Anyone have a take on this:
To summarize part:
Patanjali, who’s philosophy of the Yoga Sutras is becoming increasingly influential in Western yoga circles, never emphasized yoga as union, but rather described yoga as suspension, as restriction, as duality.
WHA!?
I hope you find peace and serenity in this situation soon V - doesn't sound fun. Keep in mind the actions of one individual do not reflect the masses, and that there are a$$holes and there are most of us who sometimes do a$$hole things. But, my advice, don't bother yourself with the extra Karma work involved with doing any nastiness. Take the high road. Stay dry. My 2 cents.
This begs the question of star vs not star (or a mentsrum that stars travel and collide in). Crowley himself seemed to, if not wrestle, find the paradox perfectly ok (supernal stuff) that there is both Stars, distinct and in stuff, and a homogeneous light...
My way of asking the question - what do you mean by collide? I get the imagery loud and clear, but what do you MEAN?
"The next stage of this vision led to an identification of the blazing points with the stars of the firmament, with ideas, souls, etc. I perceived also that each star was connected by a ray of light with each other star. In the world of ideas each thought possessed a necessary relation with each other thought; each such relation is of course a thought in itself; each such ray is itself a star. It is here that the logical difficulty first presents itself. The seer has a direct perception of infinite series. Logically, therefore, it would appear as if the entire space must be filled up with a homogeneous blaze of light. This however is not the case. The space is completely full and yet the monads which fill it are perfectly distinct. The ordinary reader might well exclaim that such statements exhibit symptoms of mental confusion."
I've been schooled again 
But you can see how it sounds when you say it at the end of your post and one doesn't know it's origin; or even when one does
ThelemicMage: it's posts like your last one, and the use of the phrase "gentle youth" that make you come off as a condescending megalomaniac. You may think it's cheeky - it's not. Crowley gets away with it because he's earned it - you haven't.
EDIT: This sounds way too harsh upon re-reading, ESPECIALLY after reading Uni_Verse's poem which I like very much. I've mixed and continue to mix, my fair share of "the Old Man, Red Lion and Youth"... and it's often a heady brew...
There was once a man who would shout
I'll doubt anything lying about
from the sun in the sky
to a warm apple pie
But of his doubt - he was certain about
inspired by you ThelemicMage with a healthy dose of Alan Watts poem about the man who said Though...
Frater Zosimos - I've also gone round and round with those three figures attempting to fit each of the gunas over each of them in turn. I get how that goes. And maybe that's the point... that may be the still point... things won't ever fit our ideal idea of how things should be. That in itself is a good tough lesson. But, the voice of doubt speaks up, what about the Major Arcana cards meant to represent each of the 3 gunas - do they revolve for you too? No they do not - or at least not to the degree that the beasts on the wheel do. For example, I can come up with an example of how The Empress could correspond to Rajas, but it feels like reaching. So are those correspondences set for you more clearly, as they are for me? Why? (attempting to answer this myself as well)
ThelemicMage
"I trust everything that man trusted himself to write down"
but if you have blind faith... where is your doubt?
From MWT: Chapter LXVII: Faith:
"Faith in its Meaning Number One was perfectly well defined by the schoolboy: "the faculty of believing that which we know to be untrue." It is at least the acceptance of any statement as true without criticism, examination, verification, or any other method of test. Faith of this sort is evidently the main symptom of the moron, the half-wit, the village idiot. It is this kind of faith upon the possession and exercise of which religious persons always insist as the first condition of salvation."
"Not much left to explain really"
I've been trying to come up with a way of writing a response to this which both leaves us both feeling happy, and ends the conversation. The reason for both is that you seem willing to engage in a respectful conversation, and for that I'm very pleased and appreciative of your time and effort, but that I'm not entirely sure you are saying anything other than telling me your imaginations.
I keep thinking "Method is science"... logic... and where is the logic? For example, when you were talking about the "other road" in the Wizard of Oz, I got excited. I looked up pictures, watched parts of the film... you know that red road either goes off screen as an actual road (couldn't tell) or it's just the part of the design that is there to make the Gold spiral path pop (figure and ground); but there is nowhere in that "system", in the movie, that talks about it going to
"the majestic fields of red poppy"
.
That "majestic fields" stuff you just made up, and ran with it.
I get the feeling all of your comments (races, elements evolving, cosmic man woman, etc) on this thread are in the same vein.
So carrying on the conversation, I don't think I'll get any closer to finding out why Crowley did what he did on the Fortune card is what I'm saying.
