Author Topic: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?  (Read 2451 times)

Xepera maSet

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2017, 09:45:33 pm »
It is starting to seem clear to me that Thelema comes in two very distinct forms - a Solar form based on a very literal and manipulated interpretation which is RHP, and a Stellar form based on a very esoteric and honest interpretation which is LHP. Crowley seems to preach the former while practicing the latter. The idea of losing the Self while crossing the Abyss seems to clearly be LHP, but if Crowley did indeed cross the Abyss it is very clear that this is not what happens when one does so. Whether Crowley reached the highest "degrees" of initiation in either the LHP or RHP seem seems very open to debate, at least in my opinion.

Groups like the OTO, GD, and A.'.A.'. seem to clearly be RHP in their philosophy and practices. Groups like the Typhonian Tradition and the Brotherhood of Saturn seem to clearly be LHP.
AKA: Three Scarabs, 1137


"Do we believe in Satan? The only thing that really matters is that he believes in us."
- A Nameless Ghoul

NEMO 93

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2017, 11:20:27 pm »
@Xepera maSet

I couldn't have said it better, you're spot on. It's worth noting that the solar imagery somehow works into the new Aeon.

They still use the Osirian myth- but now Horus is the one we seek to emulate, not Osiris. Horus does have the sun in one of his eyes, after all, but he also has the moon. This seems to go with the depictions and acknowledgemnt of Heru-Set.

Thelema just isn't solar based- it's solar phallic. Crowley's philosophy mave have been more stellar placed but the solar-phallic practices definitely have a place in it. Sex magick was very important. Pan was an important symbol that perhaps best represented Crowley's view of sex magick within his solar-phallic ideology- and Pan is very similar to the Christian and LaVeyan Devil.

Crowley seemed to be afraid of the feminine while respecting its role. See his opinion of Babalon as Binah which often represents the moon/chalice part of sex magick philosophy. She's a complete, unrelenting femme fatale that one has to offer their head to cross the abyss.

When Crowley would work in a RHP system such as Goetia, he'd still work in it as well but alter it to his needs. The Bornless One/Headless Rite became the adoration to god- not a judeo christian god but the imagery of it(which is an adaptation of PGM) always reminded me of chaos-gnosticism. Crowley was terrified of chaos, however, and demonized in the form of Choronzon. This might be why Peter J Carrol and  chaos magick is the best succesor to Thelema- it picks up in his foot steps and ventures where Crowley was afraid to go. One could argue the same about the Typhonian Current and Kenneth Grant. 

With all this in mind, it's worth nothing that the Book of the Law was a channeled text and therefore did not belong to Crowley to figure out alone. Everyone should have their own interpreation- and the book itself hints at a magickal succesor. Crowley didn't have everything figured out at the time of his death and while we can view his work, we have to keep in mind that most if it was a work in progress- his attempt to find out what The Book of the Law meant for himself.

He has some useful stuff to help with it but "these rituals need not be slavishly imitated."

I'd like to make an honorable mention to David Shoemaker, his podcast and book are pretty informative on Thelema and he seems to keep it to the rituals and practices while letting listeners/readers decide their philosophy- whether it be RHP or LHP. Not sure about Thelemic program but from its page it seems to be the only one other than Typhonian order that makes effort to abandon Old Aeon rituals or at least update them.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 04:15:14 pm by pi_ramesses »
"Nothing has absolute truth, Everything remains possible"-Peter J. Carroll

"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

NEMO 93

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #32 on: December 17, 2017, 12:08:20 am »
Expanding on my thoughts here- Crowley seemed to take old aeon ideas and subvert them.

Non-Duality as a RHP "God is everything" is very common. In fact, I'm sure a lot of you cringe when I say non-Duality.

However, Crowley and his Thelema seems to see Non-Duality as "There is no good or bad, there just is" which then crowned Will as the new emerging child making the new duality "There is no good and bad. There is in support of my Will and against my Will." Crowley saw Will as a divine right, this is pretty much clear. But there's so many interpretations of divine right out there- is it really God's plan? or is it something you have a right to claim? And this is why we have both LHP and RHP interpretations of the philosophy.
"Nothing has absolute truth, Everything remains possible"-Peter J. Carroll

"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #33 on: December 17, 2017, 12:21:12 am »
It's worth noting that the solar imagery somehow works into the new Aeon.

