The Thelemic Mass
-
@Jim Eshelman said
""Protection" is a secondary meaning. It's fair, though, to ask about it. I think the key idea here is "place of no harm."
Then how do you reconcile this idea of "place of no harm" against Parson's terrifying vision of Babalon in Liber 49? Or the fact that after the Daughter of Fortitude vision Kelly ran off with Dee's wife and, similarly, after the Babalon Working in the Mojave LRH ran off with Parson's wife? Or Crowley's comparison of Babalon to the Dance of Seven Veils - mirroring Ishtar's dance of the seven veils in Her descent into the Underworld - where Salome ultimately collects the head of John the Baptist as payment? Revelations states that Babalon incites to lust and murders and Her aspects mirror Ishtar who is the goddess of love and war. Out of all my research into Babalon, the Babylonian goddess Ishtar is the closest to Her. If so, how do you reconcile your view of Babalon with the fact that Gilgamesh spurned the advances of Ishtar because Her reputation for destroying Her lovers was well-known. Ishtar retaliates by demanding the Bull of Heaven and then uses it to kill Gilgamesh, proving Her reputation...
These are the historical accounts of Babalon.
-
@he atlas itch said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""Protection" is a secondary meaning. It's fair, though, to ask about it. I think the key idea here is "place of no harm."Then how do you reconcile this idea of "place of no harm" against Parson's terrifying vision of Babalon in Liber 49?"
That was Parson's ego. There was no real harm, except to the ego.
Jack BTW doesn't impress me as much as he impresses many others. (And I say this with an ego-gulp of my own since both of his ex-wives repeatedly insisted I reminded them of the best and, especially, worst sides of Jack <g>. Helen and Cameron were both worried for me.) But the key thing here is that the ego - a constructive and useful fiction - was being confronted.
To the Master, though, there is no resistence and, one recognizes, there is no harm. Nothing that is REAL is harmed.
I won't judge Kelly's sexual mores.
"Or Crowley's comparison of Babalon to the Dance of Seven Veils - mirroring Astarte's dance of the seven veils in Her descent into the Underworld - where Salome ultimately collects the head of John the Baptist as payment?"
See what I wrote above and note that it was the head. (This is a revelation even without the pun.)
The Apocalypse idea is absolutely an earlier stage unready to get what the non-Master was really seeing.
"These are the historical accounts of Babalon."
Well, no, actually. They aren't. But they are accounts of a particular goddess who, like all goddesses, is a subset of Babalon.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@he atlas itch said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""Protection" is a secondary meaning. It's fair, though, to ask about it. I think the key idea here is "place of no harm."Then how do you reconcile this idea of "place of no harm" against Parson's terrifying vision of Babalon in Liber 49?"
That was Parson's ego. There was no real harm, except to the ego.
Jack BTW doesn't impress me as much as he impresses many others. (And I say this with an ego-gulp of my own since both of his ex-wives repeatedly insisted I reminded them of the best and, especially, worst sides of Jack <g>. Helen and Cameron were both worried for me.) But the key thing here is that the ego - a constructive and useful fiction - was being confronted.
To the Master, though, there is no resistence and, one recognizes, there is no harm. Nothing that is REAL is harmed.
I won't judge Kelly's sexual mores.
"Or Crowley's comparison of Babalon to the Dance of Seven Veils - mirroring Astarte's dance of the seven veils in Her descent into the Underworld - where Salome ultimately collects the head of John the Baptist as payment?"
See what I wrote above and note that it was the head. (This is a revelation even without the pun.)
The Apocalypse idea is absolutely an earlier stage unready to get what the non-Master was really seeing.
"These are the historical accounts of Babalon."
Well, no, actually. They aren't. But they are accounts of a particular goddess who, like all goddesses, is a subset of Babalon."
I think it is important to note that the "Sanctuary" is home to the "Holy of Holies" and can only be entered safely by the "High Priest". Things that are holy are not necessarily "safe" in any sense of the word. As C.S. Lewis says of Aslan:
""‘Course he isn’t safe," replies Mr. Beaver. "But he’s good.""
