Aleister Crowley's Lost Word.
-
Possibly, but I'd be interested to see if its possible nonetheless.
-
Again, not looking to be argumentative, but every Royal Arch mason is told the lost word...
93!
-
@Dara said
"
@Swamiji said
"Again, not looking to be argumentative, but every Royal Arch mason is told the lost word..."The word of the Royal Arch is not the Lost Word. Read Confessions Chapter 85 and that is plain."
Agreed. The Lost Word to which Crowley referred is (to his thinking, at least; and that may be all that matters here) his recovery of the Master Mason's word.
The Royal Arch masonic legend professes to disclose what remained lost to the Master Mason. Their conclusion is totally appropriate within the bounds of the Royal Arch Rite. O.T.O. (since at least WW I) no longer considers the Master's word lost; though this doesn't stop O.T.O. from leveraging the very powerful symbolim of "the Lost Word" elsewhere in a deeper way.
Crowley's "recovery" is especially powerful for the main goal he set himself: The reframing of the O.T.O. rituals so progressively disclose a single synthetic Mystery (and an associated practical methodology).
Aspirants to Light resolved the Master's Word mystery differently - in a way that the Royal Arch quietly suggests it should be solved
-
93,
I hope this post is not off topic, but is related to OPs item #5 and not really worthy of its own thread. I came across a Key square in AL with a curious set of correspondences that came out to 258. In 777 Sepher Sephiroth, 258 is attributed to Hiram, spelled as Heh-Yod-Resh-Mem or HIRM. However the key of this spelling is 255 according to the numerical Hebrew attributions defined in the same book. The closest approximation I can find for 258 is Zayin-Yod-Resh-Aleph-Mem which would spell ZIRAM and has the key 258. This configuration has some interesting Keys in it, 217, 218, 201 (201 RA + 217 HVVR = 418) where HIRM does not have any keys. Not sure what I am missing or if it is an error in 777.
Also curious, swap the Mem for Lamed, the spelling becomes ZIRAL, and there emerges a new Key AL=31. The new key of the word is 248 (8x31) which is also an interesting number according to 777. Adding the other Keys plus final (A)L of this new spelling gives 217+218+201+30 (Lamed) = 666.
Another formula has
218+30 (Lamed)=248 (key of the modified word, Abraham re:Zohar, 3 That Bear Witness)201 + 217 + 218 + 30 = 666
418 + 248 = 666279
-
@Middleman said
"Is this the same thing as the so-called Mason's Word? What is the word exactly?"
M.A.L.A.R.K.Y.
This formula gives a regimin of the planets that is useful in practical workings.
-
@Middleman said
"Is this the same thing as the so-called Mason's Word? What is the word exactly?"
It is the most sacred and private word in the entire rite. The commitment to keep it private outranks perhaps all other pledges of secrecy.
-
@Miss Dara 217 said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Middleman said
"Is this the same thing as the so-called Mason's Word? What is the word exactly?"It is the most sacred and private word in the entire rite. The commitment to keep it private outranks perhaps all other pledges of secrecy."
That has had its time and outlived its usefulness..."
How would you know? (Unless you are saying this about secrecy of any kind, and not just this particular secret.)
And, more generally, dismissing it as having "outlived its usefulness" doesn't alter the issue of honor and Will for those who took the pledge to protect this.
-
@Miss Dara 217 said
"
"And, more generally, dismissing it as having "outlived its usefulness" doesn't alter the issue of honor and Will for those who took the pledge to protect this."Unexamined at the very roots of the issue, that can amount to simple blind obedience, and there's nothing honourable about that. It can even be obstructive."
Obedience is one of the virtues the Masonic system (including O.T.O.) seeks to teach. Blind obedience, of course, isn't enough: examined, mindful obedience would be the goal.
It's not even an issue of obedience per se, though. It's a matter of honor and integrity.
And it's not as if anything of value is being withheld from the rest of the world. Knowing the word, I know its literal meaning and the metaphor it's intended to convey within O.T.O. That information wouldn't be worth more than a passing thought to anyone not dedicating their lives to that particular Mystery system. I know its spelling, and that is only going to be of value to someone who is into literal Qabalistic analysis as a mode of meditation. Withholding these things doesn't deprive the world in general (outside of that fellowship) of anything of substance.
I also how the Word is first communicated, and that (except, perhaps, to future anthropologists) of only significant to the people who received it in that particular way and who have pledged themselves to the safe-keeping of the Word itself and to what it comes to mean.
It may very well be that the greatest magical power it possesses is the deep bonds and connection it forges among those who share it.
-
@Miss Dara 217 said
"Why not try studying outside of your own little system, Jim - and try and see the wider importance here is beyond a few self-indulgent hippies in California?"
Your insults on this topic are starting to get tedious.
Off-the-mark insults I can tolerate, but tedium is unforgivable.
PS - The Word of which I write - the 3rd Degree Masonic word to which Crowley was referring in the passages you initially quoted - would only be "something with the potential power to unite the Semites of the near east" if they first entered into (and pledged themselves to) the specific rites that lead up to that Word's revelation. It's one of those "synthetic mysteries" that (like the classic Portal ritiual) is only meaningful and effective for those who have all the parts leading up to it.
-
I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the Word of which Crowley wrote is a Mystery Word tracing from ancient times.
But it's the word about which you began this thread in your quoting of Crowley concerning it.
-
@kasper81 said
"Dara
shouldn't you be keeping all these ideas to yourself , patenting them,making an ebook and marketing it?"You should offer your Work unto the Uni Verse
Accepting what it gifts in return
Without a Lust of Result@Miss Dara 217 said
"You would have to discover why the word has only 216 letters and not 217 but perhaps there must always be a letter that is silent and unknown? Just speculation on my part, but perhaps further study would shed light on that? "
AUM!
