From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 7 Nov 94 09:16:50 Subject: Re: THE ABYSS UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Howdy Josh! > Every initiation begins when the individual is exposed to magickal > energies descending from a level at which he is not yet capable of > operating consciously. After the energy comes into the person, the > process of integrating it and moving the consciousness upwards > typically involves four stages: > > -- A "blind" stage, in which nothing much seems to be happening. The > person may experience an elevated state for a while, or he may not. > > -- A "death" or "dissolution" stage, in which the energy acts to break > up his perceptions, mentation, and conceptions. > > -- A "solar" stage, in which things start to come together again in a > new way that allows the consciousness to remain stable at a higher > level. This is the stage of the "Aha!" experience, where new insights > tumble into the mind one after the other. > > -- An "aftermath" stage, in which the person uses the insights gained > to reorganize his general knowledge and activities. Just wanted to say thanks for the above...probably the clearest and most accurate description I've read of the 'inner initiation' process! ;> Love is the law, love under will. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: Christeos Pir 5 Nov 94 08:09:12 Subject: Re: Books UpdReq CP> The other is a hilarious little number called _Satan Wants You_. CP> Despite the 'ooga-booga' presentation, and a huge number of factual CP> errors (Mathers was an Ipsissimus?), Lyons' tone isn't too bad. But to CP> tell the truth, the REAL reason I brought it home was so I could scan CP> the photo of Sammy Davis, Jr. with his arm around Anton LaVey!!! (I CP> wonder if that was before or after Sammy kissed Nixon?) CP> CP> I gotta tell ya though, Dr. Aquino, I hope you're not sporting that CP> Eddie Munster look anymore! Tell me you sued the publisher for using CP> THAT photo, please! ;-) In 1972 Sammy Davis, Jr. made a film called _Poor Devil_ [with Christopher Lee as Satan]. It was a very cheerful film - so complimentary to Satanism, in fact, that the network execs nixed the series based on it that Davis had originally planned. Anyhow - as a Magister of the Church of Satan at the time - I wrote Davis an appreciative letter and invited him to accept an honorary Church of Satan membership. He wrote back and accepted, so I presented it to him on the stage of the Circle Star (appropriate title) Theater in Belmont, CA a month or so later. A few months after that he invited Anton & Diane LaVey and me to visit him, which we did, and that's where photos of th four of us were taken. FYI the one in _SWY_ originally had Diane on Sammy's other side, but by the time the book was published, Anton & Diane were estranged, hence she got cropped. There are in fact a great many errors in _SWY_, particularly where the Church of Satan/Temple of Set situation is concerned. Art Lyons knows better; he's just an old friend of Anton's who wants to continue on his Halloween card list. He is also a I* member of the Church of Satan - has been since 1968. When he went on _Larry King_ to hype the book, fellow author Larry Kahaner pointed this omitted item out, which caused Art to hem and haw and say, "Well, it was just for research," and other BS like that. As for Eddie Munster: In fact that is how my parents designed me, i.e. with a very pronounced widow's peak and sharply pointed eyebrows. [Occasionally I produce baby photos to verify this, but it doesn't work on an echo.] Yes, I could disguise these features; no, I don't wish to. Live long and prosper. Once or twice, for certain Temple of Set rituals, I experimented with Egyptian eye makeup, a la Tut. It's a very startling effect, particularly on males [as we are somewhat more used to eye-accent on females today]; but it really did not work with my eyebrows [Tut as a vampire?], so I gave it up. Shucks. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Andy Bender Area: Thelema To: Michelle Hass 3 Nov 94 08:40:00 Subject: Natural Laws? UpdReq MH> Sorry, friend. We do die. No amount of wishing away can change this MH> fact. And there is no way of knowing with total certainty if we MH> reincarnate, or if we simply disintegrate, or if we wind up in MH> some "summerland" "Devachan" "Heaven" or "Hell." Remember what MH> Uncle Al says about doubt. And lust of result. Are you speaking of a complete eradication of the Self? How is that possible? What do you mean by death? In L.V.X. ___ X RM 1.3 01655 X Boo! 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: JOSEPH MAX Area: Thelema To: JOSH NORTON 3 Nov 94 20:08:00 Subject: Re: SYNTHESIS AND EXPOSIT UpdReq -=> Quoting Josh Norton to Balanone <=- JN> And just to make things clear, I don't believe that Michael is the JN> Magus of a "New Aeon"; I doubt whether he is a Magus in any sense. JN> Neither do I believe that he has touched the core of the Set current, JN> but just one of its outer layers; and he and the ToS have screwed up JN> even that, through their idiotic insistence on Set's isolation and the JN> existence of an untouchable "self" at the core of being. BRAVO! Huzzah!!! ! Three cheers for Josh!! Hip hip........... (and the crowd goes wild....) ... Be careful of your thoughts; they may become words at any moment. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Andy Bender Area: Thelema To: Ar Aakhu-T 1 Nov 94 08:17:02 Subject: Thelemic Marriage Ritual UpdReq AA> The idea for using talismans in a marriage ritual AA> came from the spouse of my initiator Fra. Zax at Pyramid AA> Lodge. She is full of ideas and experience in the matter. AA> If you'd care to get in touch with her, I'd highly AA> recommend it- you can reach her c/o Pyramid Lodge or if AA> you want to e-mail me I'll help put you in touch. Can you give me the mailing address of Pyramid Lodge? I'd love to drop her a letter, if that's the place I should direct it to. Much gras, in L.V.X. ___ X RM 1.3 01655 X Be nice to your kids. They will choose your nursing home. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: All 5 Nov 94 08:15:04 Subject: Thelemic Order of the Golden Dawn UpdReq I recently received a newsletter from an organization called the Thelemic Temple and Order of the Golden Dawn, based in Los Angeles and apparently the joint creation of Christopher Hyatt and David Cherubim. I have not had any previous contact with this organization, and am curious to know how it is regarded in the Thelemic community. I had heard some years ago that Hyatt was trying to restart the Golden Dawn as such, and was working with Francis Regardie shortly after FR retired to Sedona. But I supposed it to be a pre-Crowley G.'.D.'. effort. This present organization is clearly Crowley-inclusive. Anyone have any comments? 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Balanone Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 7 Nov 94 19:23:08 Subject: book of coming forth 1/ UpdReq On Nov 03, 1994, Josh Norton wrote to Zepher re: book of coming forth Josh, you've made some important points which I'd like to comment on... Z> It seems that you want lucid information in regards to a study that Z> is in no uncertain terms ambiguous. I find it unlikely that Z> Michael Aquino or anyone else will be able to give a synopsis that Z> will do justice to the magnitude of what is realized through years Z> of Initiation. JN> This is Balanone's "sound bites" argument. The answer is JN> that Michael has already written a couple of books that he JN> says explain his view of the magickal universe. In past JN> discussions, he's referred to them without quoting them -- JN> saying, in essence "I've have an explanation, but I'm not JN> going to tell you." You have to join the Temple of Set to JN> get access to them. If you don't want to join, you're still JN> expected to believe that they have some marvelous secret. JN> To me, this smacks of smoke and mirrors, not initiation. I'm sorry to have given you the impression that you're expected to believe that we have some marvelous secret (or several of them). I'll admit that we often talk and behave as if *we* think we have some special knowledge, but that's primarily because we feel we do. We also recognize that because of our policy of sharing this knowledge in detail only within the group, that many will react to our uppity behavior like you do, and we accept that. We do not expect anyone to "believe that they have some marvelous secret" unless they do join the Temple, at which time they're free to make up their own minds with the evidence, and to leave the Temple at any time if they feel we're wrong. Many people join, many people leave, many people stay. That's as it should be. JN> I think that people get too hung up on the Ineffability Of JN> It All. As a Magister Templi, I know perfectly well that JN> anything I say about the transcendental realms -- indeed, JN> about any level of initiation -- is going to be incomplete, JN> and therefor a lie. And is going to be misinterpreted by JN> those not yet at that level. Despite this, simply keeping JN> silence or saying "it's beyond your grade" or (like Michael) JN> "it's a secret" is, to me, a cop-out, an abandonment of our JN> obligations in the Great Work. This is the point I think is very important. Keeping "silent" the way we do goes counter to your vision of the Great Work. Having read what I have of your work and posts, I can see that, and I applaud your pursuit of your Great Work. However, my Great Work is not yours, and Dr. Aquino's is different yet from both of ours. He made the determination that his Great Work was better served by maintaining his information within the Temple of Set environment where it could be explored in better depth, and toward better understanding and applicability, than in sharing it broadly throughout the occult community. After a large number of years within the Temple of Set and within the occult community at large, and after a (smaller) number of years on the networks, I have come to the conclusion that his decision was sound and correct. Given what I have learned, and what (little) I know of my