From: Paul Hume Area: Thelema To: Randolph Clayton 23 Sep 94 10:13:22 Subject: Re: Thoth UpdReq Ravenwind - Orthographic snobbery ill becomes you. The use of the Coptic-Greek spellings in English texts is a commonplace even among scholars of Egyptian history. And the "original" spellings are open to variation, as one sees Hathor rendered Het Heru as often as Het Heret. Reminding people that the common renderings are derived from Greek adaptations is fine, but dressing it up in some kind of moral or magical superiority seems akin to arguing whether qoph-beth-lamed-heh is "spelled" qabala, kabbalah, etc. or that it makes a rat's ass of difference in discussing meaning. Oh, yes, you left out that Ra-Hoor-Khuit is properly Ra-Heru-Khuti, or Rahorakhty, depending on the orthography you prefer. 93. Paul 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christeos Pir Area: Thelema To: Fir 23 Sep 94 10:37:20 Subject: Egyptian Book of the Dead UpdReq -=> Fir sent a message to Christeos Pir on 20 Sep 94 20:20:01 <=- -=> Re: Egyptian Book of the Dead <=- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Fi> Now I get it. You're doing here what you probably wouldn't Fi> let others get away with on that other echo you moderate (teasing). Well (he said defensively), the situation there's a little different, since this echo doesn't have the problems that one's had. But I digress. Fi> Do you have a personal favorite translation of the Egyptian Fi> Book of the Dead? I remember you quoted something from Faulkner's. I like them both, really. I don't know enough to get on a soapbox about Budge's accuracy (or any alleged lack therof), and I have enjoyed his for so long; the interlineal style is enjoyable and instructional (note caveat, above). I also liked the Faulkner (was it Faulkner? the name escapes me, so I'll take your word for it), and the illustrations were beautiful -- more of a coffeetable book than a scholarly tome. (And I can't wait to check it out of the library again, once I buy that hand- scanner!) So far those are the two I've run across. Love is the law, love under will. - CP ... for Thy messenger was more terrible than the Death-star. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Christeos Pir 22 Sep 94 12:15:00 Subject: "diary of a net fiend" UpdReq Thus said Christeos Pir to Josh Norton concerning "diary of a net fiend": CP> Say, don't you have a copy of the Enochian TT font? I can't recall offhand whether it's Truetype or Type 1, but yeah, I've got one. Just barely useable, IMO -- the guy just scanned in a diagram from one of Crowley's books. He didn't do a very good job on the kerning, and didn't beef them up to be readable at small sizes. Did you want a copy? ... Hey big fella! Looks like it may be your turn next! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: To Meta Thereon 22 Sep 94 15:33:02 Subject: Solar enlightenment UpdReq Thus said To Meta Thereon to Josh Norton concerning Solar enlightenment: TMT> Perhaps I did mean solar enlightenment after all. That is TMT> the path that I am currently after, but is there anything TMT> more that I should attempt to invoke instead of the HGA? I TMT> seem to get confused on the necessity to invoke or evoke TMT> things. It appears to be useless to me. Usually, if I TMT> wish for something, I get it. Heh. In this case, it depends on how hard you wish, and how long. The intensity of your desire for it is certainly a significant factor. TMT> If you could explain the usefulness for evocation and TMT> invocation, I would greatly appreciate it. Also maybe some TMT> ideas on who or what to invoke would help. No doubt others will want to jump in with their own opinions on this matter. Everyone's got their own view. Invocation and evocation are traditional distinctions, and I'm not sure how applicable they are to initiatory magick. To in-voke something is to contact an external source and bring its power into yourself, or into your magickal circle (which is the same thing). To e-voke something is literally to "bring it out", to cause some sort of quasi-objective manifestation. The latter term was originally applied to situations where you want to talk to some being -- such as a demon -- but want to maintain some separation from it for safety reasons. Typically one stood in a protective circle and evoked the being into a constraining triangle. In present-day magick, the term applies to almost any situation where a perceptible, outside-yourself appearance of something is desired. Since the intent of initiatory magick is to cause a change in your own perceptions, traditional evocation isn't much use there. Some systems seek to "evoke" hidden parts of the magician himself, his internalized, unconscious demons, and this _may_ be useful in some situations. In a VERY small nutshell, the general idea behind initiatory magick is that each human being is a reflection of the universe, but that under normal conditions the conscious self is only aware of an extremely small part of the activity going on in the being. All the other parts, whether sub-conscious or supra-conscious, affect the activity of the conscious self without it being aware of or able to control them. And because their activity has never been examined, none of them are operating at their best; their "programming" has been haphazard, accidental, or non- existent. Under normal conditions the conscious self also lacks the power to become aware of these parts of the being. Extremely stressful or life- threatening conditions might force the consciousness to a higher level, but this is a chancy and unreliable process. The intent of initiatory magick is to gradually and progressively open the regions of which the conscious self is not aware, so that it can first learn to see them, then to control them to an extent, and then to consciously re-integrate their activity into its being. The practice of invocation draws in an outside power in such a way that either: a) the person's consciousness is raised up to a higher level