Remember also the notion of non-catastrophic nature which is a primary metaphysical element of the Thelemic Dispensation. In that sense all is safe.
"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains. Liber al vel Legis 2:9
"We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world. Think not, o king, upon that lie: That Thou Must Die: verily thou shalt not die, but live. Now let it be understood: If the body of the King dissolve, he shall remain in pure ecstasy for ever. Nuit! Hadit! Ra-Hoor-Khuit! The Sun, Strength & Sight, Light; these are for the servants of the Star & the Snake." Liber al vel Legis 2:21"
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The Apocalypse idea is absolutely an earlier stage unready to get what the non-Master was really seeing."
By "non-Master" are you referring to St. John on Patmos or Crowley in Bou Saada? And by "unready" do you mean for a full-blown kundalini awakening?
Can you describe the adept's difference in perception of the Daughter Malkuth and after the Daughter has been raised to the throne of the Mother Binah? Would it be fair to compare this "raising" of the Feminine to the alchemical concept of "volatilizing the fixed" - that is, spiritualizing matter?
-
@he atlas itch said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"The Apocalypse idea is absolutely an earlier stage unready to get what the non-Master was really seeing."By "non-Master" are you referring to St. John on Patmos or Crowley in Bou Saada? And by "unready" do you mean for a full-blown kundalini awakening?"
John.
And no, I didn't mean anything about Kundalini. I meant that in the 1st Century CE there was nobody with the capacity to understand Babalon's actual nature. (At the very least, it's clear from The Apocalypse that John didn't understand it.)
"Can you describe the adept's difference in perception of the Daughter Malkuth and after the Daughter has been raised to the throne of the Mother Binah?"
No, I'm not going to take the time to write a treatise on this.
"Would it be fair to compare this "raising" of the Feminine to the alchemical concept of "volatilizing the fixed" - that is, spiritualizing matter?"
At best... only the very broadest, most abstract sense. (More accurate to say "no.") - That's way too low a formula which, in fact, is substantially accomplished in the 1=10 grade.
-
@he atlas itch said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""Protection" is a secondary meaning. It's fair, though, to ask about it. I think the key idea here is "place of no harm."Then how do you reconcile this idea of "place of no harm" against Parson's terrifying vision of Babalon in Liber 49? Or the fact that after the Daughter of Fortitude vision Kelly ran off with Dee's wife and, similarly, after the Babalon Working in the Mojave LRH ran off with Parson's wife? Or Crowley's comparison of Babalon to the Dance of Seven Veils - mirroring Ishtar's dance of the seven veils in Her descent into the Underworld - where Salome ultimately collects the head of John the Baptist as payment? Revelations states that Babalon incites to lust and murders and Her aspects mirror Ishtar who is the goddess of love and war. Out of all my research into Babalon, the Babylonian goddess Ishtar is the closest to Her. If so, how do you reconcile your view of Babalon with the fact that Gilgamesh spurned the advances of Ishtar because Her reputation for destroying Her lovers was well-known. Ishtar retaliates by demanding the Bull of Heaven and then uses it to kill Gilgamesh, proving Her reputation...
These are the historical accounts of Babalon."
If I may point out that it seems a lot of stir and emotional reactivity to the addition of a few lines to the Creed that are meant to balance out the masculine and the feminine. It may be that we are still struggling with the idea of having the feminine on the same level as the masculine. I say this because, the Thelemic Mass Creed has other changes that nobody has mentioned (i.e. the change in the order of the "Air sustainer of all that breathe" or the sustitution of Baphomet for Abraxas, or at least another very important change that is very small, but very important.
In any case, I wanted to point out something from other thread that may answer part of the above post. It refers to the nature of Babalon and her link to "war". Please check this:
aumha.org/arcane/ccxx3.htm#11
I thought this could help.