Which is OM! (Thelemic HA)
That is O!
(Silence) -
93 Miss Dara 217,
Jim appears to be telling you that its power derives from the dedication & commitment to the rites that lead up to the Words revelation, i.e. it doesnt have inherent power beyond this.
You appear to be asserting that it has some kind of hidden, innate power whose use is being obstructed by secrecy.
If I have gotten these viewpoints accurately, I agree completely with Jim on this issue and personally find your use of insults and personal attacks to be petty and pointless. You started a thread asking about something and started attacking people who gave answers that didn't cohere with what you wanted to hear. That is not and cannot be a characteristic of an honest seeker of truth.
93 93/93
-
@IAO131 said
"You appear to be asserting that it has some kind of hidden, innate power whose use is being obstructed by secrecy.
"I thought to bring attention to this as I feel it is an important point
One I have attempted to get across in various ways
Of the Power in keeping a thing close to the Heart
And not the lips
Maintaining it as a secret for a reason besides keeping it hidden from othersA parallel would be the name of a persons HGA
Calling it out in a public square accomplishes nothing
Should the name be spoken at all?
It may be best to leave it etched upon the Heart,
With Silence upon the lips -
@Miss Dara 217 said
"Why not try studying outside of your own little system, Jim - and try and see the wider importance here is beyond a few self-indulgent hippies in California?"
Personally, I'll admit to self-indulgence...but hippie? That's an out-moded stereotype. We Californians deserve a little more credit. Maybe one day we'll take all our rockstars and bad movies and just lock ourselves away in a closet full of reefer smoke, forcing the world to develop a coherant culture. You'll be forced to depend on Paris and New York, and eventually you'll come to miss our easygoing wit and pretence-free intelligence.
Perhaps you are simply jealous of our climate, well-being, and extant trees.
England nice this time of year?
Alright, enough of that. Carry on.
-
@Mephis said
"Perhaps you are simply jealous of our climate, well-being, and extant trees.
"Psh, crappy weather helps build CHARACTER
A Word that needs to be added to the list of lost
-
Regarding the silences A.C. kept regarding 418, I am curious as to why he left chayyoth/chayyath out of the Sepher Sephiroth. That it was one of the first "beast" words used in Genesis and that it adds to 418 and that it is spelt identically to Cheth, as ChITh, would, one would think, have won it a spot. He has ChIVA, the singular form that adds to 25, but left it out. Why?
Also, why is this so little commented upon? Godwin has it listed but who has commented upon this very curious ommission? -
I suppose it has gotten so little comment because some of us don't think it's all that big a deal. There are hundreds of other words that could have been added with value.
-
A.C. must have been well aware of this word.
For those unfamiliar with the Biblical background, there is here part of an excellent account of the various beast/creature/animal words used in the OT:
Theological dictionary of the Old Testament
The two main groups are those of the behemah group (from whence comes "behemoth") and those based upon "ChI", "life", which includes "chayyah" and this "chayyath" (as it is spelt in that volume). It is the word used in the Genesis phrase "beast of the field" (Gen 2:19).
(On a technical point, that someone here might be more expert on, the translation there is singular though the word is plural, and is translated as plural elsewhere in Genesis; as in sephira/sephiroth and qlippah/qlippoth. I suspect that it is there used as a collective singular; as in "the fish of the sea", in English.)
That phrase, which A.C. would undoubtedly have already been familiar with, was used in the 2'nd Aethyr of Liber 418:
"His building, let it be a cave for the Beast of the Field. (“His building” means the Vault of the Adepts, and the “Cave” is the Cave of the Mountain of Abiegnus, and the “Beast” is he upon whom BABALON rideth, and the “Field” is the supernal Eden.)"
If that is not obvious enough, there is also this (also much-neglected) passage in the 25'th Aethyr in which is this: "Who is the Beast? Am not I one more than he?". The apparent import is that the number of the Beast is the 418 of Cheth (and Teth, 419, is one greater). If he didn't believe that before that working, he would certainly have taken note afterwards; but he proceeded to keep quiet about it. He did not publish it in Sepher Sepheroth over a year later, in 1912. And, so far as I'm aware, he kept quiet about it for the remainder of his life.
I don't believe that that was because of any psychological resistance to it. On the contrary, I suspect that he believed that it was, for some reason, so important to the work, at that time, that it should remain secret. And I suspect that part of the doctrine that he kept back is that to do with another Biblical use of the word, in "Chayyoth ha Qodesh", what is usually translated as "the Four Holy Living Creatures". It may just as well be translated as "the Four Holy Beasts". They are supposed to be the same as the Cherubim and, of course, A.C. included depictions of them in the Book of Thoth.
They are also mentioned in Sefer Yetziyrah, as may be seen here:
Sefer Yetziyrah - a translation
Also of interest is the name of the mercurial genius given by Liber 231:
"Chiva-abrahadabra-cadaxviii". That, apparently, pairs the chiva/chayyah/beast word with abrahadabra, in a curious fashion. -
You're confusing chayyath (a singular word, spelled ChYTh, just like Cheyth0) with chayoth (a plural word - the plural of chaiah) spelled ChYVTh = 424).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"You're confusing chayyath (a singular word, spelled ChYTh, just like Cheyth0) with chayoth (a plural word - the plural of chaiah) spelled ChYVTh = 424)."
I'm glad that someone understands it.
ChYVTh in the Englishman's Concordance has five occurrences, four plural and one singular.
ChYTh in the Englishman's Concordance has 33 occurrences, 17 of which are used in a singular sense, "beast"/"living"/etcetera, 14 of which are plural, all "beasts", and 2 of which are collective singular terms: "the company" and "the congregation".