My question was prompted by Liber Aleph, "Neglect not the Performance of the Ritual of the Pentagram"
I thought that Crowley advocated the LBRP as a lifetime of use?
But if you are saying that the Star Ruby replaces it in whole, then that is good enough for me.
-Xkip
I agree, this is some of the best info. I have ever seen concerning the Star Ruby. I still have a question though. It concerns the performance of the Star Ruby after the LBRP. I understand that the Star Ruby is sufficient in and of itself as a banishing ritual...but it seems that we are taught by Crowley to perform BOTH daily?
I am still attempting to put together a daily ritual regiment (the story of my life) but I have to keep going back to the drawing board because various points like this are coming to light.
Any suggestions as to a good regiment in order to continually work all of the basic rituals?
The one's which I enjoy working with the most right now consist of the LBRP, Star Ruby, Hexagram Ritual, Liber Resh.
Am I ready to perform the Mass of the Phoenix? I have always imagined how great it would be to perform a personal eucharist ritual on a daily or weekly basis.
Crowley teaches us to Invoke constantly, what can I invoke on a daily basis? I used to work the Bornless One/ Liber Samekh, daily but this has been put on hold until I go back to the basics so to speak.
Frater 21-Questions 
93 93/93
-Xkip
This may not be a big deal but I normally control my thoughts very well as well as my visualizations... but when I project the 4 Pentagrams during the Star Ruby, it seems they end up inverted as they travel outward?
I mean, almost every time and seems not to be in my control? Anyone have this or similar experiences?
93 93/93
-Xkip
The pic response of the eye of Horus along with your quote (Fr. I-Ness) was classic.
Fr. LR, your honesty is compelling. I can relate with you on many levels and am quite amazed at some of them. Especially in terms of the Christian/Anti-Christian standpoints.
Everyone has their own formula, we fight with others to prove the validity or "rightness" of our own which we have either chosen or created and they do he same... "every man is right in his own eyes."
I have heard this concept over and over concerning "identifying with ones fear" in various camps but I am not sure I really understand this principle fully. I have always been one to "become" that which I am studying so to speak. But as far as the logic presented as such, that we must "take on"that which we fear or even abhor? Where do we find this taught in Thelema?
-Xkip
Funny you should say this. I have long wondered, are we as Thelemites actually practicing some form of bizzare esoteric Christianity or are we subtle, sublime, sophisticated Satanists?
In spite of the shared frustration of some of these concepts I am still very much caught up in the rapture of the New Aeon and whether I like it or not I am slowly beginning to see through the eye(s) of Horus.
-Xkip
Greetings,
Well, Fr. LR filled in many of the other parallels of the names and concepts which Crowley uses in contrast with the Christian ideology found in the Book of Revelation. You asked what I think…well, I am no expert in the chronology of Crowley’s revelations, but all of it seems to be a progressive evolution over many years. It does not appear that he woke up one morning and decided to create his own religion. What amazes me is that over his lifetime the pieces fit together in quite a mysterious way to say the least. It appears that he filled in the blanks with his own methods of most every aspect of religious and spiritual practices, not to mention just everyday living down to eating and sleeping, making it an all inclusive way of life.
Fr. I-ness and I share some of the same observations and thoughts concerning this topic… I don’t want to repeat the same things he already stated but they may overlap. It seems to definitely begin early on in his life with the strict and dogmatic Christian upbringing in his youth.
This aspect, I think speaks to many people coming to Thelema because they too have been raised in a similar environment. It seems most of the Thelemites I have ever met, conversed with, read about, or listened to, came from a similar background. This I also find interesting though I guess it should not be all too surprising for many reasons.
I wonder if we took a poll of all the Thelemites in the world how many would admit they came from a “Christian” background or upbringing? This is telling on many levels IMO.
Could mean many things; which may include Christianity failed in fulfilling us or we are just a bunch or rebellious Satanists, lol.
I have always thought that if one does not have a grasp on Christian doctrines, history and philosophy, one cannot even comprehend much of what Crowley speaks about in the first place.
Every other paragraph at times is full of quotes, parables, puns, and allusions from the Bible.
I would like to know at what point he really began to put all of these parallels and contrasts together.
Here is another thought to ponder: What would Thelema be like if there were none of these contrasts or Biblical concepts involved?
