Tarot of Ceremonial Magic Study Group - The Magus

ravenest said:

No, I disagree with that as you actually made up a metaphore and attributed it to me that I never used !

I dont even know what this means : " if Crowley would oppose to that or whatever "
.

Click to expand...

You don't even know what it means? Please read your own posts to me. You asked, if Crowley would want us that, or (opposed to that or whatever).

No, I cannot agree with your understanding of Crowley. The quote you put down and your interpretation of it, that is exactly what I mean - a typical way of interpretation from word by word, and blindly claiming what is already there literally, is not really helpful.

I can't see the book is written for everybody under the sun from even a slightest common sense, nor would I believe everyone under the sun would take in positively the book or the system of Crowley. For one example, if I told my parents who are devout Christians, that I am reading Crowley and Thoth tarot deck, they would, first, not know what I mean, and then secondly they would think I am in serious trouble in life, if they knew what it is all about. I would not even try to persuade them it is a great new religion, let alone trying to explain what it is. Because I know they will not believe what I am talking about.

I would read that quote as a potential for everyone who would take up the system, and at least are willing to read, study and be even followers, initiates and adepts.

Yes, whoever they are, they could become the Thelemites, if they so willing, and make effort to understand the principles. But it is certainly not for Tom, Dick and Harry on the street or next door.

Zephyros said:

I agree. Another way to look at it is not as "stars" but as "suns," a word which, like Luna, specifies a specific body. The Book of Law certainly does not speak of white dwarfs or any other type of generic designation for a star but rather of a single star that gives life and warmth, the object of worship since the beginning of time on Earth. And Earth is what we're talking about, the expansion of man's awareness of his place relative to the Earth's deity. And it has always been the Sun, by whatever name this or that people chose to call it.

So, every man and every woman is the Sun.

In the previous thread about the Fool there was discussion of whether general symbolism can be used to interpret the Thoth Tarot. Now, it can be debated whether the deck can be used in such a fashion, no need to go back to that, but Crowley was certainly operating within a certain symbolic framework in which stars are not the stars of astronomy, deities are not those found in old Aeon religions and man's relationship with both operates under a different logic.

But then, that's the point. Crowley could have formulated an entirely different set of symbols in order to get his points across but he didn't because the archetypal connection is still there. What he did was redefine them. The old symbols still "work," but their meanings don't.

At least, that's how I see the underlying logic of the Book of Law. Every literary work has its own rules, whatever that work may be. In the world of Goldilocks bears talk, eat porridge and live in houses, and that's just the way it works. Arguing about whether bears talk in our world doesn't work because in that world they do.

Click to expand...

Crowley says that every man and woman is a star, and each and everyone must find his / her own star, which is right for them. It is from one of the Libers in Gems of Equinox.

Astrology and Astronomy were important subject to Crowley, and it is reflected in various writings of himself.

The famous occult motto, as above, so below says that stars in the sky has significant relation to earthly beings in Malkuth, and that's what Crowley meant, in my opinion.

foolMoon said:

The famous occult motto, as above, so below says that stars in the sky has significant relation to earthly beings in Malkuth

Click to expand...

There is a great article by IAO131 on the Archetype of the Star, relating to a discussion by Jung that might interest you. I can't link, though if you put in IAO131 and Psychology of LiberAL-pt 10: Archetype of the Star-or spark and the night sky, should come up on search.

" From [alchemy] I take, first and foremost the idea of the scintillae- sparks- which appear as visual illusions in the arcane substance... If we may compare the Sparks to the archetypes it is evident that Kunrath [16thc alchemist] lays particular stress on one of them. This one is also described as the Monad and the Sun as they both indicated deity. Therefore psychologically, the one scintilla or Monad is to be regarded as a symbol of the Self".

IMO the discussion involves a beautiful expression of the Star concept and also incorporates the idea of Hadit (sun- monad) "I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every Star"

smw said:

There is a great article by IAO131 on the Archetype of the Star, relating to a discussion by Jung that might interest you. I can't link, though if you put in IAO131 and Psychology of LiberAL-pt 10: Archetype of the Star-or spark and the night sky, should come up on search.

