Advice on LBRP

ravenest

??? No!!! :eek: <runs screaming from the room>
(after watching 'The Wondrous World of Chi Power ', 'Badshah Noori' and 'benny Hinn')

:joke:



I refuse to repeat gossip .....



... so I will only tell you this ONCE .....

(actually, I better PM it to you )

- at least all that screaming and running cured any potential idleness ;)
 

Aeon418

If you do not belong to a GD jurisdiction (I don't), I believe it is unwise to force oneself into an egregore you don't belong to.
A fair point. However the LBRP has ceased to be exclusive Golden Dawn technology for a long time now. The number of people who have worked with, and continue to work with, that ritual outside of a strict Golden Dawn context vastly outnumbers the membership of any Golden Dawn groups past or present. So where does that leave the ritual egregore? It sounds like a bit of a mixed bag to me.

Personally I think any kind of significant 'egregore effect' is limited to specific locations where a particular ritual has been performed by a number of people over a lengthy period of time. Someone outside of that group who tries to practice the same rituals in the general area of the original group may, if they are sensitive to that sort of thing, tap into the group thought form. If that's a problem just modify the ritual or use something else.

I still think it's pretty rare and unlikely though. I've only ever met one person who claimed they were having problems of this sort. Was it a valid claim? I have no idea. But after this person was convinced into trying Crowley's personal twist of the LBRP (the inclusion of the name, Aiwass, in the QC), the problem went away.
 

Aeon418

I am not sure, if I have understood the views of the original poster correctly, but if (s)he is attracted by Thelema , the new magical religion of Aleister Crowley (or if another reader is), the Star Ruby Ritual could be something to consider (I am not a Thelemite myself, but to each their own):
Switching to the Star Ruby is one possibility. But there are a couple of flies in that particular ointment.

Although Crowley described the Star Ruby as "a new and more elaborate version of the Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram", it is not a 1:1 equivalent to the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram. (Note that I have not said the LBRP, which is merely a particular subset of the Lesser Ritual.) The LRP is capable of being adapted into various banishing/invoking and elemental forms. But this is not the case with the Star Ruby. The original intent behind that ritual is that it is a pure banishing ritual. (Likewise it's compliment, Liber 36, is purely an invocation.) Of course there's nothing stopping anyone from trying to adapt the Star Ruby to other purposes, but this does go against the tone and symbolic intent of the ritual which is 100% banishing.
In contrast to that the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram is more like a tool kit that you can do a lot of different things with. The Star Ruby, on the other hand, is a specific tool.

Another potential problem with the Star Ruby is that it does not appear to be a direct replacement for the LBRP. This problem is compounded by the fact that Crowley never clearly defined this ritual. Neither is there any record that he ever performed it!
Over the years multiple commentators have presented various theories on what Crowley may have intended the Star Ruby to represent. While many of these theories differ, there is general consensus that the ritual is not a mere reworking of the LBRP dressed up in different names and imagery.

On top of that the two different versions of the Star Ruby present another problem. According to some the original Book of Lies version is symbolically a pentagram ritual for Adepts. Unlike the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram, which aims to establish the magician at the intersection of the Paths of Samekh and Peh, the Book of Lies Star Ruby appears to start with the magician already in Tiphareth!

The second version that appeared in, Magick in Theory and Practice, is a re-working of Liber XXV that Crowley performed around the same time he was working on Liber V vel Reguli. In the latter ritual Crowley distributed the elements around the circle in way that is different from the usual micro/macro schemes found in Golden Dawn rituals. Crowley 'appears' to have tried to adapt the Star Ruby to this new scheme, but the vocalizations of two of the quarters don't match up! :confused: Some people think this is significant, while others think that this is an editorial mistake that Crowley failed to catch before MTP went to press. But there's more. One interesting point is that in Crowley's note book that contains his rough drafts for the revised Star Ruby, he experimented with multiple different placements of the elements around the circle, but the the position of the four guardians (Iungges, etc.) never changes once. One conclusion that has been drawn from this is that the four guardians were not intended to be elemental guardians in the same sense that the Archangels are in the LBRP.
 

Frater Benedict

Thank you Aeon418. You have taught me a lot of new stuff about the Star Ruby. Since I am not a Thelemite myself, I haven't reflected very much upon it, but I have been aware of its existence as something similar to the LRP (a view now modified). An interesting detail of it, is that GROUPS of entities (borrowed from The Chaldaean Oracles), instead of individual entities, are called upon.

