History of Liber Resh
-
There are a lot of opinions floating around out there that the formula as found in Liber Resh -- Ra (morning), Ahathoor (noon), Tum (sunset), Kephra (midnight) is not correct or at least not historically correct. One modern practitioner of the Golden Dawn, Chic Cicero, even went so far as to create his own version of Liber Resh to correct this, using what he felt was a more historically accurate formula -- Kephra (morning), Ra (noon), Tum (evening), Amun (midnight). Even wikipedia under "Ra" says "by the Fifth Dynasty he had become a major deity in ancient Egyptian religion, identified primarily with the mid-day sun."
On the other hand, I've heard that the high priests were assigned the task of creating a new sun prayer with each new dynasty. I'm still trying to find more information about this but so far I have found four different ancient Egyptian sun formulas, one of which places Ra in the morning. I can give details if there's interest in that, but for now I feel confident that it is not accurate to say there is one historically accurate sun formula. There were probably many.
An excellent example of this would be the fact that the Stele of Revealing is in fact an historical document which describes a sun formula! Liber Resh is definitely based on the Stele of Revealing, therefore it's impossible to say that Liber Resh is not an historically accurate formula.
The question I do have is whether or not the formula found in the Stele of Revealing as written by Ankh-f-n-Konsu was the official solar formula of the dynasty at that time or simply a private one the priest wrote for himself.
-
@pinealman said
"There are a lot of opinions floating around out there that the formula as found in Liber Resh -- Ra (morning), Ahathoor (noon), Tum (sunset), Kephra (midnight) is not correct or at least not historically correct."
Not historically correct to whom? I'm guessing you mean, "Not the way the Egyptians might have done it," and, as has been discussed many times here, Thelema isn't the old Egyptian religion, and its primary gods are not old Egyptian gods. Their new.
The names originate from Stele 666. That's their basic origin.
"One modern practitioner of the Golden Dawn, Chic Cicero, even went so far as to create his own version of Liber Resh to correct this, using what he felt was a more historically accurate formula -- Kephra (morning), Ra (noon), Tum (evening), Amun (midnight). Even wikipedia under "Ra" says "by the Fifth Dynasty he had become a major deity in ancient Egyptian religion, identified primarily with the mid-day sun.""
Chic is interested in Egyptian gods per se.
"On the other hand, I've heard that the high priests were assigned the task of creating a new sun prayer with each new dynasty. I'm still trying to find more information about this but so far I have found four different ancient Egyptian sun formulas, one of which places Ra in the morning. I can give details if there's interest in that, but for now I feel confident that it is not accurate to say there is one historically accurate sun formula. There were probably many."
The question for us is: What's the accurate formula beginning April 10, 1904?
"An excellent example of this would be the fact that the Stele of Revealing is in fact an historical document which describes a sun formula! Liber Resh is definitely based on the Stele of Revealing, therefore it's impossible to say that Liber Resh is not an historically accurate formula. "
It's even better! It's an historical artifact that was mistranslated, and then paraphrased, and then the paraphrase of the mistranslation is what got put in Liber Legis. From that moment on, it became The Word!
"The question I do have is whether or not the formula found in the Stele of Revealing as written by Ankh-f-n-Konsu was the official solar formula of the dynasty at that time or simply a private one the priest wrote for himself."
I'm there wasn't a single one - it depended on the nome as well as the era, and within that were likely variations. But, more importantly, I think it doesn't matter at all to Thelema.
-
" It's even better! It's an historical artifact that was mistranslated, and then paraphrased, and then the paraphrase of the mistranslation is what got put in Liber Legis. From that moment on, it became The Word!
"Hahahaha! FINALLY!! an honest no bullshit answer! @#$%#$%^#^&!! But seriously thank you for keeping it real. Of all the people I've approached about this you're the only one who just laid it out. Thats actually refreshing.
So how does one perform Liber Resh four times a day knowing its full of mistakes? How can you take it seriously? Why is that the Word, so to speak? At this point it kinda seems like it'd be better to just come up our own new formula? That sucks! hahaha! Why would someone who realizes all this still choose to continue doing Liber Resh? Or Thelema in general for that matter?
