From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 9 Jul 92 19:37:00 Subject: Re: Aeon Horii UpdReq >JN> By the Goddess! Of course there are! The original paper on the subject > JN> ran to 40 single-spaced pages. My latest is already at that length, > JN> and shows no sign of stopping any time soon. >I'd be interested in seeing some. There's always METAPHYSICAL, >y'know. (hint hint.) Well, judging from my own unwillingness to read any text that's over three messages long, maybe that's not such a good idea. Besides, our local BBS only keeps the last 50 messages in that section, and the really good ones would run over that. Sometime I am going to load some of my Liber AL related gematria notes in the Thelema section, just to see if anyone can tell me what they mean! * SLMR 2.1a * This tagline is umop apisdn 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Azoth 9 Jul 92 19:51:04 Subject: Re: Eight Cabala UpdReq >JN> For the "official" (guffaw!) Achadian position on the Abyss, see my >JN> reply to Paul under this same date and subject. >There's much food for thought in said epistle; such, in any case, that I >think a furthur look at Fra. Achad's work is in order. I'd like to meet someone who used both the traditional Tree and Achad's Tree. It seems to me that they are not necessarily in conflict with each other; they just select different points as significant. But once I got interested in Achad's, I never felt any need to go back and work on the traditional Tree. > Though I'm hardly >in a position to agree/disagree with your viewpoint (like you need some >fawning sycophants, right?) Gah! Gag me with a spoon! >I would suggest that you not overlook the >possibility that that 'technical difficulty' involved in projecting into >the Supernals is precisely what is enshrined in Daath and the notion of >the Abyss, shorn, of course, of all the pomposity and 'oooh, scary!' >nonsense that has accreted since AC (and Achad, in those early years) had >a hand (and a stake) in embellishing the Mythos. Daath, as well, relates >apparently to an as yet sparsely explored 'gateway' mechanism giving >access to what has been interpreted as the backside of the Tree, and >provoking more or less controlled interaction with extremely primitive, >and powerful, denizens thereof. I am NOT going to get into arguments about darkside magick! For the last year and a half, some damn current has been trying to focus on me and make me into an "official" opponent of darkside and chaos magick. Aside from the fact that I am almost totally ignorant of their principles -- except for some vague knowledge of Grant's "tunnels of Set" -- being officially in opposition to something makes you into a mirror-image of the thing you oppose. Being a troublemaker is enough effort without having that sort of load on it. Non serviam, dammit! The ideas about the non-existence of the abyss were proposed as part of the same working that brought "Enochian Temples" to light. They weren't my idea -- at the time the abyss looked just as real to me as it does to most people. But my experience so far does appear to validate their view. It seems to me that the problems with getting to the Supernals are more a matter of the habitual grip the "essence" keeps on its solar vehicle. Habits are hard to break, especially when they have been in place for aeons. Once it re-learns how to release its grip, the problems go away. Da'ath has always looked to me like my own reflection, seen when looking up at the surface of the Great Sea of Binah. On the rare occasions when I could look down on that surface, I couldn't find anything that resembled it. But I don't have any firm opinion on this matter as yet. Let me ask you: In your view, does Da'ath have some sort of "real" existence, is it an hallucination, or is it merely a symbolic convenience? Your mention of the "gateway" idea would imply that you think it's real. I did some work with Liber CCCXXI years ago, without any knowledge of Grant's conception. I DID get the "tunnel" experience that seems so common there. But for me, it came out as passing through the guts of the Worm. (The Worm being the Qliphotic correspondence of the Serpent of Wisdom.) It seemed perfectly natural that the Serpent also have its qliphotic counterpart, and it never occurred to me that one needed a "gateway" to get to the qliphoth -- it was just another aspect of the substance of existence, not separate from that substance. >JN> As for the technique described in 'Generating the Abyss Experience', I >JN> haven't used it in years. Scares the SHIT out of me, and makes me sick >JN> as a dog for days after. It literally drains the life-energy out of >JN> you. Why anyone would want to deliberately create a condition of >JN> self-dispersion is beyond me, especially as it isn't necessary. >Scary, definitely; but instructive in ways that a verbal warning would >never properly convey. There's