93s -
@Metzareph said
"If I may point out that it seems a lot of stir and emotional reactivity to the addition of a few lines to the Creed that are meant to balance out the masculine and the feminine. It may be that we are still struggling with the idea of having the feminine on the same level as the masculine. I say this because, the Thelemic Mass Creed has other changes that nobody has mentioned (i.e. the change in the order of the "Air sustainer of all that breathe" or the sustitution of Baphomet for Abraxas, or at least another very important change that is very small, but very important."
Hi Juan - thanks for the link.
I don't have a problem with the wording of Thelemic Mass, but took the opportunity to ask long-held questions on Babalon. The only book I'm aware of that covers Her extensively is The Red Goddess by Peter Grey (Scarlet Imprint Press), which I bought last year; but if anyone can recommend other titles please do so. I'm looking for something that ties together the different, and sometimes conflicting, views on Babalon.
-
Actually, I think the only book that covers her in any reliable way is The Vision & the Voice.
-
Ok, thanks for that input. I will continue with my questions on Babalon in the other thread started by EM.
-
@Metzareph said
"or at least another very important change that is very small, but very important."
The Crowley version ends with "AUMGN" whereas the Thelemic Mass ends with "AOM". Why the change?
-
@he atlas itch said
"
@Metzareph said
"or at least another very important change that is very small, but very important."The Crowley version ends with "AUMGN" whereas the Thelemic Mass ends with "AOM". Why the change?"
They are, of course, pronounced the same. The word has a strong history and value in its own right. Additionally, it has a particular (confidential) sacramental significance in Temple of Thelema that would have tipped the scales even if they hadn't been already been tipped.
-
93
I find myself a little disturbed by some of these substitutions actually. I haven't posted much on this forum because I haven't felt the need to speak up on much but I read this thread last night and it's still bugging me so maybe I should say something.
I'll start with the "worst" one in my opinion: "Baphomet for Abraxas". While it is obvious thatv "the serpent and the lion" is an allusion to ABRAXAS, I think that the allusion was the important thing. Just coming out and saying ABRAXAS destroys the connection Crowley may have been trying to make.
-
This is an old-aeonic symbol for an important alchemical process.
-
Perhaps Crowley was attempting to show the link between this symbol and the gynander as the the Beast oft he New AEon. I think there is an important link here witht he "mystery of the mass" (which I think is also being somewhat confused by this so called "balancing" of the genders).
(This is only one of the examples I'm seeing but it seemed like a blatant one--brushing aside potentially important allusions for the sake of superficial structure. e.g. I don't know the significance your tradition places on AOM, but the differential use of AUMN and AUMGN in this and other of Crowley's writings is very significant and imho should not be done away with as it is an important point of instruction. The loss of such points to time and whim would be a loss indeed).
Why assume that Crowley was just being backward about the place of women instead of revealing important formulae within the Mass which require the specific roles to which the Priest and Priestess are assigned? I honestly don't want to say too much about my theories and experiences on this here.
It just seems like this is an attempt to make an important ritual which carries a great deal of precise and relevant Magickal instruction more "pc', palatable, and "user-friendly" none of which seem like appropriate goals for a Mystery School.
I'm sorry if I'm being to blunt here--please feel free to tear my concern apart, I can take the criticism. Cheers.
93 93/93
-
-
@A Shadow said
"I'll start with the "worst" one in my opinion: "Baphomet for Abraxas". While it is obvious thatv "the serpent and the lion" is an allusion to ABRAXAS, I think that the allusion was the important thing. Just coming out and saying ABRAXAS destroys the connection Crowley may have been trying to make. "
Thanks for developing the conversation on this.
"Basphomet" is a distinctly Templar symbol. We, on the other hand, have no historic linkage to the Templars. It would silly to complete it.
And what is needed here - in this exact spot of the ritual - is an androgynous symbol (Vav of the formula), preferably of a solar-serpentine nature. Abraxas fills that perfectly.
And it's not like this symbol has no prior relationship to the Mass. It's one of the names chanted by the Priest in a later all-Greek passage.
"1) This is an old-aeonic symbol for an important alchemical process."
