|
Post by stephen on Oct 9, 2014 14:16:09 GMT
Apologies for the failure of the link, Nalyd, I was not too confident about it working, I have to admit. If anyone is interested in checking out one of the Chatsworth House Sekhmet statues, a quick google of - Chatsworth House, Derbyshire, Sekhmet statue - should bring it up. There is some interesting background material. I can find some images of the Cavendish family serpent emblem, but none of the mosaic I mentioned, unfortunately. Anyway, here is the serpent. Actually, the fine Sekhmet image that Nalyd has posted is probably a finer piece of sculpture.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Oct 11, 2014 17:42:18 GMT
There is a replica of this statue at the Egyptian Museum of Rosicrucian Park (AMORC) here in San Jose. They have here set up in a sort of shrine, which makes for a dramatic entryway to the second floor gallery where She is enthroned. Someone took a (not very great) photo of Her: Stephen, the link you posted only re-opens this thread in a new tab for me. Tried pasting it into the address bar and it does nothing for me there either. This Sekhmet statue housed in the British Museum is similar in style to the one in the photo of KG.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 19:03:09 GMT
I would have placed Nuit (as Void / Neant) in the Ain 'above' the supernal triad. The formula is 0=2; all creation, as he indicates earlier, arises from the void in the form of passive and active twins. In Mercer's book about Horus he states that "there are many references [in ancient texts] to Horus and Set as 'brothers'; they are called twins or one and the same person." In Grant I would see Set as the nightside of the Tree, with Horus as the 'dayside' and therefore the tunnels of Set as the means of return to the Void as Absolute. Going back to the astronomical points... Grant says the Phoenix was the constellation of which Sothis (aka Sept and Sirius) was the chief star. According to Budge Hathor (= Aphrodite) was identified with Sirius / Sept aka "the second sun" connected with the rising of the Nile through the heliacal rising of Sirius on the first day of the Egyptian new year; when Ra rose in his boat Hathor, as Goddess of Sothis, went with him and took her place like a crown on his forehead. I think Grant's reference to our sun being a reflection of Sirius is probably based on this mythological / astral material as discussed by Massey. I wonder if anyone could clarify a purely astronomical point for me? Grant says the Phoenix constellation (containing Sirius) corresponds to Cygnus and Aquila, but these seem to be on the opposite side of the sky to Canis Major, Sirius's current home. (Apologies if I'm being really dim here.) Coming to Grant's work for the first time, having played elsewhere (East & West). Thank you all, really interesting posts and I feel lucky to be here. 2 quick questions - 1. Is Hadit the Supernal Triad? Or, perhaps, Keter? 2. Abracadabra - my basic hebrew translates this as something like "Abra" (I) Create / Manifest, "C" As, "Adabra" (I) Speak?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 19, 2015 13:24:19 GMT
Coming to Grant's work for the first time, having played elsewhere (East & West). Thank you all, really interesting posts and I feel lucky to be here.
2 quick questions -
1. Is Hadit the Supernal Triad? Or, perhaps, Keter?
2. Abracadabra - my basic hebrew translates this as something like "Abra" (I) Create / Manifest, "C" As, "Adabra" (I) Speak?
Greetings marq88. I'm trying to concentrate on other things than the forums at present, but it would be a shame if you did not get some response to your post.
Taking Nuit as the AIN, or perhaps more accurately, the AIN SVPh, then Keter/Kether would be a suitable attribution for Hadit, in my opinion.
Abracadabra. Why not Abrahadabra ? The 'abra' comes from ABR, rather than from BRA 'to create' and means something like 'great one' if memory serves. I would have to check. Any literal meaning probably bears little relation to its use as formula for getting rid of a fever: A B R A C A D A B R A B R A C A D A B R R A C A D A B A C A D A C A D A
Cheers, Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 22, 2015 13:42:47 GMT
For further clarification of the preceding post, I can add the following:
ABRAHADABRA – eleven Hebrew letters = 418 = ChITh and the Number of the Great Work.
It’s a reworking of ABRA DBRH, more than a refinement of ‘abracadabra’.
