Initiation in the Æon of the Child
-
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Gunther was his assertion that deity conceptualised as Light/L.V.X. is an Aeon of Osiris construct that has been superceded by N.O.X. in the Aeon of Horus, which is by nature adverse to the Osirian conception.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
-
The concepts Gunther is covering and the progression of them makes sense to me - I’m glad someone finally wrote this book.
For example when Horus replaces Osiris in the West, this requires a radical reconsideration of what we mean by “death”. The Two Horizons were already discussed on this forum in the thread “Thoughts on Liber Resh” in the Magick section. If people are operating under an “Osirian” model of reality (as most people still do) it leads to serious confusion of past and future and obscures the potential of the present, which is unknown and undetermined.
We can glimpse this potential in the advances seen in genetics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, stem cell and medical research that are transforming the limitations of our reality. Writers such as Raymond Kurzweill have even suggested physical immortality may become a possibility in our lifetime. Scientists agree that, barring a global catastrophe, a 130 year life span becoming the norm by 2050 is a conservative estimate.
My point - what Gunther is describing in esoteric terms is occurring in the world today. I am personally of the opinion that moving beyond the Old Aeon requires a redefining of the concept of “human”. Or another way of looking at it is, the hidden potential in humanity begins to manifest in the New Aeon. This new horizon naturally leads to the next question - what is the nature of the second death?
Also think about why Gunther focuses so much on the Saturnian aspect. Saturn rules over matter and time as the principle of limitation, hierarchy and causality. Traditionally people have feared this reality principle with its castrating powers - reminding of us of our aging, mortality and susceptibility to pain and suffering along the way. Yet the evidence suggests the New Aeon, by definition, will be Saturnian in nature with real implications and stakes. The Great Work begins and our limitations start to be transformed only when Saturn's function is understood and valued.
-
93,
For those interested, parts 4 & 5 of "New Aeon Initiation" can be found here
...and a PDF of the entire essay (all 5 parts) can **(http://www.thelemicstudies.com/NewAeonInitiation.pdf:1n814zp2)
IAO131
-
W00t! Very good. Sorry for my grammar but I ment that I liked the review and after that enjoyed the essay too. I highly recommend them.
It's a wonderful idea to write an essay oneself than to write an extensive review about Gunthers book.
Concerning masters, gurus, teachers - you took a hard stance. I believe they are needed as guides, well, at least at the beggining. It's true that you have to integrate the experience but a master, substance etc. can cause the experience. But I agree that one should not be the slave of a master etc.