Yeah even Satan is very much "solar" in Thelema. He's constantly identified as the Sun. It's still the religion of "Light, Life, Love and Liberty" regardless of if it's being approached from the LHP or the RHP. I guess that's part of the reason some people find Crowley's Satanism so hard to believe: people expect/need Satan to be against "light" and "life." But to Crowley, Satan IS Light and Life. And to some people, a "good," "positive" Devil that loves the world and man just . . . isn't the Devil at all I guess.

Personally, I don't even figure considerations of "light" vs "dark," or "solar" vs "stellar" into my own definition of RHP or LHP. To me it's entirely about whether or not the individual psyche is being strengthened as an individual, immortal essence, or whether it's being destroyed or sublimated. Period. Besides that though, I've never completely gotten the real distinction between "solar" and "stellar" in the big picture, as the sun is every bit as much a star as other suns that are simply further away.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 04:18:55 pm by pi_ramesses »
“All my joy, perfect, transcending sense, is given of Aiwaz, whom we call the Devil.” - Uncle Al

NEMO 93

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #34 on: December 17, 2017, 12:37:10 am »
@Frater V.I.M.  Lucifer, the light bringer. I guess that's why I prefer Lucifer when it comes to that imagery. Lucifer is a complicated guy when taking into account biblical lore as well as fiction. It's difficult to say his motivations but in Thelema, I think Lucifier is the morning star that will guide one to "light, life, love, and liberty" and correct me if I'm wrong but Book of Law also distinguishes between Love and love.

"Nothing has absolute truth, Everything remains possible"-Peter J. Carroll

"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2017, 12:59:53 am »
Yup, it makes a distinction. Although it doesn't use a capital "L" for one and not the other, it characterizes one as a dove and one as a serpent:

"Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well!" - AL I:57

From Crowley's commentary on that verse: "Love under will – no casual pagan love; not love under fear, as the Christians do. But love magically directed and used as a spiritual formula. . . . This love, then, should be the serpent love, the awakening of the Kundalini."

As far as the "Lucifer" name goes, mercifully Crowley opted not to add any further confusion to the topic and simply used the term as an alternate name for his Satan without any distinction between the two, in the rare instances he chooses for the word "Lucifer" at all.

I myself use "Lucifer" and "Satan" as two descriptive terms (since of course, neither word originated as a proper name for anyone) for the same Devil/God, just as two different ways of stressing different "aspects" of Him. Same goes for the names "Horus" and "Set." I don't divide Him into two distinct psyches. Lucifer/Horus="Light" side of Him, Satan/Set="Dark" side of Him, for me. But I'm not even real strict as to when I employ any name over any other, since I don't actually think these divisions mean actual splits in psyche. I also call Him Azazel or Pan all the time too. Same duder to me.
“All my joy, perfect, transcending sense, is given of Aiwaz, whom we call the Devil.” - Uncle Al

NEMO 93

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2017, 06:41:57 am »
@Frater V.I.M.  I never thought of viewing Satan and Lucifer that way.

Since one of my epiphanies in a magickal trance, I viewed Horus and Set as a whole- or something that is to be made whole again. I've taken to calling it Heru-Set recently after learning, from this board, this is a common concept in both Thelema and Egypt. I still view them as separate beings, in some sense, I think they're shadows of each other.

And your shadow IS you but the whole reason it needs reconcilation is because it's of a split to begin with.
"Nothing has absolute truth, Everything remains possible"-Peter J. Carroll

"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

NEMO 93

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2017, 07:20:38 pm »
I've been studying the commentaries of the Book of the Law today as well as Liber Samekh and it is CLEARLY left hand path, to me, at least.

"He acclaims his Angel as "Himself Made Perfect"; adding that this Individuality is inscrutable in inviolable. In the Neophyte Ritual of G: D: (As it is printed in Equinox I, II, for the old aeon) the Hierophant is the perfected Osiris, who brings the candidate, the natural Osiris, to identity with himself. But in the new Aeon the Hierophant is Horus (Liber CCXX, I, 49) therefore the Candidate will be Horus too. What then is the formula of the initiation of Horus? It will no longer be that of the Man, through Death. It will be the natural growth of the Child. His experiences will no more be regarded as catastrophic. Their hieroglyph is the Fool: the innocent and impotent Harpocrates Babe becomes the Horus Adult by obtaining the Wand. "Der reine Thor" seizes the Sacred Lance. Bacchus becomes Pan. The Holy Guardian Angel is the Unconscious Creature Self - the Spiritual Phallus. His knowledge and conversation contributes occult puberty."-Liber Samekh


The following from Book of the Law commentaries:

"The Old Comment
8. Here beings the text.

