead his captor
to great treasure, provided that never for an eye-wink doth he relax
vigilance; and the Leprechaun by all manner of tricks doth seek ever to
divert the attention of him that hath made him prisoner.
Now this is a Magical Apologue or Fable of the utmost abyss of Truth.
For in the preparation of the Sacrament, and in its consummation also, the
mind of the Initiate must be concerned absolutely in one rushing flame of
will upon the determined object of his operation.
For there is no act more easy and natural to man than this preparation, none
which requires less auxiliary. And yet by far the most part of mankind is
ignorant and incapable of its proper performance; so that it is said that
perfection in it as both science and art requires no less study than the
most abstruse of philosophies, and no less practice than the most difficult
of dexterities. But it is utterly in vain unless this first condition be
fulfilled; and so difficult is this, not only because of the Overcoming of
the Bodily Trance, but because of the wandering nature of the mind itself.
And thereafter only by long and hard training preliminary in the art of
meditation, and by constant practice and ex perience,
can this Act become fruitful in Magick.*
*it were well if during the whole period of the secretion of the Lion, the
adept were performing Samyama on the object. May this be the reason of the
"nine days of chastity", etc. recommended in some Grimoires?
IV
Of Times and Seasons
Although no instruction has been given on this matter, yet it is evident,
not only from considerations of the nature of things, but from Our own
experience of these two years, that the fruitfulness of this Sacrament
varies constantly, as it seems without rationalcause.
Nor have We fully understood the best conditions. But it is Our Opinion
that the Adept should suffer inward premonition whether the hour be
propitious or no.
Yet it hath also been observed, and that often, that by extreme violence to
Nature results are obtained equal to those garnered when Nature herself
urges vehemently to the Act by enthusiasm.
But mediocre states of body and mind are to be avoided. As it is written:
"I would thou wert cold or hot; but because thou art lukewarm I shall spew
thee out of My mouth."
Nor is it necessarily to be disregarded as superstition to assert that
certain hours of the day and certain aspects of the stars are more
favourable than others, but rather to be criticized and investigated
according to the methods of true science.
V
Bodily States
There is here a certain difficulty, in that the body being full of meat and
wine is more apt for the preparation, as it is said, Sine Cereri et Baccho
Venus friget,* while for the consummation the body should be empty of all
gross nutriment, so that the Elixir may be sucked up eagerly, and, running
nobly into every part, revivify the whole.
* "Without Ceres and Bacchus" (i.e. corn and wine) "there is
It will in Our opinion be best if a full meal be taken not less than three
hours before the beginning of the Ceremony, and after that no food, although
stimulants whether of wine or subtler agents may be continued, so as to
raise the body from excitement to excitement, and thus fit it for the proper
exaltation Suitable to the work.
But in all this men may differ, and there is no rule but what may be
engraven upon her Tracing Board by the burin of Experience.
David Cantu
> In alt.magick.serious David Cantu <dc...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > What is Liber 609, there is no listing of it in various Crowley
> > bibliographies I have perused?
>
> Ohhh now theres a secret. And it really fits in well with the current
topics
> of discussion on alt.magick.serious at the moment. I bet Grant wrote
something
> about it at some point.
>
>
That was a pretty good made-ja-look!
richard sprigg
catherine yronwode wrote:
>
> richard sprigg wrote:
> >
> > Joel Biroco wrote:
> >
> > > As Reuss visited Crowley in 1912 and accused him of revealing the
> > > ultimate secret of the OTO in Liber 333, so making him Head of the
> > > MMM,
> >
> > Yet my 1973 reprint contains the following:
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> > FOREWORD
> >
> > THE BOOK OF LIES, first published in London in 1913,
> >
> > </quote>
> >
> > No wonder Crowley was surprised.
>
> Whoa. Back up.
>
> This thread is going in a bazillion different directions at once. I'm
> moving this portion of it over into the pile reserved for
> Re: Ultimate Secret of the OTO (Liber 333 Ch 36; was Question re The
> Vision ...)
>
> Whew. That's better. Okay.
>
> Now.
>
> You were saying?
>
> Or rather -- WTF?
heh.
Researching some of the contradictions that arise keeps me busy.
After the resolution of "Stele 666" a few months ago, this is my latest
area for investigation.
>
> Care to explain any of this -- 'cause i am certainly very familiar with
> the mythic scenario that begins: "Reuss visited Crowley in 1912 and
> claimed that he had published the so-called secret of the OTO..." but
> from there on out, your post raises more questions that i even knew i
> had:
Heh.
The 1912 date is by no means universally accepted. I have read an
assertion that Reuss visited Crowley in 1910, and elevated him to grand
poobah in 1912.
>
> According to Crowley's account of what Reuss said, was the so-called
> secret to be found in chapter 36 of The Book of Lies as nagasiva says?
> (and if so, where is that stated?)
IIRC it is in the "Hag", where AC says that Reuss pointed to a section
in the Book of Lies: AC read about "the magickal rood and the mystic
rose" and the symbolism suddenly became clear. Check with Tyagi, but
that is my recollection of the matter.
This reference would be to the Star Sapphire.
