Thelema - The Egyptian Dispensation
Thelema
and the
Threefold Book of Law
‘The Egyptian Dispensation’
𓇽
by R. Shane Clayton
© 2024/25 Wandering Stars Publishing
All rights reserved
"The word of the Law is θέλyμα (Thelema).
Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look but close into the word.”
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
"Love is the law, love under will."
"The law is for all."
~ words spoken by the Egyptian goddess of the starry sky, Nuit,
from Liber L vel Legis — The Threefold Book of Law
Allegedly channeled and written from dictation in 1904, it was first published in 1909 as “Liber AL vel Legis — The Book of the Law,” Crowley’s formal title for the official publications of the book. Interestingly, he entitled the freehand cover page of the manuscript “Liber L vel Legis” before later adding the ‘A’ to his official publications (which is quite meaningful in light of the discovery of “The English Cabala,” as will be discussed elsewhere).
Therefore, I consider ‘Liber L’ the prophet’s official title of the holograph manuscript and will publish it as the same. As for its true name, the goddess Nuit tells us in the first chapter: “This that thou writest is the threefold book of Law.” Later in the third chapter, the god Ra Hoor Khuit says: “… this, the Book of the Law.” I’ll use the former, and leave the latter to its OTO publishers. To avoid confusion and repetition, I’ll also refer to “The Threefold Book of Law” as either “The Book of Law” or “Liber Legis” or “Liber L” (LL), Latin for Book of Law, in distinction to the titles of official redacted publications.
Indeed, the book is threefold, composed of three chapters written over three consecutive days — April 8, 9, and 10, between noon and 1:00 p.m. in Cairo, Egypt. Each chapter is spoken in the voice of one of three Egyptian god–forms or Neteru, and was written down, Crowley tells us, from what was verbally dictated to him by a shadowy “praeter–human intelligence,” a being he believed to be “Aiwass, the minister of Hoor–paar–kraat,” who is so named early in the book. Based upon the events leading up to its writing, these four entities were presumably “channeled” by his wife Rose.
The two were newlyweds on their honeymoon when the remarkable event took place, precipitated by an unusual encounter at Rose’s insistent behest with a 26th Dynasty funerary stele located in the Egyptian Museum, featuring depictions of the three gods and a priest. Crowley would subsequently refer to the 2,700-year-old artifact as “The Stele of Revealing.” (See The Stele of Ankh af na Khonsu.) I will tell this fascinating story in full in this monograph.
These three Egyptian Neteru identify themselves in The Book of Law as 1) the starry sky goddess Nut, written Nuit — The Queen of Space, 2) her lord, the “Great God” B’Hedet, written Hadit — the Winged Globe, and 3) their child, the hawk–headed solar deity Ra Herukhuti, written Ra Hoor Khuit — the noontime form of Ra Horakhty, Horus of the Two Horizons, at the zenith of his power as conqueror.
Being unfamiliar at that time with these god forms or their anglicized Egyptian names, Crowley wrote down what he heard through the voice of “Aiwass,” spelling notwithstanding, each god’s name ending with “it.” After all, we still know precious little about actual ancient Egyptian pronunciations.
In each of their three short chapters, the deities grant the familiar Egyptian litany of blessings, protection spells, adjurations, prophecy, and warnings, such as seen inscribed in the temples, tombs, and magical papyri — but with a uniquely Qabalistic spin. The gods also promise the Remembrance and accomplishment of the aspirant’s true “Thelema” or “pure will” to all earnest seekers who approach them reverently with an open heart and mind per their writings therein.
In Liber Legis, the keyword Thelema is written in the Koine Greek as θέλημα (pronounced the–lee’–ma), a noun meaning "emotional will” or “to desire, to love, and seek pleasure.” It’s derived from the verb θέλω (thélō or ethélō): "to will, wish, desire,” or more accurately in this case, “volition.” The root word ethos is defined as the “guiding belief that influences behavior, emotions, and even morals,” and the English word, "ethics,” is derived from the related Greek ēthikós, meaning “the expression of one's moral character.” It appears (rarely) in the Classical Greek writings as related to both divine will and (taking notes?) sexual desire.
Thelema is also used repeatedly in the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament and the original Greek New Testament writings, pertaining to both human and devilish volition, but usually regarding God’s will or love. (Please see: “Will - Thelema,” a word study from the Greek concordance of the KJV.) During the Greek Ptolemaic Dynasties of Late Period Egypt, Thelema was associated with the goddess Ma’at and her Noble Ideals of truth, justice, order, the good, and the beautiful.
Ma’at also represents the will to love, one’s heart’s desire for life and life’s joys and pleasures, and the volition to seek after and maintain her Noble Ideals. Ma’at was the law in ancient Egypt, and, according to Nuit, “The word of the law is Thelema. Love is the Law, love under will.” We may assume that this law is a Cosmic one coming as it reportedly does from the “Queen of Space,” the Egyptian Goddess representing the Milky Way galaxy.
Later Egyptian scholars and philosophers of Ma'at would embody concepts from the Sebayt, which means "teaching" or "instruction" in the native wisdom literature. These spiritual texts dealt with common social or professional situations, and how each was best to be resolved or addressed in the spirit of Ma’at. It was practical advice and case-based, however, so just a few specific and general rules can be derived from them.
Even so, it might be of considerable interest to point out here that the root of the word Sebayt is Seba, sbꜣ - "star" written as a singular five-pointed star heiroglyph, included in our Ma'at logo. This will come into more focus later concerning a passage from Liber Legis I:60.
𓇼
That being said, a perfunctory search online will bring up “Thelema” as the name of the particular religion that Aleister Crowley established in the early 1900s. His two related official religious organizations are still active today: the Astreum Argenteum or A∴A∴ and the Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO, both operating under the broad aegis of Thelema based on “The Book of the Law” as their founding document.
Those seeking a more detailed history of these will do well to visit Wikipedia’s big tree of pages under the header of Thelema linked above, which one might assume is overseen by these groups. As a side note, when using the word here, I will italicize “Thelema” for one’s “pure will,” and leave it plain “Thelema” when referring to the related belief systems, traditions, or religions, as the case may be.
It should also be understood up front that this spiritual philosophy is certainly not a new one — obviously, many who have never heard of Liber Legis have lived according to the general law of Thelema. And, of course, those who might be called “Thelemites” are not limited to active membership in the A∴A∴ and OTO, which is estimated at only just over 2,500 individuals total, give or take; with the A∴A∴ numbers being impossible to know due to its one–on–one transmission schema, there being a crossover between the two groups.
The number of independents like myself is unknown, but we likely at least equal the others; though it might be understood that some of us are of the A∴A∴. And while the OTO organization has been indispensable to the conservatorship and publishing of “The Book of the Law” and other important Crowley writings, I do not regard official membership in his surviving cultus as a prerequisite to the raison d’etre of Thelema; nor do I consider them necessarily antithetical to it either… it depends. As it is written: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”
I will say that Thelema, promulgated here as a Kemetic or Egyptian dispensation, has little to do with the litany of practices of some of the contemporary heirs of Crowley’s organizations and their offshoots. The OTO attracts members that tend more towards Crowley’s specialized areas of Western Esoteric occult magick, mostly focusing on Enochian and Goetic Theurgy — neither of which I take any issue with, per se; but I don’t believe either is necessarily integral to Thelema as revealed in The Book of Law.
Lamentably, however, and I must be brutally honest, in some extreme cases over the past decades I have encountered both personally and online questionable behaviors amongst unnamed members of the latter–day OTO in their misapprehension of the writings of the Book of Law; and while it is certainly not the general rule, drug addiction, sexual abuse, misogyny, and gun–hoarding white nationalism are still a vexation within their ranks.
