Crowley *slaps roof of Qabalah*

[sean]

[Earl Grey]

[Michael Sternbach]

 

This is a reproduction of a scheme uncle Al shared in his famous Book of Thoth.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Michael Sternbach

[Mskied]

Crowley did some amazing things.   He synthesized and gathered as much as he could and handed it out in a series of texts so that we could all examine.  He wrote some interesting rituals that I believe the Gods honor, and was adept enough to see that these rituals could produce what they say.  He also owes a lot to other people- a lot.  

 

His crowning achievement is probably the lesson he gives us on enlightenment, which is put forth with Do What Thou Wilt, but what it really tells us is, everyone has their own Will, and they will react to it and act with it as they deem necessary.  Should you REALLY do what you will?  This is an interesting idea, because it is the root of innovation to change the pace of society.  Should you, though?  He isn't exactly an advocate  of mercy, or charity, or benevolence, or any of the thoughts of those that admit that we are all ignorant.  He says use this!  Take advantage of it!  Who cares?  Get what you desire!  He is the antithesis of your usual religious path.

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, sean said:

 

 

 

Ah!  But only up to his own time .

 

Us neo-hermticists  just keep on  ......   'slappin  it  '     

 

Great contribution  Earl Grey, I thought about  it, but I havent seen it  '  schemented ' in a diagram before .

 

Is it time yet for the  updated Nungali Psychological Astrological Tree of Life  ?    That one up there ^ got Mars in the wrong place    

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah ... he didnt only slap 'metaphysical'  stuff on it  ;

 

 

 

 

 

The attribution of drugs and their effect in programming the 'neurological circuits ' in Exo-psychology is  well worth studying  (for understanding addictions and their remedies ) .

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Mskied said:

Crowley did some amazing things.   He synthesized and gathered as much as he could and handed it out in a series of texts so that we could all examine.  He wrote some interesting rituals that I believe the Gods honor, and was adept enough to see that these rituals could produce what they say.  He also owes a lot to other people- a lot.  

 

He did write a LOT . As far as 'owing' they all did that .... the  modern  'Golden Chain' so to speak .

 

 

http://plato2051.tripod.com/

 

A fav 'modern ' chain ' link of mine is  Ficino and his 'star magic' .  

 

For more of these links ;

 

http://www.harpur.org/PJCHsecretfire.htm

 

Extract from review ; 

 

"  Some of the contours of his map of the imagination are familiar - the ideas of Heraclitus, Plotinus and Plato; Coleridge, Eliot and Hughes; Boehme, Blake and Yeats; Jung and Hillman - and the notion that from the early 17th century, the falling away of an imaginal reality has gathered momentum.  In the process of our increased materialism of value and thought, we have lost vital touch with the anima mundi - the soul of the world - that collective energy which manifests both spiritually and physically and whose neglect has led to our current lack of meaning and beauty.  Banished and suppressed, however, otherworldly realities do not die but return in more disturbing form - the daimonic turns into the demonic - what Yeats called those 'lethargies and cruelties and timidities' whose roots lie in a denial of imagination. "

 

Crowley called them 'Saints' in the Gnostic Tradition ;

 

The Saints

The DEACON: Lord of Life and Joy, that art the might of man, that art the essence of every true god that is upon the surface of the Earth, continuing knowledge from generation unto generation, thou adored of us upon heaths and in woods, on mountains and in caves, openly in the marketplaces and secretly in the chambers of our houses, in temples of gold and ivory and marble as in these other temples of our bodies, we worthily commemorate them worthy that did of old adore thee and manifest they glory unto men;

 

