College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

93,

Thank you for your reply. I believe that makes sense and is similar to my own thoughts on the matter, I just wanted to make sure I was on the right track. I believe the LBRP has more of an equilibrating effect, it is more about balance and harmony than banishing negativity and invoking positivity- as some people like to put it.

I have always thought there is more of an invoking aspect to the ritual than a banishing one, comparing the LBRP with the Star Ruby further makes me feel this way. The ritual can be used to banish, but in daily practice, it feels more like setting aside space for the work rather than banishing all energies in the space, whatever is in the space is then consecrated to the work at hand, which in daily practice would be to carry out my Will.

If I was invoking Venus, I would naturally put away items consecrated to Mercury etc. It was more of an issue for daily work. As long as everything is consecrated in a manner which conforms to my Will all should be fine I suppose. I just wanted to make sure that all the previous work I had done was not a waste of time!

93, 93/93.

Thank you!

I might be able to get some actual work done instead of questioning everything now!

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"Has your time away caused a 180?"

Nope.

"This is the exact point that the two of us couldn't see eye to eye on three months ago"

No, it's not. Above on this thread, I'm discussing different ways to conceptualize physical reality and different discursive systems established by perspective. Months ago, our disagreement was about something entirely different: it was about factual claims made in the context of one specific discursive system, and you were arguing -- incorrectly -- for some version of "Everybody's opinion about this factual claim is correct, hurray! (Well, except for Los' opinion, of course)."

Your continued inability to grasp the subject under discussion, while unsurprising, is a nice illustration of the kinds of elementary errors constantly made on this forum.

93,

Thank you 😀 . I was curious about these things, I read the piece like a story and just wanted to fill in some gaps.

93, 93/93.

@Quaestor Lucis said

"You wrote:
"You've given the **more **purely planetary form.
"

Does this mean that this is not only corrrect sequence of names in this case?

"
Quite the opposite. I was saying you have it right.

I suppose the communication breakdown here is my reference to the planetary form. The pure expression of the planet is in the path, not the sphere. "The more purely planetary form" is what you want for Gimel, not for Yesod; what you want for Kaph and not Chesed, for Beth and not Hod, etc.

"In col 401 line 13 of 776 there is no Kerubim, but only in line 9. So, is this name suitable here? I believe it is, but I can not grasp this idea of using sephirothic names for planetary(path) invocations. And without this name how can I draw the current down to the Assiah for charge the cakes?"
"
"

You have other Yetziratic names to accomplish this. Remember, it isn't the names exactly that matter, it's attuning (to the utmost of your capacity) to Gimel in Atziluth, then drawing tis down into your attunement to Gimel in Briah, and so forth.

"Clear" to you may be wrong, however.

The chakra primarily deals with creative energies, especially the most primal, the sexual. It raises the energy from the Muladhara simple "survival of self" to survival of proxy-selves, those close identified with one such as mate and children. In more civilized times, the energy has application in broader creative endeavors, although it's primal nature of procreation and reapplication of the same energies.

That part of the body holds a concentration of nerves that branch into the the three Fs: fighting, fleeing, and, uh, copulating 👿 It's no surprise, then, that the chakra corresponds to Mars among the planets and Water among the elements.

@Jason R said

"
"sure, pending the establishment of authorial intent. in this case it becomes a religious issue because the author is presumed to be discarnate and giving dictation to a scribe who is supposed to have previously written a paraphrase of the Stele around which the entirety of the scripture is poised. is there a question as to whether the original paraphrase by Crowley read as 'kill'? if it did not, why were the 1912 Equinox and the 1936 Equinox of the Gods Paraphrases wrong as they included 'kill'? what's your story?"
...I believe in the story provided by AC."
so with regard to the paraphrase of the Stele of Revealing, do you think that it was 'kill' or 'fill' in that spot? the reason that i ask is that Crowley's account is that he received an order from his Holy Guardian Angel (and the author of the scripture) that he should quote the paraphrase, and made a note to the typist of "Liber CCXX" that it should be inserted there. if his paraphrase said 'kill', then so should that scripture's typescript.

"I don’t know about it being a religious thing, but that it was “received”. I feel that what the actual stele says is irrelevant; I feel what matters is what ended up within the Book all these years; especially what was noted within Liber XXXI."
what was noted in the manuscript (Liber XXXI) was that it should contain the paraphrase text quoted, and now the vellum book which featured it is missing. thus i asked what you think it said, because the reception + manuscript indicates that if the paraphrase said 'kill' then so should the manuscript and the typescript.

"I am against the idea of changing it to “kill” - if that’s what you mean by my “story”."
no, what i mean by 'your story' is your account of how things stood with Crowley, his Holy Guardian Angel, and the author of the scripture he was mediumistically conveying. do you think the paraphrase said 'kill' and this is what was intended by the author, or that it said 'fill'? do you think for some reason that it doesn't matter? if so, why, given what i have said above about the note and the order to quote the paraphrase (exactly?)? wouldn't your interest in seeing to the proper rendering of the event and the manuscript drive you to a similar conclusion?

