The Thelemic Mass
-
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 --> -
@Jim Eshelman said
"an official O.T.O. position that "the names of female members are never disclosed" "
Where does this come from, anyway? I can't even think of a bad reason for it.
-
@gmugmble said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"an official O.T.O. position that "the names of female members are never disclosed" "Where does this come from, anyway? I can't even think of a bad reason for it."
It's from the O.T.O. Manifesto in Blue Equinox.
As for why... Think of traditional protectionism of women for the many centuries leading up to and including Edwardian England.
-
It's strange that Abramelin is not listed in the saints given his central importance to the A.A. system and 93 current.
-
@he atlas itch said
"It's strange that Abramelin is not listed in the saints given his central importance to the A.A. system and 93 current."
Interesting point. - However, it's likely he's a fictional character and, though there are some mythic and possibly fictional characters in the list, we've tried to minimize these.
-
93, Jim and All,
I'm looking forward to this document and am also considering reserving both versions of 776 1/2.
I've often been puzzled by this (almost legendary) rewrite.
93s,
Br. C.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I may find myself in New York around March the 5th. Will the Thelemic Mass be open to the public? Or, should one RSVP?
Also, what is the suggested donation for the event?
I have never been to New York, so... I am trying to gauge the time commiment and prices.Thank you
Love is the law, love under will. -
@Ankh said
"I may find myself in New York around March the 5th. Will the Thelemic Mass be open to the public? Or, should one RSVP?"
Yes, open to the public in Brooklyn. It will be on Sunday of that weekend. Other details to follow as they are finalized.
It would be great if you could be there!