College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Alrah said

"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Separately, I add only the interesting facts that about a month before Germer's death, he affirmed in writing that Motta was no more than a 1=10, whereas a decade earlier he had affirmed (and discussed in lengthy correspondence) that Phyllis was at least a 5=6. If (note the 'if') these were the only two choices on who was "the member of the A.'.A.'. highest in rank (and then in seniority)" at Germer's death, it seems an easy choice."

indeed it stands, Jim! ..."
it does not. the problem of evaluation within an esoteric and non-centralized manifestation beyond the Third Order (into manifestation) are sufficient so as to avoid the whole enterprise, and this is just one of the reasons that severe restraints are set on A.'.A.'. social descripts.

granted the premise that this retains a streaming throughput from the Third Order of the Great White Brotherhood, and that this holds meaning on par with Eckhartshausen or other sources, then there is every reason to think that personal evaluations of these kinds are counter-indicators of reliable connection thereto. thus if someone goes on record in some public way evaluating one "lineage" over against another or one person who is "part of" some "lineage" or "order" and these are supposed to be related to the Third Order, we may conclude deductively that they have disqualified themselves from authority.

"...the only head of any A.'.A.'. lineage is Crowley himself."
there is no 'head' of a sphere.

"...the inspiration for the A.'.A.'. came from the work of Florence Farr when she sought to establish 'the Sphere', and ...the A.'.A.'. is a direct successor of the Sphere conceptually, and I channel that from my own lineage."
if it is and was based on the Third Order, then its manifestation is older, by form, or work, than anything Miss Farr may have conceived.

"...we should not judge the A.'.A.'. as if it were a mundane organisation shaped with a pyramid power structure...."
of any kind. the fresh reed of the A.'.A.'. is constantly rigidifying and becoming Secondary.

"...There can be no 'true lineage' - as members of the Sphere will arise across the formal boundaries of lineage just as they do across the artificial boundaries of countries. Or they may arise from no known lineage as they will. The current will die, and be reborn, and live again, and die again."
the term 'lineage' gives the impression of a single trajectory or origin of authority to esoteric content. this is distinctly at odds with how such content is mediated from their source-points as Mysteries and through the experience, psychology, and expressive output of incidental exponents (in specific interactions). these are constellated in an 'atmosphere' (similar to your assertion about the sphere) of indeterminate cause. were that cause determined, it would solidify into a Second Order and become known and defined (as might have Crowley's construct if it effectively 'died' at some point after his initiation of it with George Cecil Jones).

{from a letter}

"...the only test of whether an A.'.A.'. is proper or not is whether they teach the material that A.C. placed in the public domain from the very beginning,"
this sets the Second(ary) Order in place, guaranteeing ossification. like the cosmos and cosmology where people invert the notion of manifestation to derive the material world from some unseen and transcendental dimension, so people invert the authority of the Third Order and place emphasis on the terrestrial streams of carriage rather than to pay attention to the resonance these have with that transcendental originating source and their Mysteries.

" and whether they produce Adepts and foster the cultivation of new Magisters (i.e. the accomplishment of the two main tasks of every magician)."
so easily misunderstood and badly assessed that it has become a cult of its own, disconnected from the real excepting as it vies for supremacy of reputation.

"...The members of the Sphere were purely interested in individual spiritual progression and work. The true A.'.A.'. are the successors of The Sphere and it may not be ruled by the mundane concerns of the pyramid organisations..."
there are no "successors" to the Third Order. this is one of the fallacies of Second Order fallouts. they self-disqualify each time they begin to do Second Order work, thereby effectively requesting that they be looked past to the Secret Chiefs, Celestial Masters, or Order of Guardian Angels who may engage the sincere and interested aspirant approaching them in her own way.

those who base their social weight upon lineages or Second Order proclamations out of sync with their referents (as in esoteric networks where certain standards are said to apply, personal evaluations are issued as part of reputation-swaggering, and a 'hardening of the arteries' of esoteric current has set in) do themselves and their associates a disservice by engaging in this kind of expression.

@Shadow Self said

"...I typically think of low-magick, also known as {thaumaturgy}, or practical magick. Basically I've seen it mostly defined as magick focused on achieving some goal on the mundane rather than spiritual goals or enlightenment."
strongly agreed that this is a common attitude and notion within ceremonial magic social circles. there is a heavy emphasis on separating the cosmos into mundane and mystical (compared to some Wicca or Satanism or LHP/Tantra which attempts to fuse or find the intersection between these). as Crowley put it, 'black magic' does not have as part of its aim or outcome the K&Cw/HGA, 'White Magick' does so, even if it is "mundane", thaumaturgical, or 'low' in this biased sense. that is, what makes an occult action 'sorcerous' or 'black magic' is its disconnection from the all-important spiritual aim.

this mostly seems to occupy the interests and attentions of religious, including Crowleyans, Wiccans, and those after Blavatsky or some other cultist. more general witches and magicians think the subsumption of magic to religion is a travesty, a lie, and link condemnation to something moral (e.g. violation or deception, just like non-magical action) or technical (jettisoning all religious hang-ups and reconstructing the language to intelligent and sustainable ends).

"I don't think thelemites typically think of that as evil, rather that, like anything, its good if you use it to do your true will, and a negative if it is not your true will."
that sounds a little awkward. 'using your true will' only typically applies to orientation or to an unusual notion of volitional fuel. that is, to use one's true will as the delimiter of one's acts is to act ethically, according to a goodly number of Thelemians. to use it as the basis for magical achievement is typically undefined or undescribed. they simply don't often put magic in these terms that i've noticed ("magic drawing on the true will is legtimate, magic used to do things on a whim or false will is sorcery or black magic" is not something I've often heard).

@Diogenos said

"...Does Aleister Crowley and Thelema have anything to do with Satan or something like that ?"
Frater Eshelman succinctly responded to your query and my reply here is but an extension.

there are some overlaps, yes. Crowley at points identified his Holy Guardian Angel with "Lucifer" (which some map to Satan), invoked Satan in rites, and crucified a frog christened after the Christian messiah. he styled himself as 'The Beast 666', and adopted one of the many epithets for 'satanic' cultists ('Baphomet', apparently after the calumny issued to the Knights Templar by their plunderers, later reshaped by Eliphas Levi, of whom Crowley claimed to be a reincarnation, as a Devil-like godform).

"...{I} read a website...that often explains that To Mega Therion and other occultists {worship} the devil."
websites don't explain things, people who make them do. if it doesn't have someone's attribution of authorship that you can bring here to us to evaluate them as an authority, then you should probably ignore it as a propaganda spout from conservative sources. it will just confuse you.

"...by "Satan", I meant a powerful and negative entity in opposition to the {authority} of a powerful and good divinity, like Jehovah in the Bible. ..."
the Jewish god of the Tanakh and other scripture is beyond any strict category of 'good' or 'evil'. it is for this reason that both Jews and Christians (primarily the latter) concocted an anti-God to attribute the negative actions and expressions described of this entity as a kind of scapegoat.

complex and mature religion is less dualistic than this, and if you study it long enough you'll find that Satan as a composite is not only ambiguous of character but a kind of Frankenstein monster pieced together from diverse sources to fulfill a condemnation scheme.