ABRA, mighty one from ABR, and DBRH from DBR, word. Crowley transforms this into ABRA-HAD-ABRA as the Word of Double Power with HAD at its heart, and he’s emphatic about its expression and significance. If Hebrew readers are liable to be confused by it, perhaps it might be best expressed as ABRA-HAD-ABRA.
From some notes on the HEBREW TRANSLATION OF LIBER AL, (2009).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 14:05:35 GMT
ABRA - "mighty one" from ABR? I can't find this in Aramaic or Hebrew?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2015 13:05:41 GMT
I know that ABR is in my old Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon and I'm sure that 'mighty' is one valid meaning, so I stand by my interpretation. A quick check on Morfix translates ABR as 'limb, organ'; 'wing' and colloquially as 'organ = penis' which I take as supportive of my own translation . Having said that, the wikipedia entry does favour the 'I create' option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2015 15:44:11 GMT
unless ABRA from ABRAxas - hence, the Mighty One.
|
|
Aleph
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by Aleph on Oct 24, 2015 9:09:50 GMT
there's abhra - 'thundercloud' in Sanskrit that might relate to it
|
|
|
Post by ShB on Oct 24, 2015 9:54:01 GMT
AB=Father AR=Light (Ra/Re=Sun)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2015 10:20:19 GMT
AVR = light?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 26, 2015 14:13:36 GMT
OK guys, let's try and nail this down.
THE ANALYTICAL HEBREW AND CHALDEE LEXICON - Benjamin Davidson; Samuel Bagster & Sons Ltd, London. 1978 reprint. "Every word and inflection of the Hebrew Old Testament arranged alphabetically and with grammatical analyses."
I've owned a copy of this wonderful tome since, well 1978, and it has been an endless source of brain-strain and edification!
It contains an entry for ABR, to be strong, from which is derived ABIR, strong, mighty, brave. Both these words occur in Crowley's analysis of ABRAHADABRA, first published in THE EQUINOX, but reprinted in sources such as THE LAW IS FOR ALL, in the Gematrias appendix.
Therefore, in my interpretation - and with such a formula as Abracadabra/Abrahadabra, several are possible - Mighty Word - i.e. 'Mighty Word (of Power)'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2015 14:29:10 GMT
I'll accept that Thanks Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by Raj Don Yasser on Apr 9, 2016 15:36:39 GMT
It's been nearly twenty years since reading Grant's works and I recently purchased the whole set of trilogies (with the exception of the last, which will hopefully be reprinted by Starfire). After reading chapter one so many questions were answered and my appreciation for The Book of the Law was greatly reaffirmed.
On pages 19-20 Grant writes that "The Word of the Will (Thelema) is the Name of the Angel who utters it at the climax of the magickal rite; and when interpreted in terms of individual consciousness it reveals the secret and supreme formula of spiritual enlightenment." I'm not sure that I understand the meaning correctly. Is Grant stating that the angel's name, which the angel utters at the end, is also the Word of the Will? In other words, does the angel utter it's own name, which is also the name of the individual aspirant's Word? It seems, from reading this sentence over and over in an attempt at understanding, that one's "Word" is also the name of the angel, meaning that one's "Word" is identical as the Angel (and visa versa, the angel's name is the Word).