" From [alchemy] I take, first and foremost the idea of the scintillae- sparks- which appear as visual illusions in the arcane substance... If we may compare the Sparks to the archetypes it is evident that Kunrath [16thc alchemist] lays particular stress on one of them. This one is also described as the Monad and the Sun as they both indicated deity. Therefore psychologically, the one scintilla or Monad is to be regarded as a symbol of the Self".

IMO the discussion involves a beautiful expression of the Star concept and also incorporates the idea of Hadit (sun- monad) "I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every Star"

Click to expand...

Great post smw. I was quite enthralled to see commentaries on the topics, which I could relate to with my current ideas after a quick search from your post. I shall do more searches and readings from your info. The Jung's notes on the Star archetype look very interesting too. Thank you.

https://iao131.com/2010/12/26/activ...erse-a-star-among-stars-all-in-the-night-sky/

What I meant was also that metaphor has close link to the astronomical stars in the night sky. Not saying that every woman and man is physically and literally the stars in the sky.

foolMoon said:

Great post smw. I was quite enthralled to see commentaries on the topics, which I could relate to with my current ideas after a quick search from your post. I shall do more searches and readings from your info. The Jung's notes on the Star archetype look very interesting too. Thank you.

https://iao131.com/2010/12/26/activ...erse-a-star-among-stars-all-in-the-night-sky/

Click to expand...

The passage referred to is in Jung -on the nature of the Psyche, a great book, though I struggle with it

i love the outside and in thing- Jung cites- "He has implanted that light within in us that we may see in its light the light of Him Who dwells in inaccessible light, and that we may excell His other creatures ; in this wise we are made like unto Him, that He has given us a spark of His light.Thus the truth is to be sought not in ourselves, but in the image of God within us".

( I was enthralled too when reading it a touch of the numinous with the luminous thanks for the link)

foolMoon said:

You don't even know what it means? Please read your own posts to me. You asked, if Crowley would want us that, or (opposed to that or whatever).

Click to expand...

Now I dont know what this answer means ^ ... and I would NEVER have 'asked' ; " if Crowley would want us that, or (opposed to that or whatever). " - I have never structured a sentence like that in my life !

foolMoon said:

No, I cannot agree with your understanding of Crowley. The quote you put down and your interpretation of it, that is exactly what I mean - a typical way of interpretation from word by word, and blindly claiming what is already there literally, is not really helpful.

I can't see the book is written for everybody under the sun from even a slightest common sense, nor would I believe everyone under the sun would take in positively the book or the system of Crowley. For one example, if I told my parents who are devout Christians, that I am reading Crowley and Thoth tarot deck, they would, first, not know what I mean, and then secondly they would think I am in serious trouble in life, if they knew what it is all about. I would not even try to persuade them it is a great new religion, let alone trying to explain what it is. Because I know they will not believe what I am talking about.

I would read that quote as a potential for everyone who would take up the system, and at least are willing to read, study and be even followers, initiates and adepts.

Yes, whoever they are, they could become the Thelemites, if they so willing, and make effort to understand the principles. But it is certainly not for Tom, Dick and Harry on the street or next door.

Click to expand...

But it isnt my just my understanding of Crowley you are arguing about ... you are now even arguing with Crowley himself about Crowley's own understanding of his own intentions

“ This book is for
ALL:
for every man, woman, and child.
My former work has been misunderstood, and its scope limited, by
my use of technical terms. It has attracted only too many dilettanti and
eccentrics, weaklings seeking in magic an escape from reality. I
myself was first consciously drawn to the subject in this way. And
it has repelled only too many scientific and practical minds, such as
I most designed to influence.
But
MAGICK
is for
ALL.
I have written this book to help

the Banker, the Pugilist, the
Biologist, the Poet, the Navvy, the Grocer, the Factory Girl, the
Mathematician, the Stenographer, the Golfer, the Wife, the Consul

AND ALL THE REST

fulfil themselves perfectly, each in his or her
own proper function. “

foolMoon said:

Crowley says that every man and woman is a star, and each and everyone must find his / her own star, which is right for them. It is from one of the Libers in Gems of Equinox.

