"Greater" ritual of Pentagram
-
@Legis said
"But I feel I've already learned what I needed to from it."
If you're indifferent to it, I would agree. But, that means that you could do it daily and it would make no difference than if you didn't do it...or, at least one wouldn't feel threatened by the performance of it. Not saying that you are, but you seemed to indicate that only studying it overwhelmed your psychology in (perhaps) a negative way...
If you did it once daily for a turn of the sun, I would say you gave it a real go...a year would be an even better experiment.
I'm not trying to advocate for its use. Like I said, it's not for everyone.
Again, do what thou wilt, Brother.
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Tony DeLuce said
"Los do you find it interesting that Liber V is not assigned anywhere in the A.'. A .'. curriculum? "That isn't true in all cases. It's usually assigned to the Zelator in my "lineage.""
With no disrespect intended... I'm pretty sure that by "the A.'.A.'. curriculum," Tony meant "as defined by its creators." Crowley never assigned it any place in the curriculum unless the "magician of any grade" remark is taken to mean it should be in the Probationer curriculum.
-
I do appreciate you perspective on it, but...
[knocks]
I'll stay.
How 'bout them Cowboys?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Frater 639 said
"
@Tony DeLuce said
"Los do you find it interesting that Liber V is not assigned anywhere in the A.'. A .'. curriculum? "That isn't true in all cases. It's usually assigned to the Zelator in my "lineage.""
With no disrespect intended... I'm pretty sure that by "the A.'.A.'. curriculum," Tony meant "as defined by its creators." Crowley never assigned it any place in the curriculum unless the "magician of any grade" remark is taken to mean it should be in the Probationer curriculum."
This deserves clarification. Oh, Jim...of course, no disrespect taken. I respect your opinion and my admiration for you goes beyond the stars - I mean that in a most sincere way.
Liber V appears in the curriculum under Course II (as Book 4). It also appears in the Syllabus of the Official Instructions of the A.'.A.'. It would be a stretch to say that the Syllabus is not a part of the curriculum. Now, if you mean books that are officially appointed per each Grade, then technically, yes - it falls under Course II under Book 4 - "assigned" to the Probationer. Although, it's probably a fair assumption that Book 4 in the curriculum only referred to Part II, and not Part III, where Liber V is found, because Part III and IV weren't completed yet...
"The magician of any grade" referring to only the Probationer is difficult for me to reconcile in my mind - Crowley was using and developing it for use beyond that Grade. The A.'.A.'. curriculum necessarily includes the ritual, regardless of anyone's personal opinions about it. And that's not to insinuate that XXV should only be used by the Probationer, XXXVI should only be used by the Zelator, and XLIV should only be used by the Major Adept...and that the Aspirant can't experiment and use any ritual at will, just because it appears in a certain way in the officially appointed books per Grade.
Liber V was still being worked out well after the curriculum was written - we really need to pay attention to the dates. I believe these original dates need to be taken into consideration beyond the original curriculum published by the "founding fathers" - which was published after Liber 333 was published, and we all know that contained XXV, XXXVI, and XLIV. The fact that Liber V is a principal ritual of the A.'.A.'. should speak for itself. The fact that the ritual has such a lengthy commentary, that compares only with (perhaps) Liber Samekh, should shed some light on the importance that Crowley seemingly placed on it. And the oral tradition and Instructor/student interaction places importance on it, regardless of published documents.
But, if all this deters one from actually performing the ritual daily or whatever, then I guess the ritual will fail in its effect because of Operator error; which, in that kind of failure, is worse than improperly tracing a pentagram...
-
@Legis said
"I do appreciate you perspective on it, but...
[knocks]
I'll stay.
How 'bout them Cowboys?"
They're lookin' good!
-
@Frater 639 said
"Liber V appears in the curriculum under Course II (as Book 4)."
Y'know, that's the most solid argument I've ever heard anyone make on this matter. I'll take that under advisement. (I'm not persuaded. But you gave me something solid to think about.)
"It also appears in the Syllabus of the Official Instructions of the A.'.A.'."
Well, Reguli doesn't. I'm not sure what you mean by that, since it wasn't even written until nearly a decade after the Syllabus was published in 1913. It didn't exist.