For sure, said individuals have raised an unfortunate stink around Thelema for the rest of us — as if Crowley’s tabloid reputation hadn’t already raised a big enough smokescreen. Focusing as I will on the Egyptian current, I won't be discussing much, if any of their latter-day practices here anyway; those may be easily researched online.
Speaking subjectively, I feel that the OTO deserves some of its bad rap, despite the presence of some fine occultists and ceremonial magicians among its membership who are the caretakers of the Crowley legacy and corpus of writings. To be fair, I’ll discuss the most salient criticisms of Aleister Crowley, and the contemporary OTO at the end of this paper, and let the reader decide.
Of course, that’s all quite a lot for most otherwise intelligent folks to digest if you’ve even gotten this far! The inscrutable source of The Book of Law is understandably questionable in the first place, with Crowley claiming he wrote down a verbal transmission “revealed” to him by a non–corporeal intelligent being who was “minister of Hoor-paar-kraat” (the child god with his finger to his mouth) and the mouthpiece of these three Egyptian Neteru. He fails, however, to emphasize his wife Rose’s crucial role as the channel for these entities in his writings. Either way - that's some pretty far-out stuff for lots of folks despite the plethora of channeling we have seen explode since the late 60's.
Aiwass himself is mentioned only once in Liber Legis, and early in the manuscript, and that was as "revealing" Nuit’s axiom “the Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs,” and perhaps too, ambiguously at best, “the unveiling of the company of heaven.” Crowley would later downplay Rose’s crucial role and make the minister Aiwass his singular personal protagonist in the book based on this one appearance. We will see why later.
Whether it was Rose channeling Aiwass, who speaks for the gods, or Rose directly channeling the Neteru is moot — all I can say about that is, like any good pudding, the proof comes from the eating, or reading, thereof; with plenty of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perspectives to go around.
The Egyptian Dispensation:
As opposed to the popular self–indulgent or hedonistic interpretation of “Do what thou wilt” as “do whatever you want, baby,” the emphasis of Thelema in Liber L is concerned with acting freely from our innermost heart’s desire, our heart–centered “pure will” or spiritual volition, i.e. “love under will.” This divine source has been alternately described by the wise as the inner light, a spark, a flame, or a star. Called “Khabs” by the Egyptians, this luminary “interior star” was symbolized by the hieroglyph of an incense burner or lamp brazier, appearing as an inverted heart hieroglyph 𓄣 ib or ab hanging on a tether. Khabs 𓊮 was often depicted next to Ma’at’s feather of truth and the protective cobra goddess Wadjet as a repeating decorative motif of tomb wall friezes and “Book of the Dead” papyri:
Here, the Egyptians symbolized the concept of “pure Will” or Thelema as Ma’at, the spark of the Khabs. Similarly, Hindus and Buddhists refer to it as Dharma, with both terms being mutually defined as “acting according to cosmic equilibrium and order.”
Thus, our collective Thelema is our “True Will” or “love under will” — Ma’at expressed faithfully through the illuminated heart center the Egyptians called "Ab Ra." Combined with "Had," the first word in Liber Legis, it represents the “centre of the sphere” and the point of the union of Hadit (the microcosm or individual) with Nuit (the macrocosm or universe).
In this way, the “luminary” or “star” of the Khabs is comparable to the Hindu Atman — the divine Self. This Divine Union and illumination is exemplified by the quintessential word of magick in Thelema: Abrahadabra!
In the first chapter of Liber L, the goddess Nuit tells us: “Every man and every woman is a star.” She also says, “The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs. Worship then the Khabs, and behold my light shed over you.” Hadit also tells us in chapter two, “Khabs is the name of my house,” and “I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every star.”
Again, in the Egyptian language, Khabs — ḫꜣbs, means lamp, brazier, flame, star, or luminary; while Khu — ḫꜣw, is defined as abundance, many thousands, myriads. And such is the nature of the starry sky at night. Nuit says: “… I am Infinite Space and the Infinite Stars thereof.”
Here we see the capitalized acronym ISIS, the pre–eminent Egyptian goddess of the Silver Star Sopdet or Sirius, with whom starry Nuit understandably identifies, bidding us to “worship” and identify with the lovely star too, in order to “achieve Hadit.”
I think it's important to reiterate that the root of the Egyptian word for the "teaching" or "intruction" of Ma'at, Sebayt, is Seba or Star. The following was inserted by Rose in her hand as something important at that point that Nuit had said that Aleister had neglected to write down during the dictation in Liber Legis I:60:
"The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red."
Clearly, Rose was the channeler here, as this inserted passage has been scrutinized and interpreted by various Thelemite pundits for over a century now to little real avail. To my knowledge, none have considered the following examples of Ptolemaic-era five-pointed Seba stars on the Astronomical ceilings of the Temples of Hathor at Edfu and of Khnum at Esna - only recently cleaned by archaeologists:
These Ptolemaic era five-pointed Seba stars with red circles simply speak for themselves. We have no record of Rose visiting either of these temples while in Egypt before the Cairo reception, and besides, their ceilings were only just recently cleaned to reveal their original colors.
This not only vindicates Rose as the channeler, but at the same time identifies these Neteru as being from Late Period 26th to Ptolemaic Dynasty egregores, when such representations were most prevalent; and neither Rose nor Aleister could have known this at the time.
While it was cryptically written in English, The Threefold Book of Law is undoubtedly Egyptian in tone, with their love of hidden messages secreted in acronyms, metaphors, and homonyms, along with the inclusion of specific Egyptian divine names and spiritual or cosmological terms, such as the Khabs and the Khu. As mentioned above, a study of historical Egypt suggests that the book’s mysterious source was influenced by spiritual energies of the Late Period, possibly as late as the Ptolemaic Dynasty with Liber L’s inclusion of the Greek θέλημα — Thelema, among other instances such as the use of the Greek term “orison” for prayer. The Stele of Ankh af na Khonsu itself dates from the early 26th Dynasty, the first of the Late Period, and the last flowering of native Egyptian rulers.
Speaking in Crowley’s spiritual language, The Book of Law is also concerned with the Qabalah and the Tarot, expressed through several “puzzle” phrases or paragraphs. Nuit refers to the Hebrew alphabet as the “old letters of my book,” her “book” ostensibly being the Tarot itself, as well as her mentioning the Fool and Star; while Hadit speaks of the Magician, Empress, and Hierophant.
This mixture of Egyptian, Greek, Jewish/Gnostic, or Hermetic esoteric spirituality and magic speaks prominently of the last days of “pagan” Egypt in Alexandria, particularly the library and temple of the Serapeum, which were sacked by Christian zealots in 391 CE. It is an open secret amongst some adepts that Hypatia of Alexandria and her students codified and secreted away the symbolism of the Tarot as the Wisdom of the Ancients at that time. These were also, perhaps most notably, the final days of active spiritual devotion to the Egyptian gods — the Neteru.
Having said that, we should address the "Aeons" in mainstream Thelema here. I find it curious how Crowley got sidetracked from the book’s authentic Egyptian current, and into his “Egyptoid” concept of the “New Aeon of Horus,” which he claimed was announced by Liber Legis, succeeding the patriarchal “Aeon of Osiris” that followed the matriarchal “Aeon of Isis’.
While he was correct about the solar noontime aspect of Ra Hoor Khuit being a crowned conqueror, the Neteru themselves never expressly use the word “Aeon” in Liber L, much less a “New Aeon;” and while the gods “Isa” (Isis) and “Asar” (Osiris) are mentioned in passing, they aren’t identified with “Aeons” as Crowley asserts. Nor is this concept supported by the now well–known Egyptian cosmology.
