Tree of Life diagram in Portal Ritual

I am posting to request a specific piece of information from anyone who may have Nick Farrell's Mathers' Last Secret (whether in the revised or first editions).

In the Thoth forum I recently posted on how Crowley's account of the Portal Ritual differs in a crucial detail from other presentations of it -
http://tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=4424495&postcount=7
- namely, Crowley's version, which he says comes from Westcott and by which he was presumably intitiated in 1899, has a conspicuous diagram of the Tree of Life with all the Paths, Tarot attributions, and Grade names written on it. The standard version of the Portal Ritual we all know does not.

This is important, because it tends to refute a claim made by Marco Pasi that the grade corresponding to Kether, Ipsissimus, was invented by Crowley, and that it was unnamed in the original GD Order.

Pasi says that Crowley "...eventually claimed to have attained, in the early 1920s, the last degree, which he chose to call “Ipsissimus” (in the original GD system this grade had been left unnamed).

(Marco Pasi, “Crowley, Aleister”, in Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, (Brill, 2006) p. 285)

From a comment on Jim Eshelman's Thelema group, I learned that Nick Farrell had published what is perhaps this version of the Portal Ritual, of which Crowley only gives an abridgement.

I have not seen this book and I'm not in a position to buy it at the moment, so I would be grateful if someone could check to see if the Tree of Life diagram with all of the grades, up to Ipsissimus, are listed in Mathers' version of the Ritual.

Citations for comparison -

If you compare the Portal Ritual as Crowley presents it in Equinox I,2, pp. 242-243, and 284-288, with those given in The Golden Dawn, vol. 2, pp. 155-197, or The Portable Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic, vol. 7, pp. 2-25, you will see that, while they are essentially the same ritual, sharing much of the same text and rubric, they differ in some important details. Even in Crowley’s abridged presentation, the differences are clearly visible. For the present purpose,the crucial detail in Crowley’s version that is omitted in the Golden Dawn versions is the presence, on the altar, of a diagram of the Tree of Life with the Paths, their attributes, and the names of all the Grades, written on the Sephiroth.

What makes it most significant is that Crowley attributes this ritual to Westcott’s “Copy no. 2” of the Portal Ritual. We may assume that this was the ritual that Crowley was initiated by in 1899, but that at some point, or perhaps in other Lodges, it was suppressed.

Whatever the reason for this, Westcott’s Copy no. 2, taken at face value, proves that the name Ipsissimus for the highest grade of the Order, corresponding to Kether, existed by 1899. The Grades shown are not those of the A.’.A.’., so we can not argue that Crowley was committing a deliberate anachronism in 1909.

“Before you upon the Altar is the diagram of the Sephiroth and Paths with which you are already well acquainted, having marked thereon the grade of the order corresponding to each Sephira, and the Tarot Trumps appropriated to each Path.”

(Westcott’s “Copy no. 2” of the Portal Ritual, quoted in Crowley, Equinox I,2, p. 242)

Thank you in advance for anyone's help.

I have Farrell's Mathers' Last Secret, the first edition and the revised one.

"Before you upon the Altar is the diagram of the Sephiroth and Paths with which you are already well aquainted, having marked thereon the grades of the Order corresponding to each Sephiroth and the Tarot Keys appropriated to the several parts.
You will further note that the First Order includes Malkuth, answering to the Neophyte and Zelator...
The three grades of the Second Order are entitled Adeptus Minor, or Lesser Adept, 5=6 answering to Tiphareth... Exempt Adept, 7=4 answering to Chesed" (Farrell, p218)

There is no reference to the Third Order or its grades in the Farrell's ritual text. And no diagram of the Sephiroth and Paths in the book.

I believe the Mathers' Diagram of Paths and Grades (Kathleen Raine Yeats, The Tarot and The Golden Dawn p17) is the original of the Portal Sephiroth Diagram.

