|
Post by Marc on Feb 14, 2014 22:10:31 GMT
I am wondering if anyone has had direct experience in any way with the Horus Maat Lodge. I have visited their website and there are some excellent documents found there. It seems to be a lodge in operation mostly on the astral through self-initiation. Has anyone experimented with any of the rituals found on the site?
I would love to hear what anyone has to say about this organization. Kenneth Grant obviously thought well of Nema as he wrote the intro to her book.
|
|
|
Post by Nalyd Khezr Bey on Feb 20, 2014 3:04:12 GMT
Good thread Marc. Don't give up on the forums yet. I will have some things to say to this subject in the near future because I've made use of a lot of the Horus-Maat material at various times over the past decade. I've just been busy in everyday life this past month or two and have only been checking in briefly and reading what's going on with no time to really post anything with quality content. Hopefully this will blossom into some sort of fruitful discussion because it has been an interest of mine.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Feb 20, 2014 20:14:33 GMT
Hey Nalyd, I look forward to your future posts on this thread. I know you made reference before to spacemarks banishing I believe?
This is equally an area of interest of mine. I hope this thread picks up. I've been seriously considering implementing some of workings into my practices.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on Feb 21, 2014 9:45:56 GMT
I haven't worked with any of the magical and mystical practices set out in the Horus-Maat Lodge, but I am very interested in Nema's work as a development of the Ma-Ion, the inauguration of which Achad detected in April 1948. This current was also detected by Parsons around the same time; though he expressed it in different terms, you can see the common ground which underlies it.
Grant's involvement with Nema preceded the Introduction to Maat Magick, of course. She first contacted him in 1974 or 1975, with a copy of Liber Pennae Praenumbra. This was of great interest to him, since it came at a time when he was revising his somewhat sceptical view of Achad's work on the Ma-Ion, and this contact with Nema accelerated the process, as can be seen in Nightside of Eden and Outside the Circles of Time.
Achad's detection and promulgation of the inauguration of the Ma-Ion is anathema to some Thelemites, because they consider that it supplants the Aeon of Horus which was supposed to last for 2,000 years or so, and therfore by extension impugns Crowley's work. It does neither of these things, and their antipathy is misplaced, as I hope will become apparent when the 1948/1949 correspondence between Yorke, Achad and others is finally published later this year. It is the correspondence between Yorke and Achad which Grant refers to in Outside the Circles of Time as Official and Unofficial Correspondence Concerning the Incoming of the Aeon of Maat.
I know that your thread is about actually working with some of the material produced by the Horus-Maat Lodge, but I find fascinating the wider context in which this work is placed.
|
|
|
Post by Ariock on Feb 23, 2014 4:31:04 GMT
Well said points Mick. I know I am not alone in my excitement regarding the publication of The Incoming of the Aeon of Maat. This, along with other works such as Brother Curwen, Brother Crowley, help add extra context to Grant's works. I have a friend who is a founding member of the Horus Maat Lodge, and I will point him to this thread to see if he would wish to participate.
|
|
|
Post by Aion 131 on Feb 23, 2014 9:56:30 GMT
Om & 93/696
Im happy to chat about anything involving the HML- Im on FB as Aion Hermeticusnath or- wisdom2@comcast.net
Love & Will
Aion 131
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Feb 23, 2014 22:32:02 GMT
Aion 131, I sent you an email to the address you listed in your post above...not sure if that was your email?
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Apr 5, 2014 2:55:16 GMT
Achad's detection and promulgation of the inauguration of the Ma-Ion is anathema to some Thelemites, because they consider that it supplants the Aeon of Horus which was supposed to last for 2,000 years or so, and therfore by extension impugns Crowley's work. It does neither of these things, and their antipathy is misplaced, as I hope will become apparent when the 1948/1949 correspondence between Yorke, Achad and others is finally published later this year. It is the correspondence between Yorke and Achad which Grant refers to in Outside the Circles of Time as Official and Unofficial Correspondence Concerning the Incoming of the Aeon of Maat. Michael, really looking forward to this correspondence being released. Interestingly, it was working the the Lam Serpent Sadhana around '98that opened up my mind to the the Aeon of Maat and how Achad's work, and Nema's, fit in to the bigger picture. Consciousness is, after all, a continuum
|
|
|
Post by The Double-wanded One on Jan 9, 2018 2:48:06 GMT
Some questions:What IS the Ma'at current? How does it differ from traditional Thelema? and by extension, regular Typhonian practice? If you follow the Ma'at Current, how does Liber Pennae Praenumbra fit with the Thelema Holy Books? What do you think the message of the Liber is? too I've read Liber Pennae Praenumbra quite a bit but I struggle to really grasp what it actually means for me and Thelema in general. Now, I have got Outer Gateways and Outside The Circles of Time, so I have gotten Grant's own thoughts on it but to be honest, I still don't really know what to make sense of it. 93/93
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Jan 9, 2018 22:38:18 GMT
Hi RPSTOVAL,
In my view it's how you relate to it yourself in your own work that is of value. There are no objectively right or wrong answers to the questions you ask. Nema's book Maat Magick is probably the next thing you should study to get an accessible practical angle on it if you haven't already, if this subject interests you. This is quite different from anything Grant wrote, as it is ostensibly a technical manual, and different again from Achad's theoretical and meditative approach to what he called Maat. It contains practices as well as speculation, theory, and anecdote. Take it as one adept's approach to the inheritance, and her contribution back to that tradition, not any definitive dogma. Nema says her book and the Maat current is only really accessible to those she calls Adepts (i.e. who have attained their "Angel", for want of a better term). I personally find it to have direct resonance to the rise of computer technology, binary code, and the like, with all the implications and effects this has upon/within power structures today, and in the future, (more specifically than Thelema, which is perhaps closer to the core of which the Maat current is a radiance, or garment, so to speak), but that's just me. And I could be wrong. Others may find no such business, or may assert other things, as they often do.
