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

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.magick.order,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.thelema
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva)
Subject: Various: Thelemic Rites (LONG)
Date: 12 Sep 1997 13:43:07 -0700

=========================================

~From: Arlie Stephens 

Hi Folks,

Robin writes:

> Of course LBRP is LUX-O-Centric as is most of the Western Tradition.  We
> are either trying our darndest to RISE to the Light, or bring the Light
> down to us.  Banishing is inherantly a rearrangement of the energies of
> our Selves/Circle in order to make it a more likely receptical for that
> LUX.  Thats how I think of it anyway.

Hmm. That's not my imagery at all. I do a couple of standard practices 
(from habit) that are light-ish, notably my use of a Kether Lamp and the
words I use while lighting it (one set of them, not my ordinary ones),
but LBRP isn't a light-show. 

It's *just* a rearrangment ... but away from any bias, towards balancedness.
An excess of light, or darkness, would be banished, though the prime 
focus is on *elemental* imbalance. (I don't map light to "active" elements,
since I don't use the active/passive concept .. for elements or anything 
else.)

> Star Ruby makes me feel like I've just had sex. LBRP makes me feel like I
> just went to church.  :)

Neat!  Neither one makes me feel like I've had sex; and LBRP's resemblance
to church going is faint enough (for me) that I never thought of it until
you mentioned it. 

My typical feelings, for comparison:

LBRP with drawn pentagrams: Balance. A large open space. Clarity on what 
	I want/will/choose. 
LBRP with thrown pentagrams: Elation, excitement. Sometimes verging 
	on giddiness. One memorable time my coworkers were uncertain 
	whether I should be left alone afterwards. (I was acting drunk.)
	Also, more sensation of moving power than either LBRP 1 *or* Star
	Ruby. 
Star Ruby: Not much felt at the time, but regular practice leads to mania,
	megalomania, unsubstantiated irrational beliefs about one's abilities. 
	(Similar to the behaviour I've observed from people on cocaine,
	or the narrator woman of the early part of Diary of a Drug Fiend.) 
	It's a lovely high, but disconnects from mundane reality.

> The way I like to do it is take a deep breath while I'm tracing the
> Pentagram in front of me, and then hurl another pentagram from my forehead
> through the center of the one I just traced with the out breath/vibration. 
> On the return to HPK the two Pentagrams become one, so I guess I'm doing
> it both ways :)

I think I'll try this; might be interesting. 

Return to HPK? That looks like it might be shorthand for yet another variant...
You are using some variant of a sign of Hoor-Paar-Kraat as a home position 
between pentagrams? (And what IS sign of HPK for you, by the way? I'm 
thinking some sort of sign of silence.) I tend not to use a home position
between pentagrams, and I don't use HPK, unless I'm using same sign by 
another name, which I doubt. 


Nigris wrote:

> moreover, the paradigm from which some of the traditional LBRP proceeds
> ('be gone all you evil demons' etc.) does not include alternative
> relations to the cosmos.  it retains a dominant style associated with
> the Judeochristian attitude toward the natural world -- master to servant.

And which one starts with "Apo Pantos Kakodaimonos"?  [Loosely: "Begone,
all evil spirits!"]

> feels to you.  I gather that LBRP is a grounding mechanism for many,
> clearing away their internal desktop prior to a working.  I understand
> and value this, though prefer alternative means of achieving a similar 
> result myself.

Yep, that's another way of describing my use of it. Though I also use 
it to put the energies away/clean the desk again *after* the working 
is complete. (I'm not getting rid of the result; I'm getting it out 
of my head, and the tools/energies put away.)

> #> of the form that hurls pentagrams from the forehead, rather than tracing
> #> them; this practice appears to me to probably be derived from Star Ruby. 
> #> In my experience, these two forms are different in their effects; the 
> #> pentagram hurling one is more fun (i.e. tends to trigger enjoyable feelings),
> #> but I suspect the tracing one may be more effective, especially for cleanup
> #> of low grade slime/gunk/ritual leftovers, which is my usual use for LBRP. 
> 
> how would you rate 'effectiveness'?  when you say 'more effective' do you
> mean 'produce the presumed effects for more people'?  or do you think that
> this applies universally?

Produces the desired effect [getting rid of low grade slime/gunk and/or ritual
leftovers] more effectively *for me*. 

> what could be the explanation for an apparent infinite target distance
> in the LBRP?  why not a scoping of a particular designated area such
> as with the Wiccan Circle?  I'm curious how people see these rites
> and what ideas you have about their structure/effects.  any response
> will be welcome.  thanks.

