Probationary work clarifications
-
@Persephone said
"93, Frateruranus,
Normally I would agree with you. To insult a private person by name online is never correct. But Mr. Bersson has set himself up as either a Magus or an Ipsissmus and on his website he is denigrating other magicians publicly in his unique, vicious way. I wasn't sure that he still had a site so I checked. Currently on it he has a whole tirade against Daniel Gunther, for example. I think it is called You Are Not Forgiven. "Yes, I was a student of his as well. My point though is not to reduce yourself to that level, to doing the same thing. By their fruits and all that. When were you a student of Bersson? Were you in the Pittsburgh group?
-
@frateruranus said
"
@Persephone said
"
93, Frateruranus,
Normally I would agree with you. To insult a private person by name online is never correct. But Mr. Bersson has set himself up as either a Magus or an Ipsissmus and on his website he is denigrating other magicians publicly in his unique, vicious way. I wasn't sure that he still had a site so I checked. Currently on it he has a whole tirade against Daniel Gunther, for example. I think it is called You Are Not Forgiven. "Yes, I was a student of his as well. My point though is not to reduce yourself to that level, to doing the same thing. By their fruits and all that. When were you a student of Bersson? Were you in the Pittsburgh group?"
Do you mean Xkip's joke? Its bound to happen once in awhile, I bet there are alot of ex-students around. I don't like the garbage of personal slurs found on some websites, its what turns many people off to magick totally.
I can't help feeling that something more is involved than just personalities. Anyway, after leaving or being kicked out, it takes awhile to get your bearings and see what really was happening. Maybe not in your case, certainly in mine.
I'd rather not go into any more personal info here, I'll send a P.M. Persephone -
@Persephone said
"
@frateruranus said
"
@Persephone said
"
93, Frateruranus,
Normally I would agree with you. To insult a private person by name online is never correct. But Mr. Bersson has set himself up as either a Magus or an Ipsissmus and on his website he is denigrating other magicians publicly in his unique, vicious way. I wasn't sure that he still had a site so I checked. Currently on it he has a whole tirade against Daniel Gunther, for example. I think it is called You Are Not Forgiven. "Yes, I was a student of his as well. My point though is not to reduce yourself to that level, to doing the same thing. By their fruits and all that. When were you a student of Bersson? Were you in the Pittsburgh group?"
Do you mean Xkip's joke? Its bound to happen once in awhile, I bet there are alot of ex-students around. I don't like the garbage of personal slurs found on some websites, its what turns many people off to magick totally.
I can't help feeling that something more is involved than just personalities. Anyway, after leaving or being kicked out, it takes awhile to get your bearings and see what really was happening. Maybe not in your case, certainly in mine.
I'd rather not go into any more personal info here, I'll send a P.M. Persephone"It took me 11 years to assimilate what happened when I left his tutelage, I am only now starting to understand what was going on psychically.
-
93, Frateruranus, I don't think that's unusual. I guess we all have our stories, each one somewhat different. from what you have said and what myself and others have gone thru, it seems there has to be a long time of re-thinking and healing. From my experience, many in that lineage who had any standing were unbalanced. And in my case the unbalance became local right before I quit. It all co-incided with severe family illness, which they said I shouldn't care about. That and other signs of 'unbalance', made me leave.
I suppose those of us who are in this boat are all figuring out what to do, and are trying to continue to work according to our instincts. Yes, its confusing. 93 93/93 Persephone -
For me the crisis was the still birth of my daughter... I ran to Pittsburgh to avoid dealing with it & it was always something on my mind. When I left I was in excellent standing though... it was an all of a sudden I woke up and couldn't see myself stil working with them.
-
@frateruranus said
"For me the crisis was the still birth of my daughter... I ran to Pittsburgh to avoid dealing with it & it was always something on my mind. When I left I was in excellent standing though... it was an all of a sudden I woke up and couldn't see myself stil working with them."
That is a very hard thing to go through. I hope that eventually after leaving the group, you got some closure.
-
93,
I have questions now concerning my regular practices. I have been doing the Bornless Ritual for a little while now as an invocation with what I thought were good results. (Results just meaning a deeper understanding of the Invokation itself and a very thick presence in the room giving an air of heavy silence condusive to meditation).
Now, from studying more about A:.A:. and the degree systems within Thelema I see that this is supposed to be done by the Adept.
My question is probably obvious now. Am I to discontinue this ritual because I am not up to par, as in Adeptus Minor?