The thing about these books is, they're not necessarily prescriptive, and perhaps address a part of the mind that is behind and beyond rationality, and so ought not to necessarily be seen as "fitting" anything as neat and tidy as a canon, dogma or orthodoxy of any kind, despite the presentation as a series. Really, there ought to be a wild and wonderful forest of these by now, if Crowley had finished what he started, as Nema says, the virtue of Thelema was to liberate souls towards realising and embodying their own truth, to "pen their own Class A documents" (in whatever medium, field, or area of human activity), not to just further fossilize Crowley's messianically deluded ego after his death. Grant has produced two works like this (The Wisdom of S'lba, The Book of the Spider), albeit none announcing a "new dispensation".
|
|
|
Post by The Double-wanded One on Jan 10, 2018 2:48:39 GMT
Hello N0T 2, I will reply shortly. Sadly, by coincidence after posting my questions I found out in the last few hours that Nema herself passed away I think that I understand what you mean, I have read the Ma'at Magick book but I don't currently have a copy (I'll be buying one). Regarding Grant, yes I know S'lba and Okbish very well. They are transmissions that I have a better grasp on in several areas, they had more aspects that I was able to develop a better personal/spiritual and theoretical understanding of easier. Knowing how highly Grant thought of the Ma'at current and Nema herself, makes me perhaps a little impatient to grasp it (which I admit is not good). 93/93
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Jan 10, 2018 3:04:38 GMT
Wow, I am sorry to hear she has recently passed on, if what you say is true. I can't find any references to this online, and it is some years since we corresponded. She was a sweetie and always very encouraging - such a tiny package for supra-cosmic forces to channel through! May she sup with the immortals in aeternity. And so close to the date of Kenneth's shedding the sheath too... Vale Nema!
|
|
|
Post by The Double-wanded One on Jan 12, 2018 0:06:25 GMT
Hi RPSTOVAL,
In my view it's how you relate to it yourself in your own work that is of value. There are no objectively right or wrong answers to the questions you ask. Nema's book Maat Magick is probably the next thing you should study to get an accessible practical angle on it if you haven't already, if this subject interests you. This is quite different from anything Grant wrote, as it is ostensibly a technical manual, and different again from Achad's theoretical and meditative approach to what he called Maat. It contains practices as well as speculation, theory, and anecdote. Take it as one adept's approach to the inheritance, and her contribution back to that tradition, not any definitive dogma.
I see what you mean, maybe I haven't been using my 'metaphorical goggles' enough regarding Ma'at. I think it's easier when it comes to many of the aforementioned other Thelemites, that I have become more accustomed to the way they use symbols, metaphors, allegories etc, compared to Nema. For me though, I do find that my sense of familiarity or unfamiliarity probably plays into how I have previously interpreted Nema's work. With language and so on, it is far easier for me to tell when Crowley (for instance) is meaning something literally and symbolically, than Nema. [Our] holy guardian angel/s? that is in my own personal progress, I guess it's something I am yet to achieve/experience. Good insight there too! That's got me thinking! The but towards the end that you mention, was brought up by Grant himself a bit and it I do agree, to some degree.