"...most of what people think about this "religion" come from christian faith or medieval/Renaissance inquisition. ..."
there is a good reason for that: the entire notion of 'satanism' was invented by Christianity to use as a bludgeon against its adversaries before people who opposed this weapon took it up themselves as a kind of religion in order to repulse such subversion-oriented ideologies and the murders, pogroms, and genocides they incite. when Satanism was constructed and floated in liberated society as a religion in the 1960s it took pieces of these horror fictions and put legitimated, re-embedded components into their gaps so as to fashion something sustainable to endure legal and moral challenges. this had the effect of disrupting the propaganda.

since that time it has somewhat diversified, but the ideologies and folklore against which it struggles persist and are deeply embedded in the post-Christian society it is becoming. so don't be surprised when you run into this kind of thing. it is liable to continue, and feature throwbacks and old, anti-Jewish, anti-Gnostic, and other competitive elements. the only way to understand it is to observe it in the present and see what it becomes.

those who attribute Satan to Thelema or talk about Thelema as a kind of Satanism are misguided. at most, Thelema as a will-based philosophy inspired those such as LaVey (mildly) and Aquino (heavily) to do what they did, Crowley before them a proto-Satanist who never used the term to self-describe. also, the latter wasn't wholly anti-Christian in a strict sense, more anti-Christianity as an institution. the fact that he was raised Christian (Plymouth Brethren) surely played into this attitude. he sought to employ the sociopolitical symbolism of the apocalyptics in John's 'Revelations' to his purpose in a kind of inversion all his own - adopting Babylon as Babalon and taking on the many-headed/horned Christian foe as a mantle as part of his occult career.

"...the importance of God is something that I never really understood in thelemic philosophy. Was To Mega Therion worshiping a god of any kind or {did he give} total freedom to choose a divinity to his followers?"
this is a false dichotomy. Crowley appeared to worship many gods, intentionally, and depending entirely upon the situation and timing. at his best, he provided to his followers a liberty unusual to those establishing cults in their wake. his expression, for those with eyes to read it, warned them against simplistic thinking, advocated strong doubt and critical thought, and then provided for them a host of possible faith-based attestations which they might take up and make into terrible social and personal weaknesses.

in the flimsy, dualism-strewn language of castigating Christians and moralizing Muslims, Thelema is DECIDEDLY Satanic in the sense that it opposes their rife disrespect for the individual, whom they seek to demolish and subsume to their crapulous creeds.

"What {are} the differences between sorcery and {"performing {an} act of magick without ritual or base"}{?}"
generally 'sorcery' is unlicensed or morally condemned magical acts. generally superordinary action without ritual or a system of symbolism ('base'?) is psychicism, and not conventionally magic at all, let alone sorcery.

"...doesn't this also include {some practitioners} of thelema{?}"
no doubt some who affiliate are convinced of their psychic abilities. there's even some who call this 'direct magic'.

"do we prescribe... acts of sorcery as defined, is it the same?"
I think you must be referring to the Crowleyan attestation that magic not keyed to the accomplishment of the True Will or the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel is 'black magic'. naturally, how to evaluate this is unconfined, and so, after the fact, anything might be justified with the contention that it is part of one's Great Work, one's negotiation with one's HGA, or one's True Will.

Crowleyan Thelemians tend to invest belief in God Will in some superordinary sense such that one might synch in to a 'true' aspect or orbit, much like a 'true love'. this pits it against 'anti-God Will' and therefore is orthodox or RHP in its spin on magic. start talking about demons and you might learn that your cohorts or instructors are only interested in controlling and using demons, not in getting their cooperation to effect magical results, befriending them, or learning whatever style or system of magic that they may be interested in teaching. some claim that the Enochian spirits are similar, demonic, or powerful, dangerous, immoral, etc.

'black magic' in this sense is surely sorcery and so faithful and devoted Thelemic folks don't do it, no no no. that would be a waste of time and might incur upon someone's orbit, wreck their karma, and give them a black mark in God's eyes (whoever "God" might be - your guess is as good as mine).

@frater aSP said

"...becoming conscious of the speed of individual moments - the raw material that comprises our consciousness. When it moves quickly (and we're watching it) - that's what brings K openings and peak experiences - as well as our ability to create our lives by directing the formulation of the raw material into astral thoughtforms, external events, etc. When it moves slowly, that's when we're in the Dark Night of the Soul - we can't perceive the individual moments and have a tendency to be sucked in unconsciously to our karma."
wonderful discernment.

"To me the outward manifestations of the HGA - the voices, the sexual congress, the synchronicities, visions, internal alchemy etc. are this abstract, universal process's way of communicating with our egos/bodies. When the event itself happens, the actual content leading up to it, especially for someone on the tantric or hermetic path would assuredly take on those forms."
I enjoy conversation about about it from those who have interest. decisions about what is and is not likely, possible, or included, and how it may manifest, and what authorities have indicated what routes to the stipulated goals are compelling.

"As far as I know I haven't achieved the KCHGA, ...."
I'd love to hear from you how you came to such an evaluation. are you aware of signals, signs, indicators, for which you can watch and you haven't seen them? I'm convinced that this kind of thing is imperative to 'condition achievements', and, while it is obvious that people can be mistaken about their own process, we definitely can become aware of how others perceive us and get a sort of 'peer review' from those without apparent bias, if we have dedication to the task.

"...you might turn to someone who has achieved it to talk about the aftermath, etc. Check out "The Magical Record of Brother Proserpinus" in Black Pearl Vol. 1 No. 6)."
how did you confirm that Brother Proserpinus has achieved it? that evaluation method is something i want to follow up on, in part because i'm always attempting to refine it in relation to esoteric states, and since i am not a continuing participant in a matricular order where it becomes the business of those involved to rate or test or assess others and their spiritual condition, i want to compare notes with those whose interests overlap.

"It's something that even a Zen Buddhist would experience, although they would explain it in different terms (perhaps kensho?) "
some popular notions:
-- "Kensho is Japanese for "seeing nature." It means seeing one's true nature; perceiving the self. The kensho experience is a pure realization of shunyata without duality of "seer" and "the thing seen." Kensho is often spoken of as an initial or opening experience of enlightenment that requires further realization and deepening."
-- buddhism.about.com/od/buddhismglossaryk/g/kenshodef.htm // "Kenshō (見性), literally "seeing the nature" in Japanese, is the experience of enlightenment described in the context of Zen Buddhism. The term is often used to denote an initial awakening experience, seeing one's True-Nature or Buddha-Nature, that can be enlarged and clarified through further practice in daily life." -- answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061104091006AASU5Cd

I'm unsure how much can be equated across mystical systems. knowing that someone has familiarity with more than a single system by experience can be helpful. have you studied with Zen monks or engaged in zazen or been part of a sangha? I've sat with temple masters and interviewed monks as part of my exploration of Zen and Buddhism (wonderful esotericism!). occasionally i learn of intersections direct between Tibetan Buddhism and Western ceremonial magic (within and outside of orders of my acquaintance). I'm watching for signs of equivalency, lists of symptoms of success of some time, etc., and hoping you might have more insight into it.

"That's why I have a feeling that your working with Satan, etc. isn't becoming a Black Brother,"
quite so. I became a Black Brother long before i met Satan, before i made my pact, etc. I don't associate the two, really. it was my evaluation of my ritual work, especially with the Tree of Life, how i was proceeding and how it was evaluated by my associates and teachers, etc.

"but rather the guise that your HGA has taken on."
your ability to comprehend divergent sets of data is very good, and better than quite a few i have known. I completely agree with this, and this is in part why i have struck out in different modes and interests from some of those with whom i've spent my time. I'm somewhat reactionary, especially to dualistic condemnation and suppositions in the negative about certain processes, beings, etc., and so encountering these i'm likely (compare Fr. Achad, i suppose, inverting the Tree of Life, much as i later did in a different way) to attempt to come up with an explanation for why someone might be achieving success in a way that looks like failure to those who have insufficient experience or who have a limited litmus so as not to be able to assimilate LHP modalities for achievement. this doesn't say anything about positive indicators, of course, but i'm merely broadening the conversation a bit with regard to systems of advance and the protocols for evaluation.