"
"in terms of XXXI this is surely accurate. in terms of the intention for publication by cults with an interest this is not agreed."
... they shouldn’t meddle with {the book}."
that's the point: they already have. the Frater Superior of the OTO is trying to rectify this.

"I don't think {they} should have “authority” over whats in it, i.e. changes. I realize they don’t agree of course."
FALSE, they DO agree, and only differ from your reasoning about what constitutes 'changing' and how to go about 'keeping it from changes'. Hymenaeus Beta is arguing that he and others mistakenly left it unchanged when in fact it should have been corrected early on.

"
"not for a scripture, especially once you're talking about gods and getting what they intended right, neither unintentionally or intentinally corrupting the thing, and, when you find a problem, correcting it as soon as you know about it. what puny zealots in the trenches what got used to a particular religious Magic Book might want is unimportant."
Actuality I feel no one CAN change it."
in which case you do not have anything to dispute with them, because what is being disputed is impossible. what they do, therefore, is fine.

"Yes, they can change theirs, or the new versions; but the original is there. Liber XXXI does not use “kill”; all the copies until now use “fill”. What is “out there” already, and has been ingrained in MOST Thelemites, is the Book using fill."
the argument is that Liber XXXI implies 'kill' by reference to the vellum book. (in?)conveniently the vellum book has gone missing. you are apparently willing to accept that the vellum book had 'fill' and Crowley remembered it properly or that it isn't a typist note with the 'fill' but is a faithful rendering of what should be there (not justifying it).

"The problem using "kill", is with new Thelemites, and the division among Thelemites, and how we view the OHO."
he isn't the OHO of Thelema. his 'OHO' position is with respect to a (small?) portion of Thelema. why should he have a directing function with respect to Thelemites? arguably Thelemites are all full of their will and won't actually be swayed by this guy. you are talking about new cultists to the Thelemic religious groups who are likely to fall under the sway of the King of his order, the pontiff of his church, the EGC, and how he may inspire social rifts. does it matter? why should Thelema be monolithic or uninfluenced by social rifts or differences of opinion? wouldn't it BE better to have diffraction and differences of opinion on as many points as we can?

"ultimately that's the issue for modern times with young cults settling it in courts (because the author has the ability to determine its form). Scientologists leveraged some good degree of control over their scripture using the weight of L. Ron Hubbard's estate. I am not sure that Crowley's writing is recent enough in the case of Liber CCXX that a legal cap may be obtained. otherwise, whoever isn't putting resources into the actual republication has no call to complain. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. religions being what they will, they erupt in sectarian disputes and each faction does as it can. is this the Law of the Strong?"
I wouldn’t join the O.T.O. because of this. It may be silly, IDK; but I feel it is a show of bad judgement. Perhaps, this is something that the author (if you’re a believer) saw and is using to expose those who are not fit? This whole ordeal does make one scratch their head, and question these folks “fruits”."
absolutely! if you have qualms about any order or organization of that sort i can testify as to the wisdom of stepping back from it, especially when they are apparently struggling with differences of doctrine or minute points of scriptural derivation, or the like. I commend you on steering clear. I'd always think it would be best to be drawn TO such an ordeal-oriented initiatic membership cult and be familiar with many members who are welcoming. outside of that, almost any excuse should be sufficient to give it wide berth (and particularly anything associating itself with the Great Beast).

93,

It never occurred to me to meditate on them like that. Perhaps using the instructions in liber O for the god names and then analyse the feelings of each one. I found a nice explanation of each letter in the words as well like Adonai

"Aleph is air, the magick light, the pentagram and is a symbol of the elements defined and unified. Daleth is the devotion to the path that is necessary for success and which leads to the consecration of the magician to the Great Work itself. Nun, a fish, is the transformative power of the initiation of death and rebirth that is the method of the Great Work and the final Yod is Virgo, the Hermit of the Tarot and thus the Holy Guardian Angel himself. "

Source-http://ankhafnakhonsu.net/tag/yhvh/

93's.

So true Draco, sometimes I get the two mixed up.

On the other hand life is magick and magick is life

@mark0987 said

"93,

I was reading a book called, 'The Serpent Tongue', in which the authors claim to have found the key to the cipher in Liber Legis to develop a system of English Qabalah. Now I want to know if anyone else has an opinion? ."

JSK did not find the key to the cipher. The person that claimed to find the key to the cipher was Jim Lees. Jake happened to join Jim's group of practitioners around the time the foundational work of the E.'.Q.'. commenced.

@mark0987 said

"And by that I mean anyone with more experience than me."

I don't how much experience you have so it may be the case that you have more than me but I will offer my opinion based on my very limited experience with it: I wouldn't go as far to agree that it is THEE ONE E.'.Q.'. system but it's workable without having to do a lot of (or any for that matter) finagling. I'm comfortable adopting it as my go-to system for English Qabalistic analysis when I need to.

Why I am comfortable using it as my go-to for English Qabalistic analysis is because I hold the point of view that transliterating an English word into it's Greek, Latin or Hebrew equivalent a). leaves a lot of room for error and b). seems unnecessary. If I'm working with English why use another language?