-
@pinealman said
"
" It's even better! It's an historical artifact that was mistranslated, and then paraphrased, and then the paraphrase of the mistranslation is what got put in Liber Legis. From that moment on, it became The Word! "Hahahaha! FINALLY!! an honest no bullshit answer! @#$%#$%^#^&!! But seriously thank you for keeping it real. Of all the people I've approached about this you're the only one who just laid it out. Thats actually refreshing.
So how does one perform Liber Resh four times a day knowing its full of mistakes?"
You're missing the point: It's NOT full of mistakes. It's just not ancient Egyptian. Don't confuse Thelemic deities with ancient Egyptian deities. I meant it when I said that, once it got in The Book of the Law it was The Word. From that moment on, it was, by definition, the basis of what was right.
"How can you take it seriously?"
See the above. Furthermore, it's magick. Magick is inherently creative.
"At this point it kinda seems like it'd be better to just come up our own new formula?"
You're not getting it: "We" did! What you are interpreting as a mistake is coming up with a new formula.
"That sucks!"
I could see that if your goal were to have something that was authentically ancient Egyptian.
"Why would someone who realizes all this still choose to continue doing Liber Resh? Or Thelema in general for that matter?"
It's not just a good idea... it's the law!
-
OK, so the Book of the Law was delivered to Crowley by the god Horus via Awaiss correct? So it's not like Crowley invented the Thelemic pantheon of gods they were dictated to him. Is that correct? I just don't understand the point of keeping the names of the gods as well as the use of ancient images of these gods if these are not the same gods. In addition to this, every Thelemic website Ive ever seen on Liber Resh refers to historic descriptions of these dieties. The solar stations are different but the gods same to the same.
It really seems like some of the historic gods used in Thelema are the same while others are often completely different. Pan for example doesnt seem anything like the Greek god I used to read about as a kid. I've also noticed that the historic egyptian aspects of self are sometimes slightly different and other times absolutely opposite in meaning. The way Crowley describes the "Khu" to me seems like almost the exact opposite of the historic meaning.
I find this all incredibly confusing. Is there a purpose or benefit doing things this way? So its the Law now but it wasnt the Law a couple hundred years ago? Why isnt there more accessible information on this? I'm starting to feel like this all was designed to be intentionally confusing.
-
@pinealman said
".... Is there a purpose or benefit doing things this way? "
yes.
very much sobut the only way to really find that out is to experience the practice yourself.
-
@pinealman said
"OK, so the Book of the Law was delivered to Crowley by the god Horus via Awaiss correct?"
Yes. Or, more specifically, by the messenger of Hoor-paar-kraat. But, anticipating where you're going: Don't confuse this with the Horus the Egyptians worshipped.
Paul McCartney, on his recent performance in the White House, sang "Michelle" to the First Lady who is Michelle but who shouldn't be confused with any Michelle for whome the song was written.
"So it's not like Crowley invented the Thelemic pantheon of gods they were dictated to him. Is that correct?"
Corrrect.
"I just don't understand the point of keeping the names of the gods as well as the use of ancient images of these gods if these are not the same gods. In addition to this, every Thelemic website Ive ever seen on Liber Resh refers to historic descriptions of these dieties. The solar stations are different but the gods same to the same."
There was never an Egyptian god named Had or Hadit. Nuit isn't the same as Nut. And dang if any of us have ever been able to find the exact names Ra-Hoor-Khuit and Heru-Ra-Ha in old Egyptian writings. These aren't old gods returned - they never existed in the time stream before 1904.
Thelema isn't the old Egyptian religion. It's something entirely new. And we've known for decades that some things became altered or modified in the course of making their way into Liber Legis. Once there, though, the primary postulate is clear: Don't alter so much as the style of a letter. What is there in the book, regardless of how it got there, is the exact, verbatim, not-to-be-altered message. There are many, many things to be questioned, challenged, etc., but what is not included in that is the spelling of anything. Letter by letter the book is perfect, and we use that single fact (almost the only fact!) as the starting point for everything.