""The magician of any grade" referring to only the Probationer is difficult for me to reconcile in my mind"
No, I didn't mean it that way. (Resh is not precluded from, say, the Practicus, even though it's only explicitly assigned for the Probationer.) When I think of the inclusion of something in the A.'.A.'. system, though, I think of it as being explicitly assigned at some specific point. My statement meant that there is no place where Reguli is specifically assigned, where it is tested, where it is given as part of the task of a grade, where anyone is expected or required to know it or do it. Your argument that it's included in Book 4, Part III (i.e., Magick in Theory & Practice) still only broadly put it in the category of, "look over this, as part of a wide body of work, and choose practices from this to undertake as part of discovering your own way." However - and this is quite important, I think - in no part of the A.'.A.'. system is one required to learn it, required to perform it even once, or tested on it. - I don't write this to reiterate it, but, rather, to clarify what I meant above.
"Liber V was still being worked out well after the curriculum was written - we really need to pay attention to the dates."
Indeed we do: It wasn't "still being worked out." It didn't even exist at all. He hadn't even begun to develop it until some years later.
"I believe these original dates need to be taken into consideration beyond the original curriculum published by the "founding fathers" - which was published after Liber 333 was published, and we all know that contained XXV, XXXVI, and XLIV. The fact that Liber V is a principal ritual of the A.'.A.'. should speak for itself."
It doesn't. It isn't evident to me at all. (I require quite explicit reference to regard something like that.) It's quite Crowley-esque. It might even be regarded of quite Thelemic (it certainly has plenty of Thelemic buzz words). That's not at all the same as saying it is self-evidently "a principle ritual of the A.'.A.'.."
Something else that's telling - returning to your point of 25, 36, and 44, etc. - is that Crowley's constitution for The Order of Thelemites was written after Reguli existed - while they were at the Abbey - and he did not include Reguli with the others. I've often found that... interesting.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Indeed we do: It wasn't "still being worked out." It didn't even exist at all. He hadn't even begun to develop it until some years later.
"Let me clarify: it appears as part of the Syllabus of the Official Instructions of the A.'.A.'. on page 460 of Book 4 (Class D Instruction). Also it's in **Official Instructions of the A.'.A.'. **on page 461 ibid.
@Jim Eshelman said
"However - and this is quite important, I think - in no part of the A.'.A.'. system is one required to learn it, required to perform it even once, or tested on it. - I don't write this to reiterate it, but, rather, to clarify what I meant above."
True. But I think it is expected. Many things are explicitly tested. Liber V isn't one of them, you're right; but that doesn't mean that an Instructor needs to watch you do the "Star Ruby" to pass Probation. It's not that kind of a test - am I being clear? I think you understand what I mean...but I'll elaborate if I'm not being clear. The Mass of the Phoenix isn't really tested in the way that (say) Asana is...
@Jim Eshelman said
"Well, Reguli doesn't. I'm not sure what you mean by that, since it wasn't even written until nearly a decade after the Syllabus was published in 1913. It didn't exist."
Agreed. But what I mean by still being worked out is that certain rituals didn't exist in their revised form. By looking at this, Crowley was working with the principles at the time the curriculum was written. He was constantly revising and creating rituals.
Liber III, in its present state, has been "revised" when taught by many Instructors, wouldn't you agree? The Star Ruby has two versions - the original version isn't shown in Book 4 as another example. The point is that Liber V embodies the principles of Thelema and incorporates many of the Old Aeonic symbols, but revised in a way that can be very effective to the practitioner. Otherwise, he wouldn't have wasted good magick on it.
@Jim Eshelman said
"It doesn't. It isn't evident to me at all. (I require quite explicit reference to regard something like that.) It's quite Crowley-esque. It might even be regarded of quite Thelemic (it certainly has plenty of Thelemic buzz words). That's not at all the same as saying it is self-evidently "a principle ritual of the A.'.A.'.."
"In the section of Book 4, titled A Few Principle Rituals, it appears next to all the other rituals that you mention below. And then it appears in the Official Syllabus as a Class D document. Although you may not agree, to me that's *compelling *evidence that it is "a principle ritual of the A.'.A.'.."