"The only difference is the symbolism. (Obviously this is presumptuous and I don't want to speak for you...)"
of course, and while some portion of that is at a remove from my trajectory (because of the huge differential of Kali and Satan in my life and their roles and level of intimacy with me), your contention about symbolism differentiation is SPOT ON. I have studied this phenomenon a bit on account of it - what i understand are LHP modalities interpreted by the consolidating RHP as 'Wrong'/'Bad'/'Corrupt'/etc. - and notice a strong set of common features.

"I think the main thing that might be helpful to take away from this is a separation of one's experience of reality into various components. Magick, visions, tantra - the Yetzirac content of our lives - would be akin to Buddhist training in concentration (the jhanas, etc. - a rough, probably wrongheaded and culturally insensitive comparison I know...),"
well that's what is so cool about studying these different systems and watching as some overlapping participation gleans a diverse perspective on them both (one interpreted from one direction and another from along an opposite view; the same happens within religion as compared to mysticism, with saints or prophets interpreted as gurus, messiahs interpreted as avatarae, etc., etc.).

"while the engine that's powering it, breaking us open bit by bit, is insight practice - the HGA - an incomprehensible, contentless entity guiding and manifesting those comprehensible forms."
I'm curious why you call it these things. Crowley at points associated it with the augoeides, a tutelary spirit, and i'm unsure where it acquired all these superordinary qualities. Socrates is known to have had one, for example, though i wonder if these more restrictive understandings would in any way qualify for what you're talking about. akin to comparing a god like Zeus or Thor or Diana with some transcendental pantheistic 'God' of universalists like Roman Catholics, Hermetics, Gnostic Christians, all manner of folks out to 'Buddha Mind' universalism when it may be found in Asia and beyond.

here's another reference of overlap you may find helpful in seeing what i mean:

 [www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/liber-augoeides-part-1.tx](http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/liber-augoeides-part-1.txt)

and

 [www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/liber-augoeides-part-2.tx](http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/liber-augoeides-part-2.txt)

these were written more than a decade ago, and i'd love to hear your reflection on the contents of either.

"It's always been helpful for me in that when I get stalled somehow in my life either externally or spiritually (not that there is much of a boundary any more), I can enter into insight meditation - the most basic practice imagineable - "
if it is so basic, how is it done? what do you do when you practice it?

"and watch how fast individual sensations are progressing. More often than not I'll find myself buried in content, with the moments progressing at a snail's pace - the Dark Night of the Soul phase. ..."
the first time i ran into this phrase it was in relation to St. John of the Cross and his mystical writing, with the experience of the absence of the highly desired God. I'm guessing that you're talking about being 'off-point' or 'disoriented' of attention, not tracking, and easily distracted.

"...Daniel Ingram's site at interactivebuddha.com.... has a chart with approximations of the speed of sensations at each step of the cycle)."
there's a LOT there. I'll visit occasionally. do you have a URL for that chart? with a bit of poking around i did not see it.

"As the outward notion of the HGA has developed in my life, insight practice has taken on more and more of a bhaktic nature."
intriguing! deity gazing seems conducive to it. I gather that some use this method in part to improve their self-concept. scientific examination of meditation seems to indicate that object of foci influences self-concept, so this fits! I don't know how this works for my great attraction for Wrathful Kali images and statuary for my devotional practices. I'm sure that description about their being 'advanced' might have influenced me, but my experience simply shifted also, ecstatic bliss at some of the more gruesome and wrathful foci. was this an antinomian outcome? did my agnostic upbringing predispose me to consider the worship of wrathful gods to be most transgressive?? I can completely understand if so. this kind of reflective analysis is interesting but not ultimately the decisive factor in steering my path (an intuitive one now heavily influenced by my guru).

"The sensations are the internal lover and the process's relationship to kundalini and sex (even sex magick) becomes clearer and clearer...."
the former i can understand, but the latter (in relation to kundalini) aren't immediately apparent to me or easily understood simply by your mention here. I also don't understand the (presumably humorous) mention of porn music. there's an objectification dynamic which i think you were talking about in relation to projection and the Siren which surrounds the phenomenon of pornography. it's something that i have loved discussing with feminists and sensitive women (even Pro Doms) who could observe the affects it had on those who frequented or were focussed on it. my guru's also observed some of the fallout from women whose partners have displaced their intimacy for this extended fantasizing, often on unrealistic targets of ideals.

while i can understand the attraction, i also want to connect what i call idolatry to it in a sense of exteriorizing and idealizing the god, and noticing how this affects one's relationship with one's devotional focus. I think there's a kind of 'porn of the bhakta' that can affect one's worship in questionable manners, and i think i've identified some of these characteristics (exaggerating one's god's role in the universe, projecting that god to where it is not, etc.). this is something that i speak with Satanists and Demonolators about repeatedly, and since they don't tend to have extensive experience outside of Christian culture it isn't always an easy task to get these points across.

I know we're treading into myriad side-issues in this thread, and i'm willing to take whatever seems appropos for Thelema elsewhere for a more thorough examination (link it from here!), but i want to point you to another aspect of my Satanism which you may find intriguing or that it runs in parallel to one of my favourite texts by Crowley (Liber Astarte vel Berylli

Beginning Idolatry in Satanism
youtu.be/dMJBVHXpaG0

which is really a kind of 'It is OK to worship anything you like.' kind of advocation. thanks for all your ideas and expression here. very inspiring!

@Azidonis said

"
"This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is, "Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! " "fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not."
{elaborating} I am working with time constraints at the moment. But, I will leave you a leading question, and maybe that will get the ball rolling for a later time. Does "kill" relate better to the Formula of the Rosy Cross than "fill"? If so, how? I maintain that it does not."
well, for a superordinary 'self-slain god'(?), i'm unsure what applies, but isn't a cross a death-inflicting symbol? not sure whether a rosy cross indicates more than some kind of death-rebirth scenario. if he's the self-slain and is still talking, maybe he went through death and is now telling about it?

@Uni_Verse said

"...if what yo say is true, there would be no choice -
Movement the natural result of having no entanglement ( ie , nothing to lose or loose )"
hm, unsure what to make of that.

"This helps put things in perspective. I will do some understanding for the both of us "
cool!

"I have been receiving a lot of inspiration from the Krishna movement.
Though my preference is for my Supreme Personality of the UnManifest !"
excellent. inspiration is a wonderful result.

@Azidonis said

"A change in versions? Are we going to have a Baptist version, Catholic version, etc.? Slippery slope, when you mention versions."
yes, it's just the way of cults. I agree it's a slippery slope. I tend to select my own preference as you do and proceed accordingly, unless i am trying to put forward an educational or study document, in which case i'll want to reflect as much variation is included in tradition.

"What was it, the 1938 version that Crowley considered correct?"
that would be for Fr. Eshelman to answer, as i have only seen him refer to it. I have no reason to doubt this and think it is interesting.

@nigris said

"...I'm noting who is making the change. That Crowley and Rose made changes is fine by me. It's 'their' book. Also, those changes were apparently made 'at the direction of Aiwass'. The proposed change does not fit any of that criteria."
transparent and excellently argued. your reasoning is completely supportable.