Also, if that is the case, what else is "off limits' so to speak?
Can I perform the Mass of the Phoenix? The Star Sapphire?Do I have to feel like (according to Thelemic organizational standards) that I will not be able to have the Conversation of my HGA without attaining a certain grade and I cannot even do certain ritual work towards that goal?
I never used to think in these terms and now it seems to be a hinderance more than liberating. Now I get this feeling like I am not "worthy" to work with parts of this system which I used to look forward to mastering.
Any suggestions?
93 93/93
-Xkip
-
@xkip93 said
"Now, from studying more about A:.A:. and the degree systems within Thelema I see that this is supposed to be done by the Adept.
My question is probably obvious now. Am I to discontinue this ritual because I am not up to par, as in Adeptus Minor?"
I'll write from the "working assumption" that you're intending to follow the same program as a Probationer.
In that case, there is no such prohibition because it's nobody's place to tell a Probationer what to do - just to assess what they have done when it's over.
Probably the biggest temptation of the stage is to do anything whatsoever except the work immediately in front of one. Sometimes that's a mistake, and sometimes it isn't - there's no universal rule.
OTOH, the work actually assigned to the stage are the Class B documents, with primary attention on Liber E and Liber O (in addition to the requirement to memorize a chapter of Liber LXV).
"Do I have to feel like (according to Thelemic organizational standards) that I will not be able to have the Conversation of my HGA without attaining a certain grade and I cannot even do certain ritual work towards that goal?"
That's an awkward question because, de facto (if not officially), you'll be an Adeptus Minor if you attain to the Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel.
But language may be getting in the way. There are huge areas of communion with the HGA long before the Adeptus stage. Few leave the 1=10 grade without having a stage of communion that includes active (often auditory) ongoing dialogue. It's awesome! And it deepens and transforms grade by grade. But it's far - I mean, really far! - below what is intended by the technical term, "Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel."
Which is to say: Nobody can tell you in advance what your path will be, although experience with a number of people gives some understanding and reasonable insight into the nature of the Path. And, though a particular goal may be far down the road, perseverance in the work will give significant, important results - perhaps results exceeding your current fantasies - long before that.
Just don't make the mistake of confusing the latter with the former. Instead, take it as encouragement. (I believe the first section of Liber O has some important things to say in this regard.)
"I never used to think in these terms and now it seems to be a hinderance more than liberating. Now I get this feeling like I am not "worthy" to work with parts of this system which I used to look forward to mastering."
It's not a matter of worth. It's a matter of what works at a given stage. If you want to climb up on the roof of the house, and the ladder is presently in the garage, it doesn't do much good to start climbing the ladder before finishing the step of moving it over to the side of the house.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Greetings everyone,
In my previous work with GD materials, knowing it came from Rosicrucian framework and being inherantly "Christian" in many ways, the use of YHVH never bothered me. But as years went by and I studied more Gnostic material it is apparent that many do not view Yahweh/Jahovah as a "good" god.
Knowing Crowley's distain for many aspects of Christianity and Judaism, why did even he continue with using the Tetragrammaton as a name of power?
There are many ways I can frame this question but I think you get the idea. I still use the Name as it has gained strength for me due to constant use over the years. But sometimes it seems that I am using a "jewish" god-name of sorts, and other times I see it in a more universal qabalistic sense.
Mixed emotions from mixed currents maybe?
Some say that the Star Ruby replaced the LBRP and that all of those other rituals are "old aeon" but we still find the QBL Cross of Light with the Hebrew names along with the LBRP still embedded in Thelema materials?
Love is the law, love under will
-Xkip
-
@xkip93 said
"Knowing Crowley's distain for many aspects of Christianity and Judaism, why did even he continue with using the Tetragrammaton as a name of power?"
He didn't confuse the Qabalistic Names with a particular religion. That is, theqabalist's and magician's YHVH isn't the "Jehovah" of popular Judeo-Christian religion, but an esoteric idea completely central to all of Qabalah.
In the last years of his life, he wrote Grady McMurtry that the one thing that does not change, from aeon to aeon, is YHVH.
"Some say that the Star Ruby replaced the LBRP and that all of those other rituals are "old aeon" but we still find the QBL Cross of Light with the Hebrew names along with the LBRP still embedded in Thelema materials?"
Yes, and it is the classic Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram that AC himself used until the end of his life; and it is the LBRP, not the Star Ruby, that he sent to Agape Lodge O.T.O. in the late 1930s with new, supplemental instruction on its performance.
