Across the Gulf
-
In the above working by Aleister Crowley, chapter X, the last chapter, ends thusly:
"BUT of these matters I am warned that I shall not now become aware, for that there be great
mysteries therein contained, pertaining to a degree of initiation of which I am as yet unworthy.
(Thus the record comes abruptly to an end.)"Does anyone know of a continued record, in whole or in part, or this working after he was initiated into higher levels?
My interest in his life as Anhk af na Khonsu is extraordinary and I feel I must connect to it further.
-
@ThelemicMage said
"Does anyone know of a continued record, in whole or in part, or this working after he was initiated into higher levels? "
No, not along these lines. There ARE other records of past lives recovered during his Magus initiation.
But I should also add that I consider Across the Gulf primarily a work of fiction. It probably did have scraps of truth in it - a generally correct idea here and there (or overall) - but basically just a short story. ("Historical fiction," if one must; but never to the level of authenticity of, say, Joan Grant's work.)
"My interest in his life as Anhk af na Khonsu is extraordinary and I feel I must connect to it further."
I suggest the academic record of this known historic personage.
-
I do thank you, Jim.
Might I suggest that "fiction", is described as such by one who is reading it, at the time of their reading?
It is my belief that Magic, as well as many phenomena that accompany it, was not "weighed down" as it has been so during the past few thousand years.
For instance, in the Aeon of Isis, Magic flows easily, continuously, where a child might change the direction of the wind above his house in the trees, and one might attain K&C as easy as it takes to meditate for a few hours or days.
It may be possible that these holds on reality were not as tight thousands of years ago as they are today. You can even feel how magic was more prevalent only a few hundred years ago by reading the grimours and connecting to that energy around them and those that read them long ago.
I have experienced phenomena with Magic, physical phenomena that, if more power were available from the magnetic lines and cross-correspondences from the Earth, and/or more people with similar adept ways were involved, any sort of phenomena from Across the Gulf seems very possible to me.
Jim, I have read many of Crowley's, kind of side-thrown ideas, of when he tries to explain secretly that what he is telling is completely true, all the while having the worded explanation for those more scared of such ideas, explaining it as fiction.
Liber 51, Atlantis, is a good example of this. In the introduction, he states that it can be taken as a work of fiction. Right in the same introduction, he explains it is all true and that certain lines of miles-apart communication between the adepts that have been assigned responsibility over such information, have been doing so for thousands of years, and that once in awhile they compile all their data.
I will throw myself out there and say I believe it is completely true. We all get the notions of what went on before man took charge of rule of the planet, (until at last the high gods witness that man is the lord of his spirit!) And if that is not too bizarre for us to fathom and understand, then all this magical phenomena seems very possible.
One of Crowley's best natural "protections" from Truth getting in the hands of those who would profane it, is the fact that most people view him as strictly a writer of fiction.. either that, or a madman who believes everything he writes, weather it is true or not.
-
@ThelemicMage said
"Might I suggest that "fiction", is described as such by one who is reading it, at the time of their reading?"
Suggest anything you like. But I won't buy that definition. It's deceptive. Something is either within bounds of factual accuracy, or it isn't (in most cases). (Notice use of "bounds" <g>.)
"I have experienced phenomena with Magic, physical phenomena that, if more power were available from the magnetic lines and cross-correspondences from the Earth, and/or more people with similar adept ways were involved, any sort of phenomena from Across the Gulf seems very possible to me."
That might be your issue - it's not mine. My issue is that we know the time period of this historic figure, and too many events and conditions in the story mismatch what is known from history.
"Jim, I have read many of Crowley's, kind of side-thrown ideas, of when he tries to explain secretly that what he is telling is completely true, all the while having the worded explanation for those more scared of such ideas, explaining it as fiction."
Those writings are allegories - a category of fiction. It's not a matter of whether some underlying idea is true, but whether the events described happened in the normal sense of "events" and "happened."
"Liber 51, Atlantis, is a good example of this. In the introduction, he states that it can be taken as a work of fiction. Right in the same introduction, he explains it is all true and that certain lines of miles-apart communication between the adepts that have been assigned responsibility over such information, have been doing so for thousands of years, and that once in awhile they compile all their data. "
Right. It is symbolic allegory. It communicates true things. But it isn't history or factual reporting. It's fiction.
"I will throw myself out there and say I believe it is completely true."
My one problem with you (personal, not "professional") is your disregard for hard fact. You seem to hold that things are true "within a certain framework" that is operational in your mind. That's the very sort of thing we're trying to minimize - or (better yet) clearly distinguish it from fact-based ideas and information.
A thing that is contrary to current scientific theory may, ultimately, be more true than the prevailing paradigm. (This often happens.) History may have wrong facts. But we need to respect science and history (for example) for what they are, otherwise we weaken our ability to improve the knowledge base. "Science is magick that always works," after all.
We all get the notions of what went on before man took charge of rule of the planet, (until at last the high gods witness that man is the lord of his spirit!) And if that is not too bizarre for us to fathom and understand, then all this magical phenomena seems very possible.
One of Crowley's best natural "protections" from Truth getting in the hands of those who would profane it, is the fact that most people view him as strictly a writer of fiction.. either that, or a madman who believes everything he writes, weather it is true or not.
" -
"The "magic" flowed easier because the world was full of wonder. People didn't know simple things, like what causes the weather and the seasons to change. Why women plumped up and then suddenly gave birth. Why planets moved, and what governed the principles of agriculture.
Elaborate mythologies were constructed throughout the centuries, each reflecting a cultures idea's of these subjects. These ideas evolved as we evolved."
I would not put magic in quotes. How might one explain that just by believing certain things and empowering those beliefs, that beings took charge and had more power over things like weather and the seasonal changes, due to the electromagnetic collective human/being sub/consciousness, just by believing these things?
Sounds like real magic to me.
-
I do hear that, but I will counter by the philosophy of Crowley himself:
Since sex/procreation is the highest form of magic, and all other acts are just lesser forms of that higher sexual magic, then would it not be safe to assume that all magic is a form of sexual expression? From the way the trees pattern and touch arms in the woods, to the way the breeze caresses them?
Magick, with a k, is defined by having directly to do with sex magic. I do not differentiate the two nowadays, as they truly are one in the same if practiced correctly.
-
@ThelemicMage said
"Magick, with a k, is defined by having directly to do with sex magic."
Only by Kenneth Grant and those who copied him. Not by Crowley.
-
I was mistaken in thinking I had read that from Regardie?
I've never even read Kenneth Grant besides looking at a web page or two.
I swear I read that in one of Regardie's books, and I had figured it was something taught to him by Crowley, due to Crowley's opinion of sex and magic, and how he decided to use a K.
-
Crowley explains the use of the 'k' pretty clearly in the introduction to Magick in Theory and Practice, which Frater Potater quoted above.
Regardie didn't use the 'k'. I believe the Ciceros discuss this in their updated/expanded edition of The Middle Pillar (but don't quote me on that one).
I think Grant was a making a connection with k as the 11th letter of the alphabet, which he (like HOGD, but not Crowley) considered the number of the Qlippoth as well as (like Crowley) the number of magick. He also makes a 'k'-kteis connection. I'm sure there's more, too.
-
Oh, if you want to go down those roads, transliterationg magick into Hebrew letters gives MGYKK = 93
-
Hm. Interesting observations. I'd thought it was mainly about turning a 5-letter word into a 6-letter word, hence 5 = 6.