dis-integration, and then there's >dis-integration; understanding, in at least one self-inflicted way, >how and why that can occur, is quite as valuable as it is dangerous, >and renders, if the candidate is at all on the ball, the likelihood >of enforced, or other-inflicted disintegration (as is a real and >constant risk when dealing with demonic, klippotic or similar NightSide >entities) much less likely, IMO. Like running into a wall, it shows how >NOT to enter a house! };-] And it feels SO good when you stop! <> I suppose you have a point -- it certainly made me more cautious! >Maybe, though I think an incompetent would probably have a hard time making >it work. All the Temple work requires such visual focus and stability that >the average Joe is faced with more real work than he's likely to consider >profitable (unless, of course, he's a lama in disguise.....) True, it does require intense focus. It's even hard for me to get back into it without a week working up to a proper intensity. * SLMR 2.1a * [A]bort [R]etry [I]gnore [S]ay Kaddish 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 9 Jul 92 19:54:06 Subject: Re: Care Bears UpdReq >(Excuse my artistic license in the editing of your remarks...) Sure. >However, and I didn't save all your messages either, my recollection >is that you yourself said that AL was doubleplus ungood -I'm >paraphrasing, obviously- BECAUSE it stated in obscure, hifalutin' >words what could just as easily be read clearer somewhere else. >Leaving aside the question of whether that is indeed true (there's >more to the book than Do What Thou Wilt), I refer to your remark >above, that neither method is inherently better than the other. I, >personally, have found that a turn of phrase that either slips by, or >derails altogether, my left-hemispheric thinking, can at the same >time transmit a message to my right-hemisphere (I use these terms >rather loosely) and create an AHA! experience. Obviously, this is the >method of the Koan, among other schools. Subliminal enlightenment, if >you will. Actually, my original statement was nothing more than an expression of personal preference, with a half-whimsical mood behind it. Then everybody jumped all over me and things started getting bloody. I think I'll leave my last words as they stand, without further elaboration. Don't think I've ever touched so many raw nerves with a single remark. >How did I let myself get drawn into this, anyhow? I swore I was gonna >keep my trap shut! I've been asking myself that same question -- except replace "how" with "why". * SLMR 2.1a * Follow a Paranoid 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 9 Jul 92 19:59:08 Subject: Re: Care Bears UpdReq >JN> The last question is a matter of aesthetics and individual preference, > JN> and thus has no definite answer. But arguing about matters of taste > JN> can be as much fun as any other sort of argument. >Hehehe... "As brothers fight ye!" >'Course, MY brother and I fought dirty at times... Family fights are the worst. Ask any cop....or any Vietnamese. > JN> When I criticize Crowley, Liber > JN> AL, or other people's presentations of Thelema, it is precisely because > JN> their statements violate the principle of "Do what thou wilt". I want > JN> to get people to THINK FOR THEMSELVES, and to develop their own, > JN> _individual_ standards of judgement. I want them to become aware of > JN> the areas where their opinions are second-hand, based on a submissive > JN> reaction to some spiritual authority instead of being truly their own. > JN> I want them to stop thinking that they are "superior" because they have > JN> given uncritical adherence to someone else's ideas. This is the > JN> primary purpose of most of my critical remarks here. >OOPS! We were doing so well, too. Since when is it your place to want >others to conform to your will? Do your will, and leave them to >theirs. This is not to squelch discussion of points of view, but the >words "I want them..." rather surprised me, coming after such a clear >call for the principle of Thelema! Oh, come on, Vitriol! I bet you don't take that argument seriously yourself! There's a BIG difference between "wanting" and interfering with somebody's will. Am I using my mysterious mesmeric powers to reach through the phone lines -- and the five or six computers between me and thee -- and "control" the other people on the net? Not hardly -- just look at the responses I get! If I had that sort of power, I wouldn't be wasting it here -- I'd pick out the thirty families that own most of this country, and get them to give me proxies on their stock! If a person's "true will" is to be an unthinking follower, then that's what he'll be, no matter what I say. But if it's not their will, then maybe I can do a tiny bit of good by making them think about their beliefs. * SLMR 2.1a * Help stamp out Gerald Schueler. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 9 Jul 92 20:29:10 Subject: Crowley on the H.G.A. UpdReq >Vitriol said to Azoth: >In fact, one of the chapters of MWT is titled "The Holy Guardian >Angel is not the Higher Self", or words to that effect. I don't have >it in front of me, and can't recall the exact wording. If there's >interest, I can look it up, along with the argument itself. Allow me. I just happen to have the text in my slush file: MAGICK WITHOUT TEARS -- Letter 43: The Holy Guardian Angel An Objective Individual (Deleted: Discussion of telesmatic images and 'elemental' beings.) Now, on the other hand, there is an entirely different type of angel; and here we must be especially careful to remember that we include gods and devils, for there are such beings who are not by any means dependent on one particular element for their existence. They are microcosms in exactly the same sense as men and women are. They are individuals who have picked up the elements of their composition as possibility and convenience dictates, exactly as we do ourselves. I want you to understand that a goddess like Astarte, Astaroth, Cotytto, Aphrodite, Hathoor, Venus, are not merely aspects of the planet; they are separate individuals who have been identified with each other, and attributed to Venus merely because the salient feature in their character approximates to this ideal. Now then, it is simple to answer the question of their development, their growing old and dying; for, being of the same order of Nature as we are ourselves, almost anything which is true of us is true also of them. I have tended rather to elaborate this theme, because of the one personally important question which arises in more recent letters; for I believe that the Holy Guardian Angel is a Being of this order. He is something more than a man, possibly a being who has already passed through the stage of humanity, and his peculiarly intimate relationship with his client is that of friendship, of community, of brotherhood, or Fatherhood. He is not, let me say with emphasis, a mere abstraction from yourself; and that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term "Higher Self" implies "a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion." If it were not so, there would be no point in "The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage." Apart from any theoretical speculation, my Sammasati and analytical work has never led to so much as a hint of the existence of the Guardian Angel. He is not to be found by any exploration of oneself. It is true that the process of analysis leads finally to the realization of oneself as no more than a point of view indistiguishable _in_itself_ from any other point of view; but the Holy Guardian Angel is in precisely the same position. However close may be the identities in millions of ways, no complete identification is ever obtainable. But do remember this, above all else; they are objective, not subjective, or I should not waste good Magick on them. Let me say in particular in regard to Gods, that the God Jupiter whom you invoke is not necessarily the same as he whom I invoke. It is clear in any case that the revelation of himself to you is modified in many ways by your own particular sensitiveness; just as in ordinary life, your idea of a friend may be very different from my own conception of the same individual. Suppose, for example, he happens to be a musician, there will be an entire side of his character to which I am practically insensitive. You could talk to him for hours, and I would understand little or nothing of what was said. Similarly, if he were a mountaineer, it would be your turn to be the odd man out. Love is the law, love under will. Yours fraternally, 666 ___------------------------------------- Can't get much more definite than that! -- Josh * SLMR 2.1a * 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Kreizenski Area: Thelema To: Azoth 9 Jul 92 20:45:04 Subject: Liber AL UpdReq AZ\>To summarize, the Beast wrote these commentaries, at least: .. .. .. AZ\>There's also a file called comments.arc on BaphoNet containing much the AZ\>same as the one [#4, above] from 93 Publishing, though I understand that AZ\>it'll soon be removed under threat of suit from some bean-counting Osirian AZ\>out at New Falcon. I've got it if you're interested; the electronic form AZ\>IS much easier to search. In any case, the letters in _Magick_Without_Tears AZ\>happened years after any of Crowley's other Comments were written. Ye-Gods! Have I got a lot of reading to do. Considering the financial situation, I guess I've have to get used to printed out files. I prefer a good book (my one true love), but financial is not so willing. Could I get those files from you (Magick/Tears and Comments.Arc?). AZ\>The simple reason is that I spent many years chasing (and finding!) my AZ\>own Higher Self, and becoming (an ongoing process!) reacquainted with AZ\>my own True nature. You