Khabs is the secret Light or L.V.X.; the Khu is the magical entity of a man.

I find later (Sun in Virgo, An VII) that Khabs means star. In which chase cf. v.5.

The doctrine here taught is that that Light is innermost, essential man. Intra (not Extra) Nobis Regnum Dei.

The New Comment
We are not to regard ourselves as base beings, without whose sphere is Light or “God”. Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a “Dark Star”, and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil'. (This will be understood better in the Light of “The Hermit of Esopus Island”, q.v.) The Doctrine is evidently of supreme importance, from its position as the first 'revelation' of Aiwass.

This 'star' or 'Inmost Light' is the original, individual, eternal essence. The Khu is the magical garment which it weaves for itself, a 'form' for its Being Beyond Form, by use of which it can gain experience through self-consciousness, as explained in the note to verses 2 and 3. This Khu is the first veil, far subtler than mind or body, and truer; for its symbolic shape depends on the nature of its Star.

Why are we told that the Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs? Did we then suppose the converse? I think that we are warned against the idea of a Pleroma, a flame of which we are Sparks, and to which we return when we 'attain'. That would indeed be to make the whole curse of separate existence ridiculous, a senseless and inexcusable folly. It would throw us back on the dilemma of Manichaeism. The idea of incarnations “perfecting” a thing originally perfect by definition is imbecile. The only sane solution is as given previously, to suppose that the Perfect enjoys experience of (apparent) Imperfection. (There are deeper resolutions of this problem appropriate to the highest grades of initiation; but the above should suffice the average intelligence.)"

Nuit is all about embracing the whole material universe and loving it as well.

But this whole philosophy points out to realizing that you are your own God. Not being subserviant to an idea of God that will reward you in death but instead, finding the God within so that you may rule as one. This is what it means to serve your Will.

I can see why crossing the abyss and disolution is so misunderstood and attributed to RHP but it's a means to an end for a very LHP goal.
"Nothing has absolute truth, Everything remains possible"-Peter J. Carroll

"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2017, 06:41:16 am »
Here's a collection of excerpts from Kenneth Grant addressing specifically the identity and role of Satan/Set in his interpretation of Thelema. I collected these into a document a while ago, but haven't had any particular use for the collection besides my own studies. I figured it would probably be a good contribution to this thread.

It's doubly interesting for the LHP/RHP discussion, as on the one hand it shows Grant's very "Satanic" or "Dark" take on Thelema, and his openness in sharing Crowley's identification of Aiwaz as Satan/Set, yet, as you'll also see, he still shares the RHP conception of ego-destruction as being desirable. (Unless, of course, he doesn't mean it as literally as it sounds. Always irritating/confusing those bits are in Thelema, huh?)

All of these passages are from The Magickal Revival (1972).

     “‘For us, who have the inner knowledge, inherited or won, it remains to restore the true  rites of Attis, Adonis, Osiris, of Set, Serapis, Mithras, and Abel.’
     “These words of Aleister Crowley inspired me as a youth, and, imagining myself as one of  those to whom they were addressed, I soon discovered that for some reason I have not  been able to fathom it was the god Set that I was being called upon to honour. I  accordingly took it upon myself to penetrate the Mysteries of this, the most ancient of  deities, and to trace the history of his rites from an indefinite antiquity to the present day.”

     “It was Aleister Crowley who fanned the flame to furnace heat, which he did when the  ‘world was destroyed by fire’ in 1904. This phrase is a technical one; it signifies  destruction and super-cession in a sense that may only be interpreted by resorting to the  astronomical myth cycles from which it derives. The subject is referred to more fully  later on. Crowley was in Cairo at the time of this event. There he received  The Book of  the Law—the New Gnosis, the latest Tantra, the most complex Grimoire—from a praeter-human Intelligence named Aiwaz, a messenger of that most ancient god whose  image was worshipped in the deserts under the name of Shaitan, and, long ages earlier, as  Set, the soul or double of Horus.”

     “The initials A.'.A.'. stand for  Argentum Astrum  (the Silver Star). This is the Star of Set or Sothis (Sirius) -  the ‘sun’ in the south: ‘silver,’ to indicate that it is of the lunar region (i.e. Night); it is the concealed  ‘child’ of Nuit, whose Light it manifests. According to Hermetic Tradition, our sun is but a reflection of  the greater Sun, Sothis. The sun of our solar system therefore stands in the relationship of a ‘child’ (Child  Horus) to this vast Star.”

