Initiation in the Æon of the Child
-
"
"In this Aeon, the central formula is not L.V.X., but N.O.X. Much more than the balance or opposite of L.V.X., the formula of N.O.X. is that of the Mother (ה), while L.V.X. was once that of the Son (ו). The former once opened the Vault of Abiegnus; the latter opens the Gates of the City of the Pyramids.Note the past tense usage in the former case, L.V.X. will no longer open the Vault of the Mountain of Adepts; it now opens the Four Gates to the Palace at the foot of the Mountain. No longer is it the word of the Son Tiphareth, but of the Daughter Malkuth who borders upon the Shells. The formula I.N.R.I. has no relationship to this L.V.X. and is useful primarily to those who have not yet accepted the Law of Thelema."
I was under the impresion that the formula of L.V.X. was very important due to it's links with the name Adonai - HGA. "
The first point I want to make is that, fundamentally, there is no difference between L.V.X. and N.O.X. That is, at root, they are the same ONE THING, but differing in how different parts of the human psyche is contacted by and relates to it.
Most simply, N.O.X. is L.V.X. of such intensity ("high vibration") that it's out of range of the typical magician's range of perception. It therefore has characteristics of "dark" and "unknown" rather than "light" and "revelatory." Now, N.O.X. is quite revelatory; but most people, in relating to it, perhaps derive greatest value from it in the sense of "the unknown" etc. - At different stages of one's inner growth, the capacity to relate to "the next step" will change.
So what the author would really appear to be saying is not
So we don't appear here to be talking about is in the word formula. He seems not to be talking about L.V.X. vs. N.O.X. per se, but rather the different formulations of magical-Qabalistic ideas.
There are some points where I definitely agree with what is written here, and some points where I disagree.
For example, I agree that, having passed through stages where the primary objects of worship have been the earth or Moon, and then the Sun, we are now at a stage where consciousness is best served by the central object being the Star (one example of which, however, is the Sun).
I agree (i.e., I would say, and the quote above seems to be saying the same thing) that one way to distinguish between L.V.X. and N.O.X. is in which aspect of human consciousness (Ruach vs. Neshamah) is being touched by it.
I agree (or would say) that the symbol of the Vault of the Adepts and the symbol of the City of Pyramids are substantially the same symbol, and that much of Crowley's vision work carried the Vault concept into the Binah realm when he was taking his Binah initiation; but I wouldn't generally go as far as the author is because I see the importance of distinguishing those two symbols based on context. It's not that the Vault can't serve in Binah, it's that the City of the Pyramids (native to Binah) is, at best, a distant promise at Tiphereth (though the capacity to apprehend slomething about it has naturally been opened in the Tipheric initiation).
And, BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with rearranging how these symbols are employed in an initiation cycle. That's a matter of functionality in the "if it works, it works" sense. For example, the Temple of Thelema Second Order degrees (which follow the G.D. scale, not the A.'.A.'. scale - that is, 5° T.'.O.'.T.'. is comparable to G.D. 5-6, not A.'.A.'. 5=6) uses the vault at Tiphereth and thereafter, but its configuration keeps evolving. From one's first exposure to it, the Vault is a promise of the new "next step" to Binah; and the Binah ceremony 8° is its climax. But this is just a formulation - a particular way of lining up the symbols and letting them speak. I mention it here only to emphasize that I'm not inherently averse to rearranging these according to functionality.
My "Sun symbol migrating to Star symbol" above is an agreement, on some levels, of a shift from Son-Vav to Mother-Heh formulations. But I don't find that this is true at all levels. Perhaps my biggest disagreement with what I read above is that (for various reasons, some theoretical, some experiential) I hold that the Son-Child symbol persists up to Tiphereth, and is thereafter succeeded by the Mother. Specifically, Liber Legis speaks of Ra-Hoor-Khuit as the visible object of worship, and I find that this is true (with allowance for individual variations) through the K&C of the HGA; but, pretty much commencing with that event, the whole focus shifts, and images of the Mother (as Binah in general, or Babalon, or Nuit, or whatever) replace it. (In some ways, the Path of Gimel absorbs the whole of the Minor Adept's focus; and Binah / Mother / Night now replaces Tiphereth / Child / Light as the next substantial step or threshold.) That is, one formula prevails through 5=6, and then another arises naturally and spontaneously.