@mark0987 said

"I personally don't like it. No one knows if the cipher is for the English qabalah, whilst such a system could be developed I believe there would be a lot more 'gematrial connections' than the proposed system"

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Gematrial Connections' but what wasn't emphasized in "The Serpent Tongue" that is highly emphasized in "The Magickal Language of the Book of the Law" by Cath Thompson (Jim Lees' literary executor and also a member of the group of people that developed this system) is that the ultimate test of the veracity of your analysis lies in the ability of a given number to be examined in multiple religions/philosophies/worldviews etc. and yield a consistent, coherent and harmonious chain of ideas. If this is what you mean or are pointing to when you say "Gematrial Connections" then you may want to pick up Cath's book and test the full system for yourself.

@mark0987 said

"Basically should I just focus on Greek and Hebrew Qabalah? Or should I also explore English qabalah? Or would this be a waste of my time?

93's."

That is something you will have to decide for yourself. Given that the Hebrew Qabalah is much more widely accepted then perhaps you should start there and move on to another language when you have some mastery of it.

93,

I don't take other medication, but I shall mention it if that changes. I take 400mg a day and that's enough I think. It seems to keep me more alert and concentrated also which helps with revision. Thank you very much for introducing it to me! 😀 I'll take it for 6 months and then see how a week or so goes without it and then I can decide what to do.

I hope other people who find this take the advice from it, because it really does work.

93's.

93,

The Will has been described in many ways including:
*

“the true Motion of thine inmost Being” (Liber Aleph, chapter 9) “the true purpose of the totality of your Being.” (“Duty,” Section A, part 5.) “The will is but the dynamic aspect of the self...” (“Liber II: The Message of the Master Therion”) “our true orbit, as marked out by the nature of our position, the law of our growth, the impulse of our past experiences.” (Introduction to The Book of the Law) “The reason of one's incarnation...” (New Comment to Liber AL vel Legis I:52) “thy True Will is the Wisdom of the Ages of thy Generations, the Expression of that which hath fitted thee exactly to thine Environment.” (Liber Aleph, chapter 128)

The Will has been explained to not be simply “want” (or “desire” or “wishes”) in several places including:
*

“[the purpose of each individual is] the discovery of his True Will (as opposed to his conscious ideals or wishes) by each individual...” (“The Constitution of the Order of Thelemites”) “It should be clear that ‘Do what thou wilt’ does not mean ‘Do what you like.’ It is the apotheosis of Freedom; but it is also the strictest possible bond.” (“Liber II: The Message of the Master Therion”) “Do what thou wilt does not mean Do as you please, although it implies this degree of emancipation, that it is no longer possible to say à priori that a given action is ‘wrong.’ Each man has the right—and an absolute right—to accomplish his True Will.” (“The Method of Thelema”) “It will be seen that the formula – ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law’ has nothing to do with ‘Do as you please.’ It is much more difficult to comply with the Law of Thelema than to follow out slavishly a set of dead regulations.” (Eight Lectures on Yoga, “Yama.”)

Hope that's helpful.

93 93/93

@Dara said

""The Zohar first appeared in Spain in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named Moses de Leon. De Leon ascribed the work to Shimon bar Yochai, a rabbi of the 2nd century during the Roman persecution[3] who, according to Jewish legend,[4][5] hid in a cave for thirteen years studying the Torah and was inspired by the Prophet Elijah to write the Zohar. This accords with the traditional claim by adherents that Kabbalah is the concealed part of the Oral Torah."
"

Just tossing some ideas out there (I will ponder it some more through the day):
The Romans were tolerant of other peoples religions as long as they paid respect to the Roman Gods
One of the major reasons for Roman persecution of the Jews is their refusal to pay that respect
So it may have been to their advantage to appear as Pagans
Which then turned into a disadvantage when the Romans converted to Christianity

Thus, they first built up a Pagan front,
Then all of the sudden had to turn back to Monotheistic front more in line with Christianity
Leading to some confusion and the intermingling of various ideas.

The Golden Calf, in the Biblical story was destroyed by Moses out of anger
There might have even been an underground sect within Judaism that continued to worship Baal
Who had to hide this worship even from their own 'peoples'
(Leading to further confusion and intermingling)

Some food for thought, nothing more at the moment 😄

The idea, which btw i forgot to mention, is to teach you discipline. the discipline to meditate with total concentration- a most valuable tool in magick.
The discipline to focus intently on a single point- to focus the mind- and not to allow small distractions to lead you away from your aim.

Most valuable- and i appreciate the work i put into it. As i did achieve what i set out to do.

Nowadays, i recognize that some of the energies that need dealing with, also require a well trained magickain.

Just a side note anyone here from OPA ???

Q

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E2%88%B4A%E2%88%B4

See lineage links at the bottom.
Seek and you shall find.

Thanks for the link. 😄

93's

93

Welcome. Im new here myself (after some lurking of course 😀 ) and can only concur with Ash.

93 93 /93