LBRP can be done with a fixed area. Or with an infinite ring. Or with 
a cross/axis/3 dimensional cross that stretches to infinity but doesn't
define space. I tend to use fixed area that is at the same time infinite; 
one of my (magical) coworkers does 3 dimensional cross. The feeling 
is very different. 

----
Arlie

(Arlie Stephens					arlie@netcom.com)
=======================================================================

~From: Jeffrey Smith 

The Ciceros are repeating standard GD statements about the LBRP and 
RoseCross formulas.  The hurling btw may ultimately derive from the Aurum 
Solis, whose equivalent rite uses exactly that gesture of hurling 
pentagrams outward (with the note that this clears the air, so to speak, 
a set distance around the ritualizer).
My own experience with the LBRP is that it does clear and set up a sort 
of protective barrier in which to work as one wishes, and that the Middle 
Pillar exercise can rouse the energies one needs as follow up.  I have 
never used the Star Ruby--it is just too full of Crowleyisms for me , and 
I've never felt the need to use it.  Of course, I don't actually use the 
GD or AS versions either--rather my own, drawing from the Sefer Yetzirah 
and a few Rabbinic sources, without angels, God names, or pentagrams.  

  Jeffrey Smith       f901030k@bc.seflin.org
  True becomes false when the false becomes true;
  Real becomes unreal when the unreal is real.
 -Cao Xueqin, Inscription on the Archway of the Land of Illusion

========================================================================

~From: one star in sight 

THELEMA,

On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Arlie Stephens wrote:
[..]
> Robin writes:
> 
> > Of course LBRP is LUX-O-Centric as is most of the Western Tradition.  We
> > are either trying our darndest to RISE to the Light, or bring the Light
> > down to us.  Banishing is inherantly a rearrangement of the energies of
> > our Selves/Circle in order to make it a more likely receptical for that
> > LUX.  Thats how I think of it anyway.
> 
> Hmm. That's not my imagery at all. I do a couple of standard practices 
> (from habit) that are light-ish, notably my use of a Kether Lamp and the
> words I use while lighting it (one set of them, not my ordinary ones),
> but LBRP isn't a light-show. 
> 
> It's *just* a rearrangment ... but away from any bias, towards balancedness.
> An excess of light, or darkness, would be banished, though the prime 
> focus is on *elemental* imbalance. (I don't map light to "active" elements,
> since I don't use the active/passive concept .. for elements or anything 
> else.)

Could be some differences, but may be mostly quibbles.  For me LBRP is a
preliminary balancing and clearing. Maybe something like applying a coat
of primer to a canvas prior to putting any color on.  Yet it is also more
than that, a gesture of the spiritual authority of my Higher Self over
ever single particle of all I am.  The LVX descends from it's Supernal
source (via the QC) into the place where Micro and Macro meet (Tiphareth)
This inspired earthly vessel then sends rays out in all directions towards
Infinity establishing it's supremacy and interpentration throughout all
domains accessible.
 
> > Star Ruby makes me feel like I've just had sex. LBRP makes me feel like I
> > just went to church.  :)
> 
> Neat!  Neither one makes me feel like I've had sex; and LBRP's resemblance
> to church going is faint enough (for me) that I never thought of it until
> you mentioned it. 

To say more, for me this is a feeling of calm and emptiness, often
accompanied by a feeling of being surrounded by a soft while light.

> > Pentagram in front of me, and then hurl another pentagram from my forehead
> > through the center of the one I just traced with the out breath/vibration. 
> > On the return to HPK the two Pentagrams become one, so I guess I'm doing
> > it both ways :)
> 
> I think I'll try this; might be interesting. 
> 
> Return to HPK? That looks like it might be shorthand for yet another variant...
> You are using some variant of a sign of Hoor-Paar-Kraat as a home position 
> between pentagrams? (And what IS sign of HPK for you, by the way? I'm 
> thinking some sort of sign of silence.) I tend not to use a home position
> between pentagrams, and I don't use HPK, unless I'm using same sign by 
> another name, which I doubt. 

I use the 'formula of the middle pillar' for the vibrations/hurdling.  In
other words I draw the name down through my middle pillar to Malkuth, and
using the Projecting Sign with an outward breath visualise the Name sort
of pushing the Pentagram off of my Ajna Chakra toward an infinite
extension.  This is visualised as a flow of energy/light, a pentagram and
the Hebrew letters of the name all flowing out for the duration of the
vibration.  When the breath is exhausted I draw my hands back and make the
Sign of Silence (Sign of Har-Paar-Kraat: HPK) The thrown Pentagram seems
to rush back toward me and becomes co-terminus with the traced pentagram.
Normally my right hand remains extended in a kind of halting sign while my
left is making the sign of silence. Then I trace the Circle between the
center of the Pentagram and the next quarter using either a finger of my
right hand or my dagger.