Incidentaly, the following is one of the examples of Alpha Omega Portal Ritual Diagrams.
http://yaneurabeya.blogspot.jp/2012/05/diagram-for-portal-grade.html

Thank you very much Roppo! My hunch was right.

Farrell's quoted text is identical to Crowley's text of that passage quoted in The Equinox, I,2, p. 242. Crowley attributes it to Westcott, calling it "S.A.'s copy No. 2 of the 'Ritual of the 24th, 25th, and 26th Paths leading from the First Order of the G.'.D.'. in the outer to the 5°=6°', Associate Adept speaking."

His diagram of the Temple arrangement (op. cit. p. 285 (Diagram 53)) is in every respect identical to your image, as well, including the prominent central placement on the altar of the "Diagram of Paths and Grades." (where is that from, by the way?)

It would appear, then, that in the A.'.O.'. Mathers used the original Second Order rituals he had designed in 1892. Westcott naturally had a copy. This was the ritual by which Crowley was initiated into the Portal grade in 1899, and was therefore probably the practice of Isis-Urania up to at least that time. And this ritual showed a diagram of the Paths and Grades corresponding to the Sephiroth.

I believe the Mathers' Diagram of Paths and Grades (Kathleen Raine Yeats, The Tarot and The Golden Dawn p17) is the original of the Portal Sephiroth Diagram.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the reference. Is it the same as the one we know, with the Supernal grades named, including Ipsissimus? If so, from the corroboration of the evidence of Crowley's Westcott text and Farrell's Mathers text, I think it is safe to assume that the grade corresponding to Kether was named by the time the ritual was devised, that is, contra Pasi, long before Crowley.

Unfortunately, from a search for this book it is clear that the only ones profiting from Kathleen Raine's work now are used booksellers.

Hi, Ross

Well then I attach a file from Raine book. As you see, there's no grade names in the Third Order section in the diagram and I think it's reasonable. Higher titles were secret and not to be discovered in the lower grade rituals.

The Third Order grade names could be guessed from the SRIA grades, but Ipsissimus? It's beyond my research.


The A.O. diagram is from my collection. I have some manuscripts once belonged to an early member of the order, and I'm now writing a book using those materials. It's a sort of hype to show off the diagram on the net!

That's amazing, Roppo. Thanks!

Well, then, I can't say I've shown good reason to think that Pasi is wrong. The term Ipsissimus for 10=1 still occurs first in Crowley (in 1909, 777 and Equinox I,2).

But, I just don't believe it. That Crowley, or Crowley and Jones, made up the title of the highest grade of Secret Chief on their own authority. It is the same for the initials "A.'.A.'.", that occurs first in a letter of George Cecil Jones in December 1906, quoted by Crowley. So it could be argued to be anachronism or rewriting history again, if one tends to suspicion. But he does publish it in Konx Om Pax as well (1907), before the A.'.A.'. as such was founded, so I tend to think that these were the initials of Third Order known to a handful of Second Order people allied with Mathers like Jones, and perhaps Crowley while he was still friendly with Mathers.

I suppose I can't believe that Westcott and Mathers, having assigned the SRIA grades to the Sephiroth following the lead of the Cipher Manuscript, would have been content to just let Kether remain unnamed. In his History Lecture of 1892, Westcott implies that there is a title for it when he writes "Highest of all are those Great Rulers who severally sustain and govern the Third Order, which includes three Magic Titles of honour and supremacy."

He doesn't name them (two were easy to find out), but he says "titles" not "positions" or the equivalent.

But the source of Ipsissimus, if it is due to them, is harder to find. Kether has many titles, including of course HVA, "he, himself", for which Rosenroth has "HVA. Ipse, est cognomen Gradus Kether." (Kabbala Denudata, I, Locos Communes Kabbalisticos, p. 267). On page 631 of the same work, under the word OTzMVTh (first letter 'Ayin), he has "Ipseitas, seu ipsa essentia". Selfness, the quality of being, or essence itself, essential self, self essence (Crowley quotes it exactly as such in Sepher Sephiroth, under 606.).