>
> According to Crowley's account of what Reuss said, was the so-called
> secret to be found in chapter 69 of The Book of Lies as Gnome says? (and
> if so, where is that stated?)
I'm not aware of that connection, and also would like to know the
source.
The whole thing sounds like a blind, and a second point of triangulation
would be of interest.
>
> If either of the above, had the Book of Lies previously been srialized
> in magazine form, and thus made available to Reuss in 1912?
Not as far as I can discover.
If Reuss had had an advance set of proofs, then surely Crowley would not
be as ignorant of his organization as he claims at the time.
>
> Was the Book of Lies really published in 1913?
>
> Is Sprigg's copy from a well-known edition that contains a dating error
> and he is just having us on?
http://city-of.the-pyramids.net/library/crowley/lies/foreword.html
http://faust.irb.hr/~tust/Penta/BookOfLies.html
http://www.slimeworld.org/library/crowley/crowley13.html
http://crowsnestgifts.safeshopper.com/304/1968.htm?217
If the 1973 edition contains an error, it is pernicious.
>
> According to Crowley's account of what Reuss said, was the so-called
> secret to be found in ANOTHER book of Crowley's? (and if so, where is
> that stated?)
>
> Was Crowley caught in a mistake or a lie about the date? About Reuess?
> About what book the so-called secret was to be found in?
Indeed.
Too early to tell.
I suspect he refers to a different text, ( perhaps the booklet on
"enochian sex magick" recently reprinted, allegedly first published in
1912.)
Expecting the student to be fully aware of publication dates for his
work would be very Crowley.
His dating is usually pretty reliable, besides there is the matter of
documentation from Reuss to Crowley which, IIRC, is still extant.
panoptes
"J. A." <thee_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b123cd8.01071...@posting.google.com...
A.'.A.'. - Aeon of Alice
I'.'A'.'I'.' - Independent Agents of the Illuminati
I.I. - Illuminated Iconoclasts
Love,
Panoptes:Red Queen 8=3 Aeon of Alice
panoptes
>
> > What is Liber 609, there is no listing of it in various Crowley
> > bibliographies I have perused?
Liber 609 was discovered when two teen age boys 'blew' themselves into
oblivion. It would become a 'technique' after much practice,trial, error,
and success.
Crowley wrote a version of it, but did not go into detail, in Liber
333
Love,
Panoptes
David Cantu
>
> "." <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote in message
> news:9j0529$stu$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > In alt.magick.serious David Cantu <dc...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What is Liber 609, there is no listing of it in various Crowley
> > > bibliographies I have perused?
>
> Liber 609 was discovered when two teen age boys 'blew' themselves
into
> oblivion. It would become a 'technique' after much practice,trial, error,
> and success.
without details, what kinds of success? Defiance of material reality (it is
you who takes this view, if I am not mistaken)?
If you set a coincidence chain up through such acts, how do you think that
occurred? Or have you only used it for altered states and energy
consumption?
>
> Crowley wrote a version of it, but did not go into detail, in Liber
> 333
>
IF you refer to Ch 69 there seems to be a spiritual part to it:
69
{Kappa-Epsilon-Phi-Alpha-Lambda-Eta Xi-Theta}
THE WAY TO SUCCEED-AND THE WAY TO
SUCK EGGS!
This is the Holy Hexagram.
Plunge from the height, O God, and interlock with
Man!
Plunge from the height, O Man, and interlock with
Beast!
The Red Triangle is the descending tongue of grace;
the Blue Triangle is the ascending tongue of
prayer
This Interchange, the Double Gift of Tongues, the
Word of Double Power-ABRAHADABRA!-is
the sign of the GREAT WORK, for the GREAT
WORK is accomplished in Silence. And behold is
not that Word equal to Cheth, that is Cancer.
whose Sigil is {Cancer}?
This Work also eats up itself, accomplishes its own
end, nourishes the worker, leaves no seed, is per-
fect in itself.
Little children, love one another!
Sure it is about sex, but it is about something else.
"Plunge from the height, O God, and interlock with Man!"
Odd that he would say this on the one hand (as well as countless referrals
to Adonai..) and on the other say "There is no God but man" in Oz.
"The Red Triangle is the descending tongue of grace;
the Blue Triangle is the ascending tongue of
prayer"
Here again, both an allusion to sex And an allusion to "outer contact"
through a devotional trance.
Love,
>
> Panoptes
>
>
panoptes
"David Cantu" <dc...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Uyt57.210227$lq1.52...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> "panoptes" <pano...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:1MY47.40157$C81.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "." <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote in message
> > news:9j0529$stu$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > In alt.magick.serious David Cantu <dc...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What is Liber 609, there is no listing of it in various Crowley
> > > > bibliographies I have perused?
> >
> > Liber 609 was discovered when two teen age boys 'blew' themselves
> into
> > oblivion. It would become a 'technique' after much practice,trial,
error,
> > and success.
>
> without details, what kinds of success?
As stated elsewhere, with the initial experience of becoming 'one with
the light' I interpreted this as becoming one with God.{unio mystica}
After becoming better versed with magical practice {using it as a sexual
methodology}, I also realized this technique could be used for
A. Charging sigils to toward a more consistent probability
B. Divination {by-passing the psychic censor to access the subconscious
by projecting an anthropomorphic form to srve as an oracle.