> Nigris: 
> > what could be the explanation for an apparent infinite target distance
> > in the LBRP?  why not a scoping of a particular designated area such
> > as with the Wiccan Circle?  I'm curious how people see these rites
> > and what ideas you have about their structure/effects.

For me this has to do with a certain attitude toward Self as the
"boundaries of I."  I prefer to think of this Light in Extension as a kind
of expansion of "I" toward ever greater inclusion.  To stop short of
Infinity, since I am exerting my authority over my Self, would be a a kind
of Self limiting action.  For me I don't see that is leaving out anything
(ie 'the dark' or any other concept) but acknowledging the All-Inclusive
Circle whose boundaries are the extreme limits of my Universe.

Hearing myself describe this I realise that in a real sense I am working
with two perimeters.  One is the extreme limit of Infinite Space, the
other is the boundary of the Circle of working.  So, the gesture is
multi-leveled.  First the infinite establishment of Light in Extension,
the dominion of Spirit/HigherSelf "I" followed by a kind of collapse into
a fixed Circle creating in a microcosmic fasion an image of the Infinite
Space within which further ritual work might take place. 

An interesting thought just occured to me that a closing banishing could
be seen as taking the essense of what ever else had taken place in the
temporary microcosmic circle of working and reconnecting it with every
other point in the Universe in a re-expansion of the limited Circle back
to Infinity. 

AGAPE,
Robin

,--------------------------------------------------------------------------,
|http://www.winternet.com/~robin     | The Mystical Internet / WWW Equinox |
|ftp://ftp.winternet.com/users/robin | Magick WinHelp and Text archives    |
|snail: Robin                        | PO Box 2333 Minneapolis MN USA 55402|
'--------------------------------------------------------------------------'

=========================================================================

~From: one star in sight 

THELEMA

On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Arlie Stephens wrote:
> Robin writes:
> > OK, I will finally [get] around to making my point now:  There is an
> > inherant
> > eroticism in this give and take between mastery and surrender which
> > mirrors the interior process between lower and higher self, micro and
> > macrocosm, etc.  etc.  The eroticising of the Universe is more real, more
> > sexy, more successful if some kind of polarity is emphasised.  Maybe even
> > exagerated when it has to be symbolic as in dramatic ritual like the
> > Gnostic Mass.
> 
> Yuk! Your kink is OK, and all that but .... yuck. 
> 
> I've never grokked this mastery and surrender bit ... it's unappetising when
> the rules say the female does all the surrendering, but it's no better when 
> the roles are exchangeable. I can't imagine wanting to do this.... in either
> role ... though I can, barely, imagine playing at dominance as a means to 
> avoid being forced into "surrender".  

Hmm I'm such a vanilla guy, it is amusing to think of what I said as
'kink' - thanks :)

> So why am I posting? Not to tell you your kink is not OK, honest .. though
> maybe in part to tell you that it isn't universal.
> 
> I know that there are people who are really into this; you are by no means 
> unique. 

OK this makes me think you are missing my point and focusing to heavily on
the physical sexual elements of what I said.  I was trying to get the
attention onto a notion that might have more magical relevance; the
relationship between the lower and higher self.  In this the lower works
to achive a kind of receptivity for the more active 'penetration' of the
Above into the Below.  At least thats one way of thinking about it that
works for me.  In the East it is a similar attitude as Bhakti Yoga.

This brings up an interesting notion.  What if the roles of Preist and
Preistess in the Gnostic Mass don't even refer to two individuals existing
at the same 'level' of manefestation, but rather two different levels and
the mass is an expression of thier interplay.  Consider the difference in
the Golden Dawn 0=0 ritual between MAAT and the Candidate.  MAAT leads the
poor blindfolded candidate around in a very 'passive' manner. But this is
symbolic of the Higher Self of the Candidate leading the uninitiated self
toward the mysteries.  Two completely different roles which on the surface
if we leveled it off and said 'Look, that person is leading that other
person around like a dog on a leash' could appear to be lacking in some
notion or other concerning the replationship between two equal 'people.'
But these aren't people, they are ritual roles expressing complex
symbolism. One is a Goddess as well as a 'stand in' for the candidates
HGA, one is a 'mere mortal.'

