THE
ARCANE
ARCHIVE

a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.


TOP | RELIGION | THELEMA | PHILOSOPHY

Thoth's Devil & Sex

To: alt.tarot
From: "J. Karlin" 
Subject: Re: Thoth's Devil & Sex (was:  The Devil)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 19:56:49 -0600

Bill Heidrick wrote:
 
> 93 Jess,
> 
> "J. Karlin"  wrote:
> 
> >Bill Heidrick wrote:
> 
> >> No.  Knowledge of those OTO degrees can help with an understanding of
> >> one or two points of view on the Atu
> 
> >The doctrine of the degrees is intimately woven into the
> >symbolism of Thoth. You've told me that yourself several
> >times.
> 
> Somewhat, but the main theme aside from Golden Dawn usage in the Thoth
> deck is Thelema and Liber AL.  

So, if your comment here is to be taken seriously, we
should not expect to find much mention of Thelema and Liber
AL with respect to the rituals and teachings of OTO.

Of course, in order to do that one needs necessarily
to ignore comments such as the following:

"But remember this clearly, that the Law cometh from the A...A..., 
not from the O.T.O. This Order is but the first of the great religious 
bodies to accept this Law officially, and its whole Ritual has 
been revised and reconstituted in accordance with this decision."

Echoing this, we can read at the OTO US Grand Lodge website,
(http://www.otohq.org/oto/otohq.html):

"O.T.O. is the first of the great Old Ĉon orders to accept 
The Book of the Law, received by Aleister Crowley in 1904 
EV. This book proclaims a New Ĉon in human thought, culture 
and religion. The Ĉon arises from a single supreme injunction: 
the Law of Thelema, which is Do what thou wilt."

and later...

"...many worthy aspirants to the Great Work of
Thelema have a genuine need for information, guidance, 
fellowship, or the opportunity to assist their fellow aspirants 
and serve humanity. Such aspirants will find welcome in O.T.O."

I simply find it curious that the Grand Poohbah General of
the OTO would find it necessary to suggest that, by inclusion
of Thelemic ideas in 'Book of Thoth', Aleister Crowley had
little interest in communicating ideas which would ALSO
be of specific 'ritual' interest and concern to members
of OTO.

> OTO aspects do come in to some extent,

How could they avoid doing so?

> but more on the Charioteer and Lust than the Devil Atu.  

Actually, specific OTO degrees (I believe three of them,
Vth, IXth, and XIth) are mentioned with respect to several
cards in the deck. There's little reason for Crowley to
offer this information except to suggest that the real
secrets of the symbolism reside in the keys revealed
in OTO initiations. Indeed, the fact he sees fit to make
mention of these things at all, considering that they ARE
supposed to be secrets, indicates that AC both desired
to promote the Order through the deck (again, connecting the
ideas of the deck to those taught in OTO), and to suggest
that it was ONLY through the Order that most people were
going to have any chance of realizing the truth of what
he was trying to say.

> At that, OTO
> aspects are greatly subbordinated to Thelema aspects, 

It is truer to say that this was done long before Book
of Thoth was created and that the deck merely reflects
this reality in the use of Thelemic ideas which have
expression ALSO in OTO.

> being only an
> also-ran for the latter.  

Or for A.'.A.'.

> Recall that for G.'.D.'., Levi and others,
> the 19th century and early 20th century Tarot innovations frequently
> echoed initiatory systems of those times.  

They didn't just echo them. That degrades and mocks the true
importance of tarot in the systems of these innovators.

The point was that tarot, according to these occultists,
WAS the symbolic bible of all humanity---and consequently,
it had to show, or be made to show, the very elements
from which the occultist was claiming to draw both his
ideas and his authority. No one could admit, for example, 
that all he was doing was layering an often pretentious
pile of bullshit onto a symbolic medium that was
operating perfectly happily BEFORE the occultist
appropriated it. NO, it's always the case that the
occultist is rescuing the 'livre primitif' from
its mundane bonds, and is engaged in 'rectification', 
or, as Crowley put it, in maintaining 'the Eternal' by 
revolutionizing tarot for the New Aeon. 

Tarot is at the very center of things for these occultists
(and for the modern ones as well)---and it really boils
down to the same thing it always has---if you can mystify
the ancient book, claim it's unreadable without the 'secret 
key' or decoder ring (which your brand of secret order 
just happens to possess in exclusion to all other brands) 
you stand to convince some parts of the prospective audience 
that your line of shit stinks better than everyone else's.

Nothing very mysterious OR spiritual. It's just marketing, 
plain and simple. That the Americans (maybe a Canadian in there 
too), who've assumed management of OTO, would tend to be better at 
it than other people is not very surprising.

Their tendency to leave out certain details in the promotional
literature is---SOP (or SOS) for marketing interests.

> >Bill, I've seen copies of Crowley's drafts for the OTO
> >degree rituals and instructions, and these include
> >diagrams of the Atu, just like in Golden Dawn, and just
> >like in Golden Dawn, the symbolism of the cards is
> >related to the doctrines taught in specific
> >degrees.
> 
> Exactly so.  More a case of modeling the sets and sayings of the
> rituals on Tarot than Tarot on the rituals.

And the difference would be?
 
> >However, you're just being
> >misleading to suggest that the cards don't give explicit
> >and direct indications of ideas connected to specific
> >levels of initiation in OTO.
> 
> On that, if a picture is worth a 1,000 words, which of those is the
> word of the degree? :-)   

Thelema.

Everything follows from that, right? But, if you don't
bother to tell people the details of how and why, you
also don't have to get into some of the logical problems
associated with the assumptions of the 'word'.

Example: how many people are REALLY going to be comfortable
belonging to a group that promotes the following:

"5. All children and young people, although they may not be able to
understand the more exalted heavens of our horoscope, may always be
taught to rule their lives in accordance with the Law. No efforts
should be spared to bring them to this emancipation. The misery caused
to children by the operation of the law of the slave-gods 
[note: i.e., Judeo-Christian gods] was, one may say, the primum 
mobile of Our first aspiration to overthrow the Old Law [note:
that of Judeo-Christianity]."

I'm not sure what is meant by 'No efforts should be spared to 
bring them to this emancipation,' but I'm pretty sure few people
I know are wise enough to intelligently interpret it (especially
for other people's 'children and young people'). 

Right after this we read (again, in support of the obvious
linkage of OTO to Thelema):

"6. By all manner of means shall all strive constantly to increase the
power and freedom of the Headquarters of the O.T.O.; for thereby will
come efficiency in the promulgation of the Law."

> Some secrecy is necessarily a part of
> initiations, else they are just plays.

But that's not really your concern, is it? Some secrecy
is necessary to maintain, or else you can't tell the difference
between Coke and Pepsi. Again, it's a business consideration,
one intended, as we see articulated above, to "increase the 
power and freedom of the Headquarters of the O.T.O."

> >I think you're obligated to do just what you are
> >attempting to do---talk round and about the truth.

> 
> Mut is a loving goddess, even if she has bad breath.  

Maybe you're talking about 'mutt'.

> To circle a
> carcus is to point to something.  

Yeah, something fucking dead and bloated. We know.

> Not direct, but getting people
> thinking is more important than constantly dictating to them.  

How much more compelling that would sound if Aleister
Crowley had written one or two books of suggestions with
respect to the 'Law', instead of piles of obscure
commentaries, laced with these kinds of warnings and
commandments to readers (here offered in 'comment'
upon Liber Legis, Book of the Law):

"The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to
destroy this copy after the first reading.

"Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and
peril. These are most dire.

"Those who discuss the contents of this Book are
to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.

"All questions of the Law are to be decided only
by appeal to my writings, each for himself.

Maybe Crowley was a Calvinist.

> It's a trade-off.

Between integrity and megalomania?
 
> >> The IXth degree of OTO in particular requires
> >> hints.
> 
> >You mean the recognition of it by the managers
> >of OTO?
> 
> At one time, that was the rule.  

What was the rule, recognition by OTO? That's still the
rule with respect to the validity of claims to OTO
degrees, isn't it?

> More people now know externals of the
> secret, 

What do you mean 'externals'? 

> and parotting is in the way of such recognition.  

In other words, it's the OTO brand of initiation
or nothing.

> Since the
> essence of the secret is a particular balance of mind and body in
> action and sequence of internal states, a direct description of one of
> many technical methods is misleading.  

Then I'd suggest to you only those who were likely to not
be misled would much care about that. In other words, as
Crowley said---

   "Again, though the secret itself is of such
    tremendous import, and though it is so simple that
    I could disclose it...in a short paragraph, I might
    do so without doing much harm.  For it cannot be used
    indiscriminately...I have found in practice that the
    secret of the O.T.O. cannot be used unworthily...."

> The rule was always to hint, on
> the theory that gradual approach to the notion from association of
> ideas is more likely to lead an individual to actual possession of the
> secret than exterior illustration.  

Isn't 'actual possession' almost entirely a function of belief
that the 'association of ideas' has anything more than a
conceptual significance, that it exists 'in fact' and in effect,
rather than merely as a philosophical construct?

In other words, isn't the 'gradual approach' required to
instill a religiosity to what is, after all, supposed to
be a 'scientific' principle? By the time one has invested
so much time and money trying to acquire an 'actual
possession', he's hardly so likely to dismiss the thing
as he would be if, for example, it was simply put to him
that the great secret of OTO reduced to 'eat your sperm'
(which three words I once found erased, but still visible,
on an original Crowley manuscript, wherein the claim was 
made by him that the secret could be reduced to three words).

>-- in metaphor, a sheet of music
> in hand does not make a person a musician.  

Nor does one become one without it.

Indeed, the analogy only serves to support the notion
that OTO wishes NO ONE to become a musician (or magician)
before ITS time.

> >All the knowledge of it requires is for someone to give the
> >recipe for the secret sauce. And then explain how to
> >use it. Crowley did that, and in plain terms too.
> 
> Far from it.  

Far from what? Far from general distribution, you mean?

> The "sauce" is nothing by itself.  

In other words, the 'swine' could never benefit
from just hearing the secret. They'll need the OTO to
parcel it out to them on OTO's schedule.

> Everything is in the
> attention of the cook and the stiring.  When to fold in the the
> ingrediients makes quite a difference in batter, as does temperature,
> leavening and the use of the bread board.  If all that is necessary to
> make a kuggle hopf, what more for this?

The problem is, and again your choice of metaphors is
hardly helpful for your case, one can not make a specific
recipe until he knows it. Indeed, it is the many 'makings' which
provide a knowledge of HOW to cook.

The way you would have it, the Culinary Institute would
provide the cookbook AFTER one had graduated and completed
his professional career---kind of a serious cart before
the horse issue there.

> >All the Atu are 'as close', cause they all speak (in
> >varying 'degrees') to the same central theme---Penis as Jesus
> >(particularly Crowley's penis), and Semen-Sperm as Holy
> >Water.
> 
> Catchy, but I've never thought of it that way. :-)

Well, maybe you need to have someone nebulize to you
in Heidrick-speak, so you'll have sufficiently
fuzzy ground upon which to base some thinking.

> >So, you mean just because it has a big penis and balls on
> >it doesn't suggest to you a sufficiently clear 'depiction'
> >or 'action'?
> 
> It's not the meat, it's the motion -- 

mantra for the 'meatless'.

> >> All that suggests
> >> something but is not 100% clear without more explicit signs.
> 
> >More 'explicit' like what?
> 
> What is the goat, and what is the thought?

The Walrus is Paul, that's been established.

Furthermore, when you ask 'what is the goat', that
suggests there IS an explicit sign---perhaps what
you mean to say is that you can't provide an answer
unless explicit proof is given to you that your
querent already possesses and believes in the answer
(re: the meaning of that sign) you are prepared to 
deliver.

Doesn't sound very brave---for a thelemite. But it's
certainly wise---for a salesman.
 
> >A 'tie'? What does that mean exactly? Is this wand only mentioned
> >there?
> 
> First part of Liber Reguli, 

You mean this?:

The Vertical Component of the Enchantment.

1. Let him describe a circle about his head, crying NUIT!

2. Let him draw the Thumb vertically downward and touch the
Muladhara Cakkra, crying, HADIT!

3. Let him, retracing the line, touch the centre of his breast and 
cry RA-HOOR-KHUIT!

> association to chakras involved with the
> cross members of the HG cross.  Also visible on Waite deck for
> Hierophant and Justice Trumps, same locations.

I can see how you might draw that conclusion
in Hierophant, but not in Justice. At any rate, can
you quote something from Waite that would suggest he
saw things similarly to Crowley regarding this symbolism?

> >> Top Bahadi of that wand indicating Hadit.
> 
> >And what is Hadit, and what has it to do with Devil.
> 
> Nothing to do with the Devil, except for a leg-pull remark by Crowley
> in MTP and one or two other places.  

So why mention it, unless you also are just providing
'leg-pull remarks'?

Or, maybe, what you've just said isn't true.

After all, I'm sure you've bothered to read (but perhaps
conveniently forget) the following:

 "The Devil" is, historically, the God of any people that one 
personally dislikes.  This has led to so much confusion of thought 
that THE BEAST 666 has preferred to let names stand as they are, 
and to proclaim simply that AIWAZ --- the solar-phallic-hermetic 
"Lucifer" is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and "The Devil" SATAN 
or HADIT of our particular unit of the Starry Universe.  This 
serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods 
of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade "Know Thyself!" and 
taught Initiation.  He is "the Devil" of the Book of Thoth, and 
His emblem is BAPHOMET, the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of 
arcane perfection.  The number of His Atu is XV, which is Yod 
He, the Monogram of the Eternal, the Father one with the Mother, 
the Virgin Seed one with all-containing Space.  He is therefore 
Life, and Love.  But moreover his letter is Ayin, the Eye; 
he is Light, and his Zodiacal image is Capricornus, that 
leaping goat whose attribute is Liberty."

> The
> Ba-hadi is the winged sun of Egyptian art and iconography.  The Stele
> of Reveling used by Crowley and cited into Liber AL has this feature
> depicted and described -- however, the "Ba" was omitted from the
> heirogliphics on the Stele.  The result of this is the usage "Hadit"
> instead of "Ba-Hadi".  The full word in Egyptian means "In(to) the
> disk (of the Sun)".  The "Ba" is the In(to) part.

The facts are these:

1. The word depicted on the Stele of Revealing is that
for Horus in his aspect as Solar god. The word used for 
Horus is 'Behdet' (Budge uses 'Behutet'), the word Bill 
calls 'Ba-hadi'. 