     “The full invocation of Thelema, the True Will in man, was facilitated by Crowley  through his restoration of a Graeco-Egyptian rite. This antique ritual—the most potent  extant, according to Crowley—later formed the Preliminary Invocation of the Goetia of  Solomon the King. Its actual origin, however, lies in a phase of religious history long  anterior both to the mediaeval Goetia and the Graeco-Egyptian rite; it existed in the  Akkadian or Sumerian epoch, when the oldest of all deities—Set or Shaitan—was adored in  the deserts by the Yezidi.”

     “In  The Book of the Law,  Hadit (or Set) declares ‘I am eight, and  one in eight.’ The identification is with Sothis,  the manifestator of the Seven Stars of  Polaris (the Great Bear constellation which symbolizes the Dragon—Nuit). She is the  Mother of the Primal Gods, and her formula of Change, or Magick, is manifested in One,  her Son, i.e. Sothis or Sirius, who, in his occult character symbolizes the Son behind the  Sun.”

     “The Book of the Law  is couched in Egyptian terminology because the Egyptian and  Chaldean Mysteries form the basis of the Western Occult Tradition, the Tradition of the  Illuminati, or the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, later known as the O.T.O.
     “Nuit, Hadit, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Abrahadabra, Therion (the Beast), and Babalon, are the  vital elements of this Tradition when stripped of all inessentials. The subtle concept  Hoor-paar Kraat, or Set, of whom Aiwaz claims to be the ‘minister,’ and with whom he  is for all practical purposes identical, is of great complexity.   
     “Set represents the absorption of the projected energy of Horus.
     “It is in the silence of the ‘death’ of desire that the Child of the ‘blasphemous union’ of  Babalon and Therion (Woman and Beast), realizes its identity with Absolute  Consciousness. Set, therefore, is the means of return to the Supreme State represented by  Nuit  (le Neant),  and, as such, is the Formula of the Phoenix.   
     “In the preceding Aeon (that of Osiris), Set or Satan was regarded as evil, because the  nature of desire was misunderstood; it was identified with the Devil and with moral evil.  Yet this devil, Satan, is the true formula of Illumination. ‘Called evil to conceal its  holiness,’ it is desire that prompts man to know himself - ‘through another’ (i.e. through  his own double, or ‘devil.’)  When the urge ‘to know’ is turned inwards instead of  outwards as it usually is, then the ego dies and the objective universe is dissolved. In the  light of that Illumination, Reality, the Gnosis, is all that remains.
     “In the Eastern Tradition the process is called the Opening of the Eye of Shiva, which is  also the Eye of Set, because it sucks into itself all the Light that Horus has projected. It is  in this sense that Satan came to represent the Opposer (of the Light). More precisely, Set  is the Destroyer through Identity, for Satan—as the name implies—is the combination and  balance of North (Nuit) and South (Hadit), or Consciousness, and its projection as the  objective universe. This explains the equivalence of Set, the God of the South, and Nuit,  the Goddess of the North.
     “These ideas have their roots in biological phenomena. Sex functions through polarity.  Babalon and Therion are the biological  avatars (kteis  and  phallus)  of Nuit and Hadit,  Moon and Sun, North and South, Circle and Point, Earth and Air, Water and Fire, and so  on. Their union produces Ra-Hoor-Khuit, which, although One, none the less conceals  his twin or double within him. This double, or ‘devil,’ is Hoor-paar-Kraat. The two are  identical in the sense that any idea can exist only by virtue of the contradiction contained within it. A classic example is the famous paradox  of Cha’an—‘I am because I am not.’ If this is not intuitively understood, no amount of  explanation will elucidate it. This paradox, and others like it, are brought as near as  possible to explanation in the incomparable works of the pseudonymous Wei Wu Wei, to  which the reader is referred.”

     “The stellar or astral body is also called the Desire Body because it is the vehicle of  sentience in the human organism. This body was ascribed to the most ancient Star god,  Set, who was also a god of Fire. To Horus, his twin, was ascribed the spiritual body  represented by the Sun. The link between star—or fire—gods and the Sun is the lunar  current typified by Thoth, Lord of Magick and Scribe of the Gods. Thoth is sacred to the  youthful god Khonsu, of whom Crowley as a Magus claimed to be an avatar, thus identifying himself as the link between the Beast (Set, Lord of the Stars) and the  Angel (Horus, Lord of the Sun). Sex being the mainspring of the astral body, it was  through its use that Crowley accomplished most of his magick on the subtle planes.”