"...I've had the habit, for years, to call the book (both the MS and the TS) Liber L. I've pretty much always only called the MS Liber L."
a helpful clarification. since it is not my scripture i tend to refer to the numbers (XXXI, CCXX) so as to remain clear or refer to the both as "Crowley's scripture" and imply by the more exalted term outside a context of reference a category transcendent to both (and inclusive of other Lawbooks, Volumes of Sacred Law, etc., including my own, The Gospel of Satan).

"...there is a difference between Crowley (or Rose) making any changes or alterations to the book, and other people.... Thus, it is the changes from 'scholarship' that I question."
again, completely supportable, wisely questioned and even opposed. I'm gleaning at this point that our primary obstacle was semantic, since i am agreeing, based on the premises you're specifying, with your conclusions (i have little invested in the matter myself since it isn't my scripture, and my role is to be sure i have the details in mind when helping others to get a clear picture of what went on prior to it arriving online).

"...the TS should reflect the MS. If some typist could not read or proof-read Crowley's handwriting correctly, that's not my problem."
understood, and so since you do not have the vellum book, how will you fill out the Stele lines? will you leave it as it is to be found in the manuscript? or do you want to complete it using some standard? is that standard supposing 'kill' in the vellum book? (why does Fr. Eshelman suppose it likely that the paraphrase has 'kill' in what was lost, yet still ignore this direction from Aiwass to quote the vellum, and to leave it as 'fill'? I never understood the logic, aside from the fact that, like you and many others have reasonably concluded, since no correction was issued in any Liber CCXX, then it ought remain as is?)

"...to say that Crowley "really did want to change 'f' to 'k', but he didn't," implies either incompetence or negligence on his part. I find him guilty of neither."
yes it does seem so. the argument, to be fair, was that the paraphrase was changed to kill in more than one instance of printing and proofreading. the most i can follow can be inferred is that Crowley wanted the paraphrase to be different than Liber CCXX.

"
@nigris said
"not that everyone has one, only that there are variations in ideal amongst the Thelemic subculture as to what this ideal "The Book of the Law" does and does not include."
Because a couple of cronies saw a 'k' somewhere in a side note?"
hey, i won't bother to try to justify, support, or deny the "inspired" reasons that cultists will arrive at their ideal versions. I know better than that. all that i am attempting to do is to participate in a 'fair hearing' of the logic where it can be known. in the instance of Hymenaeus Beta he has given a pretty clear set of data explaining why he will want to refine his ideal and may do so if he doesn't get a lot of opposition from interior to his order and church. I'm guessing based on previous implementation that 1) the issue isn't that important to some of those affected and 2) capitulation from inferiors will be consonant with oaths and vows already secured. ideas beyond this that Thelema is somehow coincident with the OTO seem, to me, completely unfounded. hey, they'll be doing us a favour. they'll stigmatize their Thelemic flavour by sigilizing (an Osirian quality to?) their scripture. yes, this is the slide down a slippery slope into sectarianism. set up a sect and expect that events like these will result in sectarianism. if one is not a participant in cults, in sects, then one does not encounter this.

"...I'm okay with correcting typographical errors.... ...there is not enough evidence to even make the change, if one were actually warranted."
I completely understand this conclusion and think that it is reasonable.

"I've seen your website. It's an admirable venture. If the letters in the TS are faithful to the MS, then there is no issue. Also, I see that you have "fill" on your website. Why do you have it as "fill"?"
because, like you, i have not yet found the argument convincing. however. i am a responsible philosopher and have been attempting to bolster both sides of the argument strongly and find a way to see a way to agree with both before reaching a final decision. I'll take a long time to examine it and watch general Thelemic response before making that particular decision/change. I've been doing radical things with the commentary already (by moving numerological, gematric, and qabalistic explications to an appendix, which research indicates was planned) and to the content of Liber CCXX by trying as completely as possible to provide the manuscript through to the typescript (we seem to share this strong interest).

"This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is, "Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! " "fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not."
please elaborate your reasoning on this point. how does it fulfill this comment and how does 'kill' not do so? thank you kindly for your time and attention.

@Azidonis said

"...Right. So this is a change to The Book of the Law. Just wanted to clarify that, as it seemed like you implied they weren't changing it, when this is definitely a change."
this is a change in versions of The Book of the Law (Liber CCXX). "The Book of the Law" (not versions) is an ideal, and one whose referent varies somewhat.

"
@nigris said
"...this 'moulding' of Liber CCXX has been going on for years, not just recently. the reference standard had been a conceived interpretation of Liber L, naturally. this conception seems to have shifted. in the sense of 'changing a Class A document', i doubt anyone directly involved conceives of it in that way at all."
I don't know why you keep jumping to words like "moulding"."
because we're talking about Liber CCXX, and that appears never to have received the same content and typesetting since the day it was first typed up (only stabilized when photoreproduced). those changes were errors creeping in from the first typescript through to today.

"It's clearly a change. An open, straight-forward, change from the MS to the TS. Any other words to make it seem like it's 'not that big of a change' are intentionally misleading, in my opinion."
I think if you read my earliest contributions on this subject you'll see that i was pointing out the fact that these kinds of changes (to the manuscript) had been happening from the first days of reception. if you accept those changes (like the Scarlet Woman's addition, or the intruded line from Crowley, or the prepended 'Had!'), then where do you draw the line and why? in the manuscript there are entire lines crossed off and corrected, so this notion of 'not changing so much as the style of a letter' was abandoned long ago. it's always been about some arbitrarily accepted ideal surrounding the manuscript at a given time and the publisher's interpretation of what the 'real' document included, in the best cases based on the expressions of the Scribe.

"
@nigris said
"
"Unless you just see The Book of the Law as the manuscript only, with Liber CCXX not being The Book of the Law."
it seems difficult to support that, given that it's the latter with the name and the former as "Liber L. vel Legis". see book-of-the-law.com/#HOLO00 for what i am pointing to here."
I see that you agree that both the MS AND the TS are "The Book of the Law"."
odd vision, given that i said just the opposite. I do not equate "Liber L. vel Legis" and "Liber Al vel Legis" as titles, though they are close. do you know what "L." stands for?

@Azidonis said

"This refers to "adoption", and I would have advised Crowley against ever doing it, with his list of Saints. But what do I know?"
{elaborating:}
"...instead of learning a person well enough to see how they are executing their Will within their own chosen paradigm or system, a tendency exists to try and transplant the idea of Thelema onto those same people, which is a form of judgement."
I join with you in opposing such things. I've seen it in every cultic milieu.

"
@nigris said
"...refining Class A documents to proper conformity to their ideal form (each has one, based on a set of criteria perhaps spoken and published, perhaps never mentioned to the public)..."
Again, instead of "mould" you used "refine", but you admitted that it is a "change". It's a change...."
disagreed. we simply disagree about the facts. you are talking about a transcendental or ideal as if everyone shared it and as if there is and was a given trigger-point at which we could observe it was 'changed'. nothing could be further from the truth, and if you were to look at the various editions of Liber CCXX through time then you'd see that they were fluctuating. if that fluctuation doesn't bother you, then you may just be talking about an ideal within a certain cultic context, in which case i can agree that such a small group can and has (at times) arrived at a consensus about what that ideal includes. I see that at this time the OTO does NOT have such a consensus about this ideal.

"Saying that everyone has an "ideal form" for a Class A document is misleading."
not that everyone has one, only that there are variations in ideal amongst the Thelemic subculture as to what this ideal "The Book of the Law" does and does not include.