2. It was common in Egyptian writing to refer to a god by 
the name of the town in which his worship was centered. 
Here, the word, 'Behdet', actually refers to the god, 
'Horus', by reference to his town, the modern Edfu. We know 
this by the fact that there is town determinant in the name 
(the little cross in a circle which depicts a crossroads 
with a wall). The whole top of the stele is actually a 
dedication to the great god, Horus.

3. The translator Crowley hired to decipher the stele
simply missed this, or wrote a shorthand, 'hut-t', or
'Hadit', which does mean 'winged disk', but is not really
the word depicted here (he probably figured it was good enough 
for some ignorant Brit tourist). Lastly, I don't think 
the word, whether in short of long form, suggests
'into' anything, but rather refers to the 'seat' or
'throne' of the winged disk, which would be Edfu.

The point is that Crowley was not really interested in
Egyptology, he was much more concerned to use the stele
(whatever the hell it might have said), and his trip to Egypt, 
to fire his imagination to help him ward off the ever-present 
threat of boredom with his new wife. 

From this kind of desparate search for novelty came Liber 
Legis.

> >> >Why did Phyllis Seckler feel as she did about the rituals
> >> >and teachings of OTO? Was she just an uppity bitch?
> >>
> >> Aside from a personal problem with her relation to Grady,
> 
> >She had more than a personal problem, and it was with
> >more than Grady, as you well know.
> 
> Sorry, I don't know.  Aside from matters related to her personal
> feelings about Grady, most of her criticisms are of a type either
> derived from that relationship or of a sort that I and others have
> voiced in the normal course of trying to get OTO going where it's
> going.

Perhaps you have difficulty accepting the criticism
of a woman as anything more than an expression of 'her
personal feelings'. It's also possible she was expressing
some 'personal thoughts', some of which I doubt you
shared (since they were directed against the nature
of your behaviors re: OTO).

> >Like she said, you guys couldn't afford to throw her out.
> 
> Wrong.  

She certainly did say that, Bill. Are you saying she
was wrong in her estimation of her situation?

> >Non-linear thinking often means, in the occult, convoluted
> >nonsense.
> 
> That's not thinking.  Linear thinking carried to extremes is nonsense,
> as the Socratic method amply demonstrates.

The Socratic method amply demonstrates an 'extreme of
linear thinking'?

It's merely a method to get people to think for themselves
while at the same time analyzing their arguments. 

Do you have a problem with that?
 
(jk)

Path: Supernews70!Supernews73!supernews.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!nntp.texas.net!news.texas.net!not-for-mail
From: "J. Karlin" 
Newsgroups: alt.tarot
Subject: Re: Thoth's Devil & Sex (was:  The Devil)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:03:46 +0000
Organization: Texas Networking, Inc.
Lines: 574
Message-ID: <34F5BC72.E5E61732@texas.net>
References: <34F22B18.18B1@lan2wan.com> <19980225014800.UAA14841@ladder03.news.aol.com> <6d1kj5$jhs$1@was.hooked.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mnet01-01.austin.texas.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Xref: Supernews70 alt.tarot:26957

Bill Heidrick wrote:
 
> 93 Jess,

Or not.
 
> It might be better if you direct email me a copy
> when you want my response.

It might be better if you were actually responsive
in your response. Perhaps we can work together to make
the world a 'better' place.
 
> Also, shorter is better.  

No problem, don't beg so many questions and I won't
have to give you so many answers. 

> I don't have the time to write a book on
> demand.

Who was demanding you write anything? I simply replied
to what you wrote. And you wrote a REAL fucking long
post. 

Check the meter on your own bloated prose before you
start helping the other guy.
 
> "J. Karlin"  wrote, quoting me.
 
> >> Somewhat, but the main theme aside from Golden Dawn usage in the Thoth
> >> deck is Thelema and Liber AL.
> >
> >So, if your comment here is to be taken seriously, we
> >should not expect to find much mention of Thelema and Liber
> >AL with respect to the rituals and teachings of OTO.
> 
> That does not logically follow.

Sure it does---the main theme in Thoth, according to you,
has little to do with the rituals and teachings of OTO, 
and much to do with Thelema and Liber AL. It certainly follows 
then that we'd not expect to find much about Thelema and Liber 
AL in the rituals and teachings of OTO. Of course, we do find
those things, as I illustrated in my reply to you (which
illustrations, by the way, made up a substantial amount
of the length you're whining about).

To simply blurt 'it does not logically follow' without explaining 
why not is evasive.

> >I simply find it curious that the Grand Poohbah General of
> >the OTO would find it necessary to suggest that, by inclusion
> >of Thelemic ideas in 'Book of Thoth', Aleister Crowley had
> >little interest in communicating ideas which would ALSO
> >be of specific 'ritual' interest and concern to members
> >of OTO.
> 
> That isn't even traceable to inspiration. :-)

What isn't traceable? My comment, or your dissembling?

> >Actually, specific OTO degrees (I believe three of them,
> >Vth, IXth, and XIth) are mentioned with respect to several
> >cards in the deck. There's little reason for Crowley to
> >offer this information except to suggest that the real
> >secrets of the symbolism reside in the keys revealed
> >in OTO initiations.
> 
> Strike "real secrets" to "in OTO".   

Why should I strike 'real secrets'? Maybe there are
no 'real secrets' in OTO. I might tend to agree with
you there.

> Replace with "ideas are also used
> in OTO".

If it were a matter of their only ALSO being used, then
there's no point in AC remarking about the 'secrets'
with respect to specific OTO degrees and rituals.

> >suggest
> >that it was ONLY through the Order that most people were
> >going to have any chance of realizing the truth of what
> >he was trying to say.
> 
> About OTO, sometimes yes.  Generally, usually no.

Well, here, I heartily agree with you. I am quite sure
OTO has SELDOM led the general population of its members
to realizing whatever truth Crowley was trying to articulate.

It is refreshing to see the GPG admit to this as well.

> >It is truer to say that this was done long before Book
> >of Thoth was created and that the deck merely reflects
> >this reality in the use of Thelemic ideas which have
> >expression ALSO in OTO.
> 
> About the length of your posts --that last para. would have done for a
> start to your post, thus eliminating about three screens of
> unnecessary verbiage.

My dear, when thelemites start complaining about
'unnecessary verbiage' you're only serving notice
that you don't like the nature of the verbiage.

Someone should just publish a book on your 'trademark'
responses to criticism---it would limit your own plentiful
'unnecessary verbiage' since people could simply 'cut &
paste' your non-responses from the book.

> >> Recall that for G.'.D.'., Levi and others,
> >> the 19th century and early 20th century Tarot innovations frequently
> >> echoed initiatory systems of those times.
> >
> >They didn't just echo them. That degrades and mocks the true
> >importance of tarot in the systems of these innovators.
> 
> To you.  Not to me.  "Echo" means use by at least partial duplication.

What does '"Echo" means use by at least partial duplication,' 
mean in English?

> >The point was that tarot, according to these occultists,
> >WAS the symbolic bible of all humanity
 
> A few sometimes exaggerate to that extreme. 

Crowley certainly did, and he certainly believed that
about Book of Thoth.

He wrote, concerning his tarot deck---

"To me this Work on the Tarot is an Encyclopoedia of all serious 
"occult" philosophy. It is a standard Book of Reference, which 
will determine the entire course of mystical and magical thought 
for the next 2000 years." 