But still, thanks for the discussion Black/Red/Yellow/White brother from another mother.
I'm going to refer to 777, which I'm sure you are familiar with, but if you aren't:
Osiris is listed, in Col XX, on level 10...malkuth. Ra is level 6, Horus level 5. (Please forgive the use of the term level, I'm apt to use row or frequency, but went with level). Crowley doesn't tabulate the name "Jehovah", but perhaps He could fit, within Col XXXVI, at the 2, 4 or 5 levels.
What I'm getting at is that Jehovah, Osiris, and Horus are not the same current of power. That isn't even the succession of Aeons.
So what rabbit hole have you gone down?
Ok - let me try to grok what you are saying:
Alright so leaving aside the fact that I have no idea what you mean when you say "soul", or why you put "body" in quotes... to bring it back to the topic of this thread, what does this (and correct me on my points if I missed something) have to do with the Sattvas, Rajas, Tamas switch on the Fortune card?
Also, if Crowley isn't saying what you are saying, why would what you are saying be on Crowley's card?
There is still so much of what is going on in your head that I'm not able to "get" from the words you are writing.
""New new aeon" means the aeon of Hrumachis, the sphinx. "Hathor" of the Aeon of Horus, performs the same work and transformation as "Ma'at", who is the force that helps transform the current Hadit of our universes (RHK) into the sphinx. Check the book of going back by night. The sphinx hints on what the past was and how the future became the present."
This seems to be founded upon nothing that I know from Thelema.
For example, Hrumachis is the initiating officer of the Aeon of Maat (which isn't here and now but in the future, at least, from my understanding of the Aeon's model presented to us by Crowley).
See: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6285&p=38368&hilit=Hrumachis#p38368">viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6285&p=38368&hilit=Hrumachis#p38368</a><!-- l -->
"Hrumachis is the symbol of the dawn itself, i.e., of the occurrence of a next aeon per se. The Lord (or, actually, Lady) of the next aeon is, per Liber L., the double-wanded one, i.e., Maat."
Also, I wouldn't characterize Hadit as equal to "the 93 current" (if that is indeed the current you are referring to). Completely different things as I understand it.
Also, I have no idea what or who you have in you head turning into a sphinx but I guess I'm just lost right there... isn't it the initiate that turns themselves into a Sphinx?
I guess what my impression is, is that you have a unique idea of what the art on the Fortune card means, fueled by some Thelema, some Egyptian Book of the Dead, etc, but which isn't really "official" or based on anything Crowley says. Maybe I'm wrong.
I've been compiling a bunch of comments that Jim has made about "astral" (just click on his name and do a search for that term). I would recommend this to anyone as I think he says some very intelligent things about, for example, mistaking early transmissions for "The One" (K&C); he even gives two examples from his own life of early communications that were potential pit falls if he had taken them too seriously. But it all seems to boil down to: Read Liber O and what Crowley says AND, journal the experience and move on; it's an experience that you had and it's valid in that context but tread lightly in making anything significant out of it.
Anyway hope it helps and good luck out there.
To be more clear about where I'm lacking understanding so that you can better address each point individually (if you wouldn't mind doing obviously):
"I believe this has to do not only with "new aeon" changes, but "new new aeon" changes."
What is New New Aeon?
"We learn that Hathor is strongly associated with Fire, and not just in the new Aeon. I believe that Horus, being of the Air and too "fiery and manly", and his Completion in Ra Hoor Khuit, was transformed into the Sphinx by Hathor, (or one of the many other names she goes by.)"
This paragraph gives me trouble. Are you saying something symbolic? What does it mean that Horus is completed in RHK turned into the Sphinx by Hathor? Why do you think this? Based on what?
"This would mean that an incredibly strong being of the Air has been transformed by the infinite circumference of femininity and by the Power thereof, to a being of fire. The sphinx is almost a lion."
Are you equating Hathor with Nuit? Isn't the Sphinx a Lion/Bull/Angel/Eagle (Dragon)? So wouldn't it be just as true to say the Sphinx is almost a Bull?
"In the book of going back by night, our old friend the stony sphinx goes into detail on this, and so does Crowley. I believe the book of going back by night to be a genuine piece of prophecy and by communication from the secret chiefs. "
Goes into detail on what? And where does Crowley do so?
"I can see some other patterns emerging here, like the continuum of "getting off of the softness", including the moving of the Earth into the West."