There is just one likely reference to the astrological Precessional Age as the “Great Equinox” by Ra Hoor Khuit in Chapter III, but he says it had not yet “fallen.” While the prophet of Liber Legis was well within his rights to promulgate this “New Aeon” thesis based on his experience and the available Egyptological knowledge at hand, contemporary archaeology has pretty much academically disqualified it.
Still, Crowley knew for certain that he and Rose had made contact with a Horus divinity through the Stele on the Equinox of 1904, and mistaking him for Horus the son of Isis, he naturally tracked backward to Osiris. Ra Horakhty however, is “Horus of the two horizons,” and not the same god as Horus the child of Isis and Osiris. Rather, he is the sun/son of the elder Horus, the “Great God” B’Hedet, and Nuit.
To illustrate, the two hawk–headed gods Horus and Ra Horakhty both appear in Seti I’s great temple at Abydos, each having completely separate chapels, unique crowns, and functions; while B’Hedet or Hedet, Horus of Edfu, is depicted as the winged globe over nearly every temple doorway and alcove. Here we see three different god forms called “Horus” (more of a title than a name) in one place, which is understandably confusing — so we can forgive Aleister for his initial disconcertion.
The sky goddess Nuit tells us that “Ra Hoor Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods.” To the ancient Egyptians, that meant the place of the rising sun on the yearly Vernal Equinox marking the solar–driven rebirth of life and the rites of spring and fertility. Aleister and Rose were in Cairo for the Equinox of 1904, and having first encountered the sun god Ra Horakhty on the Stele in the Egyptian Museum, they forged a link with the god they called Horus, after midnight on the Equinox morning.
Sixteen days later they received the transmission from the three Neteru over three days at noon, Ra Horakhty’s peak hour as Herukhuti. This truly was an Equinox of the Gods; a momentous Remembrance and connection with the ancient Egyptian Neteru signaling a new epoch for humanity, which we have no doubt seen unfold since then.
In Egyptian cosmology, Ra Horakhty represents the sun as Ra, seated in his barque/boat in his daytime travel from East to West. Ra Hoor Khuit is Ra Horakhty’s noon aspect:
Born from the rising Egyptian Blue 'Lotus' flower at sunrise, he “takes his seat” in the East as Kephri or Khepra, the winged scarab beetle representing rebirth. As the noonday sun, he was called either Ra Hoor Khut, Ra Herukhuti, or simply Herukhuti “the cutter,” the wide–striding or running conqueror at the height of his power — as the pharaoh was often depicted on the gigantic temple pylons.
Taking his seat in the West, Ra as the setting sun was called Hormakhet (Harmachis in Greek), meaning Horus of the Western Horizon (the Egyptian name for the Great Sphinx) overseeing the end of the solar day, the end of physical life, and that of the yearly solar cycle.
At nightfall, Ra Horakhty becomes Atum, the Akh or effective spirit of Ra in the underworld of the Duat, called “The Sun at Midnight.” In Egyptian Cosmology, Atum and his “right hand” consort Iusasset created the Ennead of gods.
In the third chapter of Liber Legis, the god Ra Hoor Khuit tells us, “But your holy place shall be untouched throughout the centuries: though with fire and sword it be burnt down and shattered, yet an invisible house there standeth, and shall stand until the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the double wanded one assume my throne and place.”
This “holy place” well describes the Giza plateau and temple remains with “Hrumachis” being the Great Sphinx facing from the West toward the East, who “arises” or is aligned on the West/East axis with both the Vernal or “Spring” and the Autumnal or “Fall” Equinoxes. By extension, Hrumachis will by necessity “arise” on the “fall” of the Precessional “Great Equinox” as well.
The god Ra Hoor Khuit correctly tells us that the “fall of the Great Equinox,” i.e. the anticipated Precession into the sign Aquarius, has yet to come; assuming that’s what he meant by “Great Equinox.” It could also allude to the Egyptian euphemism for death or “Westing” in Amenti, since Ra Horakhty is its gatekeeper as depicted on the Stele of Revealing and many other Egyptian funerary steles (the Egyptians love metaphors).
Here, Ra Hoor Khuit heralds the coming Age of Aquarius, with prophecies of the world wars that would come to pass leading up to it, spoken from the warrior’s mindset. The advent of the Anthropocene Era and the radical changes and events that have occurred since Liber L’s writing over 120 years ago up to the time of this writing make it clear that Ra Hoor Khuit has still truly been the conquering warlord of the current age of Pisces, not Osiris as Crowley asserts, nor is this “New Aeon of Horus” the astrological age of Aquarius. Ra Hoor Khuit’s appearance was to announce the coming “fall of the Great Equinox.”
Again, the Isis–Osiris–Horus Aeon scheme is arbitrary on Crowley’s part and not supported by what we know about the ancient Egyptian religion and its cosmology. Based on his conflation of Ra Hoor Khuit with Horus, the idea was likely inspired by the Golden Dawn with its LVX / Isis, Osiris, Apophis formula. Crowley may have borrowed from the Gnostic Aeon (Greek for “age” or “lifetime”) or Aeons, orders or spheres of being that emanated from the “absolute” or Pleroma.
Comparable with the Sephiroth or “spheres” in the Hebrew Kabbalah, which Crowley knew intimately, he viewed the Ennead of Neteru as the progenitors of these and attributed Egyptian gods to them in Liber 777. Isis, Osiris, and Horus, as mother, father, and male child, aren’t unique but are representative of the trinity motif repeated throughout the pantheon of Egyptian god–forms, i.e. Mut–Amun–Khonsu, Sekhmet–Ptah–Nefertem, and Hathor–Horus–Ihy. Nuit, Hadit, and Ra Hoor Khuit are no different. We don’t see Isis, Osiris, and Horus anywhere associated with three “ages;” besides, there are other Egyptian Neteru who measure the great spans of time, even in “millions of years” — the goddesses Seshat and Renpet.
The ancient Egyptians were astronomically savvy and had long been aware of the 2,150–year zodiacal cycle of the Precession of Equinoxes, marking the ages of Taurus as the Apis Bull of Horus and Aries as the Ram of Amun symbolically in their art and architecture. However, there is no evidence of a Precessional connection with the Isis–Osiris–Horus trinity, associated with the Heliacal rising of Sirius, the Osiris mysteries, nor with the related Festival of the New Year.
Crowley correctly surmises, however, that his “Aeon of the dying god” is coterminous with the advent of the Precessional age of Pisces and the demise of Dynastic Egypt. The esoteric Christian symbol of the Vesica Piscis, representing a fish, marks the Piscean age indelibly; after all, the death of Cleopatra VII in 30 BCE signaled the end of Egyptian sovereignty and was followed by the birth of Jesus just 30 years later. Just like Osiris, Jesus was killed and made into a “dying god,” a transformation that led inextricably to then–Christian Rome officially closing all the so-called pagan temples of the Neteru in 380 CE — the final death–knell of the worship of the gods.
As a side note, the Egyptians viewed a certain fish as being either “evil” or "divine" inasmuch that it was said to have devoured the missing 14th part of dismembered Osiris (his phallus), which was thrown into the Nile by his murderous brother Set and lost forever.