AND, commenting on the deck which his replaced, he wrote:

"Hadit is the fire that hath burnt up the book Tarot.  For in 
the book Tarot was preserved all of the wisdom (for the Tarot was 
called the Book of Thoth), of the Aeon that is passed."

Of course, there is no 'Hadit', so maybe it was a
match or a cigarette lighter.

> The notion is impossible
> on the face.  

Your prophet didn't think that was an issue.

> Tarot is a convenient means, 

For making ridiculous claims of importance?

Yep.

> not the only holy book or
> source of ideas.

Doesn't have to be 'only' to be 'main' or 'central'. 

> >Tarot is at the very center of things for these occultists
> 
> Exaggeration, although some do overspecialize in it.

That's not an exaggeration. The 'great secret' that the 
occultists have battled over through the years, the Holy 
Grail that people believed was proof or denial of one's 
special connection to occult truth, was the ability to supply 
the correct key to the Tarot. Without that consideration, 
without that key, the claims for the preternatural
origins of Liber AL are just bullshit.

Tarot keys are THE way in which Crowley asserted the validity of
his revelation. It was THE symbolic focus of his magical 
activities for his entire adult life (once he encountered
it in Golden Dawn) and his magical understanding is poured
out into Book of Thoth. And that includes, indeed it 
accentuates, the information concerning initiations and
instructions of OTO.

> >> Exactly so.  More a case of modeling the sets and sayings of the
> >> rituals on Tarot than Tarot on the rituals.
> >
> >And the difference would be?
> 
> The former is decoration.  The latter is custom merchandise.

There we go, 'merchandise'. Again, that's the only concern
here---OTO treats the rituals as 'trade secrets', and does
not want it known that those secrets are explicitly 
portrayed in a commercially-distributed tarot deck.

As Bill once noted:

"Any trick of production or instruction leading to some 
publicly accessible result can be a common law tradesecret -- 
but such things are not registered, since that would disclose 
them and cause them to cease to be a secret. If Tarot is used 
in an OTO initiation, under secrecy oath, that would be an 
example of a tradesecret. Even if, as has happened, someone 
publishes that secret, it remains the common law property of 
OTO, defensible in a court of law, in the exact manner of 
the use in ritual -- so long as OTO does not publicly admit 
the accuracy of the pirate publication in sufficient detail."
 
> >> On that, if a picture is worth a 1,000 words, which of those is the
> >> word of the degree? :-)
> >
> >Thelema.
> 
> Never the full word of any degree.  

It is the word of the IXth, and the reply is 'Agape'.

Hardly a surprise, given that Thelema and Agape are the
two Greek words for 'Will' and 'Love'---'Love under
Will'. Woman under Man.

What would you have us think it was gonna be?

Boris and Natasha?

OK, you can go ahead and fulfill your official duty and issue 
your denial now.

> It has its use as a term, 

What use do you make of it?

> but it
> is not of the character of narrow application that a primary key word

Let's see, we have---

"Word"

"Full word"

"Primary Key word"

Any more meaningless jargon to throw in here?

How about:

'primary secret full key word'

> would have to have for something so specialized as the summation of a
> degree.

Take it up with your designer.
 
> >Example: how many people are REALLY going to be comfortable
> >belonging to a group that promotes the following:
> 
> All this part is off topic for alt.tarot 

I give a certain latitude to topics, as long as they aren't
ads. And any discussion of Crowley's ideas, as they are supposed
to be promoted in OTO, necessarily requests an examination of
his more problematic declarations.

I'm not surprised to see you come up with an excuse for
not replying with substance, but one would have hoped,
that regardless of your estimate of the topicality of
the quote, you could have seen fit to offer a reason 
why OTO finds comfort in the premise that children should
be indoctrinated in Thelemic ideas. I'm just curious, does
OTO plan to 'emancipate' Christian and Jewish children too? 
Moslems? Hindus? Atheists?

> and biased to some extent out
> of context to promote verbiage.  

The 'bias' is to 'promote verbiage'?

Well, again, blame your prophet, he's the long-winded
bastard who wrote this stuff.

> If you want to discuss these things,
> try alt.magick.order.

You mean, where no one here will be likely to read it?

Nah. This is perfectly relevant to alt.tarot (or just about
anywhere that the topic of OTO comes up). A lot of people
who read this newsgroup have an interest in "Book of Thoth" tarot 
and they deserve to hear any and all of Crowley's ideas, and 
they also deserve to get more than a curtly indifferent reply 
from an OTO officer when some of those ideas are offered in 
illustration of the suggestion that OTO might be pursuing a
threatening policy.

> >How much more compelling that would sound if Aleister
> >Crowley had written one or two books of suggestions with
> >respect to the 'Law', instead of piles of obscure
> >commentaries, laced with these kinds of warnings and
> >commandments to readers (here offered in 'comment'
> >upon Liber Legis, Book of the Law):
> 
> All this part is off topic 

Why? Cause you don't want to talk about it in respect to
Book of Thoth tarot?

Like I said, we don't have strict rules about topics here.
In tarot it would be difficult and unwise to try to impose
any such rules. Of course, if you just think the readers

of alt.tarot are unworthy of hearing your reply, that
would seem to be YOUR problem, not that of the group
or the nature of the comments I made.

> and should be taken up on the Thelema list
> -- although some of it might fly on alt.magick.

Then it will 'fly' fine here.

Book of Thoth is a tarot deck. The ideas which go into
Thoth are of interest to us. The misinformation promoted
by OTO is not, however.
 
> >Maybe Crowley was a Calvinist.
> 
> Yes, he was.  It colors his notions of Thelema.  The Plymouth Brethren
> did hold Calvinist doctrines during his childhood.

Oh Pastor Paul---you too can be a Thelemite, dear.

> >> More people now know externals of the
> >> secret,
> >
> >What do you mean 'externals'?
> 
> Things capable of observation and explicit description.

You mean the secrets are 'out'. Yeah, I know.

> >> and parotting is in the way of such recognition.
> >
> >In other words, it's the OTO brand of initiation
> >or nothing.
> 
> That does not follow 

Doesn't it Bill? If OTO 'recognition' is dependent on
OTO recognizing someone's knowledge, and if the knowledge
is now available to people outside the order, so that the
'recognition' is irrelevant, then the only purpose you
could have for complaining about 'parroting' being
in the way is to demand that ONLY OTO's dissemination
of the truth is valid.

> and is factually incorrect in this illustration.

So then, you still recognize Kenneth Grant as a IXth-degree
member of OTO, right? 

And Marcello Motta? He was a IXth-degree, right?

Or was he?

> >Isn't 'actual possession' almost entirely a function of belief
> >that the 'association of ideas' has anything more than a
> >conceptual significance, that it exists 'in fact' and in effect,
> >rather than merely as a philosophical construct?
> 
> No.  Actual possession in this sense means that the individual knows

Knows what exactly?

> and can do.

'can do' implies that there is a belief that there is
something TO do.

> >>-- in metaphor, a sheet of music
> >> in hand does not make a person a musician.
> >
> >Nor does one become one without it.
> 
> Tell that to most musicians.  

Be happy to. Especially since the kind of musician
(or magician) we are talking about (someone who
goes to Juliard or who imagines a magical Juliard
exists in OTO) definitely will need to learn how
to read music (or magick).

> I think you will find that playing by
> ear is quite common in the profession, outside orchestras.

I think you will find that reading music is
also quite common, since most musicians have bothered
to learn at least some notation in their lives.