Frater LR, I really don’t have the answers. But I do have many thoughts and questions concerning this topic. I appreciate all who have contributed thus far and I look forward to the upcoming dialog.
PS. Interesting day today as I randomly picked an episode of Thelema Coast to Coast to d/l to listen to on my commute to work and lo and behold it featured an interview with a representative from the Temple and College of Thelema!
I could not help but think today on my commute (and please don’t take this wrong as I do not want to sound like I am trying to flatter or whatever) but I am continually impressed with Jim and his taking the time to moderate this forum and answer even my elementary (and possibly irritating) questions.
Most of the people who I have come across in my lifetime who head up any type of spiritual or religious organization do not genuinely take time for the laity. I have also surely come across a few in Thelema who would otherwise turn me off from the current community altogether if it were only based upon their actions, attitude, or character. All I can say is thanks for welcoming me here and putting up with me thus far…you never know who you may be helping and to what degree.
Light, Life, Love and Liberty,
Sincerely,
-Xkip
Steve,
I have no knowledge (prior or current) of anyone using such an example.
I just used the LOTR example because I thought all could relate to it as a current mythology. If you are saying someone else used the comparison with LOTR and Thelema, well, that is going to trip me out. But the concept of just flipping a story and viewing it from another's point of view is not uncommon even in today's pop culture as seen in the story and stage performance "Wicked." Apparently the Wizard of Oz story viewed through the Witches perspective.
-Xkip
Frater LR stated, "You could also turn that around and see the question as being the result of Crowley presenting New Aeon ideas in Old Aeon, dualistic terminology."
Ah, Frater LR gets exactly what I am saying/asking. I think this subject is worthy of discussion and I am glad there are those here who agree.
I know it would help clarify many things for me and help me to put things in proper perspective.
Jim brings us a really good point as many times it is the perspective of who is writing/creating the historical recording of events who color them according to their perspective or for reason of influence for one's particular cause. As in the idea that the "Winners write the history books."
Maybe it is not so much as a revision of history as it is just a Gnostic way of reading deeper or reading things* backwards * so to speak as Gnostics are so well at doing. I remember reading that it was Crowley's opinion that St. John the Divine did not really understand his own vision so that he erred in his recording and interpretation.
So going back to the LOTR example, could we say that JRT did not understand that Sauron was really a benevolent leader and we needed to have sympathy for the Orcs plight, and see that they were they were the real victims? I mean, is there not some Universal understanding of good and evil even among Thelemites? Surely everything cannot be relative. If an oppressive government harms its people and keeps them from their True Will can we not just staunchly say they are wrong/evil, etc?
Another example that comes to mind:
Obviously St. John the Divine used the idea of the blood of the Saints as meaning the blood of the prophets and those who followed Christ whom were martyred by way of unrighteous murder. Now we have Crowley using this in a totally different manner. He turns it totally into something very different. What is the (or his) purpose of using this groundwork/basis and then changing it up? And how does this benefit us?
93 93/93
-Xkip
@PatchworkSerpen said
"
@xkip93 said
"I have heard others make statements about Babalon saying that St. John made her out to be evil and gave her a bad name. I don't remember her being a prominent character anywhere prior to these types of biblical associations?...Babylon as a city of decadence, etc."
Babylon features quite prominently in the Book of Revelation, viz. The Revelation of St. John the Divine; see Revelation 14:8, 16:18, 17:5 and much of 18.
Note especially 17:5 - this hints much more about her nature than merely a 'city of decadence'."
PatchworkSerpent,
Thanks for your reply. But one of the things I was asking was, (or another way in which I could have asked this question was) is there an example of Babalon "other" than the Book of Revelation all together?
-Xkip93
This topic was created out of a previous discussion which began to move off topic from Initiation.
Thanks Jim and ARYK for your responses.
Sometimes I ask these things as others have posed these types of questions to me and I may not have had the greatest answer for them at the time.
Please don't judge me as being totally ignorant or having a lack of love, admiration and respect for Crowley, Thelema, Jim, or anything of the like. I must say that my soul is utterly nourished with Crowley's writings and the Law of Thelema has illuminated my way in ways I could not even put into proper words at this present time.
I just learn well as devil's advocate, that's all.
Ok, moving on.