Not exactly Ipsissimus, but it could suggest it. But otherwise I don't find the term ipsissimus at all in Rosenroth or Kircher, and a few other places I forget at the moment.

It's really exciting that you're doing an original research Golden Dawn book. I can't wait. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Let me know if I can be of help in any research capacity. It's the kind of thing I love to do.

Ross G Caldwell said:

But the source of Ipsissimus, if it is due to them, is harder to find. Kether has many titles, including of course HVA, "he, himself", for which Rosenroth has "HVA. Ipse, est cognomen Gradus Kether." (Kabbala Denudata, I, Locos Communes Kabbalisticos, p. 267). On page 631 of the same work, under the word OTzMVTh (first letter 'Ayin), he has "Ipseitas, seu ipsa essentia". Selfness, the quality of being, or essence itself, essential self, self essence (Crowley quotes it exactly as such in Sepher Sephiroth, under 606.).

Not exactly Ipsissimus, but it could suggest it. But otherwise I don't find the term ipsissimus at all in Rosenroth or Kircher, and a few other places I forget at the moment.

Click to expand...

It is a term used by Nietzsche.

"My writings speak only of my conquests, “I” am in them, with all that is hostile to me, ego ipsissimus, or, if a more haughty expression be permitted, ego ipsissimum."

'All Too Human', 1876.

As a medieval latin term, it is used by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologia. And at a later date, but in a somewhat different sense by Francis Bacon.

kwaw said:

It is a term used by Nietzsche.

"My writings speak only of my conquests, “I” am in them, with all that is hostile to me, ego ipsissimus, or, if a more haughty expression be permitted, ego ipsissimum."

'All Too Human', 1876.

It is medieval latin, in St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologia.

Click to expand...

Ah, Nietszche might be a plausible source.

But of course, yes, it is also standard classical Latin, not too common, but still attested. The standard reference in dictionaries is Plautus (3rd century b.c.e.), Trinummus, IV,2.

"A SHARPER.
How now; prithee, are you really he?

CHARMIDES
I really am he.

A SHARPER.
Say you so, pray? Are you really he himself?

CHARMIDES
I do say so.

A SHARPER.
Are you his own self?

CHARMIDES
His own self, I say. I am Charmides.

A SHARPER.
And are you then his own self?

CHARMIDES
His own very self. Begone hence out of my sight."

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0110:act=4:scene=2

In Latin:

"Syc:
Eho, quaeso, an tu is es?
Charm.

Is enim vero sum.
Syc.
Ain tu tandem? is ipsusne es?
Charm.
Aio.
Syc.
Ipsus es?
C.

Ipsus, inquam, Charmides sum.
S.
Ergo ipsusne es?
C.
Ipsissimus.

abin hinc ab oculis?"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0048:act=4:scene=2

It is used much more in ecclesiastical writers, speaking of God in superlatives.

But I meant Ipsissimus in this particular context, i.e. as the name of the grade corresponding to Kether. Also, the sources thet we might expect Westcott, Mathers, or some other plausible person to have used, which is why I looked in Kircher and Rosenroth, who talk a lot about Kether in Latin.

Another way to think about this is the subsequent usage of the term Ipsissimus for 10=1. Paul Foster Case calls 10=1 Ipsissimus in his 1927 The True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order, chapter XXI. Would he have just borrowed it from Crowley? I find that difficult to believe.

Other GD inspired orders used and use it too (Stella Matutina, HOGD (David Griffin)); did they just take it from Crowley?

There must be a common source in the original GD.

Yes -- that is my thoughts too, that the subsequent use among GD off-shoots and adherents (and the SRIA) means that there is a common source, and I doubt that would be Crowley.

For Florence Farr, the Nietzchean concept of Superman (too which we might designate his 'ego ipsissimus'?) is a state of conciousness, one which she describes as 'essentially feminine'.