From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: Joseph Max 23 Sep 94 16:50:14 Subject: RE: BOOK OF COMING FORTH UpdReq JM> Over the years Crowley offered many, and sometimes conflicting JM> commentaries on Liber AL and on Aiwass. Usually it was declared that JM> Aiwass was Crowley's own Holy Guardian Angel. Crowley never seems to JM> have quite made up his mind if the H.G.A. was either an "independent" JM> intelligence seperate from a human being's own spirit, or an embodiment JM> of a human's own "Divine Genius", an expression of one's own spirit JM> and/or Higher Self. As such, any manifestations of this "entity" are in JM> the strictest sense an illusion, a "trick of the mind" that gives the JM> impression that one is interacting with a seperate entity. JM> In your opinion, where does the manifestation of Set as you experienced JM> him fit in? Do you hold one or the other of these interpretation, or JM> another interpretation entirely? I'm curious about your own experience JM> of the reception of TBOCFBN, more than any "offical" Setian policy on JM> the process of Knowledge and Conversation. I experienced Set as an intelligent entity distinct from myself. Having said this, please note the words "experienced" and "distinct" in the previous sentence. To experience something is not necessarily to know or prove it definitively or objectively, and the apprehension of Set as someone or something distinct from Michael Aquino [or any other Setian] is not quite the same thing as "separate". I am not trying to quibble here, but rather to note the difficulty of trying to objectify *any* metaphysical event, or to prove it according to physical standards of reality. I am accordingly not at all surprised at Crowley's confusion over just where Aleister Crowley "ended" and Aiwass (whoever or whatever he was) "began". Cf. also Crowley's very succinct statement about such matters: _Liber O_ #I:1-5. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: Tim Maroney 23 Sep 94 17:45:02 Subject: Sekhmet UpdReq F> Any particular references you could cite that attribute Sekhmet F> to the noonday sun? TM> From Mercatante's "Who's Who In Egyptian Mythology": "Sekhmet: A lion TM> goddess who personified the fierce, destructive heat of the sun." TM> I'm looking in Budge's "Gods of the Egyptians" but I can't find any TM> references to her at all; perhaps he uses a different form of the name. See pages #514-517 in Budge's _Gods of the Egyptians_, Volume 1. Budge spells the name "Sekhet". From this section: "The name 'Sekhet' appears to be derived from or connected with the root _sekhem_, 'to be strong, mighty, violent', and the like, and as she was the personification of the fierce, scorching, and destroying heat of the Sun's rays, these attributes would be very suitable for her character ..." 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: To Meta Thereon 25 Sep 94 11:14:00 Subject: Solar enlightenment UpdReq Thus said To Meta Thereon to Josh Norton concerning Solar enlightenment: TMT> THanks for the info, but sometimes it seems that if I just TMT> sit on my ass and wait, I will be enlightened. Haw! As Mr. Spock might say, "That would be an extremely low-probability event." TMT> Anyway, say I invoke Horus. Why would I want to invoke him TMT> inparticularly, what are the results, and are these stupid questions? Not too stupid. You don't necessarily _need_ to invoke any particular god. What you want is to invoke a large _variety_ of gods/forces/whatever. The idea is that behind the appearances of everyday reality (including the appearances that make up your everyday self) the world is made up of "magickal forces", and that you enter into the "higher" reality of those forces by invoking them so that they can stimulate the corresponding parts of yourself. I think I said this before. You don't have to stick with a particular pantheon, or even with gods per se. The Golden Dawn-style cabalistic magick uses Hebrew god-names, but as representations of different aspects of relatively impersonal forces. Same for the astrological method I mentioned. The point is that your work should be sufficiently inclusive that you have a broad experience of the magickal forces. Once you know what they are like individually, you can go on to seeing how they relate to the manifestations of the mundane world, and how they interact on their own planes, and how those planes relate to each other. And how they define yourself and your relationship to the world. The various forms of Horus used in Thelemic work are embodiments of certain important aspects of the Thelemic current. Invoking them would put you in contact with those parts of the current. Invoking Horus in a non-thelemic context should produce a manifestation of a mixed Solar and Martial power. TMT> The only invokation I have seen fit to do is that of the TMT> HGA, and I am not sure if I succeeded or not. This bugs me TMT> greatly. TMT> It