The point here is that OTO does not 'recognize'
playing by ear. 

> >In other words, the 'swine' could never benefit
> >from just hearing the secret. They'll need the OTO to
> >parcel it out to them on OTO's schedule.
> 
> Drop "swine" 

And put what in its place---'little piggies'?

> and the second sentence.

And then it would spin better for OTO.

> >The way you would have it, the Culinary Institute would
> >provide the cookbook AFTER one had graduated and completed
> >his professional career---kind of a serious cart before
> >the horse issue there.
> 
> Definitely, that's the best way to do it.  

You mean the medieval way---where one has to apprentice
to a master to obtain knowledge? That's why we have 
books (and Internet), Bill, to spread the wealth of knowledge 
to everyone.

> A serious cook should learn
> from a cook, not a cookbook.

What if 'a cook' doesn't know something? What then?
Guess he'll have to look it up in a cookbook, huh?
And OTO has those.

The thing about OTO is that it not only wants to
keep the cookbook to itself, it expects its students
to apprentice for years, paying increasing membership fees,
before they might even be considered worthy to read the
most basic information about HOW TO COOK.
 
> >I can see how you might draw that conclusion
> >in Hierophant, but not in Justice. At any rate, can
> >you quote something from Waite that would suggest he
> >saw things similarly to Crowley regarding this symbolism?
> 
> In the Waite deck Justice, it's the cross-piece of the sword and the
> balance arm of the scales.

Like I said, do you know anything in Waite's writings to support
that view?

> >1. The word depicted on the Stele of Revealing is that
> >for Horus in his aspect as Solar god. The word used for
> >Horus is 'Behdet' (Budge uses 'Behutet'), the word Bill
> >calls 'Ba-hadi'.
> 
> No.  Heru is Horus.  

Egyptian gods go by many names, Bill, as you mention
below. Hadn't you ever bothered to look this up before? 

> Ba-hadi or Behutet is a modifier on the name of
> one or more variations of Horus, 

The variation is 'Horus of Behutet' (or Edfu).

I quote from Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, Vol I, page
473:

"Heru-Behutet---This is one of the greatest and most important
of all the forms of Horus, for he represents that form of
Heru-khuti [NOTE:that is, 'Horus of the two Horizons', who could
be represented as a form of Ra, but generally represented
the Sun in its course across the sky] which prevailed in
the southern heavens at midday, and as such typified the 
greatest power of the heat of the Sun."

Later, we are told (page 477)---

"At this juncture Thoth declared that Horus, son of Ra, 
should be called Heru-Behutet, and Behutet (Edfu) should
be called the city of Horus; and Ra referred with pleasure
to the blood which his son had shed and which he likened
to grapes."

And, from a manual on hieroglyphics:

"Behdet (the town of Edfu)---this town was sacred to the solar
Horus (winged disk), and one of the greatest and best preserved
of all Egyptian temples still stands there. Behdet is to
be read "He of Behdet", or "the solar Horus"; that is, 
the god's name is written by means of the name of his
city."

There is no 'Hadit' on the 'Stele of Revealing'. There never
was. 'Hadit' is simply a creation of Crowley's imagination
based on an error in translation' of the word, Behdet.

> as in Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi 

Bill, there are two deities:

1. Ra-Heru-Khuti (which is the 'Ra' form of 'Heru-Khuti')

2. Heru-Behdet (again, meaning 'Horus of Behdet')

Heru-Behdet is the son of Ra-Heru-Khuti. Indeed, one of the
titles of Ra-Heru-Khuti is 'the dweller in Behdet'. Behdet
is the town of Edfu. 

>= Ra the
> Hawk who flies into the disk of the sun.

What is your source for this 'phrase' and this translation?

> >Here, the word, 'Behdet', actually refers to the god,
> >'Horus', by reference to his town, the modern Edfu.
> 
> Too loose by far.  Naming a town to pun part of the attribute of a god
> is not the same thing as naming the god after the town.

You need the study the connection of the town to the god.
You're simply ignorant about this. Or worse.

> >3. The translator Crowley hired to decipher the stele
> >simply missed this, or wrote a shorthand, 'hut-t', or
> >'Hadit', which does mean 'winged disk', but is not really
> >the word depicted here
> 
> The first translation wasn't all that good, 

Precisely.

Indeed, in subsequent translations of the Stele I've seen in OTO
pubs, the word 'Behdet' is given with a little note indicating 
that perhaps this could be the word originally translated as 
'Hadit'. 

I am surprised no one has called you on this before---except,
of course I did, about two years ago, and you gave me your
'Ba-Hadi' story. After bothering to research this question
I came to realize that you were either enthusiastically
ignorant, or were lying.

> but "Ba-Hadi" is a very
> common feature on stellae.  

Again, 'Behdet' is the translation and it's the town of
Edfu. That it would occur often in Egyptian writings
is, given what we've seen here concerning its role in myth
and history, hardly surprising.

> >Perhaps you have difficulty accepting the criticism
> >of a woman as anything more than an expression of 'her
> >personal feelings'.
> 
> That's simply an abusive remark.  

Guess she was right about how you take criticism.
 
> >The Socratic method amply demonstrates an 'extreme of
> >linear thinking'?
> >
> >It's merely a method to get people to think for themselves
> >while at the same time analyzing their arguments.
> 
> The Socratic method is a retorical device for winning an argument 

Not necessarily. Have you actually ever read Plato, Bill,
I mean like in the last 20 or 30 years?

Let me suggest it to you. It's never too late for you to
re-start your education.

(jk)

Path: Supernews70!Supernews73!supernews.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!nntp.texas.net!news.texas.net!not-for-mail
From: "J. Karlin" 
Newsgroups: alt.tarot
Subject: Re: Thoth's Devil & Sex (was:  The Devil)
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 17:32:36 +0000
Organization: Texas Networking, Inc.
Lines: 596
Message-ID: <34F99B70.B4A1A3B5@texas.net>
References: <34F22B18.18B1@lan2wan.com> <19980225014800.UAA14841@ladder03.news.aol.com> <6d1kj5$jhs$1@was.hooked.net> <34F5BC72.E5E61732@texas.net> <6d6rr4$9es$1@was.hooked.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mnet02-77.austin.texas.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Xref: Supernews70 alt.tarot:26997

Bill Heidrick wrote:
 
> 93 Jess,

?! Bill.
 
> "J. Karlin"  wrote, quoting me.
> 
> >It might be better if you were actually responsive
> >in your response. Perhaps we can work together to make
> >the world a 'better' place.
> 
> This one made it on my ISP.  On responsive:  I am by my standards.  

That's why your 'standards' have become an issue.

> >No problem, don't beg so many questions and I won't
> >have to give you so many answers.
> 
> Don't one-shot so many questions at a time.  

Like I said, don't beg so many questions.

> Also, the nature of the
> subject is such that some things have precise meaning, 

When will any of those be forthcoming from you?

> most have
> multiple meanings and many have conceptual limitations.

Or is it rather that it is in OTO's interest to promote
that view, since the 'secrets' are then buried underneath
multiple conjectures?
 
> >Sure it does---the main theme in Thoth, according to you,
> >has little to do with the rituals and teachings of OTO,
> >and much to do with Thelema and Liber AL. It certainly follows
> >then that we'd not expect to find much about Thelema and Liber
> >AL in the rituals and teachings of OTO.
> 
> Illogical.  Thelema and Liber AL are very large fields.  