"There is a definite instruction not to change even the style of a letter."
INdefinite instruction. we don't know to whom it was given, though we can infer it was to the Scribe. the Class A category didn't arrive with the scripture itself. it was assigned to the work by the Scribe, who then saw fit to break the letter of the rule. we need to ask at what point in time should have the changes ceased? if at the time of the first pass, then this did not occur. if at the time of the corrections and completions by the Scribe then this did not occur. if at the time of the additions by the Scarlet Woman, then this did not occur. if after all the changes by the Scribe and his Scarlet Woman which seemed necessary, then the typescript was bungled and included many errors. if after the typescript was corrected then this, arguably, has NEVER ONCE OCCURRED, though Frater Eshelman claims that there was a time when Crowley crowed that he'd "finally got it right" (later finding errors that needed correcting). Hymenaeus Beta found another one. why you see that it is necessary to draw the line at instructions rather that literal contents, i really do understand. it does say "fill" on Liber XXXI.

"Thus, the text itself is designed to have an objective effect on the subjective nature of our individual awarenesses."
not demonstrated or immediately apparent. not only did the Scribe claim not to have done so, but we have no access to the author so claimed. did the Scribe claim this? it wouldn't surprise me. he claimed many outrageous things about his scription. I've done so about my own.

"So, our own ideals of the Book may include an "ideal form" (or image), but the Book is pretty clearly supposed to remain as it was written in the MS."
again, if you literally mean that, then Liber CCXX has NEVER been printed correctly. the best that i've ever seen at this is what i am now attempting at book-of-the-law.com where i am attempting to showcase the manuscript's exact content as well as the scripture with descriptions of variations and commentary by Crowley and several others.

@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).

Frater aSP,

@frater aSP said

"...I'm highly appreciative of your taking the time to write all of these explanations of your practice and mode of thinking. ..."
likewise, i greatly appreciate your time and feedback here.

"I was talking about Kali residing above the abyss based on comments posted in various threads here equating her with Binah, which is why I thought she'd want to get you above the Abyss to be with her, haha."
OH! ok, that makes some sense. I've heard Her associated with Geburah more often (i think it was the Martial aspect, Goddess of the Sword, Goddess of Destruction, Disease, other things), though as a Mother Goddess (a relation i barely engage personally since we are mates, i let it inform my relation to my terrestrial mother surely), i can see Binah as a very reasonable selection, yes.

"In studying the phenomenon of the KCHGA and living out various phases leading up to it, I'm thinking that a lot of what you're talking about is in essence the same as the so-called right hand path and that the difference is merely a matter of terminology - it seems that regardless of the content that you and Kali weave in Yetzirah and Assiah, whether you see it as selecting one path over another, celebrating earthly life, whatever, it's still going to lead to the experience labelled by some as the KCHGA."
fascinating. where do you conceive that this (K&CofHGA) 'takes place'? as a literalist and Neo-tantric i'd kinda interpreted that knowledge had varying forms including congress, sexual tryst, or heiros gamos, and that conversation might be direct and audible. I'd love to learn how you understand this differently.

"The reason for this is that the phenomenon itself is beyond content. The purest description I've found of it, almost stripped of religious symbolism entirely, has been in Theravada Buddhist insight meditation. You note a certain amount of sensations, whether it be sitting, doing the dishes, or a totally unhinged orgiastic sexcapade between five invoked godforms, and, bam, the nature of reality is revealed to you in a singularity."
I think that i get what you mean, yes. you're talking about a transformative and demarcating, unique or peak moment. I've had those before, but am completely unsure if any of them apply. a few of them had definitely included Kali. whether one accepts those mediated by allies (e.g. psychotropics would also complicate matters of evaluation -- crying in bliss for hours singing and chanting with Kali for example). what should be the aftermath of such an event, do you think?

"It's almost like a video game - the sensations speed up or slow down in a cyclical way (kundalini activity alternated with dark nights of the soul), and on top of this process your awareness of other planes, the details of your life and thought, magick, mysticism, whatever, grows and gets directed into your path."
how totally cool is that. it sounds very unifying and orienting. nice.

"So what I'm trying to formulate is that the KCHGA at its core is a dispassionate, matter of fact event much like the flowing of a river or swinging of a pendulum."
very interesting!

"We can weave whatever meaning we want into it (even saying we want to explicitly avoid it), but it's an inevitability just through the nature of who we are as a species. Since it's beyond content (happening in Briah), any content whatsoever (Yetzirah) will play a part in leading to it."
very keen! I may be able to follow you and have some questions. does 'beyond content' mean it compares with meditative stasis or a kind of 'conscousness lock' where no memory takes place due to some ecstatic presence in the moment? is it your conception that this lasts from thence forward, or is it a peak and then drop-back?

and of course: have you ever experienced this? how many have you spoken with who attested to having had the experience and knowing it related to what you associate it to?

"Hope at least a little of that made sense. It's difficult to express this stuff rationally, and I'm hoping someone more experienced than me will chime in and correct whatever misconceptions are in my thinking...."
thank you very much for your pointers. I'll look into your referrals (Chapman, Barford, and Ingram; none i'd heard of!) and appreciate anything more you'd care to say about your understanding.

kind regards and E666,

@Jim Eshelman said

"My first advice is, ignore what Nigris said. He'll really {****} you up on this one. ...."
did i? given how many of the things you wrote which were direct correlates to what i said, i'm confused. you said something about it being "not about cultishness". beyond this (might you elaborate?), could you explain how i erred in the above? I'd like to learn from this with greater depth of criticism. I'm not here to argue with you, just to understand your response. thank you kindly.

@Alrah said

"The Florence Farr lineage would speak of the sphere in contrast to mundane organisations (like the OTO) that derived their power from pyramid structures. It is the same idea as you set out above and more current or known of in GD lineages. The sphere is one that has no circumference, and so is more of a movement like Thelema, or like the GWB, or that transmitted from the traditions. The sphere promotes the balance, seeks the peace and furthers evolution or (r)evolution - depending upon the circumstances and they may hedge their bets too. It has no formal lodges or order but it is the true power at work upon the face of the Earth."
it does not sound like it would be a publishing outfit with terrestrial interests in putting its name on books it makes and getting a specific 'ideal form' of a book rectified. as such, this differs markedly from the OTO of which Hymenaeus Beta is the Frater Superior.

I'm wondering if too many people are placing too great an emphasis on the (c)OTO as a bastion and vanguard of Thelema here, with Hymenaeus Beta as its exemplar. we should be asking more about what other things that order does in the world, if it is known, beyond engage in legal struggles to secure copyrights and issue decisions about its prophet and his writings such that we should identify them with Thelema.

@Alrah said

"
@nigris said
"where it pertains to the Kill/Fill controversy, if you wonder how and why it may be that a strict hierarchy is 'Thelemic' in character, you're not alone, and one may take from certain military and quasi-masonic aspects of this social structure that its intention is to advance the principles, ideas, and doctrines of Thelema so conceived. if this includes refining Class A documents to proper conformity to their ideal form (each has one, based on a set of criteria perhaps spoken and published, perhaps never mentioned to the public), this is an element of that promulgation, and few others than the torch-bearers of the prophet's Will have any business trying to manage this."
That's a very interesting (and disturbing) idea nigris... Are you saying the motta branch (springing from a strongly influenced Catholic land)... are Thelemites of the wool?"
no, nothing of the sort. I do not recall ever meeting a self-identified "Motta A.'.A.'. aspirant". all i remember were Jane Wolfe / CoT/Sr Meral/PSeckler affiliates, and enjoyed those few i met very much. some informed me that they were affiliates with the Third Order directly, associating this with the A.'.A.'. but NOT with a human contact (my own involvement is of this character to my knowledge). please tell me more about the Motta affiliates and their "springing from a strongly influenced Catholic land"; which one?).