appears that either I was already open to its influence, TMT> or I had a complete failure. Is there anyway to tell the TMT> difference? Nothing but experience will enable you to distinguish between your own internal wish-fulfillments and the real thing. This is a subjective arena, and everyone has to build up their own relationships in it. In the meantime, skepticism and a high tolerance for ambiguity are essential. OTOH, if you want someone to hand you answers on a platter, go join a religion. TMT> Also, if in a former life, I did invoke my HGA and attain TMT> the KandC with him, would I need to go through the entire TMT> process again? Afraid so. Each life recapitulates the whole process. It just goes a bit faster sometimes when you've been through it before. ... I'm an authority -- I know lots of things you don't care about. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 25 Sep 94 13:09:34 Subject: Solar enlightenment UpdReq Thanks for the information. You have no idea how long I've been wondering about the use of invocation. I have read so many ways to do it, and never the reason for it unless it was a mundane desire. I appreciate your help greatly. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Fir Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 25 Sep 94 08:52:00 Subject: Solar enlightenment UpdReq Hi Josh! I enjoyed this post of yours. JN> And awareness of new aspects of one's own being also JN> produces an awareness of the corresponding aspects of the universe at JN> large, so that one's relationship to the world constantly JN> evolves as well. Would you give an example of this? Thanks, Fir 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: JOSEPH MAX Area: Thelema To: MARS GUNN 22 Sep 94 16:58:00 Subject: Re: PETER CARROLL UpdReq -=> Quoting Mars Gunn to Josh Norton, Joseph Max <=- MG> While I have my own critisisms of Carroll (irresponsible to an MG> extent, a little heavy on the 'black' side of things) I've never MG> considered his thinking sloppy. It's been a couple of years since MG> I've read to any depth, his stuff. I'd like to hear where you both MG> feel he's sloppy and laconic. Josh said "sloppy", so I'll let him answer to that. Laconic? Yes, as in terse, spartan, sparing, etc. Pope Pete isn't known for catering to the rank beginner - he assumes his reader has a fairly good background in magick and the occult. I suppose on some subjects he may go on at length, but only when it's something original for which there is no background per se, as in his Equations of Magic. I actually think Pete is fairly balanced in his emphasis between "black" and "white" for someone who's style of magick is definitely Left Hand Path- this is probably why it seems that he is heavy on the black side. Most LHP writers, such as LaVey, are _totally_ black, and most others shy away from any mention of the black side at all, so in this he's kind of unique. MG> BTW, do you really think Grant's a Chaotist? He seems to be just MG> an *extrememly* unorthodox Cabalist- with a good dose of abstracted MG> anal-retentiveness... Well, seeing as how he's Spare's main exponent, I guess it's a matter of whether or not you think _Spare_ is a Chaosist! To most, he's the grandaddy of them all, but a lot of people who claim the label might not be seen as typical of Zos Kia Cultis types. ... Got a mind like a steel trap, rusty and illegal in 19 states ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: JOSEPH MAX Area: Thelema To: ANDREW HAIGH 22 Sep 94 16:58:00 Subject: RE: SECRET RITES OF THE O UpdReq -=> Quoting Andrew Haigh to Navitae <=- AH> .. I work with Chaos theory quite often and AH> have had a great deal of success with it, In what way do you "work with it"? Magickally? Intellectually? Artistically? What kind of "successes" are you speaking of? AH> but it rankles me to AH> hear people refering to `Chaos Magick' and then talking about AH> Spare, Carrol, et. al. Personally I think that their work, AH> although interesting to look at, holds no real value as far as AH> my work is concerned. I have gained more through playing with AH> fractals (Fractint) and harmonics (any guitar) than I ever AH> have through what is commonly refered to as `Chaos Magick'. Which is fine, as far as _you_ are concerned. But the tone you use seems to indicate that you don't think it has any value for anyone else, either. If you don't think "Chaos Magick" has anything to do with Spare, Carroll, et al, then what _does_ it have to do with other than drawing pretty pictures on a computer screen or chiming the strings on your guitar? (I'm always amazed at what fascinates the simple mind...) AH> If the works in question had any sort of fractal geometry and AH> chaos mathmatics in them then i would concur that what is AH> being practiced is Chaos magick, but if the focus is more on AH> sigils and other such devices then it smacks more of goetia AH> than chaos. Spare lived long before any