"Something else that's telling - returning to your point of 25, 36, and 44, etc. - is that Crowley's constitution for The Order of Thelemites was written after Reguli existed - while they were at the Abbey - and he did not include Reguli with the others. I've often found that... interesting."
I would like to hear why you find that interesting. Are you suggesting that he didn't find the ritual important? Evidence suggests he was teaching it to students well beyond the Abbey, into the 1940's (not including publishing it in Book 4). He didn't have the final edition done until approximately 1928. Crowley left the Abbey in 1923. Perhaps it wasn't finished yet?
What do you think? I think that you're driving at your opinion of why you may feel it isn't important, why it may be disruptive, etc. but I really don't know. I'd truly like to hear your opinion...
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Indeed we do: It wasn't "still being worked out." It didn't even exist at all. He hadn't even begun to develop it until some years later.
"Let me clarify: it appears as part of the Syllabus of the Official Instructions of the A.'.A.'. on page 460 of Book 4 (Class D Instruction)."
Blue Brick Edition? Then it's a modern interpolation.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"However - and this is quite important, I think - in no part of the A.'.A.'. system is one required to learn it, required to perform it even once, or tested on it. - I don't write this to reiterate it, but, rather, to clarify what I meant above."True. But I think it is expected."
LOL. Crowley never expected it of anyone
Nor will it ever appear in any curriculum I have anything to do with creating. Your opinion is hardly universal
'"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Well, Reguli doesn't. I'm not sure what you mean by that, since it wasn't even written until nearly a decade after the Syllabus was published in 1913. It didn't exist."Agreed. But what I mean by still being worked out is that certain rituals didn't exist in their revised form."
Reguli didn't exist in any form.'
'"By looking at this, Crowley was working with the principles at the time the curriculum was written. He was constantly revising and creating rituals."
Butyl, for A.'.A.'. (in contrast to other stuff he was doing), we have the occasional note and update. Reguli was never part of any of that.
"Liber III, in its present state, has been "revised" when taught by many Instructors, wouldn't you agree?"
No, I wouldn't. If people have rewritten Liber III for their own purposes, it's no longer Liber III.
Now, if you are talking about revising how one goes about the task of control of speech, etc. - tasks that many of have a lot to say about - please note that Liber III is not required in the official A.'.A.'. instruction. The task isn't to do Liber III (never required.) It'd to practice control of speech (etc.).
"The point is that Liber V embodies the principles of Thelema"
That, per se, is not an argument for it having anything to do with A.'.A.'..
"
"Something else that's telling - returning to your point of 25, 36, and 44, etc. - is that Crowley's constitution for The Order of Thelemites was written after Reguli existed - while they were at the Abbey - and he did not include Reguli with the others. I've often found that... interesting."I would like to hear why you find that interesting."
I take it as inferring that he was not seriously recommending Reguli as a core practice. He dismissed it in designing O.o.T.
"Are you suggesting that he didn't find the ritual important?"
Yes. That's exactly my point of view. I've written at length of my view of it in the past, and don't have timer to recreate the essay now. You might find it somewhere on this forum.
"Evidence suggests he was teaching it to students well beyond the Abbey, into the 1940's"
What evidence?
"What do you think? I think that you're driving at your opinion of why you may feel it isn't important, why it may be disruptive, etc. but I really don't know. I'd truly like to hear your opinion..."
See above. It would be a long answer. Not going to recreate it (no time), and it doesn't really matter to the thread. In fact, I need to slap my fingers for contributing to the thread going off topic. (Apologies.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Blue Brick Edition? Then it's a modern interpolation. "
Yes. Again, the original 1913, 1919 documents were before Liber V was completed. But the fact still remains Liber V is published as part of the Syllabus and the Official Instruction - also, it is included in Book 4 (Course II). Those are valid sources.
@Jim Eshelman said
"LOL. Crowley never expected it of anyone "
I didn't say that he ever expected anything of anyone!
But his comment about daily use by the magician of whatever grade is a suggestion, not an expectation. I've already outlined this.@Jim Eshelman said
"Nor will it ever appear in any curriculum I have anything to do with creating."
Curriculum that YOU create. This shouldn't interfere with the fact that Crowley developed and taught this ritual to others.