What do these two terms mean to you? "Getting off of the softness". "Moving of the Earth into the West".
"Here we have Tamas, associated with Set, who is normally Fire, but he is leaving the softness behind to flow with more powerful forces, ie the waters of Creation, keeping the element of salt while he does so. This screams evolution."
So Tamas = Set = Water = Salt to you? And Tamas = Set used to = Fire. And this change screams evolution? What is changing? Are you being symbolic or are you saying a god somewhere has literally changed?
I didn't say I didn't like it, only that I don't understand it. And I appreciate the helpful pointers in remedying the latter.
I have no idea what you just said ThelemicMage.
From Essay on Number:
- wt, the letter Tau (see 400), also AThH, “Thou.” Note that AHA (7), the divine name of Venus (7) gives the initials of Ani, Hua, Ateh—I, He, Thou; three different aspects of a deity worshipped in three persons and in three ways: viz. (1) with averted face; (2) with prostration; (3) with identification.
Q1: How do these align?
Ani = I = Identification
Hua = He = Averted Face
Ateh = Thou = Prostration
Q2: Are the God Names in the LBRP similarly three ways to worship deity + 1 formula of how deity works (or am I reaching on this one):
YHVH = the recipe (the next three are ingredients)
Adonai = He = Averted Face
Eheieh = I = Identification
AGLA = Thou = Prostration
Q3: What are the intentions of each type of practice?
Identification = Ego as God
Averted Face = God as all encompassing including Ego
Prostration = Ego as Dirt
IT = 19 = Manifestation
"The first is Kether, the pure Being invented as an aspect of pure Nothing. In his manifestation, he is not One, but Two; he is only One because he is 0.
1 and 9 = 10 = 1 and 0
Spending time with the Book of the Law, and Book of Lies (odd how closely those two are linked in name even) had me seeing N+H=R in a new Light (AVR), but without a definite answer to my initial question.
I'm playing with the hierarchy:
NOT = 0
IT = 0 & 1
THAT = 1 & 2
If HAD = NUIT, and IT = manifestion, does HAD = NU manifested? Had isn't a God, it's a process. So by Had-ing, we manifest Nu... by Going we manifest The Trip...
Alternately, by Nu-ing, by dissolving into the infinite, by Tripping, we hide the Tripper, (or manifest Going as the Go)...
All this is incredibly hard for me to explain with words, but here I am trying.
More thoughts:
Hadit and Nuit are 1 thing => NOT or 0, explained from 2 different perspectives. That 1 thing is called RHK, but 0 or HPK is implied so we call it a 2in1 thing HRA.
Alpeh = Nuit
Yod = Hadit
A center point with 4 spinning blades like a pin wheel, are the blades spinning out from the center part to create the illusion of the circumference, or is the circumference spinning inwards to create the illusion of a center???
In the book of the Law, We are told that Abrahadabra (should this be AbraVadAbra ever, if one considers Had to be Vad - random aside) is the reward of Ra-Hoor-Khut, and in the next verse it's Khuit as if Abrahadabra helped the RHK find his I...
Jim, in his commentary, seems to me to translate IT as GOD (Khu-IT => Self-God).
So could the lack of "IT" explain a force rather than a form?
"AL I,1: "Had! The manifestation of Nuit."
The New Comment: The Soul interprets the Universe"
"AL II,1: "Nu! the hiding of Hadit."
The New Comment(from AL I,1): Universe veils the Soul
The Old Comment:
As Had, the root of Hadit, is the manifestation of Nuit, so Nu, the root of Nuit, is the hiding of Hadit."
Throwing something against the wall and seeing what sticks:
Hadit = the totality of all points of view > All Souls
Had = a specific point of view (such as mine) > Soul
My specific Had, a root of Hadit, manifests Nuit => from a Point, View is possible -> together POV = RHK
Nuit = the totality of possibilities from one point's perspective - Universe
Nu = the totality of possibilities > All Universes
Had is the root of Hadit because Soul is the root of All Souls.
Nu is the root of Nuit because All Universes is the root of Universe
Thoughts?
Knew it.
Had it.
I was it.
I'm still also wondering if there is a practical reason for using Nu vs Nuit in a ritual. (or Had vs Hadit)
The values of the 2 different forms MIGHT be one reason (or the only reason - I don't know I asking) but it seems like even those are a little finicky...
What is another reason - is there one?
Why is "Had! The manifestation of Nuit." Why not: "Hadit! The manifestation of Nu!"