Lao-tzu and Siddhârtha and Krishna and Tahuti, Mosheh, Dionysus, Mohammed and To Mega Thêrion, with these also, Hermês, Pan, Priapus, Osiris and Melchizedek, Khem and Amoun and Mentu, Hêraclês, Orpheus and Odysseus; with Vergilius, Catullus, Martialis, Rabelais, Swinburne, and many an holy bard; Apollonius Tyanæus, Simon Magus, Manes, Pythagoras, Basilides, Valentinus, Bardesanes and Hippolytus, that transmitted the Light of the Gnosis to us their successors and their heirs; with Merlin, Arthur, Kamuret, Parzival, and many another, prophet, priest and king, that bore the Lance and Cup, the Sword and Disk, against the Heathen; and these also, Carolus Magnus and his paladins, with William of Schyren, Frederick of Hohenstaufen, Roger Bacon, Jacobus Burgundus Molensis the Martyr, Christian Rosencreutz, Ulrich von Hutten, Paracelsus, Michael Maier, Roderic Borgia Pope Alexander the Sixth, Jacob Boehme, Francis Bacon Lord Verulam, Andrea, Robertus de Fluctibus, Giordano Bruno, Johannes Dee, Sir Edward Kelly, Thomas Vaughan, Elias Ashmole, Molinos, Adam Weishaupt, Wolfgang von Goethe, William Blake, Ludovicus Rex Bavariæ, Richard Wagner, Alphonse Louis Constant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Hargrave Jennings, Carl Kellner, Forlong dux, Sir Richard Payne Knight, Sir Richard Francis Burton, Paul Gauguin, Docteur Gérard Encausse, Doctor Theodor Reuss, and Sir Aleister Crowley—Oh Sons of the Lion and the Snake! With all thy saints we worthily commemorate them worthy that were and are and are to come.

May their Essence be here present, potent, puissant and paternal to perfect this feast!

 

 

Quote

 

His crowning achievement is probably the lesson he gives us on enlightenment, which is put forth with Do What Thou Wilt, but what it really tells us is, everyone has their own Will, and they will react to it and act with it as they deem necessary.  Should you REALLY do what you will?  This is an interesting idea, because it is the root of innovation to change the pace of society.  Should you, though?  He isn't exactly an advocate  of mercy, or charity, or benevolence, or any of the thoughts of those that admit that we are all ignorant. 

 

Yet, strangely enough, if you cut through all the hype, and the fact that at times he was obviously an A-Hole (note caps) , Israel Regardie  ( who was certainly insulted and abused by him ) affirmed that he was 'kind'  (and even Israel sounded confused when he said that  ). 

 

I heard a BBC radio doco once interviewing people that actually had met him. a WIDE range of reactions  ;

 

A  woman who had him around for dinner  - wonderful man, polite, bought my son a box of coloured pencils and played colouring in with him on the floor .  ( Hmmmm ... maybe he was tripping on acid  ) 

 

Another one was HILARIOUS , a man, also at a dinner party. he had a very upper class English accent and was appalled ;

 

"  He had hypnotic  eyes . I could tell he was trying to seduce me. A few times I nearly went under  into a hypnotic trance . I felt strangely attracted . Thank goodness my wife was there and my will was strong !  "

 

    yes,  thank goodness eh ? 

 

 

 

 

God damn gay satanic hypnotists ! 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

He says use this!  Take advantage of it!  Who cares?  Get what you desire! 

 

 

Not when he is talking about the concept of his  'True Will' he doesnt .   This reads like a misunderstanding of the concept .

 

Sounds more like 'do what you want'  ..... but that is a common mistake .

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

He is the antithesis of your usual religious path.

 

 

He is an anarchist on your usual spiritual path    

Edited August 10, 2019 by Nungali

[Mskied]

I disagree that I am mistaken.  In the early days of his theorem, his students are meant to do what they like, and this is to be done over and over until you refine what you do, and why you want to do it- this is actually how he recommends one go about discovering and sharpening your Will, 

[Mskied]

A Will that may or may not have any law or sense to it, especially in a certain light of communal need for a design of life.  He somewhat denounces this light, which is the light provided by such as Christianity and Buddhism.

[Michael Sternbach]

20 minutes ago, Mskied said:

A Will that may or may not have any law or sense to it, especially in a certain light of communal need for a design of life.  He somewhat denounces this light, which is the light provided by such as Christianity and Buddhism.

 

It is said that uncle Al was not exactly enthusiastic about those among his followers who took the guiding principle he shared as a free pass to follow their every whim. Read properly, it presumes to KNOW one's TRUE WILL in the first place. And this is something that goes far deeper than any egotistic "do as you please".

 

It requires you to reconnect to that most profound level of self referred to as Buddha-nature, the Inner Christ - or one's Holy Guardian Angel in the tradition of Magick that constituted Crowley's primary foundations. Others may call it the 'divine spark'... Regardless of terminology, following THAT is seen as following God's Will - as expressed in and through you. And that can be rather challenging a task! 