As we've seen, those fields are found deeply planted
in OTO. It is at the heart of OTO's existence as an organization
to further the spread of Thelema and the application (or
acceptance) of the Law, according to Liber AL. 

> OTO is a
> moderately large field with substantially narrower focus 

Again, that 'focus' has been explored in this thread, and
you've offered no explanations for the number of quotes which
have been posted showing that Crowley's view of OTO WAS as
a social organ of recruitment and devotion to Thelema
and Liber AL.

You can't just keep posting 'that's not logical' or 'that's
not true', and expect that alone, in light of evidence to the 
contrary, to be very convincing.

> in its
> rituals and teachings.  

And again, we have your quote offered here where you even
admit to the reasoning behind and the nature of your
willingness to lie in public about the connection of
Thoth to OTO's rituals and teachings (even noting this
with specific respect to tarot). Your credibility
as a spokesperson for the truth regarding these issues
is suspect, to say the least. 

> A preponderance of Thelemic/AL influence upon
> the Thoth deck does not exclude a substantial influence of Thelema/AL
> in OTO.  

And, on the surface, this logically suggests there may be a
connection between Thelema/AL, Thoth, and OTO. Given the
evidence which supports that suggestion, the conclusion
is that the connection is far more than coincidental
and is indeed, fundamental and intended. 

Tarot is the basis of Liber AL's validity as 'revealed' 
knowledge. The nature of tarot, as THE 'book' of hieroglyphs
which determine, not just illustrate, the 'the entire course 
of mystical and magical thought' of each Aeon or Age is
clearly stated, in evolving detail, by a the chain of occultists 
beginning with Antoine Court de Gebelin and culminating with 
Aleister Crowley.

Only someone, such as yourself, whose professional duties include
issuing misinformation to the public, would (or reasonably COULD) 
argue otherwise.

> The area of overlap is smaller between OTO content and Thoth
> than between OTO and Tarot in general, 

Bill, you're just trying to mislead (again) here. Thoth
IS tarot (in general), as far as Crowley was concerned.
It is the deck which replaces that of the Old Aeon and
matches symbolically the new metaphors which come into
effect as a result of the 1904 revealing of Liber AL.
It is absurd for you to make the distinctions you are
making. OTO accepts the validity of Liber AL, and is devoted
to its ideas and the spread of its teaching. OTO would, 
therefore, also accept Thoth as the tarot which naturally
reflects and reveals the nature of its rituals. We've
already seen the quote where Crowley admits to this.

> but not insignificant.  Recall
> that the OTO rituals in the main pre-date the Thoth deck by more than
> 20 years.  

Precisely, the symbolism of those rituals, rewritten
by Crowley to reflect the teachings of Liber AL, MUST be
represented in the deck which serves as the symbolic
'encyclopedia' of the New Aeon. 

You're trying to represent these things as disconnected
though somewhat related phenomena and that's simply
misleading. They are part of a complex social-magickal 
organization with OTO serving as a public church (or 
Brüderschaft, depending on your views of such things), designed 
to recruit new members (and their money) and, as we've seen, 
"to increase the power and freedom of the Headquarters of 
the O.T.O.", all devoted to promoting and serving the
dictates of Liber AL.

> >Why should I strike 'real secrets'? Maybe there are
> >no 'real secrets' in OTO. I might tend to agree with
> >you there.
> 
> The usage "real secrets" implies that there is "one true meaning" to
> everything involved in the Thoth deck.  There are multiple meanings,

Again, this is standard OTO obfuscation---validating the largely
nonsensical conjectures of the despised swine (and their
little swineherds, the pop tarot writers). Think about
it for a moment. OTO seldom publicly attacks the likes
of a Mary Greer or Angeles Arrien, or the Akron-Banzhof boys,
despite the unmitigated trash that these writers have
promulgated concerning Thoth and Crowley (of course, on
this newsgroup, OTO doesn't have to defend Crowley from those
idiots since we all do it for them). And the reason OTO is so 
tolerant of these mass-market nitwits is that OTO is perfectly 
happy to have Thoth POORLY understood by just about everyone.

> OTO uses Tarot in a
> limited way to illustrate internal notions of OTO.  

Those 'internal notions' are, as we've repeatedly
illustrated, devoted to Liber AL and Thelema.

> That does not mean
> the Thoth deck was designed for that exclusive purpose 

Again, the purpose is clearly stated by Crowley, and
follows 'logically' the philosophical development of occult tarot
since 1781. 

> in any regard,
> only that OTO has use for some of the things in the design for OTO's
> purposes.

Which is simply to repeat what we've been saying here---OTO's
'purposes' are intimately related in the symbolism of Thoth.

> >If it were a matter of their only ALSO being used, then
> >there's no point in AC remarking about the 'secrets'
> >with respect to specific OTO degrees and rituals.
> 
> The Book of Thoth would not have been published if it were not for OTO
> contributions to the publishing fund.  

Why would OTO be concerned to supply these funds for a project having
so very little to do with their 'designs'?

> Tipping the hat to OTO by
> oblique reference at points 

The references are more than oblique. One could simply
say 'the symbolism is particularly pertinent to
understandings to be had in OTO'. But Crowley rather, several
times, is much more explicit than this:

Example:

in reference to 'Six of Cups', 'Pleasure'---

"It ['the idea of Pleasure-Putrefaction as a Sacrament'] is
one of the master-keys to the Gate of Initiation. To
realize and to enjoy this fully it is NECESSARY to know,
to understand, and to experience, the Secret of the Ninth
Degree of the O.T.O."

That seems to me a very explicit kind of 'hat-tipping', 
and to assert, as I noted before, that one NEEDS to
'know, understand, and experience' the symbolism of
Thoth with respect to the specific ritual experience and 
teachings supplied in OTO. You may be right to suggest
this is offered (partly) by way of advertising, you are 
misleading to imply that this is ALL it is.

> in the book enriches the value of the book
> to OTO members and helps on the next pass of the hat.

I've no doubt that hat-passing was always a primary
concern for AC.

> >Well, here, I heartily agree with you. I am quite sure
> >OTO has SELDOM led the general population of its members
> >to realizing whatever truth Crowley was trying to articulate.
> 
> Correct, an advise that is given to the members at the first
> initiation into OTO.  All OTO can do is offer help.

One of the other things they could do is to eliminate
the hierarchical structure of OTO, do away with grades
of initiation, and provide ALL printed materials to
anyone (members or not) who is interested in them.

As pointed out earlier, no damage to OTO would likely
come in doing this. Instead, OTO could take a lead in
publicly confronting the more problematic and troubling
aspects of Thelemic ideology (including those contained in
the 'secret' documents) INSTEAD of taking the lead
in doing continual damage (and thought) control through 
evasion and lying.

> >He wrote, concerning his tarot deck---
> 
> >"To me this Work on the Tarot is an Encyclopoedia of all serious
> >"occult" philosophy. It is a standard Book of Reference, which
> >will determine the entire course of mystical and magical thought
> >for the next 2000 years."
> 
> Almost as catachy a slogan for sales as: "Burn this book after reading
> it!"  :-)

Bill, if you don't believe Crowley meant this, then you're
a hypocrite. You yourself noted back in 1985, responding
to the implications that maybe your 'service' to McMurtry
was ill-advised:

"I'm bothered because it seems to declare to the world at 
large that I was a total imbecile for abandoning my career to 
serve Mr. McMurtry's ends. I have devoted essentially the balance 
of my life from 1977 to this purpose.  And it's very trying."