and can become aware of the parts of himself that are there, or b) the power stimulates the activity of some supra-conscious part of himself, so that its activity becomes more noticable to the conscious self. Either one of these constitutes an "initiation". When they happen repeatedly, to the point where the person's consciousness becomes stabilized on a new level, the person has achieved a "grade" of initiation. And awareness of new aspects of one's own being also produces an awareness of the corresponding aspects of the universe at large, so that one's relationship to the world constantly evolves as well. Now, there are some "cosmic" forces that affect us regardless of whether they are invoked. Astrological forces are the most prominent of these. Their effects are very similar to those that would be produced by formally invoking the same forces, so theoretically you could get initiated without ever doing a formal invocation. But recognizing these natural effects and tracing them upwards requires a bit more sensitivity and ability at self-examination than does a purely invocatory method. TMT> How would I know if I was successful in it anyway? Good question. The answer is, it's hard to be sure until some time has passed after the event. That's true of any real initiation, because it's hard to be objective about something so intimate to your awareness. The problem is exacerbated in the case of the solar initiation by the fact that a strong personality-aspect can mimic most of the outward signs of the real achievement. ... Q-Tip: A piece of advice from a powerful entity. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Navitae 23 Sep 94 14:16:22 Subject: Re: Liber al prophecy UpdReq I was just speaking of Ra-Hoor-Kuit, and I recently read a message that said something to the effect that a prophecy is no good unless people that were alive to see it written are alive to see it fulfilled. Makes sense to me. Im just irked at the people that assume that Maat's aeon has begun because some ego ridden magickian said it was without showing any real proof. If there is any proof to this, I would be glad to see it, but it is my hope that Horus will stand his full time so that Magick may become mainstream and others may benefit from its rewards. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Navitae 23 Sep 94 14:19:16 Subject: Re: TOPY UpdReq What the hell is TOPY, sounds interesting. How about sharing a source or what it is your talking about, friend. Any knowledge is welcome. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Grendel Grettisson 23 Sep 94 14:20:32 Subject: organization UpdReq There was no intention of angering you with my thoughts, but from what I have seen of "mainstream" organizations, there does appear to be a hell of a lot of blind devotees. It was not my idea to raise your ire and I am sorry if I offended you, but can you not see the ignorance in many organized followers? The freemasons seem to know less of what they are doing than most magickians familiar with their rituals, and Christians have lost the independence it requires to interpret the Bible usefully. I do not despise these groups or any groups that would come up, I am just saying that it is sad that this is what a large organization can do. Eventually, the larger the organization grows, the more of an institution it becomes, and have you ever tried to argue with an institution? It is useless. Again forgive me if you took it as a personal attack, I was just stating what I have observed over my short time on this earth. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Mars Gunn 23 Sep 94 14:25:22 Subject: RTOD#2 UpdReq If you cannot laugh at yourself or your most devoted beliefs, then do you not become a slave of them to wallow in the abyss? Remember, everyone is funny, you just have to see the silliness behind life to truly enjoy it. No, I was not trying to be funny, I am just upset that so many people take their rituals so seriously, and do not experiment with their own ideas. Just trying to open some minds is all 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 23 Sep 94 14:29:46 Subject: Solar enlightenment UpdReq THanks for the info, but sometimes it seems that if I just sit on my ass and wait, I will be enlightened. Other times I see fit to tear the walls of reality from my view. The "Big Picture" eludes me still, but if this is the knowledge of the Ipissimus, then I shall aquire it. I seem to know my true will, but I tend to forget that I have a lifetime to accomplish it and the enlightenment that it will surely bring. Anyway, say I invoke Horus. Why would I want to invoke him inparticularly, what are the results, and are these stupid questions? The only invokation I have seen fit to do is that of the HGA, and I am not sure if I succeeded or not. This bugs me greatly. It appears that either I was already open to its influence, or I had a complete failure. Is there anyway to tell the difference? Also, if in a former life, I did invoke my HGA and attain the KandC with him, would I need to go through the entire process again? I feel lost all of the sudden, Like I am aeons behind in my knowledge. Perhaps it is once again time to turn to John ST. John and Liber Samekh. Enjoy your state of mind, because it could collapse at any time! 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Mars Gunn Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton, Joseph Max 23 Sep 94 13:01:00 Subject: Peter Carroll UpdReq While I have my own critisisms of Carroll (irresponsible to an extent, a little heavy on the 'black' side of things) I've never considered his thinking sloppy. It's been a couple of years since I've read to any depth, his stuff. I'd like to hear where you both feel he's sloppy and laconic. BTW, do you really think Grant's a Chaotist? He seems to be just an *extrememly* unorthodox Cabalist- with a good dose of abstracted anal-retentiveness... "Hope is Nostalgia for the Future" 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718