Most astrologers agree that the age of Pisces commenced with the death of the last Ptolemaic pharaoh Cleopatra, the rise of Imperial Rome, and the ministry of Jesus. This is telling. The subsequent Persian, Macedonian, and Roman conquests of Egypt during the Late Period, followed by the Roman Christian usurping and defacement of the remaining evacuated temples, marked the fall of the age of Amun and Aries (both represented as rams) and the dawn of the age of Pisces, ruled by the god of war Herukhuti, who has been guarding the holy places and fending off the chaotic forces of Isfet ever since.
Now, after well over a century of Ra Hoor Khuit’s prophesied destructive and bloody world wars, we are fast approaching the cusp of the age of the air sign Aquarius — the water bearer, messenger, or teacher, attributed to the Tarot Atu, The Star. The Egyptian Netjer Thoth is well attributed to airy Aquarius in this role, with his sacred ibis often depicted in a tree on the popular images of The Star card. Correspondingly then, the next Great Equinox, or “Aeon,” if one must attribute an Egyptian god to it, would logically be that of the ibis–headed Thoth — the great record keeper, inventor of writing, and instructor of scribes, called Tahuti, or more correctly the Djehuty, depicted below. Thoth was later appropriated by the Greeks and Romans as the messenger of the gods called Hermes and Mercury respectively, all wielding the double serpent–entwined Caduceus. Recall if you will: “… the fall of the Great Equinox, when Hrumachis shall arise and the double wanded one assume my throne and place.”
Djehuty with his “double wand” bestows the breath of spiritual life, the Ankh, to Seti I in his Temple at Abydos. Note the 7 two lustral purification water jars, also depicted on The Star card. 2018 photo by author.
Thoth’s sacred number was 8 in ancient Egypt, in concordance with the 8th Sephirah Hod in the Western Esoteric Qabalah ruling the numbers and letters, names and spells, and the planet/god Mercury. Khemenu, Thoth’s holy city, literally meaning "Eight–Town," is named after the Ogdoad, a group of eight primordial deities whose cult was situated there. It was later called Hermopolis “Hermes City” by the Greeks. Correspondingly, eight planes of the Great Pyramid, not four, are only visible on the Equinoxes. The Star Tarot card depicts 8 eight-pointed stars, and is numbered 17, which numerologically reduces to Thoth’s magic number 8.
Students of the Hermetic Mysteries and Crowley’s Book of Thoth with its accompanying Tarot should take note. Thoth is a reflective lunar god; and in his 1917 “Ancient Egypt,” the eminent Egyptologist Flinders Petrie tells us: “Tahuti is the Moon–god, ‘he who is the moon,’ and Zehu or Zehut as a name for the moon is indicated by the words zehat ‘the white metal, lead’. This may be connected with צח, tzakh (tzaddi cheth), “white, shining, clear.””
In Zodhiates’ “Hebrew Concordance,” the Hebrew root word commonly anglicized as tzakh is also defined as “dazzling, sunny, bright,” and is used figuratively as “evident,” i.e. “clear, dry, plain, white.” The letter צ tzaddi is of prime interest here since Crowley exchanges it's order with the Hebrew letter ה heh, and their corresponding cards The Star and The Emperor in his Tarot attributions — all according to his mistaken take from the passage in Liber Legis where Nuit advises, “All these old letters of my Book are aright; but צ is not the Star.”
Therefore, contrary to Crowley’s exchange, “all these old letters… are aright,” the Hebrew letter is correctly attributed to The Star, but tzaddi, צ, is quite literally not the Star, but rather a fishhook or hook–billed water bird, and derives from an inverted ibis hieroglyph 𓅞. This sacred ibis is also the ancient Egyptian symbol of both the “shining one” or “effective spirit” called the Akh 𓅜, and of Thoth/Tahuti/Djehuty 𓁟, the “thrice greatest” inventor of the hieroglyphs and writing, and the teacher and initiator in the House of Life (Per Ankh).
Accordingly, “tzaddi צ is not the Star,” it is plainly the sacred ibis of Thoth, portrayed in a tree in the background on several important published versions of the Tarot card. The fact that attention has been directed to Thoth, the Akh, the Star, and the sign Aquarius may have some relevance then to the nature of the “Great Equinox” that Ra Hoor Khuit speaks of. An interesting side note: in the astronomical Precession sequence, our still current Pisces, attributed to the card The Moon, sits in between The Emperor as Aries and the Star as Aquarius.
.jpg "scan17_(2016_04_24_18_30_34_UTC)")
The author’s personal hand-colored BOTA Tarot card The Star.
Crowley omits the sacred ibis from his Thoth Tarot design of The Star, exchanging Tzaddi with Heh, something he may have reconsidered had he made the lunar Tahuti connection with the shining Hebrew צח, tz-akh (tzaddi cheth). He had a thing about Tz and Tzar or Tsar as an emperor, but how could he have not known about the Egyptian zahut and the ibis hieroglyphs of Djhuty/Thoth or the Akh?
Meanwhile, his unsatisfactory exchange of the positions and letters of The Star with The Emperor on the Tree of Life remains contentious among Tarot aficionados and is not incorporated into the Wandering Stars system. Tzaddi may not be the Silver Star itself, but teaching and/or initiation via Thoth remains integral to the transmission of its Light and the Spiritual Life of the Akh. Truly, communication in the form of Information Technology (IT) will be the lord of the Aquarian Age. The the five-pointed Star as the root of Sebayt - teaching.
The words of the Neteru of The Book of Law expressly tell us that all of the rituals of the “old–time” are “abrogate” and “black.” Crowley somewhat bitterly suggested that this referred to Christianity or even the Golden Dawn system. Despite these admonitions, Crowley himself tried to pour the “new wine” of Liber Legis into the “old wine–skins” of the previous so–called “Old–Aeon” Masonic OTO, and even Catholic–flavored EGC initiations and rituals.
I believe that this is why, despite having preserved Crowley’s legacy all these years, for which we should be eternally grateful, he and his heirs have failed to effectively initiate the raison d’etre of The Threefold Book of Law:
To wit — to usher in an “atavistic resurgence” (borrowing from occultist Austin Osman Spare), or a “Remembrance” (the Egyptians called it “Sekhau”) of the magical religion and sacred science of Late Period ancient Egypt and worship of the beloved gods and goddesses — the Neteru who bequeathed it to us. I refer to this repeatedly as “the Egyptian dispensation,” for want of a better phrase.
The words of the gods in Liber Legis are a cry of love, a revelation, and serve as a warning to prepare us for upheavals incumbent with the great global changes in store since its reception with the immanent Great Equinox. They adjure us to acquire spiritual strength by seeking our pure Will, Thelema, and to find fortitude through their words and divine presence when the going gets rough. We should not doubt that it will.
The icon and inspiration of The Threefold Book of Law, the Stele of Ankh af na Khonsu, was created by an early 26th Dynasty artisan under the rule of Psamtik I, the first pharaoh of the Late Period. This was the final flourishing of native Egyptian rulership, ending with the last native Pharaoh, Nectanebo II in 342 BCE; particularly famous for beginning the primary reconstruction of the temples of Hathor at Dendera and of Horus at Edfu, finished later by Ptolemaic Pharaohs and Roman emperors.
After defeating the Persians who had briefly conquered Egypt after Nectanebo, the native Egyptian religion was adopted wholeheartedly by the Macedonian Alexander the Great, who became Pharaoh, seen carved on the walls of Luxor temple. He was followed after his untimely demise by his Greek Ptolemaic heirs who kept the Sacred Science alive and vibrant until the death of Cleopatra VII circa 30 BCE, after whom we see its decline and ultimate extinction at the hands of Christianized Rome circa 380 CE.