Going back to the notion of polarity/eroticism, there is a tension between
any two energies playing with the idea of Union.  If this tension is
great, the resulting union can be more powerful. Compare mixing an acid
with a base material in chemistry.  If the difference in PH is very great
the combination can be explosive, if it is slight, there is perhaps a mere
bubbling. That kind of tension might be useful if you wanted to generate
an erotic energy through dramatic ritual, or it might not I guess

AGAPE

Robin
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------,
|http://www.winternet.com/~robin     | The Mystical Internet / WWW Equinox |
|ftp://ftp.winternet.com/users/robin | Magick WinHelp and Text archives    |
|snail: Robin                        | PO Box 2333 Minneapolis MN USA 55402|
'--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
============================================================================

~From: "Michael J. Rae" 

93:

On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Andrew Spitzer wrote:

> 2
> >There are clearly variants in LBRP also; notably, I see a lot of use 
> >of the form that hurls pentagrams from the forehead, rather than tracing
> >them; this practice appears to me to probably be derived from Star Ruby. 
> >In my experience, these two forms are different in their effects; the 
> >pentagram hurling one is more fun (i.e. tends to trigger enjoyable
> feelings), 
> >but I suspect the tracing one may be more effective, especially for cleanup
> >of low grade slime/gunk/ritual leftovers, which is my usual use for LBRP. 
> >
> >Comments, anyone?
> 
> Try tracing the pentagram, then pulling it into your forehead (thereby
> making a clear connection with the tracing and your third eye), then
> blasting it out to the cosmos.
> 
> Yeehaaa!!!
>  
Note also the origina GD way of doing it: trace the star first, then do
the Sign of the Enterer ("Blasting" or "hurling") into the Pentagram to
give it juice.  

93 93/93
======================================================================

~From: "Michael J. Rae" 

93 All:

I only got on this list recently, but I've been reading some of the older
posts archived on the hollyfeld website.  Here's a few observations in
response to them.

(1) There was a debate about the use of the term "phallicism."  Someone
had rightly observed that it was an archaic term for the worship of sex,
sex organs, reproduction etc., & so included worship of the kteis, but
when challenged couldn't find it in her sources.

>From the Harper Collins Dictionary of Religion (ed JZ Smith):

"phallic worship, n outdated term for a form of nature worship focused on
devotion to representation of the sexual organs."

>From a big, fat dictionary whose name I foolishly didn't copy down:

"Phallicism: the worship of or reverence for the generative principle in
nature as symbolized esp. by the phallus."

I take this to mean that any image of the genitals (XX or XY) is included.
Also, Forlong (the EGC Saint) calls various obvious representations of the
Holy Cunt "phallic", as does a book I once checked out of the U of C
Library entitled "Phallism".  I realize little of this is proper sourcing,
but I think the term's use is fairly broadly recognized.  Calling this
"phallic" is the same sort of old-fashioned sexism as using "man" to mean
"humanity," etc., but that is what was usually meant.

(2) On the never-ending "female saints" issue:

One elegant solution I participated in was as follows:

(A)  Make the language of the opening of the Collect non-sexist: "man and
woman" for "man", etc.

(B) SKIP the actual LIST of saints alltogether.  Yes, you heard right.
Going thru' the list takes too damned long, and is too botring, already,
IMHO; adding a second list of women saints just compounds the problem.
Skip the list.  "We worthily commemorate them worthy .." etc, without
naming them by name.

(C) To conclude: "Oh sons of the Lion and the Snake!  Oh daughters of the
Cosmic Egg!"  Then mix in "measureless, mystical, manifest" etc with
"potent, puissant" etc.

This solution makes the Mass flow better, is elegant, and keeps all the
saints together rather than putting the women with the Earth section,
which I don't care for.


(3)  a thread got started based on Koenig's comment that the Mass and
other EGC ceremonies were "parodies" of the Roman heresy.  People argued
back and forth about what was official and what wasn't, the exact source
Crowley used (St Basil's Liturgy, Orthodox Church, incidentally -- among
other things, it uses a Lance), etc. but no one stated what seems to me to
be the important bit:  the Mass is an ADAPTATION of the Catholic and
Orthodox rituals, not a "parody," any more than "Apocalypse Now" was a
"parody" of _Heart of Darkness_, or Liber 25 is a "parody" of the gd
Pentagram ritual.

Just my 2 cents.

93 93/93
-Michael
=====================================================================

~From: "Daniel P. Schneider" 

On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Arlie Stephens wrote:
> Very different from my experience, but I don't think in active/passive
> or (ICK) male/female energies.  I think the female == passive thing 
> may bug me at least as much as Christianity bugs you. 

If male/female bothers you so much, why are you even bothering to do the
Star Ruby (or any of Crowley's rituals for that matter)? One of the basic
differences in this ritual vs the LBRP is the attempt to raise a sort of
sexual tension within the participant. This sexual interaction is so much
part of Crowley's mythology and ritual system, it seems odd to me that you
would bother doing his rituals (instead of your own) if this bothers you
so much. It seems analogous to attempting perform Liber Samech while
ignoring Crowley's obvious satanic references or performing Liber Reguli
with a distain for Therion and Babalon.