C. Mystical Union
I have also noted in many posts that I am not certain of a
transcendental model of the universe, though intellectually I do tend to
lean more toward holonomic, panpsychist, epistemological constructivist
models.
Defiance of material reality (it is
> you who takes this view, if I am not mistaken)?
> If you set a coincidence chain up through such acts, how do you think that
> occurred?
I'm not certain about this either. I am less interested in 'results' {in
the magical sense of the term}at this time, and more interested as to how
our minds coherently, cognitively, construct what engages our attention, and
the mechanisms that underly our interpretation of all phenomena.
Love,
Panoptes
catherine yronwode
>
> catherine yronwode wrote:
> >
> > richard sprigg wrote:
> > >
> > > Joel Biroco wrote:
> > >
> > > > As Reuss visited Crowley in 1912 and accused him of revealing
> > > > the ultimate secret of the OTO in Liber 333, so making him
> > > > Head of the MMM,
> > >
> > > Yet my 1973 reprint contains the following:
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > FOREWORD
> > > THE BOOK OF LIES, first published in London in 1913,
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > No wonder Crowley was surprised.
> Researching some of the contradictions that arise keeps me busy.
> After the resolution of "Stele 666" a few months ago, this is my
> latest area for investigation.
> >
> > i am certainly very familiar
> > with the mythic scenario that begins: "Reuss visited Crowley in
> > 1912 and claimed that he had published the so-called secret of the
> > OTO..." but from there on out, your post raises more questions
> > that i even knew i had:
>
> Heh.
> The 1912 date is by no means universally accepted. I have read an
> assertion that Reuss visited Crowley in 1910, and elevated him to
> grand poobah in 1912.
Yes, i have seen this too, but that removes their meeting even FARTHER
from the publication date of The Book of Lies, yet in cCrowley's
autobiography, although he does not date the meeting, he definitely says
the material Reuss had found was in chapter 36 of the Book of Lies,
(information reiterated in De Arte Mackica as well) and he also says
that he spent most of 1912 engaged in O.T.O. work.
> > According to Crowley's account of what Reuss said, was the so-
> > called secret to be found in chapter 36 of The Book of Lies as c
> > nagasiva says? (and if so, where is that stated?)
>
> IIRC it is in the "Hag", where AC says that Reuss pointed to a
> section in the Book of Lies: AC read about "the magickal rood and
> the mystic rose" and the symbolism suddenly became clear. Check with
> Tyagi, but that is my recollection of the matter.
> This reference would be to the Star Sapphire.
Tyagi posted it already -- and i saw it myself in his copy of the
hagiography and de Arte Magicka.
> > According to Crowley's account of what Reuss said, was the so-
> > called secret to be found in chapter 69 of The Book of Lies as
> > Gnome says? (and if so, where is that stated?)
>
> I'm not aware of that connection, and also would like to know the
> source.
> The whole thing sounds like a blind, and a second point of
> triangulation would be of interest.
Gnome (and tyagi) already pointed this back to Robert Anton Wilson's
writings, and since RAW is a known satirist and leg-puller, we can
discount it completely. Chapter 69 (as Gnome posted it) is lots of fun,
but it is not what CROWLEY said Reuss referred to, and RAW has no
standing in the matter, so that is just fnord.
> > If either of the above, had the Book of Lies previously been
> > serialized in magazine form, and thus made available to Reuss
> > in 1912?
>
> Not as far as I can discover.
Me neither. Anyone have any further comments on this? Bill Heidrick?
> If Reuss had had an advance set of proofs, then surely Crowley
> would not be as ignorant of his organization as he claims at
> the time.
Right, and the story as printed does not point to either a set of
advance proofs or a magazine serialization. I was just grasping at
straws, really, trying to give AC the benefit of the doubt.
> > Was the Book of Lies really published in 1913?
> >
> > Is Sprigg's copy from a well-known edition that contains a dating
> > error and he is just having us on?
>
> http://city-of.the-pyramids.net/library/crowley/lies/foreword.html
> http://faust.irb.hr/~tust/Penta/BookOfLies.html
> http://www.slimeworld.org/library/crowley/crowley13.html
> http://crowsnestgifts.safeshopper.com/304/1968.htm?217
>
> If the 1973 edition contains an error, it is pernicious.
I understand that now. Thanks for supplying references.
> > According to Crowley's account of what Reuss said, was the so-
> > called secret to be found in ANOTHER book of Crowley's? (and if
> > so, where is that stated?)
My question in this regard has been answered -- in two places Crowley
referred to Reuss finding the secret of the OTO in chapter 36 of The
Book of Lies.
> > Was Crowley caught in a mistake or a lie about the date? About
> > Reuss? About what book the so-called secret was to be found in?
>
> Indeed.
> Too early to tell.
> I suspect he refers to a different text, ( perhaps the booklet on
> "enochian sex magick" recently reprinted, allegedly first published
> in 1912.)
Well, if so, why not name that book instead? I mean, why put up such a
blind?