It's probable that others have pondered this same question and I'd greatly appreciate sharing your thoughts and understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on May 18, 2016 16:38:37 GMT
On pages 19-20 Grant writes that "The Word of the Will (Thelema) is the Name of the Angel who utters it at the climax of the magickal rite; and when interpreted in terms of individual consciousness it reveals the secret and supreme formula of spiritual enlightenment." I'm not sure that I understand the meaning correctly. Is Grant stating that the angel's name, which the angel utters at the end, is also the Word of the Will? In other words, does the angel utter it's own name, which is also the name of the individual aspirant's Word? It seems, from reading this sentence over and over in an attempt at understanding, that one's "Word" is also the name of the angel, meaning that one's "Word" is identical as the Angel (and visa versa, the angel's name is the Word). There's no rational answer to this, rajdonyasers. The Angel, His Name, the Word and the True Will are identical. This is essentially a matter of wordless insight which comes of its own accord, and for which we cannot strive. We know it, though we think we don't. Grant touched upon this in the course of a letter to a correspondent, and I thought you might find it interesting in this context:
|
|
|
Post by william on May 19, 2016 23:24:42 GMT
"One must be careful not to accord any degree of reality to concepts such as the HGA, the Tunnels, Astral or any other kind of Entity. These ‘ideas’ are within you ... One has to look deeply within and understand that the HGA epitomises your total consciousness. By giving it name and form it appears to be a Presence apart from you, but such it is not; ... However, when you realise the underlying identity of your being with the HGA there is no longer any sense of difference remaining..." But surely, this can be regarded as nothing more than solipsism? Also I was under the impression that Grant's writings were not exclusively concerned with inner but outer space too, and moreover to a highly significant degree, and that all the references to Sirius, extraterrestrial intelligence, etc, were not intended as metaphorical but to have an actual meaning relating to specific objective and external phenomena. In this regard Grant interpreted Crowley's own HGA, Aiwaz, not as an aspect of his (Crowley's) higher supraconsciousness but an independent and autonomous sentient extraterrestrial being (along with Lam, Amalantrah, Abul Diz, etc.), and with whom it was therefore possible to have two-way communication. This doesn't equate with all the foregoing though, does it? j
|
|
|
Post by kylefite on May 20, 2016 1:30:32 GMT
This short quote from Grant is wonderful and, for myself, immediately called to mind Nichiren's words "You must never think that any of the eighty thousand sacred teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha’s lifetime or any of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and three existences are outside yourself. Your practice of the Buddhist teachings will not relieve you of the sufferings of birth and death in the least unless you perceive the true nature of your life."
I also think William's question is an important one. It is quite understandable that one would read Grant as an advocate of solipsism but, as I understand him, he is not. However, this is not meant to imply that he "really IS" writing of "objective realities." Rather, we might look more deeply into what is meant by "within you." As Nichiren stated, this is "the true nature of your life" which is certainly not the ever-changing heap of skandhas we regard as the "individual." Solipsism would locate and trap all phenomena within the individual mind-including the mind itself. We could regard the breakdown of individual identity as a breakthrough into the Outer Spaces beyond it. However, the way Out is Inward. Otherwise, we remain in the maze of external objects, "in relation" to some phenomena distinct from oneself. This reinforces the idea that we are somehow objective things in an objective universe which exists outside of ourselves. It's not only "magical stuff" that we learn to regard as "within" but all things. Yet this "within" is not the individual mind. It could, from one angle, be considered as Consciousness Itself-and also the Source of that Consciousness. Nichiren went on to write: "The mind cannot be considered either to exist or not to exist. Life is indeed an elusive reality that transcends both the words and concepts of existence and nonexistence. It is neither existence nor nonexistence, yet exhibits the qualities of both. It is the mystic entity of the Middle Way that is the ultimate reality." It's my perspective that this Gnosis opens up entry points into the Magical Universe which we cannot get at otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Raj Don Yasser on May 20, 2016 18:15:29 GMT
Thanks for posting that, much appreciated. Grant's strong background in Advaita Vedanta combined with a contemporary approach towards "scientific illuminism" is what most induced me towards the Typhonian Tradition.
|
|
|
Post by Raj Don Yasser on Sept 12, 2016 17:38:35 GMT
After reading the second paragraph, page 10, in Michael Staley's "The Fool" (the content of which is congruent with Michael's post dated May 18th) I gained a much richer understanding of the Holy Guardian Angel.
|
|
|
Post by Manuel Herrera on May 16, 2017 7:02:17 GMT
I was just checking on the different interpretations of Abracadabra/Abrahadabra and after reading the replies here I saw another structure in the word Abrahadabra.
Ab=Father Ra= Re/The Sun Had=Hadit/Set Adabra=To Speak
Abrahadabra= As Re, The Father, Set speaks.
93
|
|