Of course you are welcome to do whatever you want... just an observation.

> 
> Besides, if we're doing the male/female thing, I'm not *allowed* to be
> hadit ... I "lack the neccesary appendage", or whatever it was that Crowley 
> said about female Magi.  I'm supposed to be the bl**dy circumference; yuk. 
 
On who's authority are you not being "allowed" to be hadit? Whatever
Crowley might have said in one of his particularlly sexist moments about
female magi (and I don't remember this quote but I'm sure you're right 
that he said it), he also made it quite clear in his other works (see his
comments to liber Al as well as probably MiTaP and MWT as well) that he
was referring to archetypes here and that men and women have both within
them. Hence the idea that each magician has a male pillar as well as a
female pillar to explore. 
	It is also quite possible that when you read that quote about
female magi, Crowley was not talking about people who were physically
female, but who were instead acting in the magically female role.
	Basically what I'm saying here is "Do what thou wilt". Take a look
at Liber Nu and Liber Had. Note that there is no reference in these books
to the actual sex of the magician. 


> I deal with this dichotomy by ruthlessly discarding *all* gender symbolism;
> small loss, since it never made sense to me. (Most "masculine" attributes
> apply to me better than the "feminine" ones, so it's prodigously silly 
> for me to project them onto some handy male image, instead of owning 
> them as "self". Nor do I want to just reverse the atrributions, since there
> are plenty of cases where "feminine" attributes apply better to me, or where
> neither seems particluarly more like me than the other.) 
> 
> This leaves me with some problems dealing with Star Ruby of course ... Oh 
> phalle ... indeed. And   Oh kteis  always struck me as even sillier. 

Here I have to disagree with you. In fact, if someone asked me what the
most important influences were that Crowley had on modern occultism, this
widespread emphasis on sexuality would be in my top three. Crowley is the
first modern Western magician to really popularize the use of sexual
tension/energy in ritual as a general tool (i.e. instead of specialized
rites where actual intercourse takes place). He is by no means the first
to use this idea, but he was the first to really bring it to popular
attention. I wonder what Wicca would look like today if Gardner had not
been so strongly influenced by Crowley.

Now note what I said above. The raising of sexual tension in the magician
is a tool. It is not absolutely necessary but it is extremely effective.
If you stop for a moment and consider what emotions create the largest
arousal in human beings; sexual desire, fear, rage, and perhaps intense
hunger come to mind. All of these have been used at some point in history,
but sexual desire remains one of the easiest to utilize.

There are very few people who are able to actually have intercourse and
constantly keep their mind on more magical motivations. Using sexual
symbolism in a solitary ritual allows a magician to use this vast resource
of energy without losing his or her attention. All becomes an interaction
in a sexual drama as the magician converts this arousal to magical
purposes. Crowley was excellent at writing these types of rituals, and the
star ruby is a prime example.

You mention the "O phalle" of the SR. Before criticizing this why not go
back to Crowley himself. Reread Book of Lies (the book where the star ruby
first appears) and perhaps Liber Aleph. Crowley makes a big deal of the
numeric identity of the words phalle with pyramidos, and therefore
equates both of these with "will". If I remember correctly Chapter 15 in
BoL deals with some of this. Also check the chapters on the sphinx and
pyramid in Liber Aleph.

With this information reinterpret the opening gesture of the star ruby.
The magician is being indentified with his or her will. This is something
that ALL magicians have irregardless of their sex. Thus unlike the LBRP,
in addition to identifing oneself with the ToL, the magician is
simulataneously being identified with his/her will and using sexual
imagery to add to a level of arousal.

For the kteis, look at Crowley's use of that symbol in the A:.A:. lamen. I
believe he also points out in one place that its ennumeration in Greek,
535, adds to 13 which is the number for love and unity in Hebrew. Thus we
have the kteis symbolizing love and the phallus symbolizing will. The use
of love under will being one of the primary goals of the magician. Compare
this to the Tantric use of wisdom and compasssion (understanding), the
union of both being enlightenment.

It is worth noting that Crowley often equates "will" with the
wisdom of Chokmah, and agape has obvious associations with Binah. It is
curious that Crowley's system has wisdom as male and understanding as
female, while tantric symbolism has the two attributions reversed. This
goes quite far in showing that these attributions are tools to an end, not
a universal TRUTH. But in both tantra and thelema it is constantly
reminded that BOTH principles occur in any given person.

Just a few thoughts.

-NOX 
=================================================================

~From: valis@pacificnet.net

(I know it's been a lil while since this thread was alive, but I've been
at burning man and there's been some surgery for some people in my family
and I haven't been able to screw around on the net as much as I like.  So
what the hell, might as well throw in my eight cents.)