So... I didn't pick the names. Crowley didn't pick the names. But they're the names in The Book so, by golly, they form the baseline of everything else we do.
"It really seems like some of the historic gods used in Thelema are the same while others are often completely different."
That could be. For example, if there is a difference between modern and ancient Khephra, I can't find it.
" Pan for example doesnt seem anything like the Greek god I used to read about as a kid."
Pan isn't in Liber Legis, so that's a different conversation (although I'll mention that Crowley treats him rather true to the ancient Greek god.)
"I've also noticed that the historic egyptian aspects of self are sometimes slightly different and other times absolutely opposite in meaning. The way Crowley describes the "Khu" to me seems like almost the exact opposite of the historic meaning."
Good catch. In a couple of my books I've described ancient usages of these terms vs. AC's usage. But, again, the moment they appeared in Liber Legis they acquire whatever meaning is necessitated by their usage. (Not necessarily the same as AC thought, but in a way necessitated by their usage. That is, by definition, the text is perfect, whatever the fuck it means! <g>)
"I find this all incredibly confusing. Is there a purpose or benefit doing things this way? So its the Law now but it wasnt the Law a couple hundred years ago? Why isnt there more accessible information on this? I'm starting to feel like this all was designed to be intentionally confusing."
No, it was more likely designed to have you delete what went before and make a new start of it.
-
" I find this all incredibly confusing. Is there a purpose or benefit doing things this way? So its the Law now but it wasnt the Law a couple hundred years ago? Why isnt there more accessible information on this? I'm starting to feel like this all was designed to be intentionally confusing.
No, it was more likely designed to have you delete what went before and make a new start of it."
Keeping in line with what Jim said, if you check out tables 701through 704 in 776 1/2 you'll see a reduction of the number of Deities as you move from the Egyptian Pantheon to the Thelemic Pantheon.
-
When Rose Kelly informed Crowley that "Horus" was going to contact him she brought him to the Stele 666 to show him who she meant. She pointed at the historical Horus or I guess technically Re-Harakhty ("Re-Horus of the Two Horizons") and not to be mistaken for the Thelemic Ra-Hoor-Khuit ("Ra who is Horus on the Horizon.") Then he's contacted by Hoor-pa-kraat ("Horus the child") and I'm guessing you're going to say not to be mistaken with Harpocrates ("Horus the Child"). How am I doing so far?
I guess I can accept that these are completely new gods but there must be some kind of connection at least to the ancient Egyptian current of energy or something, right? I mean these names are still translatable in Egyptian. Ra-Hoor I think means something like "the body of the sun in its highness" if I'm not mistaken. If these gods were completely unrelated to historical Egypt they wouldnt have Egyptian names. They'd be in something else like Enochian. Or English! Aren't the images of gods on the Stele of Revealing now referred to by Thelemites as Thelemic gods, i.e. Nuit instead of Nut or Ra-Hoor-Khuit instead of Re-Harakhty? If these gods are different why are we still using the ancient artwork to represent them?
You say it's like Paul McCartney sing Michele to the First Lady I say its more like some charater out of a David Lynch movie!!
Also I revisted stuff I had on the Thelemic pantheon of gods and it still doesnt seem like the gods from Resh (Ahathoor, Ra, Kephra, Tum, Tahuti) are part of the Thelemic pantheon, with the exception of maybe Ra-Hoor unless he's different than Ra-Hoor-Kuit. So is it possible that Crowley was instructed to insert the gods of Resh for the purposes of a new Aeon solar formula while still retaining their historical identies???
-
@pinealman said
"Also I revisted stuff I had on the Thelemic pantheon of gods and it still doesnt seem like the gods from Resh (Ahathoor, Ra, Kephra, Tum, Tahuti) are part of the Thelemic pantheon, with the exception of maybe Ra-Hoor unless he's different than Ra-Hoor-Kuit."
I'd agree with that more than disagree.
"So is it possible that Crowley was instructed to insert the gods of Resh for the purposes of a new Aeon solar formula while still retaining their historical identies???"
Anything is possible.