While it has history in the Old Aeon, so does Baphomet - it's a 12th to 14th Century symbol of a group of (fairly liberal) Christian monks.
"2) Perhaps Crowley was attempting to show the link between this symbol and the gynander as the the Beast oft he New AEon."
I doubt it. (You could be write, but I doubt it.) I think he just included it because he was trying to get on the good side of Reuss, and it was a convenient expression of the Divine Androgyne.
"I think there is an important link here witht he "mystery of the mass" (which I think is also being somewhat confused by this so called "balancing" of the genders)."
If I'm reading you correctly, then that could be served by almost any androgyne, right?
"(This is only one of the examples I'm seeing but it seemed like a blatant one--brushing aside potentially important allusions for the sake of superficial structure."
But you're skipping way too lightly over the fact that Baphomet was included for people who specifically identified with a Templar myth or formula, and, as such, is the same sort of interchangeable symbol as incorporating O.T.O. signs in the ritual.
"I don't know the significance your tradition places on AOM, but the differential use of AUMN and AUMGN in this and other of Crowley's writings is very significant and imho should not be done away with as it is an important point of instruction. The loss of such points to time and whim would be a loss indeed)."
We differ on this being "very" significant. I've always thought it was a fairly trivial thing, mostly because the original formula already contains what he was trying to add - but changing it gave him the opportunity to stamp another 93 on something.
To be clear, I don't think his revision is totally worthless as a symbol, just that it's one of the most minor things he ever did.
"Why assume that Crowley was just being backward about the place of women instead of revealing important formulae within the Mass which require the specific roles to which the Priest and Priestess are assigned?"
Gosh, maybe because it's self-evident through the whole body of his work (including parts of this particular ritual) that Crowley, though progressive on sexual equality for his day, was vastly behind where our understanding has moved a mere hundred years later.
Your introduction of Priest and Priestess roles at the end of that sentence is actually a digression. Since you haven't seen the whole script, you have no way of knowing that there is little or no difference (and no formulary difference) in their roles as the Mass progresses. That's an entirely separate issue from The Creed.
"It just seems like this is an attempt to make an important ritual which carries a great deal of precise and relevant magical instruction more "pc', palatable, and "user-friendly" none of which seem like appropriate goals for a Mystery School."
Your opinion is noted. But BTW it isn't a Mystery School ritual - it's a public ritual, for use as the basis of popular, public religion. PC-mindedness was not a goal, though one of the primary goals of Temple of Thelema in all aspects of its work from the beginning has been to finish tearing down the male-dominated, male-overweighted, still-Osirian tone in society. Not to make it more palatable, but to make it speak a better, truer balance of the nature of cosmic reality.
"I'm sorry if I'm being to blunt here--please feel free to tear my concern apart, I can take the criticism. Cheers."
No need to be sorry. You raise points I'm happy to address. We wouldn't have posted this here.
(Boy, I can just imagine what it would stir if I posted the 5th and 6th Collects <vbg>.
-
Ooh, some female saints, finally?!
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Ooh, some female saints, finally?!
"LOL, "finally"? Annas-Kria King and I introduced that (with support language) in the early 1980s. (It circulated underground quite widely, though, I've been told, at least one organization forbade their use.)
And, actually - earlier than AK's and my addition - the old corporation Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica formally voted three women as saints. This may have been as early as 1979.
-
Never knew about them, since I had never heard them named in a Gnostic Mass.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Never knew about them, since I had never heard them named in a Gnostic Mass."
Under the old E.G.C. corp, the three added were Rose Crowley, Leah Hirsig, and Jane Wolfe. Out of a belief that the list should be much longer, but doffing the cap to an official O.T.O. position that "the names of female members are never disclosed," the most common way of incorporating this was to add them (at the end of the original saint list, which isn't the right place) as: "Ouarda the Seer, Alostrael, Soror Estai, and all other Holy Women of Thelema whose names are never disclosed."
AK and I used this briefly and then realized that the Collect called "The Earth" was the female complement of the principle referenced in the mis-named "The Saints." We compiled a small list of perhaps a dozen names, and a follow-up paragraph complementing the one in the 5th collect.