theory of non-linear dynamics had been developed, so in his case your making a highly unfair assessment. The Chaos ("Kia") of Spare was a metaphysical concept, not a scientific one. As for Carroll, I suppose this means you have not read "Fiat Nox" and "Principia Chaotica" from _Liber Kaos_ or "Catastrophe Theory and Magic" from _Psychonaut_". Because whether or not you agree with his interpretations of Chaos Theory as it applies to Magick, Chaos Theory figures prominently in these works. And since these are his only widely published works, it puzzles me as to what, if anything, of his you _have_ read, and how you came to your conclusions, except by knee-jerking through second-hand opinions. I'm no stark-raving Carrollite, but I give the man his due... ... Systematic theology! There's an oxymoron. John L. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Navitae Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 21 Sep 94 15:51:14 Subject: Re: liber al prophecy UpdReq Na> This assumes of course that the prophecy has something to do with Na> wars. Motta interpreted it in terms of the court battle between Na> the Society OTO and Caliphate OTO. JN> A world war for the first part of the prophecy, and a squabble between JN> two tiny, obscure magickal organizations for the second part? Somehow JN> that doesn't seem quite balanced to me. I'm not going to try and argue the Motta position, but I would point out that a Thelemite might view it otherwise. If you believe that a New Aeon started in 1904, that Liber AL is the book of the Aeon and A.C. was the prophet, then you might conclude that whatever happens to one of the flagships of Thelema is of vital importance to the planet. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Navitae Area: Thelema To: To Meta Thereon 21 Sep 94 16:06:46 Subject: Re: organization UpdReq TMT> Perhaps I am judging Thelemites too harshly, but I have a TMT> fear that they preach more than interpret their sacred TMT> writings. If you have any different experience in a group TMT> you know of, then feel free to share. I've found a great deal of diversity among Thelemites, in fact more than I care for. Many are woefully ignorant of A.C. and his writings (I'm not a scholar, but at least I've read the books), others interpret 93 93/93 as meaning "I'm free to believe anything I want" (who knows, maybe they've got a point). It's understandable to a degree, since A.C.'s stuff is both encyclopedic and complicated and Thelema does imply a lot of free will (paradoxically). I get frustrated though when I run into Thelemites who haven't even read MTP or MWT. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Navitae Area: Thelema To: Kevin Bold 21 Sep 94 16:16:06 Subject: Re: Qabalistic Cross UpdReq F> "Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his footstool; for he F> is holy," Excuse my ignorance but what does this have to do with F> attributes in the Qabbalistic Cross? (realizing this is Navatae's F> statement and not yours) Say what? Are you referring to something from the QBL.faq extract I posted? 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Navitae Area: Thelema To: Andrew Haigh 21 Sep 94 16:18:54 Subject: RE: SECRET RITES OF THE O UpdReq AH> I know the feeling. I work with Chaos theory quite often and AH> have had a great deal of success with it, but it rankles me to AH> hear people refering to `Chaos Magick' and then talking about AH> Spare, Carrol, et. al. Personally I think that their work, AH> although interesting to look at, holds no real value as far as AH> my work is concerned. You've put it much kinder than I would have. AH> I have gained more through playing with AH> fractals (Fractint) and harmonics (any guitar) than I ever AH> have through what is commonly refered to as `Chaos Magick'. Sounds interesting. AH> If the works in question had any sort of fractal geometry and AH> chaos mathmatics in them then i would concur that what is AH> being practiced is Chaos magick, but if the focus is more on AH> sigils and other such devices then it smacks more of goetia AH> than chaos. I figured Carroll was just going for the fame and fortune bit, and "Chaos" has a good ring to it. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Navitae Area: Thelema To: To Meta Thereon 21 Sep 94 17:27:10 Subject: Re: TOPY UpdReq TMT> What the hell is TOPY, sounds interesting. At it's height, one of the largest magical organizations on the planet (in terms of membership). Huge effect on music (industrial, house), performance and visual arts but with such strong antinomian tendencies they've remained largely uncredited. TMT> How about sharing a source or what it is your talking about, TMT> friend. Any knowledge is welcome. There's a fair amount of TOPY info floating around the net. BTW, please quote my messages. I write a lot and don't recall exactly what I said to you. - Coyote 126 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718