You can make guesses about other books, but as for me, i am now working
on the assumption that something was REALLY WRONG with Crowley's memory
-- or he is falsified the record for unknown reasons
> Expecting the student to be fully aware of publication dates for his
> work would be very Crowley.
Oh, we all like to think he laid these little traps for the unwary --
but sometimes the emperor really has no clothes.
> His dating is usually pretty reliable, besides there is the matter
> of documentation from Reuss to Crowley which, IIRC, is still extant.
Right.
So here are some likely avenues to consider:
(1) Crowley simply got the date wrong. Reuss approached him in 1913.
This would mean that Crowley did NOT spend much of 1912 engaged in OTO
work, as he said he did.
(2) Crowley got the book wrong. Reuss did come and visit him, but he
mentioned a different book
(A) Crowley forgot which book Reuss had mentioned (UNLIKELY!)
(B) Crowley decided to conceal which book Reuss had mentioned. Your
choice of the Enochian sex-magick book as a possibility is okay, as far
as it goes, but of course we'll never know, and choosing this option is
basically letting Crowley off the hook based on an imaginary scenario.
(3) Crowley fabricated the entire incident out of whole cloth. He joined
the OTO in 1912 as he says, but Reuss never came to him and said that he
had inadvertently revealed the secret of the OTO.
(A) When making up that self-aggrandizing story, Crowley
inadvertently got caught in his own tangled lie by choosing a book that
had not yet been published
(B) When making up that self-aggrandizing story, Crowley
deliberately chose to REVEAL that the entire incident was a LIE by using
the Book of Lies (hint hint) as the "secret," knowing that folks in
years to come would compare the publication date of the book (1913) with
the story's date (1912 or earlier) and find that they could not be
reconciled.
Could you tell us where you are going with this in your own mind,
Richard?
I personally am leaning toward (3) (A), but then, as y'all know, i think
the man was as much a poseur as Silver Ravenwing. Pardon me of i offend
anyone with that opinion, but that's my two cents.
cat yronwode
The Mage's Guide to the Internet ------ http://www.luckymojo.com/magi
No personal e-mail, please; just catch me in usenet; i read it daily.
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
Send e-mail with your street address to cata...@luckymojo.com
and receive our free 32 page catalogue of hoodoo supplies and amulets
Copyright (c) 2001 catherine yronwode. All rights reserved.
.
> Love,
> Panoptes
And now the question is:
Do you actually do any academic research on this kind of thing (because youre
re-inventing a wheel that has been invented a million times), or are you
content just using questionable nomenclature to illustrate amorphous and
ragged theory?
panoptes
As much as I can from getting info over the internet and books. In
University, not at this time.
(because youre
> re-inventing a wheel that has been invented a million times), or are you
> content just using questionable nomenclature to illustrate amorphous and
> ragged theory?
You may want to consult Crowley's writings for "amorphous and ragged
theory".I already did the 1904 thingie. This is the century of the Brain.
Haven't you heard?
Love,
Panoptes
.
Ah, then youre looking for books on classical ontological theory. You
should read them as much as possible.
> (because youre
>> re-inventing a wheel that has been invented a million times), or are you
>> content just using questionable nomenclature to illustrate amorphous and
>> ragged theory?
> You may want to consult Crowley's writings for "amorphous and ragged
> theory".I already did the 1904 thingie. This is the century of the Brain.
> Haven't you heard?
Ah, validation of weak prospect.
Also, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY NEWSGROUP.
Thanks,
-----.
panoptes
Love,
Panoptes
.
1. you are not quoting correctly.
2. you are quoting FAR too much.
Now go away.
richard sprigg
catherine yronwode wrote:
>
> richard sprigg wrote:
> > > i am certainly very familiar
> > > with the mythic scenario that begins: "Reuss visited Crowley in
> > > 1912 and claimed that he had published the so-called secret of the
> > > OTO..."
Yes an excellent and dramatic scene.
It had already been done, though: Remember the scene in "A Christmas
Carol" where the ghost of Christmas yet to come points at Scrooge's
headstone?
> > > but from there on out, your post raises more questions
> > > that i even knew i had:
> >
> > Heh.
> > The 1912 date is by no means universally accepted. I have read an
> > assertion that Reuss visited Crowley in 1910, and elevated him to
> > grand poobah in 1912.
>
> Yes, i have seen this too, but that removes their meeting even FARTHER
> from the publication date of The Book of Lies, yet in cCrowley's
> autobiography, although he does not date the meeting, he definitely says
> the material Reuss had found was in chapter 36 of the Book of Lies,
> (information reiterated in De Arte Mackica as well) and he also says
> that he spent most of 1912 engaged in O.T.O. work.
Yes.
So, to bring this back to the original topic, Liber 418 was issued as a
supplement to Equinox 1,5 published in the Spring of 1911.
Amusingly, in his review of Waite's "Black Magic and Pacts" (Wisdom
while you Waite), Crowley writes the following:
"Such fools as it may impress are not worth having as followers, unless
one is a swindler. In fact (let me whisper in Mr Waite's ear) no
follower is worth having."
> You can make guesses about other books, but as for me, i am now working
> on the assumption that something was REALLY WRONG with Crowley's memory
> -- or he is falsified the record for unknown reasons
I'll go with the latter.