So there are my main thoughts on this. I'll look back through the posts and see if there is anything else on which I want to comment.
Hope this helps.
-
"I was under the impresion that the formula of L.V.X. was very important due to it's links with the name Adonai - HGA. "
Agreed. However, please note that you're supporting Gunther's statement here, since that would link it to Malkuth.
I think it's quite important also, beyond all of that.
"My main gripe is how to convert the theory into practice? The implications of the changes wrought by the New Aeon are explained quite nicely by Gunther in theoretical terms, but what about their practical implications? "
That's always the challenge. Having not read it yet, I don't have an opinion on how well he did that (or even what the work is really about). There is a place for theoretidcal (reframing) works, though.
"My previous comment about L.V.X. is a case in point. Gunther says that L.V.X. no longer opens the Vault of Abiegnus because the Mountain itself is now identified with the City of the Pyramids and therefore requires the N.O.X. formula."
FWIW I assure you that L.V.X. still has the capacity to open that Vault. (If I knew of only one example, that would be sufficient to justify the statement. I know of several examples, in addition to my own.)
"But what does all this mean in practical terms to someone stumbling around in the dark at the bottom of the ladder? Personally I have no idea."
I gave my probably-best opinion on this in the last post - that there really is a shift, but not until after a particular point. Horus is the visible object of worship - a stand-in for the HGA - and a god of "war" (VAR = AVR, "light") - and the suitable object until Tiphereth is fully attained. Thereafter, the orientation substantially shifts.
This also is consistent with Crowley keeping the L.V.X. signs as the signs of the 5=6 grade in A.'.A.'., and developing the N.O.X. signs for the grades 6=5 through 8=3.
-
Thanks for your replies Jim. They've given me a lot to think about. In fact I feel like I'm in information over load mode at the moment.
@Jim Eshelman said
"The first point I want to make is that, fundamentally, there is no difference between L.V.X. and N.O.X. That is, at root, they are the same ONE THING, but differing in how different parts of the human psyche is contacted by and relates to it."
That is pretty much how I understand L.V.X. and N.O.X. They are the same thing but at different levels. What threw me while reading Gunther was his assertion that deity conceptualised as Light/L.V.X. is an Aeon of Osiris construct that has been superceded by N.O.X. in the Aeon of Horus, which is by nature adverse to the Osirian conception. So the whole L.V.X. - I.N.R.I. formula is for those who haven't accepted Thelema. Hmmm...
But, as far as I can tell, the L.V.X. - I.N.R.I. formula was imported wholesale by Crowley from the Golden Dawn without amendment or revision. For example Liber O, section IV. The only place I have seen a different keyword analysis is in a certain boot-leg book by Francis King that I probably can't quote from on this forum without being pounced on.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I hold that the Son-Child symbol persists up to Tiphereth, and is thereafter succeeded by the Mother. Specifically, Liber Legis speaks of Ra-Hoor-Khuit as the visible object of worship, and I find that this is true (with allowance for individual variations) through the K&C of the HGA;"
I'm going to have to come back to this point a little later after I re-read Gunther. My initial introduction to R.H.K. as the visible object of worship / stand-in image for the HGA came through you on this forum. And I've found it to be very, very useful in my own practice. But Gunther sowed the seed of doubt in my mind with his comments on Liber LXV 1:7-10. I got the impression that I might be screwing myself over by using any kind of image for the HGA.
But I'll be the first one to hold up my hand and say that I may be misreading Gunther altogther. I suspect that I'm approaching Gunther's book with such a low level of understanding that I'm often missing his point. I can only point the finger of blame at myself for that.
Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea I would like to say that even though my comments in this thread may seem to cast a negative light on Gunther's book, that has not been my overall impression of the book. In fact most of the material in the book was revelatory, insightful, and inspirational. It was just a few points that threw me off. And any confusion and misunderstanding is more than likely my own fault.
-
@Her said
"So the whole L.V.X. - I.N.R.I. formula is for those who haven't accepted Thelema. Hmmm...