"Your opinion is hardly universal "
What opinion is?
@Jim Eshelman said"Now, if you are talking about revising how one goes about the task of control of speech, etc. - tasks that many of have a lot to say about - please note that Liber III is not required in the official A.'.A.'. instruction. The task isn't to do Liber III (never required.) It'd to practice control of speech (etc.).
"Right. That's why I made the distinction between Task and official reading courses. You glossed over my examples after you made examples that one is never tested in Liber V. One is never "tested" in many rituals - that's a disingenuous argument that may play on other people's unfamiliarity with testing processes. I don't have such motivations when it comes to sly juxtaposition of testing facts.
What I was directly referring to was snapping one's wrist with a rubber band (like you suggest) offering the same imprint as slicing with a razor, in accordance with what your opinion of how Liber III should be adapted in daily practice.
@Jim said
"That, per se, is not an argument for it having anything to do with A.'.A.'.."
@Jim said
"Something else that's telling - returning to your point of 25, 36, and 44, etc. - is that Crowley's constitution for The Order of Thelemites was written after Reguli existed - while they were at the Abbey - and he did not include Reguli with the others. I've often found that... interesting."
"I take it as inferring that he was not seriously recommending Reguli as a core practice. He dismissed it in designing O.o.T."
Take it however you like. The evidence above shows that it was part of the Official A.'.A.'. Courses, Syllabus, and the Instructions. Your rebuttal that you'll never teach it, you think it's not important, etc. all resting on a charter of the O.o.T.? An Outer Order? Rituals given to Outer Orders do not dictate anything to the A.'.A.'. rituals - come on. Crowley left a lot out of the Outer Orders by design...
Your opinion is not really convincing of Liber V **not **having anything to do with the A.'.A.'..
"What evidence?"
Unpublished letters.
You're right this is way off topic. My whole point all along was that the energized enthusiasm and the raising of energy is a more important than any fucking ritual's words. But we seemed to go to source documents, blah blah, instead of practice and see and experiment yourself students! You don't need to include anything in YOUR curriculum - but I figured you had a problem with Liber V.
You also changed the averse rose in Crowley's Unicursal Hexagram to upright instead of averse in most of your publications - that is also your decision when it comes to your curriculum.
It is unfortunate that students could suffer when taking another's curriculum at face value because their Instructor deems certain rituals, given for daily use by the Beast Himself, as "not important."
Anyway, that's my two cents! Happy Saturn Day!
All in good Spirit, Jim. 
-
@Frater 639 said
"Yes. Again, the original 1913, 1919 documents were before Liber V was completed."
I again resist your putting it that way because your wording implies it was started. It wasn't started. There is no evidence it was even contemplated.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Nor will it ever appear in any curriculum I have anything to do with creating."Curriculum that YOU create. This shouldn't interfere with the fact that Crowley developed and taught this ritual to others."
I was distinguishing the A.'.A.'. curriculum from any (non-A.'.A.'.) curriculum I would create. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
For example, my statement meant that it will never be anywhere in Temple of Thelema's curriculum.
"You glossed over my examples after you made examples that one is never tested in Liber V."
I didn't want to get into any more digressions. I'm about ready to lock this thread, since the discussion is no longer about the ritual in the thread's title, and I really don't want to contribute to taking it any more off-topic. It has sideways become a Liber Reguli thread, and that means it's OT.
My answer to that would have been a tedious essay of tiny distinctions that really wouldn't have added to the discussion (and certainly would have taken the thread more OT).
"Your opinion is not really convincing of Liber V **not **having anything to do with the A.'.A.'.."
Whatever.
"but I figured you had a problem with Liber V. "
A huge one, yes. But that's not for here and now, and is really irrelevant to the subject of this thread. (BTW it has nothing at all to do with the direction of the pentagrams, which might be what another couple of your remarks mean.)
"You also changed the averse rose in Crowley's Unicursal Hexagram to upright instead of averse in most of your publications - that is also your decision when it comes to your curriculum. "
The original was published upside down. Crowley penciled marginalia confirm this. People just kept copying the printer's error in Book of Thoth. I didn't change anything, unless you interpret correcting an inadvertent printer's error a change.