 

 

[Mskied]

Again I disagree.  First, Ive read some of the things Therion attempted in his research, and these things go beyond normal Christ or Buddha type thinking.  It would seem that he himself tried to banish all inhibitions, and some of his literature encourages that whole heartedly.  He also refuses to place a Will onto anyones True Will, and does not name any God or angel for anyone- not even his own.  I suspect that he did not follow the Sephiroth when declaring his angelic power, but made himself into a thinking thing that had its own logic, and when you read his hypothesis on logical action choice and result, you will see that his main concern was not nearly Christian or Buddhist, but had more to do with liberty to choose who and what to be.  The fact that anyone that knows of Crowley, especially his students, claim he had any reverence what so ever for Christ is odd to me, because he was so anti Christian, and he was anti Christian because it was too restrained and humiliating.  Crowley was proud, and wanted proud disciples, that did their Will, knew what they were doing, and got it done- and again, I don't think it mattered what the logic was.  

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, Mskied said:

A Will that may or may not have any law or sense to it, especially in a certain light of communal need for a design of life.  He somewhat denounces this light, which is the light provided by such as Christianity and Buddhism.

 

Yet he terms his magical system 'The Holy Magic of Light' , his 4 principles are Light Life Love and Liberty .

 

He denounces Christianity and  supports Buddhism .

[Nungali]

12 hours ago, Mskied said:

Again I disagree.  First, Ive read some of the things Therion attempted in his research, and these things go beyond normal Christ or Buddha type thinking.  It would seem that he himself tried to banish all inhibitions, and some of his literature encourages that whole heartedly.  He also refuses to place a Will onto anyones True Will, and does not name any God or angel for anyone- not even his own.  I suspect that he did not follow the Sephiroth when declaring his angelic power, but made himself into a thinking thing that had its own logic, and when you read his hypothesis on logical action choice and result, you will see that his main concern was not nearly Christian or Buddhist, but had more to do with liberty to choose who and what to be.  The fact that anyone that knows of Crowley, especially his students, claim he had any reverence what so ever for Christ is odd to me, because he was so anti Christian, and he was anti Christian because it was too restrained and humiliating.  Crowley was proud, and wanted proud disciples, that did their Will, knew what they were doing, and got it done- and again, I don't think it mattered what the logic was.  

 

He names angels , he named his own Holy Guardian Angel even .

 

he named  Gods and even invented the names   Hadit , Nuit ,   and a heap of others . 

 

What made him into a living thing with its own logic ?  Well, he wrote about that himself, by incorporating a Swinburne poem into his first degree ( birth )  ritual  and its a fair bet that he wrote in those rituals what he believed in or thought was the best expressions of concepts ;

 

 

Before the beginning of years

There came to the making of man

Time, with a gift of tears;

Grief, with a glass that ran;

Pleasure, with pain for leaven;

Summer, with flowers that fell;

Remembrance, fallen from heaven,

And madness risen from hell;

Strength without hands to smite;

Love that endures for a breath;

Night, the shadow of light,

And life, the shadow of death.

 

And the high gods took in hand

Fire, and the falling of tears,

And a measure of sliding sand

From under the feet of the years;

And froth and the drift of the sea;

And dust of the laboring earth;

And bodies of things to be

In the houses of death and of birth;

And wrought with weeping and laughter,

And fashioned with loathing and love,

With life before and after

And death beneath and above,

For a day and a night and a morrow,

That his strength might endure for a span

With travail and heavy sorrow,

The holy spirit of man.

 

From the winds of the north and the south,

They gathered as unto strife;

They breathed upon his mouth,

They filled his body with life;

Eyesight and speech they wrought

For the veils of the soul therein,

A time for labor and thought,

A time to serve and to sin;

They gave him light in his ways,

And love, and space for delight,

And beauty, and length of days,

And night, and sleep in the night.

His speech is a burning fire;

With his lips he travaileth;

In his heart is a blind desire,

In his eyes foreknowledge of death;

He weaves, and is clothed with derision;

Sows, and he shall not reap;

His life is a watch or a vision

Between a sleep and a sleep.

 

And it isnt actually about  "more to do with liberty to choose who and what to be.'  it is about developing yourself into the full potential of your prescribed purpose ; we all have a potential boundary that cant be passed, but most of us live no where near its outer limits .

 

As he said ; build not a  pool for a goat nor a pen for a shark ... its about our intrinsic essential spiritual ( meaning core or individual 'spirit'  nature  -  not choosing who or what to be .