-
I'm still considering your reply--I don't like to make mine too quick, and I appreciated your sincerity in answering my points. (Still mulling over Baphomet/Abraxas...)
"Gosh, maybe because it's self-evident through the whole body of his work (including parts of this particular ritual) that Crowley, though progressive on sexual equality for his day, was vastly behind where our understanding has moved a mere hundred years later. "
I pretty much agree with this. But I'd also like to argue that Crowley's rituals have particular value in part because of his own Magickal perspective (which happened to be a male-centric one). I think we could do a lot with more female-based rituals/mysticism/philosophy. I have no problems with current Magicians of both genders taking on this task, and I think it is especially necessarry for female Magicians to explore previously overlooked or un-questioned roles they may play especially in sex Magick. There are new formulae to be revealed and tested.
I'm not convinced that doing away with elements of a well-constructed ritual which seems to have a specific (or several specific) purposes in mind is the way to do that. (I could be convinced otherwise, but first things first).
So here's another question: would you argue that this revised mass achieves the same Maickal end(s) as Crowley's Mass as written? If so or if not, should it?
Finally, I'd like to hear a little more about why the "OTO" clap-trap stuff that's in the GM is or isn't irrelevant to the function of the Mass (if that's not too big of a question)?
-
@A Shadow said
"I pretty much agree with this. But I'd also like to argue that Crowley's rituals have particular value in part because of his own magical perspective (which happened to be a male-centric one)."
If there were sufficient development of complementary ones, then I could seriously consider this possibility... but not with the Mass. This ritual, perhaps above all others, must have equal stength of both sides of the polarity. This is the ritual that must have that (IMNSHO)!
From the beginning, Temple of Thelema made the decision that, although we most commonly regarded Aleister Crowley as the single best source of anything on Liber Legis and Thelema in general, Crowley and Thelema are not equivalent; and that, at any point that we had to choose between "the Crowley way" abnd "the Thelemic way," the latter would win. One of the places where this difference has been easiest to discern is on the topic of sexism.
"I think we could do a lot with more female-based rituals/mysticism/philosophy. I have no problems with current Magicians of both genders taking on this task, and I think it is especially necessarry for female Magicians to explore previously overlooked or un-questioned roles they may play especially in sex Magick. There are new formulae to be revealed and tested. "
I agree in principle. But it's also true that, since the majority of all power in our society still rests with men, it must be men (i.e., those actuallty in power) who must lead the way in cultural reform.
"I'm not convinced that doing away with elements of a well-constructed ritual which seems to have a specific (or several specific) purposes in mind is the way to do that. (I could be convinced otherwise, but first things first)."
I understand your point. And mostly, we have preserved what is there. But these rituals must be contextual as well. (And it does matter if the writer, in fact, understands the formulae and symbols enough to substitute equal or superior alternatives. The underlying idea is more important than the clothes that it wears.)
"So here's another question: would you argue that this revised mass achieves the same Maickal end(s) as Crowley's Mass as written? If so or if not, should it? "
Yes. Unequivocally. The central thing to be accomplished is there, and the most common spin-offs are there as well. (Although I answering this fully understanding that you and I may have different ideas on what those ends are.)
"Finally, I'd like to hear a little more about why the "OTO" clap-trap stuff that's in the GM is or isn't irrelevant to the function of the Mass (if that's not too big of a question)?"
Why would it be? One can give a "hailing sign" that hails an action without it being one disctinctly sacramentally linked to receiving a specific degree in a specific fraternity.
But we haven't thrown the Conquering Child out with the "Baph water." One set of gestures (of the Priest near the tomb) does have a symbolic value distinctive to what is happening in the ritual at that juncture. We have preserved the essential core elements of those gestures without replicating or compromising anyone's degree signs.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Never knew about them, since I had never heard them named in a Gnostic Mass."
Here's one thread where our lists of saints are mentioned:
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=4895">viewtopic.php?f=31&t=4895</a><!-- l -->