The Star Ruby - An Analysis (1 of 3)
-
93, I read over this, and had a couple questions: Is it incorrect to use the visualization of Harpocrates as on the lotus rather than the crocodiles? I understand the Fool symbolism therein, just wondering. Also, is there ANY difference in the Harpocrates in the Egg, and that of standing upon the serpent's head in results? I notice that you wrote KAKO- rather than KAKA-DAIMONOS. I'm not too knowledgeable on Greek, but I always pronounced it as KAKA. This is wrong? How does Gimel add to 3000? I never knew to extend the circle using the arms. Thanks for that.
-
@FiliusBeastia said
"93, I read over this, and had a couple questions: Is it incorrect to use the visualization of Harpocrates as on the lotus rather than the crocodiles?"
I wouldn't say it's wrong. Since you're physically standing, it is advantageous (but not required) that you assume a form of the god that is standing (whereas the lotus form is seated).
"I understand the Fool symbolism therein, just wondering. Also, is there ANY difference in the Harpocrates in the Egg, and that of standing upon the serpent's head in results?"
Yes, they're quite different symbols in some ways. Same god, different myths.
"I notice that you wrote KAKO- rather than KAKA-DAIMONOS. I'm not too knowledgeable on Greek, but I always pronounced it as KAKA. This is wrong?"
Yes. That's a common joke - people want to call them "shit-demons." But the prefix is pronounced KAKO.
"How does Gimel add to 3000?"
Thousands are written in Hebrew by starting the letters again but writing them much larger.
-
93 Jim, Thank you.
-
A beautiful description.
I think I have only one question.. No three.
Why were the names changed in this version?
Why was Babalon’s position changed?
Is there any more significance between this version and the other?
I will let you know that the imagery is well written and I appreciate this. I would have a tendency to use this version over the other until I understand the imagery of the other.
-
@fnewburn4236 said
"Why were the names changed in this version?"
They weren't changed in this version. This is the original. There was a later version with different names. (See Part III.)
"Why was Babalon’s position changed?"
You apparently have only seen the later modification of this. See Part III.
"Is there any more significance between this version and the other?"
I started to answer this, then realized I don't really know what you're asking. (I was making up a question in my head instead of understanding your question.)
-
I think I was asking if it was stronger, weaker or used for different things. I have read that the posting of certain angels can be changed or have other angels or gods in their places depending on what you want accomplished. Since the book did not go much into details I did not try to do this. I don't remember where I read this though (so long ago).
Now that I understand that it was the original, that sheds some more light.
-
so Jim I am wondering why is the original version different from the one I have in the appendix of Liber ABA? If Crowley changed the ritual, shouldn't we be doing his revised version?
-
@Laertes said
"so Jim I am wondering why is the original version different from the one I have in the appendix of Liber ABA?"
Crowley wrote a different version for Magick in Theory & Practice. You'd have to ask him why. (I could guess, but it would only be a guess.)
Appasrently you haven't been reading the footnotes/endnotes in ABA, because some of this history is discussed quite minutely (through multiple drafts of the book which trace the evolution of the rewrite).
I cover more on this in Part III.
"If Crowley changed the ritual, shouldn't we be doing his revised version?"
Not necessarily. - When you study the underlying formulae (which are complementary to each other - a key part of the ritual is exactly reverse-order in one from the other) you discover some of key differences that make it a different ritual for a different context. For example, the one in MT&P follows a sequencing appropriate for First Order (below Tiphereth) work, while the original (and IMHO by far the better of the two) presumes adepthood as a starting point (or, at least, symbolically presumes Tiphereth as a starting point).
There is also the matter that the one in MT&P wasn't finished. We can see where he was going, and it's no big deal to finish it along those lines, but there are internal markers that it was tweaked on the fly and insufficiently proofread and corrected before going to press.
Remember BTW that there is no evidence from diaries or observers' records that Crowley ever performed this ritual even once! In the '30s and '40s he instructed the one remaining O.T.O. lodge under his jurisdiction to do the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram, and wrote/sent new and deeper instructions on that ritual for their use. The Star Ruby may have never been more than a mental exercise for him.
-
My understanding is that the one in Magick in Theory and Practice was the more Thelemic of the two versions, at least more obviously so.
-
Since I can remember, I have been under the impression that the East was classically associated with Air, the North with Earth, the West with Water, and the South with Fire.
Then, when I began using the Star Ruby, I was under the impression that Crowley had switched the elemental attributions of Earth and Air. So that Earth was in the East and Air in the North. The source of my research was:
www.lionserpent.com <----- which is the personal site of a person associated with:
www.scarletwoman.org/aboutus.html <------- an lodge of the Caliphate OTO in Austin.At that lionserpent site there are numerous commentaries upon Liber XXV, and one of them even diagrams the quarters and their elemental attributions as I have desribed.
At any rate, I've had some experience using the ritual with those attributions and experienced some phenomena I perceived to be related to my Work the the ritual. Now I see in Mr. Eschelman's descriptions that he's assigning the elements entirely different than either version I've ever used. It dawns on my that my results with the Star Ruby might have been of a different nature given the different attributions. Indeed using Earth in the East changed my life forever.
I'm just wondering if you would care to discuss the different attributions as cited by Mr. Eschelman on this forum, and those cited at the above links from a Caliphate web page, the (in)validity of either, and any ideas concerning not only the usage of either version but also thoughts regarding the psychospiritual results of each.
Thanks. -Cody
93 93/93
-
@poor+blind+misfi said
"Since I can remember, I have been under the impression that the East was classically associated with Air, the North with Earth, the West with Water, and the South with Fire."
That's called the Microcosmic scheme. The G.D. Second Order used a Macrocosmic scheme that is Fire in the east, Earth in the south, Air in the west, and Water in the North. (YHVH counter-clockwise from the east.) This is what the original Star Ruby uses.
The later version of the Star Ruby uses a third framework that is neither of the two above. It is YHVH in reverse order counter-clockwise from the east.
"ow I see in Mr. Eschelman's descriptions that he's assigning the elements entirely different than either version I've ever used."
It depends on the version of Star Ruby. The original uses the classic Second Order macrocosmic scheme; the later one reverses it.