|
|
cagliostro
New Member
Sacred seer is birth,sense and intelligence. Everything is cypher
Posts: 28
|
Post by cagliostro on Jan 13, 2018 22:51:44 GMT
maat is out of time... out of space ..neither neither..that where it all goes wrong maat is of the family of sia not osiris or isis.hence confusion
|
|
cagliostro
New Member
Sacred seer is birth,sense and intelligence. Everything is cypher
Posts: 28
|
Post by cagliostro on Jan 13, 2018 22:58:43 GMT
maat is not part of the ivih protocols nor ivhi protocls,,,no matter how much you all try and make her. when a formula does not work move on ...crowley even said this
|
|
cagliostro
New Member
Sacred seer is birth,sense and intelligence. Everything is cypher
Posts: 28
|
Post by cagliostro on Jan 13, 2018 23:00:00 GMT
a priest of heliopolis..is the answer
|
|
cagliostro
New Member
Sacred seer is birth,sense and intelligence. Everything is cypher
Posts: 28
|
Post by cagliostro on Jan 13, 2018 23:02:14 GMT
a kind soul has departed lets rejoice...she came ..she saw ..she wanted a union...lets all rejoice ..rejoice
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on Jan 14, 2018 16:25:30 GMT
maat is not part of the ivih protocols nor ivhi protocls,,,no matter how much you all try and make her. when a formula does not work move on ...crowley even said this IHVH is not some "protocol", but simply one formula amongst many for viewing phenomena in a certain context. It's just one more intellectual construct. Like any intellectual construct, it can be useful as far as it goes. Within Crowley's intellectual construct of the Aeons, IHVH has its uses and he regarded the Aeon of Truth and Justice as the Aeon to succeed that of Horus. Personally I don't regard Crowley's aeonology as being of a lot of use. On the one hand he related it to the Precession of the Equinoxes with one aeon superseding another every two-thousand years or so; on the other hand he didn't. It can be useful in some contexts to view Maat as the Hé Final in the Tetragrammaton, but that doesn't make it "real" or "unreal". Personally I identify the Aeon of Maat with the undivided continuum, but again that's just an intellectual construct on my part.
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jan 14, 2018 20:36:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Jan 14, 2018 23:50:58 GMT
maat is not part of the ivih protocols nor ivhi protocls,,,no matter how much you all try and make her. when a formula does not work move on ...crowley even said this IHVH is not some "protocol", but simply one formula amongst many for viewing phenomena in a certain context. It's just one more intellectual construct. Like any intellectual construct, it can be useful as far as it goes. Within Crowley's intellectual construct of the Aeons, IHVH has its uses and he regarded the Aeon of Truth and Justice as the Aeon to succeed that of Horus. Personally I don't regard Crowley's aeonology as being of a lot of use. On the one hand he related it to the Precession of the Equinoxes with one aeon superseding another every two-thousand years or so; on the other hand he didn't. It can be useful in some contexts to view Maat as the Hé Final in the Tetragrammaton, but that doesn't make it "real" or "unreal". Personally I identify the Aeon of Maat with the undivided continuum, but again that's just an intellectual construct on my part. On this topic, I read that Trithemius - Agrippa's teacher - held that the Platonic Months (what Crowley four centuries later would call "Aeons" - the period it takes for the equinoctial Sun to change signs) of around 2120 years could be divided into six parts of 354 years and four months, and allotted to planetary angels in reverse weekday order. I'm at sixes and sevens over which angel gets left out - perhaps none do, and the seventh heralds the next sign.
By him, the age of Gabriel (Moon) ended in 1879, and was followed by the age of Michael (Sun), which ends in 2233.
I'm not surprised Crowley missed this, but it's ironic that he did, as the date is closer to his birth date, surely more pleasing to his ego (and closer to the founding of the Theosophical Society) than his honeymoon date to pin his cult on, and it also makes a bit more sense in terms of technological, philosophical and artistic breakthroughs, too (a signpost often leaned on by Crowleyites as indicating value in his aeonics). The gears were well and truly shifting by the 1880s, I reckon.
( from Tyson's edition of Agrippa's three books, page 536, note 12.)
|
|
|
Post by Raj Don Yasser on Jan 15, 2018 15:59:21 GMT
In my view it's how you relate to it yourself in your own work that is of value. There are no objectively right or wrong answers to the questions you ask.
Great food for thought, NOT 2, and important to keep in mind when conversing on such matters. I'd go a step further and add that objectivism, and/or Aristotle's Laws of Thought in general, might be useful in some domains but rarely (if ever) while discussing magic and mysticism. Swami Shri Yukteswar caused an even greater stir than Frater Achad when he questioned the "orthodox" paradigm of his peers regarding the Yugas, positing that the Kali Yuga ended in the year 1700. Question: are Aeons understood as cyclical or linear? Only if linear would there be obvious issues in Achad's position, but when viewing Aeons as cyclical then (to me) there isn't any problem at all.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Jan 16, 2018 1:13:00 GMT
In my view it's how you relate to it yourself in your own work that is of value. There are no objectively right or wrong answers to the questions you ask.