He wrote much of the Hag only about a decade after these things
happened, and his recall is typically quite accurate.
Consider the whole "stele 666" thing: There was until recently no solid
evidence to support Crowley's tale. Only last year was it discovered
that the 1903 catalogue contained *two* exhibits enumerated 666. One was
a stele, and the location given is, in fact, not dissimilar to Crowley's
description.
When he is wildly inaccurate, I tend to look for the hidden purpose.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the whole 333 thing is a blind alley:
The many will look to 333 and say "AH, Sex is the secret" and move on.
Others may look for that which the sex *symbolizes*, and find the Star
Sapphire a little thin in that department.
> Oh, we all like to think he laid these little traps for the unwary --
> but sometimes the emperor really has no clothes.
I will keep looking for his wardrobe.
It keeps me out of the malls.
Crowley had a great contempt for "followers", as is well documented.
I do find 3(b) attractive, in that it would fit with his sense of
humour.
Personally, on reflection, I find the sex-magick book a poor choice.
It's hard to claim that all symbolism fell into place when you have
already written a book about the subject. Crowley used the idea of sex
as an idiot filter for decades, and it still works pretty well in my
estimation.
So, it ain't the sex but the symbolism, methinks.
This points to 418 as a likely candidate.
>
> I personally am leaning toward (3) (A), but then, as y'all know, i think
> the man was as much a poseur as Silver Ravenwing. Pardon me of i offend
> anyone with that opinion, but that's my two cents.
Certainly he was a poseur, and many other things, but he did produce
some fine work.
At the least, it will piss off the "followers", which can be hugely
amusing.
I think I hear the old man laughing from here.
catherine yronwode
>
> catherine yronwode wrote:
> >
> > richard sprigg wrote:
> > their meeting, he definitely says the material Reuss had
> > reiterated in De Arte Mackica as well) and he also says
> > that he spent most of 1912 engaged in O.T.O. work.
>
> Yes.
> So, to bring this back to the original topic, Liber 418 was issued
> as a supplement to Equinox 1,5 published in the Spring of 1911.
Okay, i now understand you to be theorizing that
# the meeting happened (?)
# in 1912 (?)
# Reuss did mention a book by Crowley (?)
# but it was Liber 418 (Vision and Voice) not 333 (Book of Lies)
# Crowley probably lied in the "hag" and "de Arte"
> > You can make guesses about other books, but as for me, i am now
> > working on the assumption that something was REALLY WRONG with
> > Crowley's memory -- or he is falsified the record for unknown
> > reasons
>
> I'll go with the latter.
> He wrote much of the Hag only about a decade after these things
> happened, and his recall is typically quite accurate.
His recall was accurate within the limits of his anger and hatred. That
is, he is known to have told untruths about certain people whom he
wished to disparage. This would not seem to be such a case, of course,
but i mntion the falsehoods he told to put this discourse on a basis of
rwality.
> Consider the whole "stele 666" thing: There was until recently no
> solid evidence to support Crowley's tale. Only last year was it
> discovered that the 1903 catalogue contained *two* exhibits
> enumerated 666. One was a stele, and the location given is, in fact,
> not dissimilar to Crowley's description.
"Not dissimilar" may be as close as we get in the case of the Stele,
but it is closer than we had gotten before you looked into the matter.
> When he is wildly inaccurate, I tend to look for the hidden purpose.
Agreed. As i said, personal hatred was a major cause of his
inaccuracies. However, here there is no real reason to look for that
excuse here.
> I have a sneaking suspicion that the whole 333 thing is a blind
> alley: The many will look to 333 and say "AH, Sex is the secret" and
> move on. Others may look for that which the sex *symbolizes*, and
> find the Star Sapphire a little thin in that department.
Yes, i would concur that Chapter 36 of the Book of Lies is "a little
thin" to be the foundation-secret of a quasi-religious/quasi-fraternal
order.
> > So here are some likely avenues to consider:
> >
> > (1) Crowley simply got the date wrong. Reuss approached him in
> > 1913. This would mean that Crowley did NOT spend much of 1912
> > engaged in OTO work, as he said he did.
> >
> > (2) Crowley got the book wrong. Reuss did come and visit him, but
> > he mentioned a different book
> > (A) Crowley forgot which book Reuss had mentioned (UNLIKELY!)
> > (B) Crowley decided to conceal which book Reuss had
> > mentioned. Your choice of the Enochian sex-magick book as a
> > possibility is okay, as far as it goes, but of course we'll never
> > know, and choosing this option is basically letting Crowley off
> > the hook based on an imaginary scenario.
And now you seem to be choosing Liber 418 (The Vision and the Voice),
which at least has some MEAT on it, as far as "secrets" may go. But
again, i remind you that any choice is arbitrary unless you can
substantiate it with a number-code or word-play or some such.
For instance, Crowley specified Chapter 36 of Book 333. Neither of those
numbers (36 or 333) come up strongly in Liber 418: There are only 30
aethyrs (not 36) and the only 36 in the text online at
http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric/occultism/magic/ceremonial/crowley/418comm.txt
is PAGE 36, which hardly counts (or does it?) -- because the heaviest
numerical note in Liber 418 is Dee's 49 x 49 square. (418=49, get it?)