Click to expand...

No, he doesnt say that at all.

I am very happy to be PROVED wrong about that however ... please show the quote and source ( and not your interpretation with some vague reference ) .

Are you referring to ' A note upon Liber DCCCCLXIII ' ?

foolMoon said:

Astrology and Astronomy were important subject to Crowley, and it is reflected in various writings of himself.

The famous occult motto, as above, so below says that stars in the sky has significant relation to earthly beings in Malkuth, and that's what Crowley meant, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Crowley used tropical astrology, it doesnt relate to the stars.

There is a lot going on in this thread so first I would like to qualify myself by saying that I am speaking here as a Thelemite on the subject of Thelema. I would also like to note that most of my “speaking” was in the form of quotes of others that, I am positive, are more qualified than myself to speak on these matters.

I am not speaking as a member of the OTO, nor the AA or do I claim affiliation of any other group nor do I claim expertise over anything but myself. If I were in fact posting about ritual, mysticism, magick, astrology or Qabalah my post would most likely start Huh???????????? And if I were very lucky end Ohhhhhhhhhh. I did spend a few years on this site studying The Book of Law, and thus I feel perfectly qualified to call myself a Thelemite.

For clarity I am posting a quote from James Eshelman on what is a Thelmite. It is against the rules of this forum to provide a link to this quote or I would.

More practically... one doesn't "become" a Thelemite the way one, say, converts to Christianity or Islam or Judaism. For one thing, there is no standard definition of what a "Thelemite" is, though the broadest consensus is that it has to do with a state of being or orientation of life philosophy (for example), more than anything else.

Nor is "becoming a Thelemite" about doing particular practices. For example, most Thelemites are interested in ceremonial magick, but being interested in ceremonial magick isn't a requirement. We have to allow broad room for "secular Thelemites" who are just interested in the philosophy's application to their life, society, etc.; as well as many other "flavors."

Click to expand...

I really can’t tell what subject some other posters in this thread are talking about because all I am reading is a lot of opinion. Now being widely read on these subjects I can assume that some of you are getting at some fairly solid and valid material, but that might not be the case for others and I may prove myself to be the proverbial ass yet.

Nowhere in Eshelman’s quote does it say a Thelmite must be extremely disciplined nor take another’s word as truth simply because they say so. I was more kindled than taught, and that didn’t happen by challenging me and being told how wrong I was. When I was ready to learn I was directed to Crowley, Regardie, Case, ect. I never had to take anyone’s word for nothing.

And on a personal note, in case anyone is interested, when I do choose or am forced to (by life circumstances) stare into the abyss my preference is to sometimes have a security blanket. That’s just the kind of magician I am.

AW

ravenest said:

Now I dont know what this answer means ^ ... and I would NEVER have 'asked' ; " if Crowley would want us that, or (opposed to that or whatever). " - I have never structured a sentence like that in my life !




But it isnt my just my understanding of Crowley you are arguing about ... you are now even arguing with Crowley himself about Crowley's own understanding of his own intentions
“

Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't quote your question word by word, but just put down what it was about.

No I didn't argue with Crowley's sayings, but was offering more practical and realistic interpretation.
But I was just saying I dont agree with your understanding of Crowley.

ravenest said:

No, he doesnt say that at all.

I am very happy to be PROVED wrong about that however ... please show the quote and source ( and not your interpretation with some vague reference ) .

Are you referring to ' A note upon Liber DCCCCLXIII ' ?



Crowley used tropical astrology, it doesnt relate to the stars.

Click to expand...

I saw it while scanning through Gems from the Equinox. I cannot find it now, because the book is so massive. I will find it through time. I mentioned it just from my memory, because if anyone has read Crowley for many years, then he would know about it.

Also have a read Liber DXXXVI, which is interesting.

Tropical astrology? Doesn't relate to stars? What does it relate to?