Oppression

Abrac said:

Do tell.

Click to expand...

I went via your link to the site and found Aquino's 'channelling' (?) of Set. The one in the fancy Setian font. In there the God Set announces, not only Aquino by name but mentions that Anton LaVey (however you spell it?) ex head of the Hollywood Church of Satan for Bored Movie Stars and Other Rich and Decadent People had it, but not anymore and now the leadership of spookey dark cults is in the hands of Aquino.

When a purported message from the Gods, channelling or whatever you want to call it, mentions the 'prophet' by name and includes clear directions, by name, of succession, especially when there has been political manuverings on the earth plane ... to me.... is laughable.

It reminds me of a story I read in a new age magazine. There was a 'spiritual forum' at a resort. One couple had a contact with Master XYZ and sold a related product. Another woman also had a spot on stage, also had a contact with Master XYZ and sold a similar product BUT the master told her and she informed the audience, that the master insists that her particular product is better than the other one

I am interested in reading some of this type of 'other contact' material but not when it is a reflection of and is polluted by the political intrigues of spiritual leader's ego and manuverings for succession in the organisation that reputedly represents the word of that particular God (except for a laugh ).

As for the Stele, what was known about Egyptology in Crowleys time was very patchy, simplistic and often downright wrong. A LOT of research and study and discovery has been done since then. (Try finding a reference to Nuit [not Nut but Nuit] or Hadit or lots of other 'Tehelmic neo-Egyptology' in traditional Egyptian sources, you wont find it. I don't believe Crowley or Thelema intended to teach Ancient Egyptian theology, but used their understandings of it as a metaphor ... and a very elastic one. I know AC uses the Stele as some type of proof of the validity of Liber AL but, for me, that falls apart as much as the 'double loop in the zodiac' proof but we better not go there )

At least AC didnt write in Liber Al; "I am Horus and Mathers isnt the head of my Order anymore, it's Crowley."

But I doubt that we are THAT much clearer about it nowadays. I mean the Old Kingdom Egyptian mysteries were just about as lost to the later ancient Egyptians as they are to us. Each successive stage has been a revival and a re-interpretation of what later people thought their ancestors were on about. Then additions and new ideas were crafted on to that, things were appropriated and swapped around.

And they certainly were not worried about claiming an older work was more modern nor putting their name on a temple or statue to claim cred for building it.

Yeah, some of his so-called channeled material is a bit on the humorous side.

I found this article earlier. It explores the hieroglyphics on the Stele. Apparently Crowley's translator goofed on the translation. This isn't a slam at Crowley or Thelema, but it just makes you wonder.

I haven't been able to find a picture of the Stele big enough to see the hieroglyphics for seated figure but I would be very curious to know what it actually say.

ravenest said:

I don't believe Crowley or Thelema intended to teach Ancient Egyptian theology, but used their understandings of it as a metaphor ... and a very elastic one. I know AC uses the Stele as some type of proof of the validity of Liber AL but, for me, that falls apart as much as the 'double loop in the zodiac' proof but we better not go there )

Click to expand...

I'm starting to believe exactly this same thing. It's clear that Crowley was initially inspired by the Stele, but when you read his Comment on the Book of the Law, he reverts back to what he is most comfortable with, Kabbalah and Gematria.

Thelema and the Book of the Law have nothing to do with ancient Egyptian religion apart from a bit of borrowed symbolism. The way in which the symbolism is used is very different to the way the Egyptians used it.

A quote from Crowley's intro to Liber AL is a good example.

This book explains the Universe.
The elements are Nuit - Space - that is, the total of possibilities of every kind - and Hadit, any point which has experience of these possibilities. (This idea is for literary convinience symbolized by the Egyptian Goddess Nuit, a woman bending over like the Arch of the Night Sky. Hadit is symbolized as a Winged Globe at the heart of Nuit.)

Click to expand...

A literary convinience. Not a revival of Egyptian religion. People who think the latter have missed the point entirely.

Abrac said:

I found this article earlier. It explores the hieroglyphics on the Stele. Apparently Crowley's translator goofed on the translation. This isn't a slam at Crowley or Thelema, but it just makes you wonder.

Click to expand...

Interesting link. I whish I had more time to read it. I wrote an article on Liber Resh once and got heavily into (over my head )the Stele and the various translations, including A.C.'s transLITERATION of the stele. Don't start me on the Khu and Kabs thing! I showed in my article how it seemed all back the front, even according to Thelemic sources (notes in others books, editors comments, especially Grady McMurtry (previous head of OTO). It seems AC got it wrong and so was every person doing the Liber Resh incantation ???? I recieved absolutly no feedback from anyone whatsoever on my article ... I was hoping someone would point out where I was wrong.

(And that isnt a revival of Egyptian Religion it was and still is (as far as I know) reccommended daily practice for a Thelemite ... but it's probably more important what it means to the practioner than what the terms mean 'academically.' Although if we address these points they open a big can of worms ... some people wont like that.

I'm rather fond of worms

Aeon418 said:

Thelema and the Book of the Law have nothing to do with ancient Egyptian religion apart from a bit of borrowed symbolism.

Click to expand...

It was 'all the fashion' back then to plaster many things with those 'ancient' Egyptian, post - Victorian understandings and translations - to give things cred; secret socities, poetry even. A bit like we are today with other things

Lakota Amer/Indian tarot anyone?

ravenest said:

(And that isnt a revival of Egyptian Religion it was and still is (as far as I know) reccommended daily practice for a Thelemite ... but it's probably more important what it means to the practioner than what the terms mean 'academically.' Although if we address these points they open a big can of worms ... some people wont like that.

Click to expand...

Grady McMurtry re-wrote Resh in an attempt to make it more "academically correct". Crowley's response is spot on in my opinion.

A.C. wrote:

The gods that you quote are not at all those given in Liber Resh and I do not see why you should depart from the text, but if for some reason you find them more suited to your peculiar style of beauty, go ahead and heaven prosper you! As long as you do not get into a state of imagining that it matters such a devil of a lot if you have got some detail wrong. It is this state of doubt which damages people's practices. You drift more and more vaguely into the uncharted archipelago of theory; and presently arrive at a state of jitters in which none of your practises work any more at all.

Click to expand...

In some cases AC is quiet liberal when encouraging personal styles. He is not when explaining a specific way of doing something ... or a way he had done it.

Unfortuanatly, human nature being what it is, often gets the two confused. With all his detailed descriptions of what and how to do things, he probably thought; "well I've ALREADY explained about personal style" ... even warned about copying him. But alas,eventually dogma rears its ugly head and people with a genuine curiosity and questioning nature are whipped into line.

So, then we have full circle ... another manifestation of the 10 wands.

Im a bit late commenting on this but Ive been interested about this card recently. One of the most interesting things I read is from BOT page 35.
"But in 10, showing complete materialisation and nimiety, the effect of fire is pushed to its extreme limit. Its death is impending, but it reacts against as best it can by appearing as the Lord of Oppression, formidable on the surface, but with the seeds of decay already sprouting."
So its not all bad for long.
This reminded me alot of a number of governments at the moment and all that NWO stuff, but thats a different story.