I guess what I was asking comes more from a (probably poor) example of what just came to mind. Let's say I create a cosmology/ mythology/theology/philosophy using the names from the Lord of the Rings characters. But I change them up. Sauron becomes a good guy, bringing freedom to everyone, Frodo becomes an evil spy, Gandolf a Black Magician and Gollum is the Saviour of Middle Earth, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Can I say then that I brought to the table the "true meaning" of these characters?
Another example:
I have heard others make statements about Babalon saying that St. John made her out to be evil and gave her a bad name. I don't remember her being a prominent character anywhere prior to these types of biblical associations?...Babylon as a city of decadence, etc.
I don't even see this resurface in a magical sense until John Dee with "BABALOND."
Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?
Is not much of this reactionary almost in the same vein as Satanism is reactionary to Christianity?
I realize that Thelema was not created in a vacuum or brought wholly original from another planet but I am just trying to wrap my mind around the whole basis, structure, etc.
Ducking, awaiting the onslought, {cringe}
-Xkip
Greetings and 93.
Ok, I understand (to a degree) what you are saying Jim in saying to "suspend" the value and judgement of these words. But words mean things and we can't simply change definitions of some things which have had certain connotations for thousands of years, can we? (Playing devil's advocate here).
I thought that someone would reply and say that it is simply a reference to "Saturn."
I assumed the correct answer would be "Baphomet." Which can be linked to the secret self or the HGA.
The commentary sound much like his comment in Book 4 saying "the Devil does not exist...etc."
Some things concerning Baphomet still remain a mystery to me. Why the association with the devil? (It found its way into the Tarot as the Devil, and then came to be a symbol of Satanism itself).
Does Crowley just take all of these things such as Babalon, The Beast, The Devil, The Antichrist, Baphomet, etc. etc. and redefine them to fit into his own created theology/cosmology?
I always take issue with those whom I love.
-Xkip
I am trying to keep things on topic here and within the context of being a probationer, so please bear with me as I get some of these questions out of the way which I have had for some time now. I am pleased with the response and help I am receiving here from Jim and others.
As I mentioned before I am not daily working with the Bornless ritual but I can't help but still study it and review my experience with it. My question this time stems from the commentary. As much as we sometimes try to convince others (and maybe sometimes ourselves) that Crowley was not a devil worshipping -Satanist, with a knack of genius for keeping it veiled... then we sometimes come across things that he says which makes apologetics an uneasy task.
For instance, when he is commenting upon the word SABAF, he states that it is the name of "the Devil our Lord" , "the Goat of Mendes" and "Satan."
So what is the deal here? It sounds rather blatant but I am sure that there is a way to explain this away especially seeing how us Gnostics, somehow, are professionals at turning things around and making the adversary the benevolent one, the Serpent the "actual" good guy, and all kinds of other neat stuff.
I'm all ears...
93 93/93
-Xkip
Jim mentioned knowing who "Thou" is...
In our case, who is "Thou" in reference to the QBL Cross?
(I think I know but I have never seen much commentary on it that I can remember).
Earlier we were discussing the Bornless One, etc. I have another question or request for someone to expound on this comes from an excerpt in Eleusis.
Crowley says that the modern neophyte should not use the old barbarous names because they may superstitiously attribute real power to them... so he advises Jack and Jill, "with which it is impossible for the normal mind to associate a feeling of reverence."
Not sure what he is really saying here. I am trying to understand it within the context of the tome.
Am I indeed wrong for thinking/feeling that these words and names have power?
If anyone can shed some light on this statement , I would appreciate it.
PS. Not that he needs me to validate or vindicate him but Jim is exactly correct in stating the Cross of Light has 5 points... and that 5th, a crucial one!
93 93/93
-Xkip
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Greetings everyone,
In my previous work with GD materials, knowing it came from Rosicrucian framework and being inherantly "Christian" in many ways, the use of YHVH never bothered me. But as years went by and I studied more Gnostic material it is apparent that many do not view Yahweh/Jahovah as a "good" god.
Knowing Crowley's distain for many aspects of Christianity and Judaism, why did even he continue with using the Tetragrammaton as a name of power?
There are many ways I can frame this question but I think you get the idea. I still use the Name as it has gained strength for me due to constant use over the years. But sometimes it seems that I am using a "jewish" god-name of sorts, and other times I see it in a more universal qabalistic sense.
Mixed emotions from mixed currents maybe?