> > (3) Crowley fabricated the entire incident out of whole cloth. He
> > joined the OTO in 1912 as he says, but Reuss never came to him and
> > said that he had inadvertently revealed the secret of the OTO.
> > (A) When making up that self-aggrandizing story, Crowley
> > inadvertently got caught in his own tangled lie by choosing a book
> > that had not yet been published
> > (B) When making up that self-aggrandizing story, Crowley
> > deliberately chose to REVEAL that the entire incident was a LIE by
> > using the Book of Lies (hint hint) as the "secret," knowing that
> > folks in years to come would compare the publication date of the
> > book (1913) with the story's date (1912 or earlier) and find that
> > they could not be reconciled.
> >
> > Could you tell us where you are going with this in your own mind,
> > Richard?
>
> Crowley had a great contempt for "followers", as is well documented.
> I do find 3(b) attractive, in that it would fit with his sense of
> humour.
Yep, but if these is a joke here, or a code covered by a jest, then the
code must be decipherble, for Crowley had quite a sense of numerological
and gematric playfulness.
> Personally, on reflection, I find the sex-magick book a poor choice.
> It's hard to claim that all symbolism fell into place when you have
> already written a book about the subject.
Good point.
< Crowley used the idea of sex as an idiot filter
> for decades, and it still works pretty well in my
> estimation.
Granted.
> So, it ain't the sex but the symbolism, methinks.
> This points to 418 as a likely candidate.
WHY? Why 418 and not some other book? Why if the secret is in 418, tell
the reader that it is connected with the number 36? We have The Book of
Lies, Chapter 36 and The Star Sapphire which is Liber 36, and the
publication Ararita sub figura 813 {An account of the Hexagram and the
method of reducing it to the Unity, and beyond}, which Crowley termed a
Class A document, and which closes with "the vision of the Fool in his
folly that chanted the word Ararita." Beyond this "vision" of the
"voice" of the Fool who chanted Ararita, how does the Vision and the
Voice Liber 418 fit into the this Ararita/36/hexagram/6x6/star sapphire
code?
Richard, i hope i do not sound argumentative here -- i am truly enjoying
this little detective foray and i look forward to your response.
cat yronwode
Hoodoo and Blues Lyrics --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/blues.html
No personal e-mail, please; just catch me in usenet; i read it daily.
richard sprigg
catherine yronwode wrote:
>
> richard sprigg wrote:
> >
> > catherine yronwode wrote:
> > >
> > > richard sprigg wrote:
> > > in Crowley's autobiography, although he does not date
> > > their meeting, he definitely says the material Reuss had
> > > found was in chapter 36 of the Book of Lies, (information
> > > reiterated in De Arte Mackica as well) and he also says
> > > that he spent most of 1912 engaged in O.T.O. work.
> >
> > Yes.
> > So, to bring this back to the original topic, Liber 418 was issued
> > as a supplement to Equinox 1,5 published in the Spring of 1911.
>
> Okay, i now understand you to be theorizing that
> # the meeting happened (?)
> # in 1912 (?)
> # Reuss did mention a book by Crowley (?)
> # but it was Liber 418 (Vision and Voice) not 333 (Book of Lies)
> # Crowley probably lied in the "hag" and "de Arte"
At this point, we can safely assume that the last point is a given.
The possibility of Reuss getting pissed about 333 when other works had
been in print for some time seems low.
In 1913, Crowley was already a high poobah, and the meeting would be
moot unless it was disciplinary in nature.
Again, not impossible, but unlikely. Crowley loved to embellish tales of
his fights even more than those of his successes.
I will postulate the Crowley did join Reuss' organization in 1910, and
that he had not reached the top degrees by 1911/12. His publishing some
work made Reuss take a hissy because it revealed, he felt, secrets that
Crowley had not been initiated into.
This gave him two options: Expel Crowley, and incur his wrath and the
enmity of his pen, or initiate him and bind him with an oath to keep
relatively quiet.
I suspect he chose the latter course. By bribing him with all manner of
grand titles, he then had him inside the tent pissing out, instead of
outside pissing in.
> > I'll go with the latter.
> > He wrote much of the Hag only about a decade after these things
> > happened, and his recall is typically quite accurate.
>
> His recall was accurate within the limits of his anger and hatred.
Yes.
> That
> is, he is known to have told untruths about certain people whom he
> wished to disparage.
It seemed to be the fashion in the 20's, both in the press and in
publication.
We could make a case that it actually fell from favour in the past fifty
years as a means of revenge.
> This would not seem to be such a case, of course,
> but i mntion the falsehoods he told to put this discourse on a basis of
> rwality.
Certainly. At times he lied like a cheap rug, but he was quite capable
of sneaking a truth in the middle just for fun.
In short, always read sceptically.
>
> > Consider the whole "stele 666" thing: There was until recently no
> > solid evidence to support Crowley's tale. Only last year was it
> > discovered that the 1903 catalogue contained *two* exhibits
> > enumerated 666. One was a stele, and the location given is, in fact,
> > not dissimilar to Crowley's description.