Having obtained 'Mr. McMurtry's ends', and having, presumably,
devoted the years since 1985 in service to his successor's
'ends', does this mean that those objectives have little to do with
those articulated for the order by Aleister Crowley?

Or are you suggesting Crowley was a fraud?

Either way, I'm curious, if the opinion of the 'world at large'
was of much concern to you, why did you join up with
a group like OTO in the first place? 

> >Tarot keys are THE way in which Crowley asserted the validity of
> >his revelation.
> 
> "A support to..."  Crowley often considered his latest work his best
> and most key, until the next.

Maybe he was anal-retentive.

He could have written considerably less than he did
and made his point.

I generally find his shorter and more casual works much better,
both with respect to their literary merits and any
occult 'wisdoms' worth articulating.

> > It was THE symbolic focus of his magical
> >activities for his entire adult life (once he encountered
> >it in Golden Dawn) and his magical understanding is poured
> >out into Book of Thoth. And that includes, indeed it
> >accentuates, the information concerning initiations and
> >instructions of OTO.
> 
> Exaggeration, even if Crowley also says it.

Well, Bill, why even have a conversation about this then?

Neither of us knew Aleister Crowley, so neither of us
has anything other than his writings (and the testimony
of some witnesses) by which to judge the man's motives.

I'm willing to admit that he wavered from time to time
in terms of his conviction about Thelema and Liber AL. I'm
not however willing to (conveniently) dismiss everything
he wrote merely because I know his words can only
varyingly be trusted on the surface. In short, it is
entirely possible for someone like Crowley to write something
as absurdly presumptuous as his claims for Thoth's 
multi-millenial significance, knowing and appreciating its 
absurdity, AND for him to still quite literally mean it.

Again, to think otherwise is to admit that Liber AL
is just bullshit, the scribblings of a pathetic creature,
trying to create some romantic commonality between
himself and his wife (who, as it turns out, was to have
the last and longest laugh on her husband).

> >> Never the full word of any degree.
> 
> >It is the word of the IXth, and the reply is 'Agape'.
> 
> No, simply.  

You're lying, simply.

Prove otherwise.

> Not an evasion, just wrong.  -- at least for IXth and in
> the issue of prime word for any of the OTO degrees.  If you have
> King's book, better read it again.

So you're saying King's book gives this 'prime word' (whatever
that is) for the IXth degree?

Interesting admission, given your admitted policy of denial with 
respect to published accounts of your 'secrets'.

Aren't you in violation of some 'code' or the other?

Of course, whatever you might say about this is compromised
by the fact that your 'policy' (and its application) destroys 
your credibility.

> >why OTO finds comfort in the premise that children should
> >be indoctrinated in Thelemic ideas. I'm just curious, does
> >OTO plan to 'emancipate' Christian and Jewish children too?
> >Moslems? Hindus? Atheists?
> 
> Children of Thelemites should have a childhood exposure to the
> religion/philosophy of their parents, 

The remark does not concern merely 'children of Thelemites'.

Indeed, if one wishes a child to 'do as it wilt' then
he would not need to expose it to ANY religion or
philosophy---if, on the other hand, this remark is
to suggest that such comments as, for example, 
'a woman has no soul' should make a good philosophical basis 
for teaching healthy gender-consciousness to children,
then I doubt you'll find too many intelligent takers. 

Of course---you all don't.

> >Book of Thoth is a tarot deck. The ideas which go into
> >Thoth are of interest to us. The misinformation promoted
> >by OTO is not, however.
> 
> No.  The Thoth deck is a tarot deck.  The Book of Thoth is a book
> about that deck, written by the designer of the deck.

Actually, they are referenced by the same title.

Book of Thoth IS a book about the Book of Thoth, the
traditional occult name for tarot.

Your quibbling is---Heidrickian.

> >Doesn't it Bill? If OTO 'recognition' is dependent on
> >OTO recognizing someone's knowledge, and if the knowledge
> >is now available to people outside the order, so that the
> >'recognition' is irrelevant, then the only purpose you
> >could have for complaining about 'parroting' being
> >in the way is to demand that ONLY OTO's dissemination
> >of the truth is valid.
> 
> Nonsense.  OTO has the right to recognize it's own members, 

Which OTO would that be, Bill? The one viewed by the 1st Circuit
as "nothing more than an idea in the mind of Aleister Crowley", 
or the one CREATED by the 9th Circuit as sole heir to Crowley's 
estate (never mind all the people around the world who
might have had competing claims)?

> >So then, you still recognize Kenneth Grant as a IXth-degree
> >member of OTO, right?
> 
> Grant was a member.  At that time he had a degree in OTO.  Since he is
> not now a member and hasn't been since mid 1955, he has no degree in
> OTO to recognize.

But you claimed yourself that his expulsion was improper. 
Indeed, given Germer's views of OTO, and his position in it, 
it's questionable whether he possessed any authority to act 
as he did re: Grant.

> If he were readmitted, an unlikely event, that
> would probably be the degree he would have on resumption of
> membership.

Why 'probably'? Wonder what degree he'd give you, if you
are ever admitted to HIS version of OTO?

> >And Marcello Motta? He was a IXth-degree, right?
> 
> >Or was he?
> 
> Motta was never a member of OTO.  

He claimed he was. He claimed Germer initiated him into
the degree. So, why ignore his claims?

>Thus, he never had a degree of
> membership in OTO of any kind.  He argued that possession of
> instructional papers for IXth degree OTO from the hand of the then
> head of OTO made him a IXth degree in OTO.  It did not.

Actually, possession of that paper, 'Emblems and Mode of
Use', WAS, at one time, a key method for determining one's 
possession of the degree, wasn't it? And the fact is that OTO 
did recognize people who possessed that paper, and no other
proof of membership, AS possessors of IXth degree
in OTO. 

> >The point here is that OTO does not 'recognize'
> >playing by ear.
> 
> If it's close enough, it's there.  However, I think you are confusing
> possession of a "secret" with membership.  

I'm not the one doing the 'confusing'---you all have
spent a lot of energy working on keeping things as confusing
as is possible.

For that matter, perhaps YOU are confusing 'membership' with
the possession of a 'secret' (or any knowledge worth having).

> >> In the Waite deck Justice, it's the cross-piece of the sword and the
> >> balance arm of the scales.
> 
> >Like I said, do you know anything in Waite's writings to support
> >that view?
> 
> Try looking at the card now and then.

Like I said, do you know anything in Waite's writings to support
that view?

> >"Behdet (the town of Edfu)---this town was sacred to the solar
> >Horus (winged disk),
> 
> Didn't I say that?

No, you didn't.

In fact, you've enthusiastically ignored the facts concerning
this word, and its proper translation, for years now.

I quote you, from one of your several attempts at creating
a 'Ba-hadit' mythology---

""Hadit" is the spelling of "Bahadit" found on the Stele.  
This is unusual in that most Egyptian spelling of the period 
maintained the "Ba" prefix.  Crowley adopted the spelling from 
the Stele, and it is common as well in Liber AL.  This "Hadit" or 
"Bahadit" is the winged sun disk, used over the entrances of temple 
doorways, at the tops of stel and elsewhere in Egyptian art and 
architecture.  Interestingly, the full name of Ra-Hoor-Khuit is 
Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi, Ra-Horus who flies into the disk of the sun.  
--- information researched by Fr. Ebony.  Liber AL was received 
during that part of the year in which Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi was said 
by the ancient Egyptians to rule the decan occupied by the Sun.  
It is not known if Crowley was aware of this particular deity being 
astrologically "on official watch" at the time."