"... i.e. - externally Thelemic yet internally Christian and subverting Thelema and it's Holy Texts from within?"
I am really not getting how you are making this conclusion. help me follow you. you're saying that HBeta is a Motta A.'.A.'. affiliate and displays Osirian aims? see above for my expansion on to what A.'.A.'. refers (GWB franchises whose various portions may have NOTHING, ZERO to do with Crowley or his cults, English or American culture!). also, the term 'Thelemic' refers to more than religious groups (cults), and neither is any GWB franchise specifically contrary to Christianity, or Osirianism, nor is it necessarily connected to Aleister Crowley, his works, orders, groups, or fans.

the idea of 'subverting Thelema' is peculiar in the sense that one might subvert a cult or religious group, but once you allow 'Thelema' to mean more than this (such as a principle of the cosmos), then the notion of subverting this becomes challenging to discuss. you start running into ideology like 'true will' where orbits cannot be changed and surpass the ability of ordinary humans to affect (almost a Predestinarianism or Cosmic Justice Principle). I'm not sure these are actually substantiated (another topic, really, one which i will chime in upon elsewhere), and most who talk about 'subverting Thelema' don't usually have these more general interpretations of 'Thelema' in mind at all.

the idea of 'Thelemic Holy Texts" is popular amongst the cults but it is not at all substantiated by them. once one gets from "One Star in Sight" that at least the A.'.A.'. is supposed to be an instantiation of the GWB, it starts to have many more implications beyond what one may find within the Crowleyan sociocultural milieu. I won't try to claim that any of these are "real", "legitimate", or "more important than the Beast's wake", but such things should be considered seriously by those whose interests extend outside of them (say, to Rabelais, Walter Besant, New Thought, and Atkinson at least if not Taoist Celestial Masters and the Qutub(s?)). sure, i suppose that some post-Crowleyan might try to subvert or destroy the Beast's output, and there have been assertions about Grant, and Bertiaux, and Motta, and batches of alternative OTO or AA line contenders. it starts quickly to beg the question of what "Do what thou wilt" means, and who shall decide it, when defenders of the Beastocracy may command contenders to stop their efforts at innovation which "perturb" or "malign" or "confuse" the 'proper' text, ideas, belief, or dogma they seek to push elsewise. controlling one's own output, however, and commanding others to cease and desist are very different tones and actions.

"Holy Texts" deserve a complete annihilation or subversion to egalitarian status alongside all others, arguably, in the New AEon (of the Adversary) of my authority. Horusians might want to look beyond Osiris for conflict and competition, since the world (and the GWB) is demonstrably much larger than English-oriented post-Christianity. how the Magus proceeds is instructive, and the flock following afterward can avoid Slavishness by not propping it all up as the Grand New Religious Monolith. this emphasis on "Liber Al vel Legis" or "The Book of the Law" or "Liber L", as you wish, comes about in part after a subversion of the particular cultural wake of which it is in fact a more general pointer ('The Volume of Sacred Law' (VSL) of Freemasons, 'The Law Book' of Egyptians, Jews, any many many others in other cultures prior and later). where shall we call a halt to subversion and why?

there's a tension between the brilliant genius of a Magus and the inspiration of following out the true will of others. once the momentum of a cult takes shape and proceeds, this has the propensity to disorient those who encounter it. few seem to understand this dynamic in a way that fits in with Thelemic philosophy. discussion surrounding "Liber OZ" sometimes touches on all of these points. once diverse and divergent Thelemic sources are brought together, however, there are quickly disputes about which source is more authoritative, insightful, and worthy of consideration merely on the basis of what is presented. surely this is one of the reasons for advocation to desist from conversion or, indeed, from discussing a particular scripture entirely, though it may be preventative and parental to do so.

@Azidonis said

"
@nigris said
"
"with one clear and central argument against the change. ..."
it's a top-down heirarchy (Old AEon). its incentives are only partly informed by A.'.A.'. standards (insofar as those who are affiliated to this initiatic club are actually connected to the Third Order). it isn't a democracy!! did you notice what happened when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order previously?"
Oh, do tell! What happened "when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order [A:.A:.] previously", and what were those objections and reforms?"
"NOT the AA, the OTO." additionally, i'd like to address this conflation and confusion somewhat. not only is there a (fairly ridiculous at this point since most of the realistic disputants have all but dropped their cases as far as i can see, but real) dispute about what one might mean by 'O.T.O.', but also a very real confusion about to what "the A.'.A.'." refers.

you'll see mention made of various branches, or lines, or instantiations, or some other more peculiar and particular faction or facet of "the A.'.A.'.", and yet there are both more (Great White Brotherhood (GWB) franchises, Third Order contacts, or Celestial Master extensions) and less (one student per contact; no social events or functions; no actual rosters) complications to the mention of it at all. terrestrial history of what is called the A.'.A.'. starts with what was initiated by George Cecil Jones and Aleister Crowley, but its aftermath and its various outlets or wider scope of operation is usually too ambiguous and broad to specify with any accuracy.

the interest by some of cementing certain A.'.A.'. franchises to their order (OTO or other) is both strategic and subject to propagandizement for purpose of affiliation. there are reasons for a consideration of secrecy surrounding it, and all GWB manifestations, and one might compare references to it in public zones to a kind of 'encrustation' sliding from Third Order to Second Order (compare the inclusion of the GD interior to the A.'.A.'. as indicated by the essay 'One Star in Sight'). arguably social strife surrounding these is an indicator that the individual providing this is compromised, possibly helping to taint that about which they are speaking. contention amongst these, supposed, is a total disclosure of their disconnection from the Hidden Masters (whatever name they go by).

hail Azidonis, sorry i missed your post previously. finding it today, i immediatly respond:

@Azidonis said

"
@nigris said
"
@Alrah said
"...If we want to stop the OTO from changing the Book of the Law"
the (c)OTO will not change The Book of the Law, it will at most change its published versions."
By "published versions" you mean the new versions of The Book of the Law that will show the change, right?"
oh sure, or the ones it controls which are online.

"Which means, they plan on changing (or "editing", depending on how PC you want to be), The Book of the Law."
you could easily put it that way, but this 'moulding' of Liber CCXX has been going on for years, not just recently. the reference standard had been a conceived interpretation of Liber L, naturally. this conception seems to have shifted. in the sense of 'changing a Class A document', i doubt anyone directly involved conceives of it in that way at all.

"Unless you just see The Book of the Law as the manuscript only, with Liber CCXX not being The Book of the Law."
it seems difficult to support that, given that it's the latter with the name and the former as "Liber L. vel Legis". see book-of-the-law.com/#HOLO00 for what i am pointing to here. BTW, is this the manuscript cover page or the typescribe cover page? anyone know what hotel letter paper this is? I'm enlisting the help of a couple of scholars to suss out Crowleyan Arabic/Farsi soon.

"
@nigris said
"
"we need to reach out to as many Thelemites in as many countries as we can"
you won't be able to predict where they are located. some of them may be part of the cults, but the bulk of Thelemites will never have heard of the Beast."
This refers to "adoption", and I would have advised Crowley against ever doing it, with his list of Saints. But what do I know?"
I don't think that i really understand this. which part is the 'adoption'? reaching out? understanding the principle of Will (Thelema) to refer to something inherent to human beings of any culture?