     “The god Mentu or Mm  was the ithyphallic form of Horus; from Mm is derived the word Man. Mentu became  Mendes, the name of the Egyptian nome sacred to the Ram or Goat, the Baphomet of the  Templars depicted with phallus rampant. The primal power was also symbolized by the  Uraeus Serpent which crowned the Egyptian gods, or the horns which protruded from the  brow of the Great God Pan, the Greek All-begetter. It is the risen Kundalini, identical  with the Set-Pan-Baphomet-Mendes-Phoenix chain of symbols.
     “In the earliest stages of Crowley’s magical career, the involuntary use of sexual magick,  plus repeated assumptions of the god-forms of ancient Egypt— especially that of the  Horns-Hawk—resulted in the  rapport  with Aiwaz in  1904.  Eleven years later  (1915),  he  realized himself as The Beast 666, a Magus of the Aeon of Horus, the  Word of which is Abrahadabra, which conceals the formula of Shaitan and of sexual  magick.
     “The number of Shaitan is  359;  that of Aiwass,  418.  Together they total  777  which is the total numeration  of the Paths of the Tree of Life. Therefore Shaitan-Aiwass=The Totality of Existence and Non-Existence=All=Pan.”
“All my joy, perfect, transcending sense, is given of Aiwaz, whom we call the Devil.” - Uncle Al

Setamontet

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2017, 04:22:10 pm »
Thelema= One's True Will is a primary focus and direction of Xeper (a very LHP concept.)  If we are to look at the Hermetic concept of Aeons as a reality then in April of 1904 c.e. Aleister Crowley received the Book of the Law and was declared Magus of the Aeon of Horus (AEH) which was a time of Purification to prepare men for that which would follow it. The AEH came into being through the cycle of time to end the horrors of the stasis of the death-gods of men, the so-called "Aeon of Osiris". The AEH reflected all that the age of enlightenment (1700 c.e. +) symbolized and taught. It boldly stated that fear and superstition no longer had a strangle hold over the minds of men.

On June 21st in the year 1975 c.e. Michael A. Aquino received The Book of Coming Forth by Night and was declared the first Magus of the Aeon of Set (AES). As I see it the Aeon of Set is the dawn of Man the god, the time when mankind will be challenged and Initiated more than ever.  He will be inspired to continue to strive and evolve towards becoming the absolute and complete manifestation of his inner most divine Being, or through ill chance or will, he could destroy his very race.

Gnothi Seauton!
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 04:42:30 pm by Setamontet »

"The Path of Darkness leads to Enlightenment."

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #40 on: December 18, 2017, 05:42:02 pm »
And in 1966, Magus Anton LaVey declared the Age of Satan, which is the date from which the Aeon of Set is actually counted, not 1975. Not tryin' to be a party-pooper or nuthin', but I've noticed that in multiple circles, the Age of Satan seems to almost be purposefully downplayed or sometimes outright ignored as somewhat insignificant, as if Aquino's 1975 experience would have happened without it. Why is that? Anton LaVey was Aquino's door into the LHP, and the man who introduced Aquino to the Prince of Darkness in the first place.

I sometimes get the impression that not many people besides Aquino himself are comfortable with championing pre-1975 LaVey as integral to all of this, even though his role was of critical importance. Even Aquino's receiving of The Book of Coming Forth by Night was done through straight-up using the the basic ritual format and invocation to Satan as found in The Satanic Bible. And Aquino was ordained a Priest of the Prince of Darkness through LaVey's authority. By not championing that time-period, and not trying to openly preserve the sacred character of the actual Church of Satan that died in 1975, I kinda feel like it's letting the false "Church" from '75 onward feel like they have something that doesn't really belong to them.

This is just something I think about alot, and am always somewhat irked at how it's treated this way.
“All my joy, perfect, transcending sense, is given of Aiwaz, whom we call the Devil.” - Uncle Al

NEMO 93

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #41 on: December 18, 2017, 08:40:09 pm »
There's no way that a Aeon could be declared 60 years after the declaration of the original.

However, if SET really is the same as Horus, wouldn't this be the Aeon of Heru-Set making the formula together the Aeon of Destruction and Creation? Which you could argue both Gods represent very well.

This dual aeon formula isn't new. They use it in the Ma'at paradigm which is an offshoot of the Typhonian Order. Ma'at is a future Aeon in which humanity is evolved into telepathic communication and therefore is able to allow and help each other each achieve their own true will but due to timey stuff people can access it from the present leading some to believe in the Aeon of Horus-Ma'at.