While visiting Egypt, I too discovered firsthand, as did Alexander, Herodotus, and so many others before and after them, and just as Aleister Crowley and his wife Rose did, that the effective spirits of the Neteru are very real, potent, and present. They require little if any invocation — just visiting their sanctuaries seems to do the trick for some, especially if you are already familiar with them as I was — and I challenge anyone to do the same. No one who enters their ancient homes will leave unimpressed, as others who have received direct downloads from them will attest.
Honestly, the Neteru were upon me as soon as I stepped onto that downtown Cairo street at noon on March 17th, 2018. They knew that I knew them and were waiting, opening the way throughout my entire Equinox adventure. I immediately understood that it is their will that we might remember them and that they have bequeathed to us, through the material agency of their brilliant though all–too–human prophet, this incredible document, The Threefold Book of Law.
Channeled by Crowley’s wife Rose and written down by him, the holograph manuscript of Liber L vel Legis stands as a proof, a token, and a testament to the love that the Neteru, particularly the Queen of Space Nuit, has for humanity. My own Thelema is to bring their message to those of you who find yourselves here still reading thus far. Crowley’s subsequent writings can come later — if it is your will. Like some few others, I know in my heart that The Book of Law is, for want of better terms, a divinely inspired transmission from three “praeter–human” Late Period Egyptian divinities who truly have our very best interests in mind.
Even though so much of it is initially incomprehensible and some is perhaps even repugnant upon the first reading, the inscrutable Egyptian terminology and the more alarming passages are easier to understand with some basic Egyptology 101. As a prime example, the militant sections in the second and especially third chapters reflect the 26th Dynasty mindset during the final centuries of the great Egyptian civilization with the decline and fall of the age of Amun and Aries, somehow frozen in time by the Stele of Ankh af na Khonsu.
We might also look at these passages through the eyes of Ra Hoor Khuit’s prophesied World Wars I and II that followed soon after LL’s reception. Such phrasings are the leitmotif of Egyptian magical protection spells such as those carved as a warning on temple walls, the perennial martial allegory of the striding king depicted as Herukhuti, forcefully establishing Ma’at (order) over the destructive forces of Isfet (chaos), seeking justice, judging the transgressor, and meting out punishment to those who would harm Egypt. Such is the depiction of Ramesses III below, binding and smiting foreign enemies at his mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (March 2018 photo by author).
Protection from foreign attacks became the core concern of Egyptian life after the Middle Kingdom, but most especially after the Bronze Age Collapse during the New Kingdom, and such statements and depictions of divine protection, martial strength, and subjugation of their enemies were essentially magic spells that established a unified protective link between the Neteru, the pharaoh, and the people. Imagine the effect that such a commandingly huge image, artfully carved in bas–relief on the grand temple pylons and painted in garish colors, with three decapitated heads underfoot would have on any foreigners sizing up a possible attack, and you will understand the psychological nature of Egyptian Heka, magic.
In the case of Liber Legis, I believe the bellicose and seemingly bloodthirsty statements are a distinct hallmark of Egyptian apopotraic magic from the hyper–defensive Late Period, forging a protective spell or agreement between the Neteru and the reader who begins to know them — while sending everybody else running for the hills. It certainly seems to have had that effect for Liber Legis over the past 120 years
Of course, one might also take these threatening passages to heart in these latter days of the global rise of militant autocracies and of gun–brandishing white Christian nationalism and its stark authoritarian threat to democracy. Only time will tell. Again, one might better view the words through the lens of wartime eyes to understand. Also, it must be mentioned that warriors and wars have always been metaphoric themes for those traversing the Path of Self–Knowledge and Transcendence, in many traditions. Typical of the ancient Egyptian writings, the message applies then to different planes.
Over the years, the truly Egyptian dispensation of The Threefold Book of Law began to unfold for me through my study of their sacred science of religious magic, revealing information regarding the Egyptian cosmogony and practices that even the admitted know–it–all Crowley rarely if ever addressed in his copious writings, much less even knew in the first place. And that is not meant as a dig, it is simply a fact.
Reading through Egyptological eyes, as I’ve demonstrated, revealed the deeper meanings of Khabs and Khu, his conflation of the so-called “New Aeon of Horus” with the age of Aquarius, and the related key behind his ill-advised tzaddi/heh Emperor/Star switcheroo. And those are just a few outstanding examples. While Aleister Crowley wasn’t altogether savvy in Egyptology, he had a different angle he was working from, as we will discuss later. The fact is, time hasn’t been particularly kind to Crowley’s breadth of Egyptological knowledge or practice. Those like myself who’ve studied their writings and religion and are privy to the archaeological evidence simply cannot ignore the strong current of Egyptian symbolism and spirituality in Liber L vel Legis.
Following Crowley’s later writing, many contemporary Thelemites consider the Egyptian god–name variants in the book to be purely literary, i.e. “Egyptoid” metaphors, rather than actual Egyptian deities or divine energy–intelligences in their own right; except of course Ra Hoor Khuit, who Crowley claimed to have successfully invoked as “Horus” on the Equinox of the Gods in 1904. Go figure. Right or wrong, he later regarded Aiwass to be the singular messenger of Liber L, a “Secret Chief,” and his own Holy Guardian Angel above all, for reasons we shall see later on.
It always seemed obvious to me that Aiwass was the given name of the Akh or “effective spirit” of the deceased priest Ankh-af-na-Khonsu, thus including all four personalities on the Stele of Revealing in the book. Be that as it may, as for Aleister and Rose in 1904 and many others, the “praeter–human” Egyptian Neteru of The Threefold Book of Law became a certainty for me after my encounters with them in their sanctuaries in the great temples in Egypt. Armed with a pretty firm grasp of Egyptology when I arrived there in the spring of 2018, my singular experiences left no doubt in my mind and heart as to the “reality” of these four beings.
So, despite my admiration of Crowley’s erudition and his writing, his deviation from the Egyptian raison d’etre of The Threefold Book of Law is a major bone of contention for me and some few others, one that can only be remedied with a forthright, fact–based “Kemetic” exploration. I trust that a few of the fruits of such an Egyptological concordance have been amply demonstrated in the previous paragraphs.
The Egyptians referred to their nation as Kemet, meaning “black land,” after the life–giving rich dark alluvial deposits of the annual Nile floods. Thus, I refer to my practice as “Kemetic Thelema” in contradistinction to Crowley’s magickal cultus currently recognized as the “official religion.” Meanwhile, the closest I’ve seen to any notable bonafide work with the ancient Egyptian religion from them was OTO member James Wasserman’s involvement in the publication of the beautiful transcription and reproduction of the Papyrus of Ani, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Book of Going Forth by Day,” after which, and I hate to say but feel I must, he went off the deep end into the alternative reality of the NRA/MAGA/Q world before he Wested.
However, other independent Thelemites are laying the groundwork, such as a certain L.C.F. who published the fabulous “A Comprehensive List of the Ancient Egyptian Gods and Goddesses” in 2013, and the lovely UK Thelemite witches, author Mogg Morgan and his wife Diti, who are working diligently to reproduce Egyptian astrological magic, a hopeful sign. Again, not being a member privy to their inner workings, there may very well be a handful of other practicing Kemetic Thelemites in the Orders and Lodges, but I am not aware of any. Perhaps publishing this will connect me with them.
Meanwhile, reproductions of the Stele of Ankh af na Khonsu are reverently placed on every A∴A∴, EGC, and OTO high altar, and Ra is invoked at sunrise, noon, sunset, and midnight by all the faithful with Crowley’s daily Liber Resh ritual, in which he has two Neteru correct, but misplaced, and two incorrectly named. Their names and assignments were described earlier concerning the cosmology of the stele’s enthroned solar deity Ra Horakhty. Such unavoidable corrections are sometimes the result of applying a bit of Egyptology to The Threefold Book of Law.