-
@RifRaf said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Yes, and it is the classic Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram that AC himself used until the end of his life; and it is the LBRP, not the Star Ruby, that he sent to Agape Lodge O.T.O. in the late 1930s with new, supplemental instruction on its performance."Are these instructions those which are in Liber ABA (the short paper presenting the idea of standing at Samekh and Peh)? Or some other, or have they not been publicly published?"
I never look in that edition of MT&P (though it sits on my shelf), so I don't know off the top of my head. (I didn't remember seeing it there.) I prefer Crowley's edition.
They were published in Vol. I, No. 1 of In the Continuum, all the way back in 1973, which you can download here:
helema.org/publications/itc.html -
@RifRaf said
"If one doesn't know the name of their HGA and doesn't feel "right" saying AIWASS, would it be unsuitable to say "Asar-Un-Nefer" in place of AIWASS?"
The answer to this question depends on your context and commitment. Are you in a group or study program? Are you simply working in isolation? Etc.
If you are self-identified as a Thelemite, then I would suggest you examine that discomfort. That is, what is the resistance to vibrating the name of the direct agent of the Gods that delivered The Book of the Law to us, and whose name is a numerical identity with Thelema itself?
-
@RifRaf said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@RifRaf said
"If one doesn't know the name of their HGA and doesn't feel "right" saying AIWASS, would it be unsuitable to say "Asar-Un-Nefer" in place of AIWASS?"The answer to this question depends on your context and commitment. Are you in a group or study program? Are you simply working in isolation? Etc.
If you are self-identified as a Thelemite, then I would suggest you examine that discomfort. That is, what is the resistance to vibrating the name of the direct agent of the Gods that delivered The Book of the Law to us, and whose name is a numerical identity with Thelema itself?"
Yes, I do identify myself as a Thelemite. I have examined my feelings on this a few times and the only conclusion I came too is this; with everything AIWASS means to Thelema I still see "him" as another humans HGA, and because of that I can't bring myself to utlizing the name, no matter how staggering and important of a figure AIWASS is to Thelema as a whole. This probably sounds dumb but, to use an analogy, it feels like calling another mans wife your own because she has done something amazing which has shaped your life, but you have your own wife sitting at home waiting on you.
I am working on my own right now, no group."
I feel similarly regarding this ritual. I tend not to vibrate any name, just the standard Qabalistic Cross. I notice that the version with AIWASS is present in none of Crowley's writings on the topic nor any of the official instructions. Where did this variation originate? In a sense the addition strikes me as a little out of place and in conflict with the rhythm of the ritual (adding a fifth point to the cross, etc).
ATH MLKTh V'GBVRH V'GDVLH L'OVLM AMN directly corresponds to 'For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.' To add another point to this sequence would be to disrupt it, wouldn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but these rituals seem to depend largely on numerical symbolism (i.e. Star Ruby and the number 5) and require all elements to be consonant.
The only answer I might imagine would be something like 'the cross becomes the pentagram' or the IHVH -> IHShVH formula. But that's a bit of a long shot. -
@RifRaf said
"Yes, I do identify myself as a Thelemite. I have examined my feelings on this a few times and the only conclusion I came too is this; with everything AIWASS means to Thelema I still see "him" as another humans HGA, and because of that I can't bring myself to utlizing the name, no matter how staggering and important of a figure AIWASS is to Thelema as a whole. This probably sounds dumb but, to use an analogy, it feels like calling another mans wife your own because she has done something amazing which has shaped your life, but you have your own wife sitting at home waiting on you."
In practice, I think it's closer to you and another man being married to the same woman, with whom you each have a distinctive relationship and for whom you each will develop your own pet name in time.
But that's just to stick with your analogy. I think the better one is addressed in Liber LXI: "Should therefore the candidate hear the name of any God, let him not rashly assume that it refers to any known God, save only the God known to himself." This passage is used to put in context the Order's use of this name and that name for God... in each case, there's no way one can understand what that word means for someone else. One can only find one's own "inmost God," and understand that this is what is meant by whatever name someone else gave to it.
PS - For reasons not entirely clear to me, the "But it was Crowley's HGA!" perspective has never been meaningful to me. I can intellectually understand where people are coming from, but get really "get it" in my gut. In part, I find myself wondering why that fact, separate from all others about Aiwass, is the one that gets priority, and gets "meaning" assigned to it. Just confessing here... it's still Aiwass.