The archangels in the LRP are probably NOT intended to be elemental guardians neither, at least according to Nick Farrell (Magical imagination, p. 196).

And if Ravenest is reading this: You don't think that you over-react on my post? 'Consider' is a rather mild choice of word, isn't it, and if someone feels more at ease with Greek, the Chaldaean Oracles and Uncle Al than with Hebrew, a Jewish evening prayer and Kabbalah... why not? Personally, I think that most persons would do well to try the Druid Sphere of protection out instead, if they haven't found a banishing ritual that they dare to use. There are more than one way to prepare a meal.
 

Aeon418

Since I am not a Thelemite myself, I haven't reflected very much upon it, but I have been aware of its existence as something similar to the LRP (a view now modified).
If you are interested in finding out a bit more, I highly recommend Jim Eshelman's three part analysis of the Star Ruby in the journal, Black Pearl.
All issues can be downloaded for free here:
http://thelema.org/publications/bp.html
Going from memory, I think part 1 is in issue number 5. Part 2 is in issue number 6. And the third and final part is in issue number 8. The whole analysis is also reprinted in the same author's, Pearls of Wisdom.

Of course the proof of any pudding is in the eating. From my experience the Star Ruby feels very different to the LBRP. That's one reason why I don't think the Star Ruby is a direct like-for-like replacement for the LBRP. I keep both rituals in my personal armoury, but use them for slightly different purposes.

I'm being a bit silly here of course, but if this is the LBRP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q8inM0gKVo

Then this is the Star Ruby:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWyVd1iKa-I

An interesting detail of it, is that GROUPS of entities (borrowed from The Chaldaean Oracles), instead of individual entities, are called upon.
Eshelman addresses this in the second part of his analysis.
James A. Eshelman said:
Some students have intelligently objected that all four of these names are Greek plurals, implying groups of entities, not individuals. Their limited discussion in The Chaldean Oracles is consistent with that. Despite it's grammatical accuracy, I do not find the argument compelling for two reasons:

1. The Guardians stand in the ritual where we would expect Briatic (arch-angel level) entities. Multiplicity is a characteristic of Yetzirah, as unity is of Briah.

2. I no longer think Crowley actually intended these Guardians to be the specific entities mentioned in The Chaldean Oracles, though he certainly drew the names from that source. I think he simply wanted Greek names for a Greek ritual, and took the best he had to hand.

It is up to the working magician to forge these names into the effective magical receptacles of cosmic forces that this protective ritual requires.
And here is one possible example of that process using the letters of each name to form Telesmatic images.
http://thelema.org/home/art_gallery.html

According to some people, within context of this ritual, Iynges is roughly equivalent to Chokmah and Alchemical Sulphur. Synoches is roughly equivalent to Binah and Alchemical Salt. Teletarchai is roughly equivalent to Alchemical Mercury. And Daimonos (Daimones?) is sort of like the projection of these three principles below the Abyss as the HGA.

But of course Crowley never said a word on any of this, so it's a lot of speculation. But, as always, some speculation is of better quality than others. Over the years I've read a number of different theories, and the above is probably the most satisfying I've seen so far.
 

Frater Benedict

Thank you. I appreciate your sense of humour (Youtube). I will take the time needed to read the three Eshelman articles some time the upcoming week. It is always useful to be informed about what the esoteric neighbours do.

The view that Crowley may have changed the semantic content of the Greek words was a surprise to me, but why not. 'The Abyss' is not a part of Jewish Kabbalah, but a part of Neo-Hermetic Kabbalah, and obviously Eshelman use the word 'Briah' in a different way than Hasids do, so the phenomenon of semantic change is not reserved to Crowley's use of unusual Greek terminology. As long as particular groups of persons do not expect other groups to use the words in the same way (expecting one unified Kabbalah for instance: It has diverged in different directions since long) it is fine. Sometimes it takes a preamble of definitions to make communication possible.
 

Aeon418

The view that Crowley may have changed the semantic content of the Greek words was a surprise to me, but why not.
In my opinion it seems totally consistent with Crowley's pragmatic approach to magick and mysticism. He simply used whatever worked. Historical accuracy and scholarship were, at best, of secondary importance. The need for practical work and the value of direct experience are the hallmarks of Crowley's system.