Much work has yet to be done to flesh out the Egyptian concordance in Liber Legis, I only offered what I consider the most noteworthy examples. An upcoming article with some collaboration is in the works.
Thelema Historical Background:
Having discussed, and, I trust, established the Egyptian dispensation of Liber L, I’ll present the essential history of events surrounding the reception of the book, followed by a rundown of what I feel are the most important takeaways from Crowley and his Magick of Thelema. Bear in mind that Wandering Stars operates independently under the auspices of the Neteru and Liber Legis first and foremost, and is not formally associated with the aforementioned religious Orders that have survived Aleister Crowley. Even so, as do they and the Neteru, I regard him as the first and preeminent prophet of The Threefold Book of Law.
For those unfamiliar with the story, I’ll bring you up to speed by first offering a brief bio leading up to the writing. I’ll do my best to do so as economically as possible without losing the substance of his Great Work and this amazing story. Those seeking additional biographical information concerning Crowley’s magickal career and his organizations will be relieved that other far more able writers (including himself) have undertaken the task — I always suggest letting his writing speak for itself first anyway.
Unfortunately, Aleister Crowley’s checkered reputation precedes him, as do the dubious and damaging claims made by his enemies and detractors who would have you believe that he was a Satan–worshiping, drug-addled sociopath who ruined the lives of his followers, sacrificing hundreds of babies along the way. No doubt, some is true — he had issues, but I’ll leave it to those readers who know me personally to decide for themselves if they think that, having been an ardent student of Crowley’s writings, The Book of Law, and Thelema for over 30 years, I have given them any substantial evidence of reflecting such socially aberrant behavior to any lesser or greater degree — and rest my case. I won’t be revisiting the sordid tales here. Hopefully, the following information will reveal a bit of the real man behind all the mystery and misinformation.
Aleister Crowley - A Short Biography
Early Years:
Edward Alexander Crowley (pronounced crow–lee, like the black bird) was born October 12, 1875 in Leamington Spa, England, an heir to a wealthy brewing business family. Interestingly, two other significant occult events happened that year: Madame Blavatsky founded the Theosophical Society, and the Cabalist/mage Eliphaz Levi died (Crowley would later claim to be his reincarnation). In the meantime, his parents were members of the Plymouth Brethren, a strict fundamentalist Christian sect, his mother being particularly fanatic in her beliefs. Because of this, Alec (his boyhood name) was raised under a strict, and we might assume harsh, biblical discipline, developing a distinct distaste for Christianity, along with a photographic memory of the Bible.
As he tells it, this was not lost on his mother, who upbraided him for being a know–it–all and “smart alec,” calling him “The Beast” in her self–righteous outrage over his rebellious boyhood ways, an epithet that quite understandably stuck with him through the years as we shall see. His father died in March of 1887, leaving young Crowley the estate under the executorship of his mother and her Christian advisors. He writes in “The Equinox of the Gods,”
“After the death of his father, who was a man of strong common sense, and never allowed his religion to interfere with natural affection, he was in the hands of people of an entirely contrary disposition. His mental attitude was soon concentrated in hatred of the religion which they taught, and his will concentrated in revolt against its oppressions. His main method of relief was mountaineering, which left him alone with nature, away from the tyrants.”
Adulthood:
He attended Trinity College at Cambridge University, leaving just before completing his degree.
It was at this time that the athletic young mountain climber (a protégé of the accomplished mountaineer Oscar Eckenstein), chess master, and budding poet took the pen name Aleister, the name he would use for the remainder of his life. Soon after this Crowley met George Cecil Jones, a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, an influential London occult society and mystery school with Masonic and Rosicrucian ties, into which he was initiated at the age of 23 in 1898.
The GD was founded circa 1880 by three “initiates” — William Wynn Wescott, Samuel Liddell "MacGregor" Mathers, and William Kenneth Woodman, all fellow Masons (with Wescott being a Master Mason), who were also members of the SRIA, Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia, the English Rosicrucian Society. Woodman led the group until he died in 1891, with the brilliant and charismatic Mathers taking the reins as leader of the organization when he created the ritual for the Adeptus Minor grade of initiation.
Mathers is most famous for his seminal work “The Kabbalah Unveiled,” published in 1887, and his collaboration with mystic Helena Petrovna Blavatsky on her "Isis Unveiled." The organization was ostensibly created to continue the efforts of exploring the Western Mysteries after she and her Theosophical Society turned toward the Eastern Mysteries of Vedanta and Hinduism.
The syncretic curriculum of the GD prepared the aspirants for 10 ascending “grades” of initiation based on the Tree of Life glyph, and included Qabalah, Tarot, Astrology, Ceremonial Magic, and the invocation of several Egyptian god–forms, among other esoteric magical arts including the Hindu Tattvas.
The Order had many notable and influential members, including Arthur E. Waite (creator of the well–known Rider–Waite Tarot), Violet Firth (pen name Dion Fortune — author of The Mystical Qabalah), Bram Stoker (author of Dracula), author Florence Farr, and the poet William Butler Yeats, among others from British high society.
Its influence on the later development of contemporary Western Esoteric Traditions cannot be understated; accordingly, a more detailed history of the GD will be offered in my upcoming article “About The TAROT.” For a fairly definitive exposition of its practices, Crowley’s ex–secretary Israel Regardie’s “The Golden Dawn” is the place to go for some details.
Beginning in 1887 Crowley studied Mathers’ “The Kabbalah Unveiled” assiduously while mountain climbing, and was soon initiated into the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in 1898, taking the name Perdurabo, a Latin motto meaning "he shall endure to the end.” He ascended the system rapidly, achieving the Second Order Adeptus Minor grade in 1899. Crowley was already well known for being, as his mother said, a “know–it–all,” and his aggressive arrogance was not lost on the membership, several of whom were put off by his superior grasp of Hebrew, his anti–Christian stance and “depraved” libertinism, and they took Mathers to task for taking the young prodigy/savant Crowley under his wing.
Then, in 1900, the order was torn apart, perhaps due somewhat to personality conflicts between Yeats and Crowley, but more primarily precipitated by Mathers’ alcoholism and financial issues, and a scandal over the authenticity of the Order’s claimed German Rosicrucian lineage and founding “Cipher Manuscript.”
Having inherited his father’s wealth a few years prior, Crowley offered Mathers financial help, but it only made matters worse. Westcott, Farr, Yeats, and others eventually voted to expel Mathers and Crowley from the Order, after which it broke up, splintering into four separate groups, one of them Crowley’s A∴A∴.
He would claim later, after the reception of Liber Legis, that this was proof that the order had “failed to initiate” and to forge a link with the so–called “Secret Chiefs” of the true Rosicrucian Order.
Disgusted, young Aleister distanced himself from Mathers and gave up his magickal career with the Golden Dawn. Financed by his inheritance, he left England to travel the world and extensively throughout the East. While in India he met up with his beloved GD mentor, Allan Bennet, who was by then calling himself Bikkhu Meteya, having the distinction of being one of the very first Westerners to convert to Tibetan Buddhism. Here, in the mountains of Kashmir, Bennet instructed Crowley in the rigorous mental and physical disciplines of Yoga, techniques that would later become integrated into his personal practice and training systems.
Here Bennet would also bequeath Crowley his extensive dictionary of Hebrew Gematria with words and their number values, which formed the basis of the Sepher Sephiroth in Liber 777.