Arlie Stephens wrote:

>Nexist (DAR) wrote:

>> Really, it is hardly performed (to my knowledge) in the Portland OR
>> area, normally I see variants of the Star Ruby performed, which balances
>> more nicely the LVX to the NOX.

>I'd really like to see an explanation of both of these points... both the
> idea that LBRP is severly imbalanced, and the idea that Star Ruby is
>more balanced than LBRP. 

>My experience has been otherwise. Star Ruby has been imbalancing enough 
>that I've taken to doing explicit banishings after experiments with it. 

>I suspect that some of the difference may be variants in the Star Ruby. 
>One would think it would be similar everywhere, given a clear-ish 
>published source, but it seems as if this isn't the case in practice.  (I
>still haven't found a variant I like, by the way ... or even a clear  and
>easy to follow writeup... feel free to send pointers.)

>There are clearly variants in LBRP also; notably, I see a lot of use  of
>the form that hurls pentagrams from the forehead, rather than tracing
>them; this practice appears to me to probably be derived from Star Ruby. 
>In my experience, these two forms are different in their effects; the 
>pentagram hurling one is more fun (i.e. tends to trigger enjoyable
>feelings),  but I suspect the tracing one may be more effective,
>especially for cleanup of low grade slime/gunk/ritual leftovers, which is
>my usual use for LBRP. 

>Comments, anyone?

Even though I really haven't performed it for a while since my decision to
go Greek rather than Hebrew, I find the LBRP to be more "balanced" than
the Star Ruby which is good in some ways and not quite as good in some
others.  

In my experiments and use of the Star Ruby I have actually used it as a
"pumping up" *invocation* form to open specifically crowley's or other
specifically thelemic-cult rituals (countered at the end of a rite by an
actual banishing).  I have found it raises a lot of energy which can be
used towards a ritual working.  As an opening or closing banishing, I find
it it deficient.  It always seems to have an air of *starting* something. 
Sometimes I precede it with a simple circumabulation names-and-pentagrams
banishing but my working space has enough ambiance and semi-permanent
wards it's not always necessary.  

The LBRP, on the other hand, doesn't particularly raise much energy for me
at the beginning of a rite, as there are no self aggrandizing spoken
invocations.

Apparently along with the Smoking Dog Project of SWL, I have found that
circle "fortifications" (a nicer simpler name than what I called it before
reading their page, "quarter invocations") addressed to the elements as
well as assuming god-forms greatly enhances the dramatic appeal and
subsequently power of the "wards."

I am of course showing my colors here I work primarily with the Aurum
Solis system.  The Setting of the Wards (Greek/Orphic) and the Setting of
the Wards of Adamant (Greco-Roman, A.S. Pantheon oriented) are my
preferred rituals for general banishing and invoking at the beginning and
ends of ritual.  These involve both banishing and invoking elements as
well as some spoken parts which serve to make the ritual a little more
"lush" in imagery and environment.  They have much more in common with the
Star Ruby than the LBRP does, as they hurl pentagrams, use Greek, and draw
on a bit of Neoplatonism.  I have found them more balanced than the Ruby,
personally, while creating somewhat of a similar atmosphere.  I have added
my own quarter invocations.

Robin wrote:

>Of course LBRP is LUX-O-Centric as is most of the Western Tradition.  We
>are either trying our darndest to RISE to the Light, or bring the Light
>down to us.  Banishing is inherantly a rearrangement of the energies of
>our Selves/Circle in order to make it a more likely receptical for that
>LUX.  Thats how I think of it anyway.

That is what I see as well, as well as a similar idea of "preparing a
vessel" to hold non-elemental forces (basically planetary n zodiacal). 
The LBRP seems good for invocation of one's higher self, LVX, solar HGA. 
For setting a starry ambiance, I haven't found it as good as say, a
watchtower or ruby or wards.

>Star Ruby makes me feel like I've just had sex. LBRP makes me feel like I
>just went to church.  :)

Good observation :)  I like Mass :)

>I've noticed this too.  There seems to be more of the idea that each
>individuals ritual is likely to take on personal characteritics.  I tend
>to rebel against the notion myself thinking that this leads to a kind of
>subtle creeping ego inflation.  Worse would be if I was going to do a
>ritual for a group and had to be concerned about what my Banishing ritual
>"Said" about me.  This seems like a senseless injection of personality
>but hey, what do you expect from a White LIghter like me ;)

It may say something, but hey, diversity is good.  I don't expect that
everyone has the same comfort vibe or that all ban/invoc rits aim to
create the same ambiance or mental state.