Great food for thought, NOT 2, and important to keep in mind when conversing on such matters. I'd go a step further and add that objectivism, and/or Aristotle's Laws of Thought in general, might be useful in some domains but rarely (if ever) while discussing magic and mysticism. Swami Shri Yukteswar caused an even greater stir than Frater Achad when he questioned the "orthodox" paradigm of his peers regarding the Yugas, positing that the Kali Yuga ended in the year 1700. Question: are Aeons understood as cyclical or linear? Only if linear would there be obvious issues in Achad's position, but when viewing Aeons as cyclical then (to me) there isn't any problem at all. That is really interesting, Raj Don Yasser - - the spiral notion maps onto the Trithemius model too, although I hadn't visualised it as such.
Aristotle "many hands make light work" // "too many cooks spoil the broth" (! make your mind up!) - never did make much sense to me, I must say. Did wonders for the clergy, though, during the middle ages, which says something. We can blame him for Descartes, too. In the early 90s, I was intrigued by Peter Carroll's loose evolutionary model of aeonics in Liber Kaos, which I recall (possibly inaccurately) had something of a spiral notion to them too.
I suppose it is also a matter of one's view of time. There are scientists and very recently discovered Amazonian tribes who agree that time is not an objectively real or necessary thing, either as an objective thing nor as a feature of human consciousness. Australian Aborigines exist(ed) in a state which was later translated as "The Dreamtime", which appears to designate an experienced, default mythological mindspace that was simultaneously an eternal present and a temporal infinity in all directions. This sounds a lot like a magic circle to me.
For me, the endgame so to speak, in this line of thought is Kenneth Grant's observations upon the nature of time, from a perspective of absolute subjectivity, i.e. our notion of time being a crutch used by waking consciousness (the rational or "dayside" mind) to navigate in its own limited, fictional fashion, and organise (i.e., believe itself to understand) events which really aren't sequential in and of themselves, but are merely "read" as such, or construed as such during one's waking hours, by the equally delusional and unreal ego. Hence, the power (and limitations) of narrative, which is always just one side of the story. If it's a story at all.
Ia! F'tagn! Yog-Sothoth is the All-One!
|
|
cagliostro
New Member
Sacred seer is birth,sense and intelligence. Everything is cypher
Posts: 28
|
Post by cagliostro on Jan 16, 2018 23:37:15 GMT
the gnostics understood the aeons as as the spheres..later to be understood by the kabbalists as the spheres ... at what point did this idea by the golden dawn become ,,ivih..u get the point
|
|
|
Post by Manuel Herrera on Jan 17, 2018 12:40:09 GMT
Dear Cagliostro,
There is nothing inherently objective on those definitions. Those are just concepts which are explicative to a certain individual on a certain moment of his initiatic path and in relation to his own esoteric background. In order for you to see this I would suggest you to do an exercise. Take one magical concept of any tradition and compare its uses and definitions with two radically different traditions. What you will see is three different definitions and uses on the same concept. For example, try with the tree of Life, which was the approach of Crowley to the tree of life? and the one of Kenneth Grant? What about the one of Nema? Does the tree of life means the same for Chaos Magick, Thelema and Martinism?
I suggest you to check on 777 by Crowley as well as on the Course in General Linguistics by Saussure.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Jan 18, 2018 4:32:54 GMT
In addition to all the 'heretical' conceptual timeframes, aeons, yugas, ages, Platonic Months, above, and perhaps similar to the Trithemius model, is the Arbatel one dealing with the Olympic Spirits of the planets.
The Arbatal stops there, not stating the order for the remaining Spirits of the Planets Mercury [Ophiel], Saturn [Aratron], or the Moon [Phul]. When it was written, those given covered the forseeable future.
However those spirits' ages which are stated follow the order of the heptangle, and so from 1900 A.D. including and extending far beyond this now living generation, we may measure the administration of the spirit Ophiel (Mercury) until 2390A.D., when the Spirit of the Moon, Phul, takes over, before the age of the spirit of Saturn, Aratron, commences in the year 2880A.D., bringing us full circle back to Bethor in the year 3370A.D.
It would be fun to see all these models superimposed, with perhaps McKenna's timewave chucked in for good measure.
I find it really interesting that despite an age duration gap of (490-354=) 136 years, the models of the Arbatel and of Trithemius both point to something changing around 1879-1900, a mere 21 years between the shifts in rulership of Gabriel (Moon) to Michael (Sun) on the one hand, and Hagith (Venus) to Ophiel (Mercury), on the other, around precisely the birth of the New Age movement via Blavatsky, the Golden Dawn, Crowley, Al, and so on. A sort of Mercurial-Solar age is upon us, apparently.
|
|