I'm not saying I believe this but I'm asking why is there not more about the Aeon of Horus-Set?

"Nothing has absolute truth, Everything remains possible"-Peter J. Carroll

"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #42 on: December 18, 2017, 08:52:37 pm »
I actually tend to agree with you about a new Aeon not being able to start so soon after another. Personally, I basically view the Age of Satan/Aeon of Set as more of a specialized focal point inside the Aeon of Horus.

But Aquino and co explain it another way. Aquino doesn't actually view the Aeons as linear as most people think. He views the Aeons of Isis, Osiris, Horus, and Set as mindsets that exist all at once as far as OU time is concerned. For example, to him, a Wiccan is "living in" the Aeon of Isis, a Thelemite is "living in" the Aeon of Horus, etc.

As far as an "Aeon of Horus-Set" goes, one thing you might find particularly interesting is how Aquino sometimes explains the Age of Satan. He actually says that the Age of Satan represents the fusion of Horus and Set as one. . . . and has speculated before that the "next" Aeon after the Aeon of Set may potentially be, once again, an Aeon where they are fused once more, like in the Age of Satan.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 08:54:28 pm by Frater V.I.M. »
“All my joy, perfect, transcending sense, is given of Aiwaz, whom we call the Devil.” - Uncle Al

Mindmaster

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2017, 09:00:02 pm »
But Aquino and co explain it another way. Aquino doesn't actually view the Aeons as linear as most people think. He views the Aeons of Isis, Osiris, Horus, and Set as mindsets that exist all at once as far as OU time is concerned. For example, to him, a Wiccan is "living in" the Aeon of Isis, a Thelemite is "living in" the Aeon of Horus, etc.

As far as an "Aeon of Horus-Set" goes, one thing you might find particularly interesting is how Aquino sometimes explains the Age of Satan. He actually says that the Age of Satan represents the fusion of Horus and Set as one. . . . and has speculated before that the "next" Aeon after the Aeon of Set may potentially be, once again, an Aeon where they are fused once more, like in the Age of Satan.

I've always found myself questioning the usefulness of depicting these currents as "Aeon"'s when it  seems obvious enough that nothing is really ever created or destroyed. You can find examples of people manifesting these different currents at all times in history, and rarely does any one in particular seem to dominate. This begs the question of whether they exist at all, or are just an attempt to buttress the revelations of The Book of Law and the people inspired by it to make it more significant than it really is, etc. Anyway, I'm sort of interested on your expansion of the subject and how does one establish the validity of an Aeon anyway? We could pick any favorite deity for example, to stick in there...

I tend to disagree with the analysis that Wiccans are manifesting the "Age of Isis" or whatever, as most Wiccans would lean toward an informal trinity of the unknowable "one" and a primary masculine and feminine emmination. (Think Kether-Binah-Chokmah in the Sephiroth) In essence, they'd be somewhat "age-less" in that the cycle of such ages would be accounted for in their belief system without particularly focusing on it. :D

Frater V.I.M.

Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2017, 11:04:41 pm »
Wiccans being in the "Aeon of Isis" in Aquino's view has nothing to do with what particular names they use or don't use for any deities, whether male or female. Just as the "Aeon of Osiris" is not called such because those "in it" believe in "Osiris" by name, or any Egyptian deities for that matter. The thing about Wiccans is because their whole worldview and spiritual focus is on nature and striving to be in harmony with its cycles as the key to spirituality. Likewise, Christians would be "in the Aeon of Osiris" because their worldview and spiritual focus is on sacrifice and rebirth.

Edit: Forgot to mention, the concept of the "Aeons" of "Isis," "Osiris," and "Horus" is not actually from the Book of the Law at all. These concepts didn't come from Aiwaz, they came from Crowley. It's a common mistake made by those unfamiliar with the actual contents of the Book to assume that the Book of the Law itself talked about these concepts, but it doesn't. Liber AL only mentions the word "aeon" once, and it's lowercase. Here's the one time it occurs in the actual Book: "The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accurséd! Accurséd be it to the aeons! Hell." So any elaborations on the triple "Aeons" concept is to further Crowley's personal views, not actually attempts at buttressing Liber AL, because Liber AL doesn't mention them.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2017, 11:32:58 pm by Frater V.I.M. »
“All my joy, perfect, transcending sense, is given of Aiwaz, whom we call the Devil.” - Uncle Al