College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

Hello and 93!
Is there any information on how high up in the A. '. A. '. system did Leila Waddell was able to reach?
93 93 / 93

Harpokrates ... That Sigil of the A.'.A.'. that you posted has a typo.

"Motta never expressed any interest in the OTO, he repeatedly said he had no interest in the OTO, until he learned that Crowley had willed the copyrights to the OTO."

There is a difference between claims regarding the OTO and claims regarding the AA. Two very different orders with very different purposes.
This whole thing (including the Fill/Kill debacle) boils down to control and not the "spiritual reality of A.'.A.'. nor tradition of OTO".

Also, Liber Vesta... seriously?

" I think what HB means by the phrase "The Officers of the A.'.A.'." is "The Officers of THE A.'.A.'." Gunther, Wasserman and Breeze "

I'm guessing that they are the creators of Liber Vesta as well?

"I've read it. He says Crowley must have 'forgot' that the 'fill me' in the Evocation of Bartzabel was really a 'kill me'. In other words - he's defending a two typo theory. "

So according to this, Crowley was Mr. Magoo and not the Magus of the Aeon.

The is a PDF addendum to Hymenaeus Beta's explanation of the "fill/kill" correction to Liber CCXX released today (5/7/13) published on the OTO website.

HB writes:

"“ Ritual CXX, called of Passing through the Tuat, ” or “Liber Cadaveris,” appears as the first of several papers in a MS. notebook, Yorke Collection O S 26. It is immediately followed by the MS. of an O.T.O. degree paper, Crowley’s second version of Liber C, Agape Azoth , which is dated internally to December 1912. “ Ritual CXX ” is therefore earlier, but probably not by much. It is important to bear in mind t hat Crowley sometimes worked in multiple notebooks at once, and the contents are not always strictly chronological , i.e., they do not necessarily appear in the order they were written . In other words, he sometimes wrote on a paper available basis . But the se two papers appear with no intervening blank pages. I therefore believe that “ Ritual CXX ” was written in 1912, around the time that Crowley made the correction from “fill” to “kill” in III:37 in his copy of Thelema , i.e., concurrently with his publication of the MS. of Liber Legis and the Stèle Paraphrase in The Equinox I(7) (spring 1912) or soon thereafter.
"

Still, the manuscript says "fill" independently of these documents. And we can go back and say that Crowley never published Liber 220 with "kill"

I suspected that was the case.
Thank you Jim.

It also got me thinking that this, in theory, would affect not only GD/thelemic working over there, but also the very traditional working of a Masonic Lodge.

Thank you ThelemicMage... however, it was not exactly what I asked. I know why the south is fire and such attributions. My point is that in the southern hemisphere the path of the sun seems counterclockwise. Therefore over there, the point where the sun is highest would be the north and that would be the natural placement for fire.
Or so it seems...

93!
A friend of mine that lives in Argentina asked me a question that has gotten me thinking. When in the south hemisphere should one change the clockwise sequence of east-south-west-north for a counterclockwise? This is since south is the highest place for the sun and therefore attributed to fire, but in the southern hemisphere, the highest point for the sun should be north, therefore changing the elemental attributions.
I told him that I would change them to follow the path of the sun on the southern hemisphere, but it would then change the archangelic placements. Also, if one follows this logic, the lesser ritual of the hexagram is also affected to name a few rituals that follow the path of the sun.
Thoughts?
93s

@Miss Dara 217 said

"

Now I could bring up the fact that Thelema ceased to exist when Germer closed down the Agape Lodge, but that the rest of you have been using the name for decades. But that wouldn't be fair, and neither is your statement that the GD 'ceased to exist' in 1900. "

Frater Potater wrote:

"@Metzareph: Is your avatar from the film "Holy Mountain"?"

yep...

Jim wrote:

"Notice also that when you write "war" in Hebrew characters - Vav Alef Reysh - it totals 207"

Thank you!

I looked 207 and it seems that pushes this in the right direction, and even clarifies the nature of this War...

ברה – to cut; to feed, to eat; to separate, select.

בהר – to be bright, white.

גדר – to hem in, enclose, surround; hedge in, wall in; wall up; wall-maker, mason; wall of a vineyard; fence; walled place; pr.n. "Enclosure", "Wall", "Fortress"

This last one goes perfectly with the idea in Ch III, v. 4-6:

"4. Choose ye an island!
5. Fortify it!
6. Dung it about with enginery of war!"

Further:
זקק – distill, trickle; refine, percolate, filter; to burn, flame, glow; to compress, tie, bind, oblige.

This seems to point to the nature of this "War"... to distill and remove the aspects of the self that are obstructing the Light by concentration and constant effort (the fortified island)

93 all!

I've been doing some meditation on the III Chapter and I want to share some ideas about Ra Hoor Khuit/War/Vengance.
I had some trouble digesting the idea of destruction without a purpose i.e. war and I wanted to follow the interpretation of a literal war. However, there is something that changes things... if you look closely at the text, it is clear that it is capitalized. Vengeance is also capitalized. They are not referring to the common idea of "war" but a special type of war, an internal war. If capitalized, it needs to be understood as not taking place in in Assiah but Yetziratic (or even Briatic).

This war is a War that takes place inside the person.

Why War... and why is it that Ra Hoor Khuit presents Himself as God of "War and Vengeance?" Something that came to mind is that the God of the Third Chapter rules over War, meaning that controls the expression of War (Conquers). Since this War is internal, the energy is re-directed for the Great Work (resulting in Peace).
We all know that the GW has to take place in the material plane i.e. Assiah, but the alchemy of transformation also happens (and in fact starts) internally. Vengeance is sparked by the harm we've inflicted by our own words, thoughts and actions. These mistakes are the infliction, upon ourselves, that causes the violent revenge.
We constantly externalize the energy of Ra Hoor Khuit when it needs to be internal, and internalize the energy of Hoor Paar Kraat when it needs to be external, resulting in wasting energy and time.
But like with any initiatory path, when the heart (Heru Ra Ha) is not meditating and balancing these two aspects, little progress is made.

Thoughts?

@Metzareph said

"Which, the beeswing matter? Yes, I think it's in the commentaries. Yes, it's in the first line of the New Comment for Cap. III, vv. 23-25."

Oh cool! Thanks!

@Jim Eshelman said

"Here's something basic, that I don't think I've seen mentioned before - but it massively simplifies one of the usual complexities of making the cakes.

"Thick leavings of red wine" - Crowley's reference to this as the beeswing of port - is readily available in the spice section of most grocery stores. It's creme of tartar. It's the same thing!
"

Interesting... Crowley mentions this somewhere?

Very interesting!
Thanks!

On that same line, I'm assuming that Aleister Crowley, being the beginning of a new (thelemic) apostolic line would be consider as valid as any "old aeon" one... fwiw, right?

Yes, I mean through the Gnostic Tradition. This is what I'm talking about:

1893 - Jules Stanslas Doinel consecrates Gerard Encausse
1909 - Dr. Gerard Encausse consecrates Dr. Theodor Reuss
1912 - Dr. Theodor Reuss consecrates Sir Aleister Crowley

I have to admit that I'm not that familiar with Gnostic lineages.

93s
~Juan

Hello all,

I would like to know what is the official theory for the Apostolic Succession of Aleister Crowley. I'm not familiar with this particular subject in reference to AC, but I'm curious.
Thanks!
93s

Thank you!

@Takamba said

"Soror means "sister (of the sorority).""

Yes, thanks, I know that. I mean the person Crowley was writing. I was under the impression that it was Jane Wolfe but I was told it was not.