Some say that the Star Ruby replaced the LBRP and that all of those other rituals are "old aeon" but we still find the QBL Cross of Light with the Hebrew names along with the LBRP still embedded in Thelema materials?
Love is the law, love under will
-Xkip
93,
I have questions now concerning my regular practices. I have been doing the Bornless Ritual for a little while now as an invocation with what I thought were good results. (Results just meaning a deeper understanding of the Invokation itself and a very thick presence in the room giving an air of heavy silence condusive to meditation).
Now, from studying more about A:.A:. and the degree systems within Thelema I see that this is supposed to be done by the Adept.
My question is probably obvious now. Am I to discontinue this ritual because I am not up to par, as in Adeptus Minor?
Also, if that is the case, what else is "off limits' so to speak?
Can I perform the Mass of the Phoenix? The Star Sapphire?
Do I have to feel like (according to Thelemic organizational standards) that I will not be able to have the Conversation of my HGA without attaining a certain grade and I cannot even do certain ritual work towards that goal?
I never used to think in these terms and now it seems to be a hinderance more than liberating. Now I get this feeling like I am not "worthy" to work with parts of this system which I used to look forward to mastering.
Any suggestions?
93 93/93
-Xkip
One more quick question concerning Liber LXV:
In Chapter 1, where it reads, "V.V.V.V.V" what are we to say?
(ducking for the blatantly obvious answer to be screamed at me)
I know what it stands for but just wondering what exactly to quote.
PS. Believe me, I find great beauty in this Liber although I have gotten a little frustrated with it... by the time I get through IV, I am almost tapped out it seems. Kind of like when I reach the 14th aethyr...
JUST KIDDING.
93 93/93
Xkip
93 Jim,
This is exactly why I made the previous comments about you genuinely helping others. Your answer was exactly what I was looking for as you have shed LVX on LXV.
You have shown that you deem this a sacred book with great depth, and coming from you this motivates me to study it, memorize it, and glean from it what truth I can. (Lest I lean to my own limited understanding and think that Crowley has played a joke on all of us).
Along with some tips on memorization and clarifying that it is truly up to the individual to pick which verse to memorize I think you have placed me on the right track. I appreciate your help.
-Xkip
Ok, after having read all of the posts on this thread I realize I will probably not get any feedback from my previous question.
But I am not in the Probation phase.
I am just studying A:.A:. material and looking at how I will apply it to my life at present. I understand much of the material and see the benefit behind its theory. I know my question seems a bit juvenile, but I have thought this, concerning Liber LXV for quite some time.
I know that even Liber AL changes voices and is hard to understand at times, but it is a cohesive work IMO and I would count it very beneficial to memorize a chapter if not the entire work. But LXV just seems like a hodge-podge. It seemingly begins with rhyme and reason and then just falls all over the place. Maybe that is the reason for having to memorize such an article, because it is difficult to memorize something of its nature, I don't know?
For instance, the verse that reads, "Oh honey boy..." The commentary states that this is a reference to the bezoar stone? Come on, the verse does not even resemble the previous topic of such. My first impression was homo-erotic poetic verse...anyone else?
I would like to know how some of you have benefited from this Liber.
PS: One thing I find interesting on this forum:
If Motta's group under Bersson is so great, why are so many people from his group asking questions HERE? Is the great sphinx not available?
Here we have Jim constantly helping out here with true concern and care for aspirants. Do we eat at the Steak House and then go to Burger King to pay the bill?
93 93/93
-Xkip
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Greetings.
I am currently preparing for the probationary period and putting together a personal regiment. In doing so I know it is necessary to memorize a chapter of Liber LXV. Is there any suggestions as to this process? Any particular chapter more advisable than any other?
Now, I must admit. I have read this over and over and read the commentary and I still do not fully get it. I get so much out of many of Crowley's other works which are deep, yet understandable and not totally cryptic. Why was this the piece chosen for this? I mean much of Crowley's works are so much more poetical and even beautiful...but this Liber really does not resonate with me like some others. Even the commentary supposedly expounding on it does not reveal much. It almost appears to be grasping at straws at times. Anyone else feel this way when they started?
Love is the law, love under will
-Xkip93
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Greetings.
Thanks for sharing the info. on the robe. Now that the construction of the robe is clear, what about the symbols?
What are they made of and how?
Love is the law, love under will
-Xkip