Then, according to Crowley’s accounts, in 1903 he eloped with a debutante named Rose Edith Kelly on a lark to save her from an arranged marriage (he calls her ‘Ouarda’ or ‘W.’ — Arabic for Rose in his diaries), and they traveled the world for their honeymoon, winding up in Egypt. In his “Equinox of the Gods” Crowley tells us that in November of that year, he performed an invocation in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid that caused a glow of pale blue light to the amazement of the onlookers. After more traveling, they returned to Cairo in March of 1904. I will let Crowley tell the rest of the story himself from Chapter 49 of his autobiography called The Confessions:
“This chapter is the climax of this book. Its contents are so extraordinary, they demand such breadth and depth of preliminary explanation, that I am in despair. It is so serious to me that my responsibility overwhelms me. My entire previous life was but a preparation for this event, and my entire subsequent life has been not merely determined by it, but wrapped up in it.
Most of the past nine years of my life have been preoccupied, each year more fully than the last, with the problem of proving to humanity in general the propositions involved. To make the elements of my thesis as clear and distinct as possible, I shall endeavour to insulate them in sections.
Ouarda and I left Helwan for Cairo. (Date unascertained, probably on March 11th or 13th.) We had taken an apartment (Address unascertained) on Wednesday, March 16th. One day, having nothing special to do, I made the “Preliminary Invocation” referred to above. I had no more serious purpose than to show her the sylphs (spirits of elemental Air and their pale blue glow) as I might have taken her to the theatre. She could not (or refused to) see them, but instead got into a strange state of mind. I had never seen her anything at all like it before. She kept on repeating dreamily, yet intensely, “They are waiting for you.” I was annoyed at her conduct.
March 17th. I don't remember whether I repeated my attempt to show her the sylphs, but probably did. It is in my character to persist. She again got into the same state and repeated her remarks, adding, “It is all about the child.” And “All Osiris.” I think I must have been annoyed by her contumacy. Perhaps for this reason I invoked Thoth, the god of wisdom, presumably by the invocation printed in Liber Israfel (The Equinox, Vol. I, Vo. VII), which I knew by heart. I may also have been subconsciously wondering whether there was not something in her remarks, and wanted to be enlightened. The record says, “Thoth, invoked with great success, indwells us.” But this strikes me as to some extent “written up” in a spirit of complacency, if not arrogance. I remember nothing of any result.
March 18th. Possibly I repeated the invocation. The record says, “Revealed that the waiter was Horus, whom I had offended and ought to invoke.” “Waiter” sounds like a sneer. I thought it was sheer impudence of Ouarda to offer independent remarks. I want her to see the sylphs.
I must have been impressed by one point. How did Ouarda know that I had offended Horus? The troubles of Mathers were due to his excessive devotion to Mars, who represents one side of the personality of Horus, and no doubt I was inclined to err in the opposite directions, to neglect and dislike Mars as the personification of unintelligent violence.
But was her bull's–eye a fluke? Her mention of Horus gave me a chance to cross–examine her. “How do you know that it is Horus who is telling you all this? Identify him.” (Ouarda knew less Egyptology than ninety–nine Cairene tourists out of one hundred.) Her answers were overwhelming. The odds against her being right were one in many million.
We cannot too strongly insist on the extraordinary character of this identification. We had made no pretension to clairvoyance; nor had P. ever tried to train her. P. had great experience with clairvoyants, and it was always a point of honour with him to bowl them out. And here was a novice, a woman who should never have been allowed outside a ballroom, speaking with the authority of God, and proving it by unhesitating correctness.
I allowed her to go on. She instructed me how to invoke Horus. The instructions were, from my point of view, pure rubbish. I suggested amending them. She emphatically refused to allow a single detail to be altered. She promised success (whatever that might mean) on Saturday or Sunday. If I had any aspiration left at all, it was to attain Samadhi (which I had not yet ever done). She promised that I should do so. I agreed to carry out her instructions, avowedly in order to show her that nothing could happen if you broke all the rules.
March 19th. I wrote out the ritual and did the invocation with little success. I was put off, not only by my skepticism and the absurdity of the ritual, but by having to do it in robes at an open window on a street at noon. She allowed me to make the second attempt at midnight.
March 20th. The invocation was a startling success. I was told that “The Equinox of the Gods had come”; that is, that a new epoch had begun. I was to formulate a link between the solar–spiritual force and mankind.
March 21st–22nd–23rd. There seems to have been a reaction after the success of the twentieth. The phenomena faded out. I tried to clear up my position by the old methods and did a long Tarot divination which proved perfectly futile."
Now comes the famous episode in the Egyptian Museum where the encounter with the Stele of Ankh af na Khonsu unfolds, as Crowley continues this fascinating report of testing her on Horus in Chapter 6 of “The Equinox of the Gods:”
The Egyptian Museum, downtown Cairo Egypt, March 16, 2018 photo by author — very much as it would have appeared to Aleister and Rose in March of 1904.
"But we know that she was perfectly ignorant of the subtle correspondences, which were only existing at that time in Fra. P.'s own brain. And even if it were so, how are we to explain what followed — the discovery of the Stele of Revealing?
To apply test 4, Fra.P. took her to the museum at Boulak*, which they had not previously visited."
*Note: He was mistaken, as the old Boulak museum had already moved to the new museum’s location in downtown Cairo two years before their arrival.
She passed by (as P. noted with silent glee) several images of Horus.
They went upstairs. A glass case stood in the distance, too far off for its contents to be recognized. But W. recognized it! “There,” she cried, ‘There he is!”
“Fra. P. advanced to the case. There was the image of Horus in the form of Ra Hoor Khuit painted upon a wooden stele of the 26th dynasty—and the exhibit bore the number 666!”
.jpg "stele3_(2016_04_24_18_30_34_UTC)")
Above: The Stele’ of Ankh–af–na–Khonsu, in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Vernal Equinox 2004.
This is much how it would have appeared to Aleister and Rose a century earlier.
Below: The Stele’ of Ankh–af–na–Khonsu, in the Egyptian Museum 2004, with the label partially visible.
Photos courtesy of Ab Nephthys
.jpg "stele2_(2016_04_24_18_30_34_UTC)")
.jpg "Image18_(2016_04_24_18_30_34_UTC)")
The original Boulak label next to the Stele.
A.C. continues in his Confessions:
"On some day before March 23rd, Ouarda identified the particular god with whom she was in communication from a stele in the Boulak* Museum, which we had never visited. It is not the ordinary form of Horus but Ra–Hoor–Khuit. (The god is identified on the stele as Ra Horakhty.) I was no doubt very much struck by the coincidence that the exhibit, a quite obscure and undistinguished stele, bore the catalogue number 666. But I dismissed it as an obvious coincidence."
Then there is this excerpt from Crowley’s diary notes purportedly before the reception of the Book of Law — from The Equinox of the Gods:
“In the museum at Cairo, No. 666 is the stele of the Priest Ankh–f–n–khonsu.
Horus has a red Disk and green Uraeus.
His face is green, his skin indigo.
His necklace, anklets, and bracelets are gold.
His nemyss nearly black from blue.
His tunic is the Leopard’s skin, and his apron green and gold.
Green is the wand of double Power; his r.h. is empty.
His throne is indigo the gnomon, red the square.
The light is gamboge.
Above his are the Winged Globe and the bent figure of the heavenly Isis, her hands and feet touching earth.”
Crowley appears to have had no idea of the true names of the god–forms at that time, although they are indeed connected in the Egyptian religious pantheon. (See my Wandering Stars article The Stele of Ankh af na Khonsu for more technical information on the artifact.)