>The way I like to do it is take a deep breath while I'm tracing the
>Pentagram in front of me, and then hurl another pentagram from my forehead
>through the center of the one I just traced with the out breath/vibration. 
>On the return to HPK the two Pentagrams become one, so I guess I'm doing
>it both ways :)

Using names for Spirit and for the Element, with a breathing rhthym, I
first form the pentagram in my head with the name of Spirit and then fling
it with the name of the element (Athanatos, Selae-Genetes... Ischurios,
Kyrios).  This part is a banishing and also a fortification of a
previously marked circle.  The gesture itself is called "Cervus" meaning
stag.  I save the elemental gestures / godforms for greeting the four
briatic quarter guardians (To the East, SOTER, to the South, ALASTOR,
etc).  That part is deosil and invoking.  Instead of using the sign of Set
for earth I have adopted Pronoatio (sp?) which moves the arms down and
outwards over the earth (counterbalancing the sign of air)

I am also quite fond of Arista as an alternative to repeating the qab
cross / calyx, or using a planetary gesture to go straight into an
astrological ritual.

-----------------------------------------------------------
The Infamous SHEMHAZAI.ENDEMONIADO
valis@pacificnet.net
http://www.pacificnet.net/~valis/shemhazai.html
=============================================================================

~From: Arlie Stephens 

Hi Michael,

I'm sort of using your comment as a springboard, because it seems so very
apt. 

> Whatever the nature of the high-degree mysteries, the policy of not naming
> women initiates is a protective measure for both the women involved and
> the Order, as female saints are almost by definition Qadeshoth.  Crowley
> (I believe) hints at this in several places, and Phylis Seckler told a
> room full of us in Victoria this very fact.

This strikes me as a really succinct summation of what Liber XV ... and the 
OTO, it seems ... is about.  It's about sex, pure and simple.  Not sex as 
symbolism, or gender as symbolism ... just plain ordinary sex. 

It's possibly even better than the person who said that the gnostic mass
made him "want to boink the nearest person". (A comment made on this list,
some months ago, which I probably don't quite remember.) 

Some folks find this to be a useful religious/spiritual/magical form; 
others find it useless, or less effective than other forms, or even 
repellant. I fall in the camp that finds it pretty close to useless. 


I could pick at the sexism in the above (why are only the *female* 
saints Qadeshoth?) but that kind of misses the point. 

I could also question why a Qadesoth, today, shouldn't be shouting it 
from the street corners, and demanding the recognition they are due ...
and some are. Why protect where there should be no shame? Since the 
potential sanctions are somewhat limited (more in the case of actual 
prostitution ... I don't know which way you meant the term ... less
in case of general holy promiscuity), there is much less reason for
protection.


It seems to me that a lot of the flamage about genderism in thelemic
groups, and in Crowley's works, is really about sex-primacy.  We have 
a lot of acculturation not to make this primary ... and this especially
applies to females, so Crowley/Liber Al's denunciations of asexuality
are also primarily applied to females. (i.e. "let all chaste women..."),
even though this is in direct contradiction to "take your fill .. of love
as ye will". 

Add to this some of the experience of unabashed blatant lustingness ...
that comes naturally in a highly sex positive environment, but is shocking
to outsiders ... and easily interpreted as regarding a newcomer *only* 
through the eyes of lust... and you get the incomprehending flame war 
that seems to erupt on this list periodically. 

Crowley/Aiwass seemed to want to make sexual enthusiasm/activity/appetite 
the primary criteria of virtue, and the primary image of enthusiasm, energy,
enjoyment, etc.. This tends, on average, to upset females more than males ...
because males in this culture are sometimes supposed to measure their worth
(manliness) by their randiness, number of partners, and frequency 
of activity ... but women never get encouraged this way (though we do
get encouraged to measure our worth/womenliness by the number of men 
who *want* us, that isn't the same at all.. our worth decreases if we 
accept their offers). 

This ought logically to lead to gender differences in the attraction 
to the system  ... which we see ... even without boorish behaviour
from some unknown number of individuals.... simply because an unthinking
male is more likely to be comfortable with the sex-primary attitude 
than an unthinking female ... and once they start to think, most folks
could probably go either way, but will likely stay where they already are,
unless they are one of those for whom it matters. 

----
Arlie

(Arlie Stephens					arlie@netcom.com)
==========================================================================

~From: maat@IO.COM (Continuity)

93 All,

Rodney wrote:

>The Priestess consecrates the Priest with brine and incense, then when 
>the Priest has enthroned her he reciprocates. It's more a case of 
>bootstrapping as far as I can see. She raises him, using her natural 
>talents as it were, and he then uses the power he has been given by her 
>to further upraise her. She does not begin the rite as a full embodiment 
>of the Highest, or anything like that, they have to work at it a bit 
>first. It's an upward spiral.

I agree.  A few further observations on this subject.