"
@nigris said
"
"with one clear and central argument against the change. ..."
it's a top-down heirarchy (Old AEon). its incentives are only partly informed by A.'.A.'. standards (insofar as those who are affiliated to this initiatic club are actually connected to the Third Order). it isn't a democracy!! did you notice what happened when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order previously?"
Oh, do tell! What happened "when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order [A:.A:.] previously", and what were those objections and reforms?"
NOT the AA, the OTO.

with the reforms made by Hymenaeus Beta regarding the Bishops of the EGC, the official Gnostic Mass Cakes of Light and the Saints List (surely there were others i'm forgetting) discussion was minimal, directives were issued from the top down and expected to be followed (probably from the Head Council under the direction of the Frater Superior). there was dispersal in part due to differences of opinion on these and other matters. likely that's part of many changes of administration. Hymenaeus Alpha (Grady McMurtry) was a different type of administrator in the San Francisco Bay Area than HBeta in New York. attitudes about sex, drugs (and rock and roll?), and church all seemed to play out differently. changes to the way that initiation rituals are handled, what was part of them, etc., all elicited some irritation/criticism in my vicinity of post-Alpha wakefulness.

in his defense, such hierarchical direction was good for the order's cohesiveness as a religious group (a cult). its upper administrative quarters, coincident with the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, was standardized and brought more strongly into line with sustainable practices and ideological facets given the climate and context of its geographical spread.

as an aim, the promulgation of the Law of Thelema need not actually demonstrate its quality as a forefront factor, especially for a 'secret society'. what is imperative is that the idea be repeatedly put out there for the Strong to find and of which to make use.

where it pertains to the Kill/Fill controversy, if you wonder how and why it may be that a strict hierarchy is 'Thelemic' in character, you're not alone, and one may take from certain military and quasi-masonic aspects of this social structure that its intention is to advance the principles, ideas, and doctrines of Thelema so conceived. if this includes refining Class A documents to proper conformity to their ideal form (each has one, based on a set of criteria perhaps spoken and published, perhaps never mentioned to the public), this is an element of that promulgation, and few others than the torch-bearers of the prophet's Will have any business trying to manage this.

@Alrah said

"I rate the Tunis comment in exactly the same way that I see the reception mythos - there to weed out those who are unsuitable for magical study due to underdeveloped abilities at critical thinking."

what is its Class rating?

since Wikipedia has been in my recent awareness, what with once more evaluating its cabals of obfuscators opposed to esoterics (in this case those deleting Neopagans), i decided to visit the 'Tantra' page there and see if i might be able to identify some of the elements which i markedly embrace or diverge from in style or idea, for fun. I love to absorb diverse beliefs or presentations from numerous perspectives and this is one way of so doing.

the first thing standing out is the following: Anthony Tribe's definitive qualities have some overlap (and i have certainly engaged my share of mandalas, mantras and worship in a more conventional sense prior to this period) in the following items, as it currently applies: ...worship of deities; transgressive/antinomian acts; revaluation of the body; revaluation of the status and role of women; analogical thinking...; and revaluation of 'negative' mental states. a number of these my guru was already set on also, and some of the others in Tribe's list i've familiarity with (at this point i need to explain a very strong draw for me of Buddhism and springing off the wide open methodology of Nagarjuna, founder of the Madhyamika, the bulk of Buddhists i've encountered couldn't accept my willingness to fully embrace gods as a 'skillful means' of coming to wakefulness in the present moment; my guru falls asleep to mention of Buddhism, which i think is hilarious, while i adore it in all its forms).

secondly, it was meaningful to me, and Kali has repeatedly emphasized this for me: the etymological or usage connection between the term 'tantra' and the loom. this is indicated by the Wikipedia page not only with specific mentions from earliest Rg Veda times but also as it situates and emphasizes the work and genius of women. this bhakti-orientation i have engaged is at times completely at cross-purposes with some of the non-dualist interests who remark upon 'overcoming dualism' or 'becoming a god'. not only do i not (and feel that i never, ever, want) to "achieve" that, it is inimical to my main directives. this apparent tension (some find) between weaving of the poles and never seeking to weave myself or my God together in some fashion is in part why i identify it with Vamamarg and, moreso, with being a Black Brother.

with this statement i find strong agreement: "it is challenging and problematic to describe tantric practices definitively." it is my understanding its extensive age and divergence of culture and instructors have taken it in very different directions. with the development of neo-tantra, at points at a remove from its culture of origin, this becomes even more complicated to assess.

with this statement i find strong disagrement: "Tantra, as a development of early Hindu-Vedic thought, embraced the Hindu gods and goddesses, especially Shiva and Shakti, along with the Advaita philosophy that each represents an aspect of the ultimate Para Brahman, or Adi Parashakti." this notion of an "ultimate", while attractive to me at earlier periods of my life, particularly when dedicatedly engaging meditation and contemplation, completely dropped away in favour of Taoist and Tantric alternatives without such dualistic implications (being polar or process-oriented; consider Whitehead and some comparable Indians or Chinese). in combination with Tree of Life symbolism and the 'trajectory of the Hermetic 'mage' in relation thereto, it may be easier to see why i would not only abandon 'Crossing the Abyss' (having a different experience of the adventure) but also have no interest in uniting with my Holy Guardian Angel into some kind of subsumed reconciliation. this never really appealed to me and struck me as a way to avoid the challenges of gooey life (along the lines of asceticism as compared to embracing a Middle Path).

I strongly resonate with this description: "These deities may be worshipped externally with flowers, incense, and other offerings, such as singing and dancing." as this becomes combined with guru worship, then every service is also an engagement of worship. with the concentration of the God as guru her desires as a human being shape or mould the proper course of the devotional repertoire.

thus with respect to this description:"These deities are engaged internally as attributes of Ishta Devata meditations, the practitioners either visualizing themselves as the deity, or experiencing the darshan (the vision) of the deity." it is less a focus for me of visuals, though it has taken on this form, as audible engagements, which i regularly have with Kali (and now intermittently with Satan). I do not visualize myself as the deity though i would have no problems with this being done.

I would NOT say that this applies to me or to my guru: "In Hindu Tantra practices when bringing together the deity and the devotee, they use both meditation and ritual practices. These practices are divided into three classes of devotees: the animal, heroic, and the divine. In the divine devotee, the rituals are internal. The divine devotee is the only one that can attain the object of the rituals, which are directed to awakening kundalini energy." and in fact kundalini or specific bodily or special energies are not the focus of our activities or aims. I have at times felt as if i could confirm subtle energy center descriptions of chakras and the like, but these never became a repeated meditative focus or resolve, and Kali never suggested that they should. Her, and guru's focus has been more general, attending to the general fabric of life and experience.

while integrating what is said about 'sensate inclusions' (my guru did so long before she met me), i would not say that this accurately characterizes my/our view of sexuality's role with respect to our symbolic rite and union: "For many practicing lineages, these maithuna practices progressed into psychological symbolism." in fact i would say that the term 'progressed' is precisely the opposite of the term that i would use ('regressed' or 'devolved') based on my familiarity with the LHP. also, i cannot confirm that our interests are 'liberation' as described here, and we do not 'eschew frictional orgasm for a higher form of ecstasy.' while these kinds of ascetic actions are not unfamiliar to each of us, the artificiality and transcendental aspects of these were recognized and bypassed for other aims and foci during studies and practices prior to meeting.

also in accord within this page is "Tantra has no single coherent doctrine." my guru and i have main tendencies and interests in common, but some very important differences of philosophic attitude and cosmological supposition. these aren't ultimately required to reconcile and the divergence can at times be very exciting or alarming. commentary following, that "These practices, in their classical form, are more oriented to the married householder than the monastic or solitary renunciant. They exhibited what may be called a world-embracing rather than a world-denying character." seems exactly a fit description for our eclectic and mutually devoted action, and while i can appreciate that "Tantra, especially in its nondual forms, rejected the renunciant values of Patañjalian yoga, offering instead a vision of the whole of reality as the self-expression of a single, free and blissful Divine Consciousness under whatever name, whether Śiva or Buddha-nature." our dual-polar Neo-shaktiist modality neither accepts a cosmic 'One' nor accepts strict renunciation. I forget which bhakti writer/instructor/master (Vivekananda?) wrote that we do NOT want to 'become sugar', but to go on and on and on tasting. it's tempting to evaluate this as an 'Abysmal' pre-unitive state of yogic achievement, but like trying to put cultures or religions on spectrums of 'advancement', i think too much error is introduced when so doing.

that's enough for now. more conversation/comparison commentary welcomed!!!