>
> "Not dissimilar" may be as close as we get in the case of the Stele,
> but it is closer than we had gotten before you looked into the matter.
There are still investigations going on to tie down the location *in the
room* of the stele in 1904.
The problem in dealing with eastern beauracracy, however, make this
quite difficult.
My part was small, and the real kudos has to go to both Colin McLeod,
and to Jess Karlin who found "the key to it all".
>
> > When he is wildly inaccurate, I tend to look for the hidden purpose.
>
> Agreed. As i said, personal hatred was a major cause of his
> inaccuracies. However, here there is no real reason to look for that
> excuse here.
As far as we can tell, anyway.
>
> > I have a sneaking suspicion that the whole 333 thing is a blind
> > alley: The many will look to 333 and say "AH, Sex is the secret" and
> > move on. Others may look for that which the sex *symbolizes*, and
> > find the Star Sapphire a little thin in that department.
>
> Yes, i would concur that Chapter 36 of the Book of Lies is "a little
> thin" to be the foundation-secret of a quasi-religious/quasi-fraternal
> order.
>
> > > So here are some likely avenues to consider:
> > >
> > > (1) Crowley simply got the date wrong. Reuss approached him in
> > > 1913. This would mean that Crowley did NOT spend much of 1912
> > > engaged in OTO work, as he said he did.
> > >
> > > (2) Crowley got the book wrong. Reuss did come and visit him, but
> > > he mentioned a different book
> > > (A) Crowley forgot which book Reuss had mentioned (UNLIKELY!)
> > > (B) Crowley decided to conceal which book Reuss had
> > > mentioned. Your choice of the Enochian sex-magick book as a
> > > possibility is okay, as far as it goes, but of course we'll never
> > > know, and choosing this option is basically letting Crowley off
> > > the hook based on an imaginary scenario.
>
> And now you seem to be choosing Liber 418 (The Vision and the Voice),
> which at least has some MEAT on it, as far as "secrets" may go. But
> again, i remind you that any choice is arbitrary unless you can
> substantiate it with a number-code or word-play or some such.
Certainly it is.
It is still early days yet, and there was a phenomenal amount of
publishing done in that 1910-12 timeframe. Part of the challenge is that
there may never be a final and defensible answer: that said, if the
popular myth can be eliminated, perhaps at the least it will serve as an
example to those who follow not to accept all such myths at face value.
If that is the only result, the process will be worthwhile.
Maybe this is just one of those "Osiris is a Black God" things.
>
> For instance, Crowley specified Chapter 36 of Book 333. Neither of those
> numbers (36 or 333) come up strongly in Liber 418: There are only 30
> aethyrs (not 36) and the only 36 in the text online at
> http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric/occultism/magic/ceremonial/crowley/418comm.txt
> is PAGE 36, which hardly counts (or does it?) -- because the heaviest
> numerical note in Liber 418 is Dee's 49 x 49 square. (418=49, get it?)
333 is the number of Choronzon, which suggests the 10th Aethyr, but that
is just kneejerking. I forsee much work here.
Truly? no particular reason, actually, other than it is, as you say, a
book with meat on it.
> Why if the secret is in 418, tell
> the reader that it is connected with the number 36? We have The Book of
> Lies, Chapter 36 and The Star Sapphire which is Liber 36, and the
> publication Ararita sub figura 813 {An account of the Hexagram and the
> method of reducing it to the Unity, and beyond}, which Crowley termed a
> Class A document, and which closes with "the vision of the Fool in his
> folly that chanted the word Ararita." Beyond this "vision" of the
> "voice" of the Fool who chanted Ararita, how does the Vision and the
> Voice Liber 418 fit into the this Ararita/36/hexagram/6x6/star sapphire
> code?
Not terribly well, since one relates to Enochian, and the other to
hermetic kabbalism.
I haven't looked at 813 in a while; I'll re-read it and get back to you.
It is arguable, IIRC, that 333 cap 36 is a commentary on a specific view
of 813.
>
> Richard, i hope i do not sound argumentative here -- i am truly enjoying
> this little detective foray and i look forward to your response.
Research, hopefully, is a product of debate and study.
All forensic investigation requires constant appraisal and searching
questions.
Constructive argument and criticism is always welcome; it contrasts
pleasantly with the response of the faithful, which is either invective
or dumb silence.
J. A.
>
> At this point, we can safely assume that the last point is a given.
> The possibility of Reuss getting pissed about 333 when other works had
> been in print for some time seems low.
> In 1913, Crowley was already a high poobah, and the meeting would be
> moot unless it was disciplinary in nature.
> Again, not impossible, but unlikely. Crowley loved to embellish tales of
> his fights even more than those of his successes.
Hello kteis!
Why assume that Crowley would lie when he is merely a great artist?
You seem to forget that the laws of the physical world are not the
sole exclusive laws of the universe. Crowley was made a 33* mason in
1900 of which it is evident he could not write that which he did
otherwise. There is no higher secret than that of the 33. Thus it is
more evident that Reuss needed Crowley for reasons of promulgation of
his order (we now know that went to hell!), after the genius of the
Beast. But even more hilarious are these clowns who reject the notion
that Crowley attained to what he claimed he did (you know who you are!