-
@PatchworkSerpen said
"I notice that the version with AIWASS is present in none of Crowley's writings on the topic nor any of the official instructions. Where did this variation originate?"
The paper in question is a writing by Crowley.
The variation originated from Crowley sometime before the late 1930s and probably (educated guess only) no earlier than about 1919.
"In a sense the addition strikes me as a little out of place and in conflict with the rhythm of the ritual (adding a fifth point to the cross, etc)."
The Qabalistic Cross has always had five points: Four extremities and a center. This merely acknowledges that the center of the cross is passed through on the down-stroke just as much as in the horizontal stroke.
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.' To add another point to this sequence would be to disrupt it, wouldn't it?"
I have no need nor wish to preserve, for it's own sake, a 17th Century translation amendment to a traditional Christian prayer. And there is, of course, always the point of clarifying Who is meant by "Thou."
-
I think I remember seeing an indirect reference to Crowley's inclusion of Aiwass in the QC. In Tiger Woman, Betty May gives a rather garbled account of practicing the Qabalistic Cross. Even though she mangled it badly, the Aiwass section was still quite recognisable. This would seem to indicate that Crowley taught it to members of the Abbey of Thelema.
EDIT: Found it!
Tiger Woman, p.177
"Artay I was Malcooth - Vegebular, Vegedura, ee-ar-la - ah moon."
-
Jim mentioned knowing who "Thou" is...
In our case, who is "Thou" in reference to the QBL Cross?
(I think I know but I have never seen much commentary on it that I can remember).Earlier we were discussing the Bornless One, etc. I have another question or request for someone to expound on this comes from an excerpt in Eleusis.
Crowley says that the modern neophyte should not use the old barbarous names because they may superstitiously attribute real power to them... so he advises Jack and Jill, "with which it is impossible for the normal mind to associate a feeling of reverence."
Not sure what he is really saying here. I am trying to understand it within the context of the tome.
Am I indeed wrong for thinking/feeling that these words and names have power?
If anyone can shed some light on this statement , I would appreciate it.
PS. Not that he needs me to validate or vindicate him but Jim is exactly correct in stating the Cross of Light has 5 points... and that 5th, a crucial one!
93 93/93
-Xkip
-
@xkip93 said
"Jim mentioned knowing who "Thou" is...
In our case, who is "Thou" in reference to the QBL Cross?"In the broadest sense, AThH is a Divine Name of Kether in this place.
More specifically, it's a reference to the HGA.
"I have another question or request for someone to expound on this comes from an excerpt in Eleusis.
Crowley says that the modern neophyte should not use the old barbarous names because they may superstitiously attribute real power to them... so he advises Jack and Jill, "with which it is impossible for the normal mind to associate a feeling of reverence."
Not sure what he is really saying here. I am trying to understand it within the context of the tome.
Am I indeed wrong for thinking/feeling that these words and names have power?"
Yes, read it within the context of the individual article. It makes a great point. However, it was a very early opinion (he wasn't even an adept yet in the A.'.A.'. sense), and it didn't match even his own practice years later.
-
I am trying to keep things on topic here and within the context of being a probationer, so please bear with me as I get some of these questions out of the way which I have had for some time now. I am pleased with the response and help I am receiving here from Jim and others.
As I mentioned before I am not daily working with the Bornless ritual but I can't help but still study it and review my experience with it. My question this time stems from the commentary. As much as we sometimes try to convince others (and maybe sometimes ourselves) that Crowley was not a devil worshipping -Satanist, with a knack of genius for keeping it veiled... then we sometimes come across things that he says which makes apologetics an uneasy task.
For instance, when he is commenting upon the word SABAF, he states that it is the name of "the Devil our Lord" , "the Goat of Mendes" and "Satan."
So what is the deal here? It sounds rather blatant but I am sure that there is a way to explain this away especially seeing how us Gnostics, somehow, are professionals at turning things around and making the adversary the benevolent one, the Serpent the "actual" good guy, and all kinds of other neat stuff.
I'm all ears...
93 93/93
-Xkip
-
@xkip93 said
"...when he is commenting upon the word SABAF, he states that it is the name of "the Devil our Lord" , "the Goat of Mendes" and "Satan." "
The first thing to do is to temporarily suspend all your prior value judgments on these terms, then ask yourself: What did he mean by them?
The answer is right there, in the same Scholion you're reading. I won't tell you because it's accessible to you, and it will be way more valuable if you find it yourself.