own Great Work, if I had to make that decision today I'd make the same decision he did years ago. JN> If one is sincerely interested in helping people to initiate JN> themselves, the advantages of public discussion far JN> outweigh any disadvantages. Correction: If one is sincerely interested in helping people *far*and*wide* to initiate themselves, then you are right. However, Dr. Aquino and most Setians are of the opinion that most people simply don't/won't initiate themselves, and instead they'll spend hours upon hours arguing and discussing and talking about whatever is offered. Those hours upon hours invested in people who don't/won't initiate themselves are wasted. The Temple of Set chooses instead to invest its time and energies in those who are willing to seriously work at their initiation, as demonstrated a) by joining the Temple of Set and its community, and b) by actually working on and eventually initiating themselves into the Second Degree of the Temple. We feel the advantages of this policy far outweigh the disadvantages. JN> As Michelle Hass and Andrew JN> Haigh show in another current thread, people are going to JN> make interpretations regardless. Explanations by people who JN> have actually been there at least have the advantage of JN> having _some_ connection to what really happens, and can JN> therefor serve as a clue, however vague, to getting there. People are going to make interpretations regardless. Those who are serious about getting there (and who have the qualifications for getting there) will do what it takes, including getting through the barrier of the Temple's policy, if that is the path by which their self- development leads them. Balanone PP FidoNet: Balanone at 1:203/444.15 Internet: Balanone@tefnut.astaroth.sacbbx.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 6 Nov 94 23:51:26 Subject: Re: book of coming forth 2/ UpdReq JN> Now, in the case of Michael Aquino and the Temple of Set it is even more JN> important that they attempt to provide clear, unambiguous descriptions To those with the capacity to understand, and who make the effort to do so, we do. Those without the former, and/or failing the latter, would assuredly find greater personal happiness in some other interest. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Balanone Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 7 Nov 94 19:43:26 Subject: book of coming forth 2/ UpdReq On Nov 03, 1994, Josh Norton wrote to Zepher re: book of coming forth 2/ JN> [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] JN> Now, in the case of Michael Aquino and the Temple of Set it JN> is even more important that they attempt to provide clear, JN> unambiguous descriptions of their initiations. This is JN> because they specifically deny the validity and necessity JN> of certain events that appear in practically every other JN> major initiation system in the world, east and west. (Most JN> notably, they deny the loss of identification with the JN> individualized self that precedes the grade of Master of JN> the Temple.) I agree with this importance, and therefore not only study and work with the material within the Temple of Set that has already been developed in this area, but also work to enhance, extend, and clarify what work is already available within the Temple of Set. (I am not the most prolific contributor to the Temple's publications by any means, but I'm probably in the top two dozen.) JN> In respect to these things, they are effectively saying that JN> every past and present initiatory system _except_ theirs is JN> wrong, and based on delusions. Given the import of this JN> discovery, if true, and the weight of evidence against JN> them, I don't see it as at all unreasonable to demand that JN> they justify this in detail, both from a theoretical view JN> _and_ from the view of documented practical experimentation. Go ahead and demand all you want. :-) JN> It may be that they actually have something going for them. JN> But how can anybody know? And why should we bother to JN> believe them, or their claims of superiority, without such JN> evidence? In the absence of such information, we are JN> equally justified in believing that they have concocted JN> some self-serving belief system no better than any other JN> common religion. You can't know, without studying our materials. And if you're not willing to commit yourself to studying those materials within the Temple of Set's environment, then you shouldn't bother to believe them, because they won't do you any good unless you find your Great Work lies along the Left Hand Path. And there's a critically important point -- the Left Hand Path is a path for the minority of the minority, and only a very few can successfully navigate it. We've never denied that. Our methods and approaches will work only for a select few. There is no benefit to anyone in our "proving" the validity of our path to those for whom it doesn't apply. Balanone PP FidoNet: Balanone at 1:203/444.15 Internet: Balanone@tefnut.astaroth.sacbbx.