"Like Aleister Crowley, yeah? <vbg> - Seriously, I'd say that the Osirian form of the I.N.R.I./IAO formula is for those who haven't accepted Thelema or, at least, who haven't reached a distinctive personal level of development equivalent to a personal "stepping out of the old Aeon into the new" - but that there are I.N.R.I. formulations that are inherently Thelemic. I suspect he was speaking of the historic forms and the distinctly Osirian forms, since that's what's in general circulation.
"But, as far as I can tell, the L.V.X. - I.N.R.I. formula was imported wholesale by Crowley from the Golden Dawn without amendment or revision."
At least in some places, such as Liber O; and even his N.O.X. formulations were I.N.R.I.-based. 'there are other (unpublished) places, though, where he did... different things with I.N.R.I./IAO; and in MT&P he articulated various alternative ways of understanding the IAO formula.
"...a certain boot-leg book by Francis King..."
And BTW King had it wrong. (He completed some lacunae incorrectly.)
"I got the impression that I might be screwing myself over by using any kind of image for the HGA."
The Angel presents Itself in numerous ways - sometimes with images, sometimes not, and the images can change (evolve or vary). I can't speak for your personal formula here, but, in general, images aren't fatal - you just have to understand that they're veils.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Seriously, I'd say that the Osirian form of the I.N.R.I./IAO formula is for those who haven't accepted Thelema or, at least, who haven't reached a distinctive personal level of development equivalent to a personal "stepping out of the old Aeon into the new"
In the A.'.A.'. system would the Osirian keyword apply to the work of the Probationer/Neophyte. But after passing through ritual CXX and the attainment of 2=9 Zelator the keyword changes into a New Aeon form?
@Jim Eshelman said
"And BTW King had it wrong. (He completed some lacunae incorrectly.)"
In the alternate analysis of the keyword or the book in general? I'm well aware that King's book is flawed.
But I have seen the other keyword freely available online on David Cherubim's site for a number of years. The logic of it escapes me beyond a Mother, Father, Child sequence. If you can't comment on this I understand. -
@Her said
"In the A.'.A.'. system would the Osirian keyword apply to the work of the Probationer/Neophyte. But after passing through ritual CXX and the attainment of 2=9 Zelator the keyword changes into a New Aeon form?"
In the formal ceremonal system of A.'.A.'., yes, the Malkuth initiation (1=10) is Osirian and the 2=9 initiation is the first ceremonial introduction to the Horus formula. The cross changes to the pentagram.
You can't predict so precisely how this falls with respect to an individual's own soul; but in a formal sense, this is exactly the design.
The cross of the Dying God formula is represented by the cross of the Four Elements, and Yesod then marks the transcendant (planetary) point that changes the cross to the pentagram. In the classic G.D., that "cross of the Elements" was more obviously distributed through the first four numbered grades.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"And BTW King had it wrong. (He completed some lacunae incorrectly.)"In the alternate analysis of the keyword or the book in general?"
I was speaking of the formula specifically.
"The logic of it escapes me beyond a Mother, Father, Child sequence. If you can't comment on this I understand."
I think the important thing being stated there is the Mother-Father-Child formula.
-
On a variant... I suppose it's OK to disclose this since it's entirely personal work. As an example of the I.N.R.I. formula being so fundamental that it survives the aeonic shift, here is an excerpt from a ritual I wrote to use at a level past that where the normal hexagram and collateral formulae operate.
*I : N : R : I.
All Náture ís renéwed in Fíre.Yod : Hadit : Thou Seed of Night;
Nun : Nuit : Embrace Devouring;
Resh : Ra-Hoor : Newborn in Light;
Yod renewed : A Virgin Flowering.A sacred bond/ by Beauty crowned/ on which love smiled –
His wingéd wand,/ her cup profound,/ their stellar child
are IAO.* -
@Jim Eshelman said
"In the formal ceremonal system of A.'.A.'., yes, the Malkuth initiation (1=10) is Osirian and the 2=9 initiation is the first ceremonial introduction to the Horus formula. The cross changes to the pentagram."