-feminists, jews, and base snipes alike!); it only goes to show the
lack of development and respect of the individual in question.
Hail Typhon!
richard sprigg
"J. A." wrote:
>
> richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> >
> > At this point, we can safely assume that the last point is a given.
> > The possibility of Reuss getting pissed about 333 when other works had
> > been in print for some time seems low.
> > In 1913, Crowley was already a high poobah, and the meeting would be
> > moot unless it was disciplinary in nature.
> > Again, not impossible, but unlikely. Crowley loved to embellish tales of
> > his fights even more than those of his successes.
>
> Hello kteis!
Hello.
>
> Why assume that Crowley would lie when he is merely a great artist?
It was a part of his art.
Sending lemmings off cliffs is an ancient and venerable practice.
That is, after all, what lemmings are for.
>
> You seem to forget that the laws of the physical world are not the
> sole exclusive laws of the universe. Crowley was made a 33* mason in
> 1900 of which it is evident he could not write that which he did
> otherwise. There is no higher secret than that of the 33. Thus it is
> more evident that Reuss needed Crowley for reasons of promulgation of
> his order (we now know that went to hell!), after the genius of the
> Beast.
It was a fair bargain.
Crowley got to be "Supreme and Holy King", after all.
Keeping titles long after the reason for their award is an English
tradition (i.e. the fidelis defensor given to Henry VIII), and the man
loved titles.
> But even more hilarious are these clowns who reject the notion
> that Crowley attained to what he claimed he did (you know who you are!
> -feminists, jews, and base snipes alike!); it only goes to show the
> lack of development and respect of the individual in question.
Well, even Regardie never questioned Crowley's attainment, he just could
not understand that such an unsympathetic individual could attain. Leah
had the same problem.
They likely forgot that the creator has a wonderfully subtle sense of
humour.
Have you read that old story (Maugham, IIRC) about the inquisitor?
>
> Hail Typhon!
J. A.
> > Why assume that Crowley would lie when he is merely a great artist?
>
> It was a part of his art.
> Sending lemmings off cliffs is an ancient and venerable practice.
> That is, after all, what lemmings are for.
Maybe so. But then lemmings have no excuse for failure; either they
learn to fly or ____ (develop a sense of humor?).
> It was a fair bargain.
> Crowley got to be "Supreme and Holy King", after all.
> Keeping titles long after the reason for their award is an English
> tradition (i.e. the fidelis defensor given to Henry VIII), and the man
> loved titles.
True, but Reuss got his man; and there is much more to the deal than
just words.
> Well, even Regardie never questioned Crowley's attainment, he just could
> not understand that such an unsympathetic individual could attain. Leah
> had the same problem.
Even more so that Regardie recognized Crowley's passion for fame was
what made his work so exquisite. His style was just not compatible
with Regardies. And what is more is that Regardie was jealous.
> They likely forgot that the creator has a wonderfully subtle sense of
> humour.
> Have you read that old story (Maugham, IIRC) about the inquisitor?
no. did he write that one all by himself?
richard sprigg
"J. A." wrote:
>
> richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<3B591A65...@sympatico.ca>...
> > "J. A." wrote:
> > >
> > > richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> > > Why assume that Crowley would lie when he is merely a great artist?
> >
> > It was a part of his art.
> > Sending lemmings off cliffs is an ancient and venerable practice.
> > That is, after all, what lemmings are for.
>
> Maybe so. But then lemmings have no excuse for failure; either they
> learn to fly or ____ (develop a sense of humor?).
"Notice they don't so much fly as plummet"
Lemmings are really short on humour, they take themselves much too
seriously.
This is what makes them so amusing.
>
>
> > It was a fair bargain.
> > Crowley got to be "Supreme and Holy King", after all.
> > Keeping titles long after the reason for their award is an English
> > tradition (i.e. the fidelis defensor given to Henry VIII), and the man
> > loved titles.
>
> True, but Reuss got his man; and there is much more to the deal than
> just words.
Indeed; at the least Reuss got AC inside the tent pissing out: whether
he envisaged the effect of AC on his order is questionable, though.
>
>
> > Well, even Regardie never questioned Crowley's attainment, he just could
> > not understand that such an unsympathetic individual could attain. Leah
> > had the same problem.
>
> Even more so that Regardie recognized Crowley's passion for fame was
> what made his work so exquisite. His style was just not compatible
> with Regardies. And what is more is that Regardie was jealous.
I am sure he was.
Try as he did to ignore Crowley's writing, he returned to it again and
again, and every time was struck by the power of the writing. Given his
dislike of the man, that must have been really galling.
>
> > They likely forgot that the creator has a wonderfully subtle sense of
> > humour.
> > Have you read that old story (Maugham, IIRC) about the inquisitor?
>
> no. did he write that one all by himself?
Well, he transcribed it.
Maugham wrote daily, (as you likely are aware), but most of his stories
are those picked up by his companions or himself in bars around the
world.
Maugham's talent was to turn the anecdotes of strangers into good prose.
That story in particular brings out the possible sense of humour of the
creator.