One of the core principles of Crowley's system can be found in one of the introductory libers of A.'.A.'.
LIBER LXI VEL CAUSÆ said:
23. Deliberately, therefore, did he take refuge in vagueness. Not to veil the truth to the Neophyte, but to warn him against valuing non-essentials. Should therefore the candidate hear the name of any God, let him not rashly assume that it refers to any known God, save only the God known to himself. Or should the ritual speak in terms (however vague) which seem to imply Egyptian, Taoist, Buddhist, Indian, Persian, Greek, Judaic, Christian, or Moslem philosophy, let him reflect that this is a defect of language; the literary limitation and not the spiritual prejudice of the man P.

24. Especially let him guard against the finding of definite sectarian symbols in the teaching of his master, and the reasoning from the known to the unknown which assuredly will tempt him.
We labour earnestly, dear brother, that you may never be led away to perish upon this point; for thereon have many holy and just men been wrecked. By this have all the visible systems lost the essence of wisdom.
We have sought to reveal the Arcanum; we have only profaned it.
With that in mind I have no qualms working with an overtly Hebraic themed ritual such as the LBRP. While I don't have much sympathy for the savage, blood thirsty, tyrant of the ancient Hebrews, I can still work with the seemingly sectarian names and symbolism contained in the LBRP.

Going back to the Star Ruby, I can well imagine Crowley reading The Chaldean Oracles and extracting divine names and the general 'functions' behind them to populate Liber XXV with suitable Briatic guardians in place of the more usual arch-angels found in the LRP.
Thus the Iynges, Synoches, Teletarches and Daemones, represent respectively "initiators," "maintainers," "perfectors," and "executors" of the Divine Creative Impulse. The fact that these names are all plurals is of little importance because no sectarian theory is being implied in their usage. They are more like generic symbols. Of course this sort of thing would outrage most scholars, but it is very much in the style of Crowley's own brand of spiritual pragmatism and syncretism.
 

Frater Benedict

Thank you very much, indeed! This Crowley quote shed important light on his views. He is a very puzzling figure.

My first impression of him, was as someone who had to process a bad childhood therapeutically. My second impression of him, was as someone who, in a convoluted way, tried to present a Neo-platonic worldview to readers who wouldn't be receptive to the ascetic aspects of Plotinus. And now this.
 

ravenest

And if Ravenest is reading this: You don't think that you over-react on my post? 'Consider' is a rather mild choice of word, isn't it, and if someone feels more at ease with Greek, the Chaldaean Oracles and Uncle Al than with Hebrew, a Jewish evening prayer and Kabbalah... why not? Personally, I think that most persons would do well to try the Druid Sphere of protection out instead, if they haven't found a banishing ritual that they dare to use. There are more than one way to prepare a meal.

yeah ... I was bouncing off your post ... just an in joke about the GBRP possibly having an egrigore warp but the Star Ruby being more suited .... npt ! ... and being lazy and not bothering to explain why ..... which Aeon did.
That other site Michael S, invited you to (re daoism) I got some v. interesting info on a 'Zoroastrian' version ... a better source for understanding those 'guardians' - that can also be related to the Babylonian four 'Royal Stars' ... and angels ... and....

So yeah, why not ( aside from the why nots about AC & Star Ruby) ... some of the systems are requiring a background in a a religion and philosophy that might not be indigenous, I think for the beginner, best to learn in a tradition one has some familiarity with or is associated with ones culture ( especially on deeper levels of the psyche)
 

Frater Benedict

So yeah, why not ( aside from the why nots about AC & Star Ruby) ... some of the systems are requiring a background in a a religion and philosophy that might not be indigenous, I think for the beginner, best to learn in a tradition one has some familiarity with or is associated with ones culture ( especially on deeper levels of the psyche)

That may be an aspect to consider, but Hebrew archangels are no longer necessarily something contemporary westeners are familiar with (I have met a considerable number of persons under the age of thirty this apply to), and Greek philosophy is certainly associated with western culture. Sixteen years old have the option – even if the number who chose to is dwindling – to study classical Greek (and Latin), but they have to wait until university if they want to study Hebrew.

Everything west of India is influenced by three cultural sources: Abrahamite religions, Graeco-Roman philosophy and Enlightenment era thinking – although the proportions of the ingredients in the mix may vary considerably from region to region. Enlightenment era thinking is the predominant one where I live, and, without any statistics, my personal impression of the mentality of the age is that Zeus, Hercules and Aphrodite are probably more well-known than St. Raphael and St. Uriel (possibly St. Michael as well). Then, of course, Middle Platonism is not exactly the same thing as Classical mythology, and the groups of spirits in the Star Ruby are less known than the Olympians.