1)  Liber XV ends with the following: 

"Note: The PRIESTESS and other officers never partake of the Sacrament, 
they being as it were part of the PRIEST himself.
Note: Certain secret Formulae of this Mass are taught to the PRIEST in
his Ordination."

My working explanation:

"In Vajrayana Tantra, women are though to have the power, although men
can acquire it, if bestowed by a willing woman (couldn't be extracted
by force, I'm afraid).  Accordingly, a woman requires no special formulae,
since she already innately possesses them. 

This is played out in the Mass: the Priestess enters the Temple
as a Virgin, yet in the course of 3 1/2 circumnabulations raises the 
necessary Shakti to get the Man among Men out of the Tomb, instruct him,
and uplift him so that he becomes the Priest/King/God.  If she doesn't
do this, no Mass can occur, and no Eucharist can be made. She does it all
without any sort of special instruction - because her power is innate."

I find that this explanation empowers Priestesses...but at the same time,
it is pretty clear (to me, anyway) that to suggest that the Priestess is a 
part of the Priest circumvents this power, by suggesting that it is
part of his emanation, coming through her. She becomes the Shrine - the neutral
curcubite through which his lifeforce flows. 

The idea that the combination of
forces in the Mass are aspects of every integrated human is a good one. To 
think that this particular assignment of the forces/duties is somehow universal,
based on a definition or projection of human women as 'the feminine' and
human men as 'the masculine' is a bit limiting. But those of us who work with
this ritual know that these are complicated questions.

93 93/93
love,
Content Love Knowles

   ..............................
   "Out beyond ideas of 
    wrongdoing and rightdoing,
    there is a field.  
    I'll meet you there."
               
                    - Rumi
 
    http://www.io.com/~maat/
   ..............................
==========================================================================
~From: Paul Hume 

nigris -
> isn't it traditional that one CANNOT 'just observe'?  I gathered that one
> is either part of the rite as an active or a mostly passive (People)
> participant, and that everyone present was more or less required to take
> communion.  true?  does this vary with region/group?  or have I got the
> imperatives awrong?

An excellent point. My quick and dirty summation of this when doing Mass
rehearsals at Blake, or giving a welcome to visitors to Blake who are
planning to attend Mass, is that "There are no innocent bystanders at a
Gnostic Mass."

Our take on the Hailing Sign of a Magician, for example (whichever
gesture is used) is that each participant at the moment that Sign is
given is reaching towards the the cosmos with the "receptive" hand, and
bring whatever energy they perceive, or receive, into manifestation in
the World.

Yes, Liber XV explicitly states that all present should communicate, and
no one who does not intend to communicate should attend. Leaving aside
that a participant who does not wish to communicate might arrange to
find out if there were any celebratory, or "high," Masses scheduled
(when only the Priest receives the Elements from the Priestess), I will
note a local custom I encountered in the Midwest, and have adopted at
Blake. Again, my smartass tag for it is "The first taste is free."
Someone attending their first Mass at Blake who is not sure if they will
communicate nay opt not to do so when the Communion arrives. If they
have been to Mass before, then they are expected not to attend again if
they do not intend to communicate, and the honor system prevails in this
matter.

It seems to me an appropriate modification in allowing "informed
consent" on the part of the new participant. However apart from this
variation, we do expect all present to participate fully in all other
ways. For this reason, I especially try and make sure everyone is
familiar with the Creed, and urge that they are able to say it with
their companions in the Congregation with belief - not in any particular
interpretation, but one to which they can subscribe in good faith.
 
Paul
=========================================================================

~From: Paul Hume 

Mathias -
93,
> 
> Anybody with a good grounding in magick should thus be able to play any part
> in the Mass. It might even illuminate a few minds out there.
> 
> So, give me the argument that this cannot be done, without stating that only
> women can have the feminine formula, or that women are uncreative in any
> way.

Make that "very experienced and ready to work on that level" and you
have no argument from me. Because there are resonances with the
principles involved in the gender of humans, and working across that is
not trivial - doable, even necessary at a given time for a given
magician.

The Priestess also embodies the principle Godesses in the Thelemic
pantheon - she speaks as Nuit, directly, during the invocations. In a
pefect world, a man aspiring to that role should have applied himself to
Liber NV (actually, in a perfect world, anyone aspiring to the role of
the Priestess should have done that work), and by like token, Liber HAD
for the Priest, who invokes Hadit and speaks as Him on the second step.

Doable, but not trivial.

Paul

EOF
-- 
(emailed replies may be posted);join the AMT syncretism!!;call: 408/2-666-SLUG!
see http://www.abyss.com/tokus; "Clement of Rome taught that God rules the world
with a right and a left hand, the right being Christ, the left Satan." - CGJung