can roughly figure this process has occupied .. .. .. AZ\>Me (in the exalted union with my own true nature) that met Him, not AZ\>in the body, but as tangibly separate as you and I. It may be that AZ\>in Aeons to come, I may play a role as HGA to someone else, and so AZ\>carry forward the initiation chain so forged in my relationship with AZ\>Him; having only just begun to sound the wells of memory, I can barely AZ\>begin to perceive the karmic links which govern such things. In short, AZ\>I've met the Guardian of the Threshold, and He's NOT Me! Nothing much to say here, not having acquired similiar experiences. But I guess it's quite all right to assume that it's okay for me to keep going on, without having solidified my view on this issue? (I've been holding back, waiting for some of my opinions to solidify...) Quote: I have for a variety of reasons a _very_ high regard for To Mega Therion, his life and Work. BUT, _I_ am the centre of my Universe, NOT 666, and his accomplishments are of no practical consequence to me except insofar as they more or less reliably point the Way for my own accomplishment of the Great Work. ... ... My Will, NOT his, is done. I do, however, acknowledge his as a rather fine Finger pointing at a rather lovely Moon.... . When I first started this path, I didn't have anything but rumors about Crowley, and "I sure didn't want to get messed up in that!" The only reason I ever took a look at his stuff was due to the fact that way too many people that I have a LOT of respect for (Steve Craig and Paul Hume among others) kept recommending him..... So there I went, quietly analyzing his writings, trying to be a fair judge. At being an impartial judge I failed completely. As much as he sometimes revolted me, the man was brilliant! He stated things in a manner that walked directly into my heart. So now I'm collecting his stuff. As for following his Will, oh screw it! But he states a good point here and there, and I've a mind to listen when it applies. * OLX 2.2 * ..When I want your opinion, I'll read your entrails ... 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Kreizenski Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 9 Jul 92 20:56:06 Subject: Re: Thoughts : Part 1 UpdReq VI\> K> A God's consciousness is so far beyond our own, that as VI\> K> far as we are concerned, they aren't conscious..... VI\>Or we aren't! Bingo. VI\>K> "THERE is no God, but Man." Humanity itself is VI\> K> Sentient/Conscious, and I don't think the Gods would be simply VI\> K> Super-Humans. They would be of a level entirely different.... VI\>Well, QVIF, .. What is QVIF? VI\> .. but I see it as expressing the idea that WE ARE THE GODS. VI\>"The unveiling of the company of heaven." VI\>"Because they knew not themselves, and ye knew each other not." VI\>("Given" to me when reading that verse in AL.) This I understand. My point was to say that although we may be 'Gods' as we of this millenia understand them, would we be the Gods of a couple Millenia ago? Has the term been bastardized too far? Or are we just now inheiriting it? VI\>K> Besides... what would you call Nuit/Hadit? VI\>AL. VI\>or LA. GRRRRR. I feel real dumb right now. That IS annoying me. What are Nuit and Hadit supposed to be? Kreizenski ..where will the river flow?.. I'd dearly love to remove that word from all the dictionaries simultaneously, just to see what people would use instead... * OLX 2.2 * How do you kill a God when they don't drive drunk? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tony Iannotti Area: Thelema To: All 11 Jul 92 20:00:22 Subject: New Falcon Resolved, Safe Again! UpdReq * Original Area: MUNDANE * Original To : All (93:9400/0) Dear Thelemites; Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. I regret the sequence of misunderstandings that led to my inflammatory memorandum on BaphoNet. Also, I misspoke when I voiced doubts as to the validity of O.T.O.'s copyrights on _The Law is for All_ and _Magick Without Tears_. The Federal District Court Northern California (9th Circuit) settled the ownership issues relating to Crowley's copyrights in the United States. Legal steps taken by O.T.O. in England since the 1985 decision have established the O.T.O. ownership under the Berne Convention, which is now in effect worldwide since the U.S. signed last year. O.T.O. recognises the exclusive publishing rights of New Falcon to _Magick without Tears_, _The Law is for All_, _Eight_ _Lectures on Yoga_, _Little Essays Towards Truth_, and _The_ _Heart of the Master_. O.T.O. has apologised to New Falcon for not seeking the necessary permission before making these works available in data format through bulletin board systems, and New Falcon has verbally granted it, and will be sending a formal confirmation. Love is the law, love under will. Antony William Iannotti Deputy National Grand Master, O.T.O., U.S.A. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718