I wonder if this is where I am misreading Gunther and his assertion that L.V.X. only applies to Heh final? In your book (M&M of A.'.A.'.) you show how the different initiatory levels can be mapped on to the Tree of Life in different ways. Maybe Gunther is using the Middle Pillar as his frame of reference?
-
If by "L.V.X." he means the Osiris formula, then probably. I'd never use L.V.X. in so narrow away, so it isn't instinctive for me to assume that.
And yes, by Heh-final he surely means Malkuth.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"*I : N : R : I.
All Náture ís renéwed in Fíre.Yod : Hadit : Thou Seed of Night;
Nun : Nuit : Embrace Devouring;
Resh : Ra-Hoor : Newborn in Light;
Yod renewed : A Virgin Flowering.A sacred bond/ by Beauty crowned/ on which love smiled –
His wingéd wand,/ her cup profound,/ their stellar child
are IAO.*"Thank you for sharing this Jim.
A question. How do derive IAO from this version of I.N.R.I. ?
I'm half guessing here.Seed of Night is obviously Yod - I.
Embrace Devouring? The annihilatory A?
Newborn in Light. Vau or Ayin? -
I and O are lingam and yoni - at cosmic levels, Hadit and Nuit (Yod and O, the center and the circumference). A is their child as pentagram between them.
Or, another way of saying it:
I = winged wand
A = stellar child
O = cup profound -
@Jim Eshelman said
"In the formal ceremonal system of A.'.A.'., yes, the Malkuth initiation (1=10) is Osirian and the 2=9 initiation is the first ceremonial introduction to the Horus formula. The cross changes to the pentagram.
You can't predict so precisely how this falls with respect to an individual's own soul; but in a formal sense, this is exactly the design.
The cross of the Dying God formula is represented by the cross of the Four Elements, and Yesod then marks the transcendant (planetary) point that changes the cross to the pentagram. In the classic G.D., that "cross of the Elements" was more obviously distributed through the first four numbered grades."
Jim, how then would these changes apply themselves to the grade structure of the T.'.O.'.T.'.? Would it be more or less at the same place but 'at a lower octave' (as I have heard the T.'.O.'.T.'. grades described in reference to the A.'.A.'. grades)? Or would this sort of thing come in the upper grades of T.'.O.'.T.'.?
-
@spaceman said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"The cross of the Dying God formula is represented by the cross of the Four Elements, and Yesod then marks the transcendant (planetary) point that changes the cross to the pentagram. In the classic G.D., that "cross of the Elements" was more obviously distributed through the first four numbered grades."Jim, how then would these changes apply themselves to the grade structure of the T.'.O.'.T.'.? Would it be more or less at the same place but 'at a lower octave' (as I have heard the T.'.O.'.T.'. grades described in reference to the A.'.A.'. grades)? Or would this sort of thing come in the upper grades of T.'.O.'.T.'.?"
The Temple of Thelema degrees follow the G.D. model. The "Formula of the Cross" (as becomes particularly evident in the Portal Degree) is fulfilled the degrees 1°-4° (the four Elemental degrees).
One could have developed the system differently - wherein the whole of the First Order overlays the A.'.A.'. 1=10 (which is the last grade of the A.'.A.'. First Order), and then the Second Order commences in its relationship to A.'.A.'. 2=9 etc. The problem with this approach is that it would have co-opted the A.'.A.'. process per se, substituting something else for it (which we've always been careful not to do). So, in fact, if one were to take things sequentially, the whole of the First Order of T.'.O.'.T.'. developmentally precedes A.'.A.'. Probationer (that is, it's an expression of the Student phase).
-
93,
Ive started writing an extensive, critical review of Gunther's book that touches on many of these points. So far there are 3 parts up to the Review although I dont know how many more I will post as the critiques will get repetitive. Chances are there will be at least one more installment. You can check out the review here:
I touch upon the NOX/death idea in there....
Partly in response to the ridiculous claim that Gunther's book would be any help at all to beginners (it wouldnt, it is dense, highly packed with intricate symbolism, and assumes a LOT of previous knowledge), I started writing an essay on 'New Aeon Initiation' without the ridiculous amount of esoteric jargon, Hebrew, Qabalah, etc.