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Therion Area: Thelema To: Alexander Haigh 7 Nov 94 20:31:20 Subject: Initiation UpdReq Hello, I just realized what the initiation process I went through was. It allowed me to live life as a series of circumstances. Neither is more important than another, and they should all be approached with an objectivity that can only be attained by examining the situation and all possible outcomes of the situation and actions taken in reference to it. I also have realized truthfully that "Every man and woman is a star." It came at a perfect time as I expect it always does. Difficult situations can be made easier when you view them as equal parts of a whole. Does this correspond with any experience you have had in the past? I am not sure if any other new awakenings have occured, but These are the most notable. Anyway, I can now believe that I have advanced past Neophyte and now feel that I can overcome any "obstacle" thrown my way. Until, I guess, it is time for my next initiation. I feel so much better now that I realize what has occured and I am waiting and working towards the next step. Pax and Love 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Ned Area: Thelema To: MARTIN KROGH-POULSEN 8 Nov 94 02:22:00 Subject: Liber al prophecy UpdReq MK>well, hi Ned! Hello Martin. I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. MK>N> .... In any event the 1980's, while MK>N> certainly as turbulent as any other time period, were not as clearly MK>N> characterized by some over-arching theme as the 40's were by WWII. MK>Well, what if we waited a couple of years and took a look at the comming MK>developments! They might make the eighties look like a picnic in MK>comparison... MK>Martin Krogh-Poulsen They well may, but that wouldn't affect my views on the AL verse. I'll bring the potato salad... Ned. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Ned Area: Thelema To: MICHAEL AQUINO 8 Nov 94 02:22:00 Subject: Synthesis UpdReq MA>I am not reluctant to talk about Hegel's ideas, but thought that MA>readers of this echo might find the reference sufficient if they MA>cared to pursue the matter.I'll give you a few paragraphs from MA>my Hegel-essay in the _Ruby Tablet of Set_ and see if you're MA>still awake at that point: Fear not, I am unhypnotizable. No doubt a defect, only one among many. As a reader of this echo I found the reference opaque enough to warrant a clarification. While I appreciate your medley of Hegel's Greatest Hits, and I suppose I was asking for it by my tone, what I really wanted was a demonstration of his particular relevance to "a Setian situation". The particular reference you made, to my mind, served to contradict the sense in which it was meant to be taken. I dont mean to hang you with one paragraph, but you did later insist upon its importance to your views. I wanted to know how. Since you have here provided your notion of Hegel, let me use it to be specific: MA>(1) Hegel conceives the Universe as the manifestation of God's MA>mind seeking complete self-realization through a process called MA>*dialectic idealism*. .. MA> ... it is the concept that the history of the world MA>consists of part of the spirit of God, manifesting itself through MA>the collective spirits of mankind, moving onwards through logic MA>(the dialectic) towards complete self-understanding. ... Do you hold with this progressive "manifesting" and "moving onward" of a "part of the spirit of God"? The concept of successive Aeons, to which I assume you subscribe, does indeed look like "DI in occult drag", but I thought you simultaneously insisted on some sort of untouchable/antiseptically ideal and uninfluenceable core of being. Am I mistaken? Is its "manifesting" to be thought of as a coincidental mirroring of the unfolding of history, or rather some temporal revealing of its already inherent nature? The latter, passive, concept is how I was reading you (and it seems to be Balanone's interpretation in his present response to me) until you said particularizations "push" and "the Neter partakes". These phrases suggest an active intercourse between the two which sounds sorta irreconcilable with a total isolation of the ideal, unless one posits a rather curiously innocent coincidental correspondence. Your citing of the "Overmind" as an active principle, "driving" and "controlling" the particulars, suggested that you did admit of some interactive development, and your rejection of the OM was then prompted by the direction it assigned to the impetus rather than the concept's allowance of mutual influence. MA>In many ways Hegel is a reaction (antithesis & synthesis) to Immanuel Kant And in a few ways H is a continuation and refinement of Kant's calculatedly imposing stiltification of discourse... to the modern incarnation of which I attribute most references to H. MA>[I think this is enough to make the point about Hegel's relevance to the MA>"generalization/particularization" concept. ..] Yes it does illustrate H's general relevance quite nicely. Thank you. Which bits do the Setians subscribe to? Ned. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718