This 'analysis' is so full of misapprehensions and errors in
fact that I must say it is a damning thing indeed. 

Let's examine Bill's myth, point by point---

1. Bill states "Hadit" is the spelling of "Bahadit" found on the 
Stele." 

First off, it's helpful to know that in hieroglyphic
transliteration one generally does NOT know the sound
of vowels (Egyptian hieroglyphs are consonants, the
readers of the language were expected to fill in the
vowels). So, a convention developed amongst translators
whereby the vowel 'e' was substituted for all vowels 
(exceptions being made for when the correct vowel sound 
might be guessed from other sources or to simply add some
variation to a word). Thus, what Bill writes as
'Bahadit', or 'Ba-Hadit', is generally written
'Behdet' or (as in Budge) 'Behutet'.

Indeed, as pointed out before, in later editions of
'Equinox of the Gods' the word is, in fact, given as
'Behdet', the correct translation.

Now, the way in which we get this word is by the combination
of certain hieroglyphs, in this case they are:

	a. 'tusk'='b' or 'b(e)h'
	b. 'hand'='d'
	c. 'cake'='t'

In addition, as I pointed out earlier, this word possesses
a special glyph (the circle with cross), known as a 'determinative', 
which expresses a particular characteristic of the word, 
in this case, that 'Behdet' is the name of a town (modern 
'Edfu').

If what Bill claims is true, and the 'b' (or, as he says, 'ba')
sound is absent on the 'Stele of Revealing', we should not expect 
to find the 'tusk' hieroglyph. 

But in fact we DO find it. 

Indeed, the word 'Behdet' appears on MANY such votive stelae 
of the Saite and Late Periods. There is the stele of 
Wedjarenes, for example, which depicts a scene similar to that 
found on the 'Stele of Revealing', and which is inscribed almost 
identically---'the great god, lord of heaven, he of variegated
plumage---Behdet'.

The hieroglyphs for the word, 'Behdet', are exactly the same 
here as for that found on the 'Stele of Revealing'. 

There is NO misspelling of the word on the 'Stele of Revealing'.
The word was mistranslated and Crowley simply accepted
the error as the great Thelemic deity, 'Hadit'.

2. While Bill allows that 'This "Hadit" or "Bahadit" is the 
winged sun disk, used over the entrances of temple doorways, at 
the tops of stel and elsewhere in Egyptian art and architecture",
he fails to understand that 'Behdet' is a very particular
expression of this winged disk (as Horus), which identifies 
him with the town of Edfu (a center of his myth and worship). 

Indeed, because Bill wishes the word to actually be TWO words, 
meaning, according to him, 'into the disk of the sun', he claims 
that it is 'hadit' which means 'disk of the sun'. As I pointed out 
before, it is possible that such a name (Hadit) was used as shorthand
by the translator---but THAT word is NOT present in the name
of Horus given at the top of the 'Stele of Revealing'---it
is instead 'BHDT'---'Behdet', correctly spelled, incorrectly
translated and incorrectly understood and used by Crowley.

3. Finally, I don't know who 'Frater Ebony' is, but his understanding
of even basic hieroglyphics appears to be poor. As far
as I know, there is NO mention in Egyptian mythology of
a god, 'Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi', (I've already explained the 
difference between Ra-Heru-Khuti and Heru-Behdet AND 
the description, Ra-Heru-Khuti ( dweller in) Behdet).

If Bill knows of a translation whereby the meaning he gave for
'Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi' could be reasonably considered as 
accurate, I challenge him to explain it. 

> >There is no 'Hadit' on the 'Stele of Revealing'. There never
> >was. 'Hadit' is simply a creation of Crowley's imagination
> >based on an error in translation' of the word, Behdet.
> 
> Does not follow.  

It follows quite clearly, Bill. But since you're relying on
a third party for your information (just like Crowley did), 
how the hell would you know?

It seems to me, given the importance of this word in your
'beliefs' (here again, assuming you actually believe in 
something other than just collecting dues for the 'order')
that you would have considered it worth your time to personally
investigate this question many years ago. It's clear, however, 
that you never bothered to do this (or, if you did, that you have
subsequently decided to lie about your knowledge). People can draw 
whatever conclusions they will about that. I've drawn mine.

> The misspelling is on the Stele itself.  

I challenge you to provide evidence supporting this
claim.

> As to the
> rest, that's what Crowley saw in it.

Agreed, but that's my point---'how he saw it' had nothing to do 
with 'how it was'. More than this, that you are are SO sensitive
about the fact that your 'Hadit' is just a mistake that you
would concoct an elaborate and ridiculous lie to cover Crowley's 
scholarly indifference is, I believe, reason enough to doubt 
the 'word' of OTO, and particularly YOU, on just about everything.

And that's too bad, given that Crowley's legacy is in your hands 
(for the time being).


(jk)

The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org.

Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small
donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site.

The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories,
each dealing with a different branch of
religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge.
Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit:
interdisciplinary: geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness
occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells
religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo
societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc.

SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE

There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):

Search For:
Match:  Any word All words Exact phrase

OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST

Southern Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo, including slave narratives & interviews
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice by cat yronwode: an introduction to African-American rootwork
Lucky W Amulet Archive by cat yronwode: an online museum of worldwide talismans and charms
Sacred Sex: essays and articles on tantra yoga, neo-tantra, karezza, sex magic, and sex worship
Sacred Landscape: essays and articles on archaeoastronomy, sacred architecture, and sacred geometry
Lucky Mojo Forum: practitioners answer queries on conjure; sponsored by the Lucky Mojo Curio Co.
Herb Magic: illustrated descriptions of magic herbs with free spells, recipes, and an ordering option
Association of Independent Readers and Rootworkers: ethical diviners and hoodoo spell-casters
Freemasonry for Women by cat yronwode: a history of mixed-gender Freemasonic lodges
Missionary Independent Spiritual Church: spirit-led, inter-faith, the Smallest Church in the World
Satan Service Org: an archive presenting the theory, practice, and history of Satanism and Satanists
Gospel of Satan: the story of Jesus and the angels, from the perspective of the God of this World
Lucky Mojo Usenet FAQ Archive: FAQs and REFs for occult and magical usenet newsgroups
Candles and Curios: essays and articles on traditional African American conjure and folk magic
Aleister Crowley Text Archive: a multitude of texts by an early 20th century ceremonial occultist
Spiritual Spells: lessons in folk magic and spell casting from an eclectic Wiccan perspective
The Mystic Tea Room: divination by reading tea-leaves, with a museum of antique fortune telling cups
Yronwode Institution for the Preservation and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
Yronwode Home: personal pages of catherine yronwode and nagasiva yronwode, magical archivists
Lucky Mojo Magic Spells Archives: love spells, money spells, luck spells, protection spells, etc.
      Free Love Spell Archive: love spells, attraction spells, sex magick, romance spells, and lust spells
      Free Money Spell Archive: money spells, prosperity spells, and wealth spells for job and business
      Free Protection Spell Archive: protection spells against witchcraft, jinxes, hexes, and the evil eye
      Free Gambling Luck Spell Archive: lucky gambling spells for the lottery, casinos, and races