 

And you totally misunderstood Michael  ^  , he was refering to Christ nature  , not saying that crowley had reverence for Christ. Even Crowley talks about 'Christ nature' ;

 

THEOREMS

I. The world progresses by virtue of the appearance of Christs (geniuses).

II. Christs (geniuses) are men with super-consciousness of the highest order.

 

https://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox/i/ii/eqi02016

 

as far as eclectic acceptance of other religious forms goes  :   (and now i cite from his 2nd degree initiation ceremony - Life ;

 

" In the true religion there is no sect, therefore take heed that thou blaspheme not the name by which another knoweth his God; for if thou do this thing in Jupiter thou wilt blaspheme יהוה and in Osiris יהשוה. Ask and ye shall have! Seek, and ye shall find! Knock, and it shall be opened unto you! "

 

https://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib30

 

You might not realise, but the libertarian basis of Crowley's system wasnt invented by him.   The 'True Will' principle , and more importantly , the social implications of a system like Thelema being implemented successfully have a  loooong history , going back to ancient Zoroastrianism - I can put their main principles side by side with Crowley's  and they very similar .

 

The  modern misinterpretation of  Thelema  is also due to Rabelais

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Rabelais#Thélème

Edited August 10, 2019 by Nungali

[Mskied]

If this be true, that human beings are meant to pursue their "True Will", which has a destination, then it can be concluded that all people will end  up the same man.

[Nungali]

Except that each human has their own unique true Will relevant to them. And the destination does not matter a scrap. if it is your will to be a mother , an artist, a helicopter pilot or all three , that has nothing to do with it, its about finding your True Will  whatever that is .

 

It is actually the antithesis of everyone ending up all the same .  He was dead set against that .

 

I am confused how, even a precursory reading of him could lead one to assume  the opposite . 

 

He even put some possible 'destinations' , that are all different (as we do not end up all the same 'man '  )   in his Gnostic mass.

Its the finding and expression that is important , not what the actual True Will is of any individual ;

 

"  ... may there be granted the accomplishment of their true Wills; whether they will absorption in the Infinite, or to be united with their chosen and preferred, or to be in contemplation, or to be at peace, or to achieve the labour and heroism of incarnation on this planet or another, or in any Star,

or aught else

 

, unto them may there be granted the accomplishment of their wills. "

 

(my emphasis )

 

[thelerner]

Kabbalic diagrams are a bit to cerebral for me.  I like practices like Rawn Clarks where during a chant yud hey vav hey, the letters are imagined on the body.  Where feeling of internal, universal, temporal are felt and placed during the chant or rather canticle.  A kind of We are Tree of life.  It included healing variations too. 

 

Sadly abardoncompanion.com doesn't seem to be active anymore.  hopefully thats temporary.  Some great practices on it, including some sophisticated 32 level tree of life stuff.

Edited September 13, 2019 by thelerner

[Nungali]

The '32 level Tree of Life stuff'   is the basis of the tables that are shown in post 5 . ie. a 'field' or  subject matter ( like perfumes, gemstones, Gods, meditations , etc ) are classified according to 32 levels which are the  10 sepiroth and 22 pathwaya

[Mskied]

On 8/10/2019 at 11:50 PM, Nungali said:

Except that each human has their own unique true Will relevant to them. And the destination does not matter a scrap. if it is your will to be a mother , an artist, a helicopter pilot or all three , that has nothing to do with it, its about finding your True Will  whatever that is .

 

It is actually the antithesis of everyone ending up all the same .  He was dead set against that .

 

I am confused how, even a precursory reading of him could lead one to assume  the opposite . 

 

He even put some possible 'destinations' , that are all different (as we do not end up all the same 'man '  )   in his Gnostic mass.

Its the finding and expression that is important , not what the actual True Will is of any individual ;

 

"  ... may there be granted the accomplishment of their true Wills; whether they will absorption in the Infinite, or to be united with their chosen and preferred, or to be in contemplation, or to be at peace, or to achieve the labour and heroism of incarnation on this planet or another, or in any Star,

or aught else

 

, unto them may there be granted the accomplishment of their wills. "

 

(my emphasis )

 

So here you claim Crowley wanted everyone to be different, but in another thread you say that there is a Greek definition of life that would be the same for all of us, and call that our True Will- so which is it?

[Nungali]

No I dont claim " Crowley wanted everyone to be different "   . he did acknowledge  every one WAS unique and individual  though .

 

And in another thread I did not say " there is a Greek definition of life that would be the same for all of us, and call that our True Will "

 

So any demand from you about which is the statement I never made in the first place  is defunct .

 

If you cant read and understand what I write and have to make stuff up about it , heaven knows why you chose someone like Crowley to  interpret !