You can find the first parts here:
Enjoy.
IAO131
-
Fun fun fun, IAO131! Have to read those essays! And I liked the critique. I would have linked you but I knew you would come & do that yourself.
Edit: I have read the essays. Wonderful, enlightening, clearly expressed ideas but still philosophicaly not an easy read. I did enjoy it. I think, more extensive citation of other works would be needed in order to publish a book but for a blog post it's good! -
93,
Hi Jim
@Jim Eshelman said
"I and O are lingam and yoni - at cosmic levels, Hadit and Nuit (Yod and O, the center and the circumference). A is their child as pentagram between them.
Or, another way of saying it:
I = winged wand
A = stellar child
O = cup profound"This entire thread from the poetic piece on I.N.R.I. to this material (quoted above), along with the N.O.X. and L.V.X. discussion has been very profound. The movement from Hebrew to English and application of Symbols illustrating these 'shifts' is not only beautiful and resonant, but incredibly relevant on many different levels. Thank you so much for sharing this!
93 93/93
Dennis
-
Gunther's comments on Mors Janua Vitae (Death is the Gate of Life) and the Two Horizons are right on.
IAO131 - I enjoy reading your review and essay on the Initiation in the Aeon of the Child, but your objections sometime sound like nit-picking or misunderstandings.
For example in the razing of the old to prepare for the new, this process will be "devastating" for some people because of their attachment to, and afterlife insurance being based on, Old Aeon rituals - not because Gunther is contradicting himself.
-
@Modes said
"Fun fun fun, IAO131! Have to read those essays! And I liked the critique. I would have linked you but I knew you would come & do that yourself.
Edit: I have read the essays. Wonderful, enlightening, clearly expressed ideas but still philosophicaly not an easy read. I did enjoy it. I think, more extensive citation of other works would be needed in order to publish a book but for a blog post it's good!"93,
Thanks.
I cant tell whether you are referring to the Review or to the essay, New Aeon Initiation, but the latter is only 2/3 done and isnt a whole book in itself but will be a chapter in an upcoming book
IAO131
-
@he atlas itch said
"Gunther's comments on Mors Janua Vitae (Death is the Gate of Life) and the Two Horizons are right on."
Definitely - the problem is that he says earlier that death is not part of hte initiation in the New Aeon although obviously contradicts himself later. I believe Death is the Gate of Life, as the New Aeon Initiation essay will show anyone.
"IAO131 - I enjoy reading your review and essay on the Initiation in the Aeon of the Child, but your objections sometime sound like nit-picking or misunderstandings.
For example in the razing of the old to prepare for the new, this process will be "devastating" for some people because of their attachment to, and afterlife insurance being based on, Old Aeon rituals - not because Gunther is contradicting himself."
I can understand - and sometimes I was so overwhelmed with the amount of small points I wanted to make that I made some arbitrary one and left the others out... Either way, the way I read Gunther wasnt that he was talking about the old aeon but explicitly about the new aeon at that point. Feel free to find quotations in the book to prove me wrong - the whole point isnt that death ISNT the gate of life but that Gunther himself claims it isnt but then later asserts very much so that it is.
My hugest problems with Gunther's book:
- His assertion that death is no longer the supreme attainment
- His assertion that NOX and not LVX is the formula (and not both)
- His assertion that Determinism is antithetical to Thelema
- His chapters are disorganized, follow no coherent plan or succession
- Most of his points are historical, qabalistic, and Old Aeon, i.e. where does this symbol come from and what are the ridiculously unnecessary qabalistic games we can play with it?
I can show how each one of these first three assertions is flatly contradicted by Crowley by about 10+ quotations each. It annoys me that he would take such ridiculously unsupported opinions and assert them as truth, and it annoys me how unorganized the book is (yes, I know its arranged according to Hebrew Letters and the Paths but that is highly disorganized, certain chapters seem almost unnecessary or filler, and there is no flow at all between chapters), and it annoys me that he focuses so much on historical and qabalistic intricacies without saying very much what it all MEANS (i.e. its all very abstract )
IAO131