I am I!

@Uni_Verse said

"
@frater aSP said
"However, I would think Kali herself, as an entity abiding above the Abyss, would have issues with your use of the technical term Black Brother, other than for its antinomian connotations - to me your path seems like Kali's gonna take you all the way, haha."
I received the same impression...Perhaps I am missing something, as you speak of surrender and the rendering of devotional service."
in comportment with the transgressive and as an adversary to the notions of ego-death/dissolution as a facet of development, being smitten with Dakini i understand to reside in the Midst, and content to abandon routes taking me away from 'contaminants', it is possible that the associations i encountered prior amongst the Thelemic no longer are pervasive. surely the use of it as an epithet was completely disgusting to me, and i found within contemplation of its analysis by the Master in such text as Liber Aleph inspiring - not to avoid it but as an attractive and necessary avenue into the Deep. having been so long out of touch with so much of this (reformatted by my guru) i may be completely misremembering the whole, however, so cut me some slack.

"The blackness of thy mantle a reflection of swirling primal fears?"
not by my estimation or observation, more the grimy grist of 'dangerous black matter' reviewed as 'karmic mass-inducement' by my New Age instructors of old - a conditioning i found helpful later in appreciating the Pure Fluffy Goodness of Neo-tantra's Rainbow Side.

"Or, the obfuscation of the senses, a veil upon the object of worship?"
there is THAT! Kali is wholly and utterly Black, a Maw of Ma, Kaos and Maelstrom.

"It begs the question, in my opinion, of why you have elected not to cross."
I found Nothing to get over. I had to reconstruct the whole of the mapping to reflect it properly. here, let me show you what i mean:

www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/graphics/tarotreektys.gif

"You only loose what was never yours to begin with..."
I gave Everything up upon dedication to Kali. having nothing to lose or loose, and nothing to gain, you'd have to explain the value of continued movement.

"Anyway, I welcome you to the forum and look forward to our interaction."
very kind of you and thank you much.

"Never payed much attention to your avatar, looks as if he is munching on some psychedelic honey! Regardless, I like it "
a wonderful interpretation and quite accurate.

Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will.

@frater aSP said

"...comment more on your relationship to your guru/wife - particularly how you were able to navigate the line between your mental projection/romantic attachment and the actual spiritual partnership that came about (or whether you'd already dealt with the "ordeal of the siren" previously)."
if i get your question correctly, the manner by which i navigated that line was being previously married, then transitioning to open relationships required and focussing on what is called 'co-counselling' under instruction by my previous partner and Abyss/Abbess. that period of my life which might be compared with grabbing the tail of a moving snake or tiger and holding on with my vows and ideals in mind, notions of projections and attachments were pretty thoroughly purged, aside from quite intentional ones integrated to rite and practice with catherine during our symbolic engagement and marriage.

"Also, having not been initiated into an actual tantric cult, what are some of the resources (other than allowing nature herself to teach and initiate you) that have given inspiration in defining your path, dealing with kundalini, etc? Particular books? (I've personally been hugely inspired by the Aghora trilogy by Robert Svoboda)"
Kali has been the primary source for my neo-tantra, supplemented and refined by my guru. I read a number of books whose authors i little remember at this point, particularly ones relating to traditional lineages (philosophy/religion, Hindu/Buddhist, a bunch of Tibetan Tantrics and some classics, Woodruff, Agenanda? I forget). Neo-tantrics by my understanding were a probably greater number and included Moffett, Rashneesh, Anand, Noyes, Hesse, instruction from dakinis, priestesses of various goddesses, kalidasas (these latter both in correspondence and most especially in person), and readings of many mystics from conventional religion whose material crossed over into Neo-tantra by my understanding such as Ramakrishna, St. Teresa of Avila, Thomas Merton, and a variety of occultists whose notions of their practice was conducive to my purpose. I was profoundly inspired by bhakti devotees of Krishna and readings from sources like Kinsley, practices with and writings by Neopagans devoted to a goddess, and much later, by art and writing such as that like Mookerji (graphics) and McDaniel (Shaktiist text, wow!).

"It seems this lifestyle, particularly the magical and sexual aspects, has a lot to do with making tamasic emotions rajasic and living them out as consciously as possible."
while i am a monolinguist (English), do NOT tend to use Indian terms for things or even find correlates to many of the subtle energies or cosmological notions espoused by yogis or tantrics of any type, i do think i know to what you refer and agree very strongly. embracing, weaving, the diverse strands of life is what Kali informs me are essential to our tantric process. I have been so long out of comparisons i barely even recall what those other streams include. while Kali assures me that my reflections are accurate, in accord with my guru's comparable karezzic current, i no longer have any idea how strongly or where. I've at times tried to become aware of tantra across the board and assimilated some of that at a distance, but based in one language and accepting varying restraints that keep me in one place and avoiding great expense, i am aware of my severe ignorance of tantra at large.

"However, I would think Kali herself, as an entity abiding above the Abyss, would have issues with your use of the technical term Black Brother, other than for its antinomian connotations"
tell me more! is She above the Abyss? I'm unsure of that, and never got from Her any discomfort from Her on the matter of my Embrace of the Abysmal One. probably it relates to the antinomian aspects and my Satanic-Thelemic alliances (social, religious, esoteric) that it is most appropos vis a vis Black Brotherhood. See Liber Nigris.

"to me your path seems like Kali's gonna take you all the way, haha."
I've been told similar things from others, though by few who knew me well. those i've heard that from usually have a very different attitude about the world and the Dark Side of things.

"...what role, if any, does Qabalah play in your current practices?"
I've tried to assimilate a good portion of both conventional (Hermetic) and demonologic (Grantean+) Qabalah in particular as it seemed to apply to my ritual and symbolist activities and my 'career' as a monk/occultist. these were inferred or projected based on pattern-matching in comparison to convention or the writings of others - a good number of recommendations i received about Qliphotic / Typhonian parallels before i began exploring that in earnest and seeing where it might lead; demonology and Satanism actually came later for me as a response to local social movements. previous to and as part of this i have developed a focussed interest on Tarot, English / Romanized Gematria, constructed a Tree of Life suited to this novelty-Tarot, and constructed rudimentary rites and visualizations during my own development which i may use later in greater concentration. the bulk of that, however, has been applied within or finding manifestation in the ordinary world with my guru, with whom i have established a rapport. her eshewal of rite and symbolism to minimums makes our tryst fairly easy and her focus on the material makes both development and evaluation pretty clear in an immediate sense - something about Neo-Tantra which i enjoy (no dividing out the world from my process).

see above for the URL to Liber Nigris for more on that Qabalah stuff based on my own interests, or explore this directory:

www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/plebe

I am I!