Back to his Confessions:
"March 23rd to April 7th. I made inquiries about the stele and had the inscriptions translated into French by the assistant curator at Boulak*. I made poetic paraphrases of them. Ouarda now told me to enter the room, where all this work had been done, exactly at noon on April 8th, 9th and 10th, and write down what I heard, rising exactly at one o'clock. This I did. In these three hours were written the three chapters of The Book of the Law.
The above statement is as succinct as I can make it. By April 8th, I had been convinced of the reality of the communication and obeyed my wife's arbitrary instructions with a certain confidence. I retained my skeptical attitude none the less.”
The goddess Nuit distinctly designates Aleister Crowley as her prophet in the Book of Law, referring to him as Ankh af na Khonsu, and almost wryly, as "the beast." Perhaps it was humor, or even motherly, knowing the nickname his mother had given him as if to verify the museum’s 666 stele label synchronicity. It was most assuredly Qabalistic, representing the 6th sphere of Tiphareth and his GD Second Order grade of Adeptus Minor. And, of course, it all could have simply come from his own mind. But one might see why he was impressed.
Be that as it may, reluctantly at first, Crowley would spend the rest of his life working to develop and establish the philosophy and practice of Thelema per his personal understanding of The Threefold Book of Law. From that point on he referred to himself as To Mega Therion, Τὸ Μέγα Θηρίον, Greek for "The Great Beast," which in Greek numerology or isopsephy adds numerically to 666. This suited his antimonious relationship with his mother and Victorian Christianity just fine. Meanwhile, his writings serve as a singularly powerful testimonial to his Great Work after the revelation of Liber L vel Legis.
.jpg "crowley10_(2016_04_24_18_30_34_UTC)")
Aleister Crowley in his early 30s with his reproduction of the Stele of Revealing, his small copy of Liber Legis, and magickal implements. Circa 1908–10.
Crowley’s Subsequent Magickal Career and Later Life:
To clarify — the term Magick, with a ‘k’, was a convention of Crowley’s, hearkening back to “olde English” magic grimoires, denoting the distinction between ritual or ceremonial magic and the Vegas magician’s sleight–of–hand stage magic or legerdemain (I discuss their merging elsewhere).
From his magnum opus “Magick, Liber ABA, Book 4:”
• "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will."
• "Magick is the method of science and the aim of religion."
• "Every intentional act is a Magickal act."
• "Magick is the Science of understanding oneself and one's conditions. It is the Art of applying that understanding in action."
• "Magick is merely to be and to do."
In 1906 Crowley rejoined fellow Golden Dawn member George Cecil Jones in England, where they set about the creation of a new teaching and initiating order, the “A∴A∴” (Astron Argon or Astrum Argentium — the Silver Star), to continue the Great Work of the now defunct Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, incorporating the Law of Thelema. Founded in 1907, the A∴A∴ subsequently became the primary vehicle for the transmission of Crowley's original system of initiation based on the principles of Qabalah and Eastern Mysticism, under the aegis of Thelema, which is often referred to as the “93 Current” since the Greek numerological value of the word Thelema is 93.
This was a prolific period for Crowley, yielding his best magick, writing, and publishing, including the first editions of “Liber Al vel Legis” and “Liber 777” in 1909. He used Liber Legis as his charter manuscript and founding document, claiming that, unlike the Golden Dawn, he himself had forged an authentic link with the Rosicrucian Secret Chiefs through Aiwass. And now we see the light, and we can see why he diminished Rose’s critical role as the one who made it all happen and channeled the three speakers in Liber L that Crowley then wrote down.
Rose was pregnant while they were in Cairo, and had two daughters with Crowley: Nuit Ma Ahathoor Hecate Sappho Jezebel Lilith (1904–06) and Lola Zaza (1907–90). After the tragic death of little Nuit Ma from a tropical infection, Rose turned to heavy drinking in her deep depression, and she and Crowley divorced in 1909. Lola was eventually taken in by her uncle, Gerald, and in 1911 Aleister reluctantly had Rose committed to an asylum for acute alcohol dementia where she later passed this mortal coil in 1932.
In 1913, soon after he published “Liber 333 — The Book of Lies,” he was contacted by Theodore Reuss, the head of a fraternal Masonic organization called the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO), again with Rosicrucian ties. This group of high–ranking German Freemasons claimed to have discovered the "supreme secret" (read: the sexual spark) of the ceremonial magic of the ancients, which was only taught in its highest degrees. As Crowley tells it, he had inadvertently revealed one of their "secrets" as an inside joke in his recently published little masterwork. According to Crowley, Reuss invited him to become a member of the OTO based entirely upon this passage, and so he eagerly accepted, eventually taking over as head of the order after Reuss suffered a debilitating stroke in 1921.
Crowley subsequently seized the reins of the organization, reformulating the rites of the OTO to conform with the Book of Law (somewhat — though lacking emphasis on the Egyptian dispensation), vesting the group with the “noble ideal” of establishing his cultus of Thelema throughout the world. However, due mostly to public perception of Crowley’s increasingly sordid reputation and somewhat questionable claim of being a Mason, the order became divorced from Freemasonry and, like the Golden Dawn and A∴A∴, the OTO broke with the crusty fraternal tradition by opening its membership to men who were not Masons and, heaven forbid, to women! Pretty forward thinking given his reputation.
Nevertheless, he led the men and women of the A∴A∴ and the OTO successfully and continued writing and publishing for another 25 years. His wealth depleted by legal woes, hedonistic lifestyle, and chronic health problems, Aleister Crowley died peacefully at the age of 72 of obstructive cardiopulmonary disease in his simple apartment in Hastings, England on December 1, 1947. His magickal career spanned a half–century, most of which was spent living his adage “do what thou wilt” — enjoying life, performing his magick, overseeing his Orders, writing, publishing, and otherwise forwarding the Law of Thelema.
Crowley’s greatest supporter and the Grand Treasurer in the Order, the long–suffering Karl Germer, took over the OTO after relocating to the US from Germany - having been freed from a Nazi concentration camp at the end of WW II. He immediately set upon collecting and organizing Crowley’s oeuvre and undertook the task of publishing many of his books in the 1950s. Germer died of cancer at 77 in California in 1962, leaving no official heir besides his second wife Sascha, also an OTO member, who died soon after.
Germer’s will provided that all of Crowley’s literary remains and materials should ultimately go to the Heads of Ordo Templi Orientis. Despite nearly fading away after Crowley and Germer’s deaths, his Orders survived thanks to a handful of pioneering Californians in the heady psychedelic late sixties, most notably Germer’s student Phyllis Seckler and Crowley’s assistant Grady McMurtry. Leading members of the two respective original magickal societies, they fortuitously assumed control of the A∴A∴ and the OTO — which are, in testimony to their vision, still functioning as teaching and initiating orders to this day.
Crowley's legacy yet lives on in his “Liber L vel Legis” and its Law of Thelema, which has become a religion in its own right, with thousands of adherents worldwide. His writings on the Qabalah and Tarot still serve as the backbone of nearly every 20th and 21st–century Western Esoteric Tradition you can shake a stick at, as do his writings on magick, yoga, and other mystical subjects, but most especially his Qabalistic compendium “Liber 777”, “Liber 333 — The Book of Lies,” and the indispensable “Magick, Liber ABA, Book 4.”
The Threefold Book of Law
I read Liber Legis for the first time on Earth Day of the year 1993, and counted myself fortunate in not having the myth–information and negative opinions of others thrust upon me to color my first approach to Aleister Crowley’s writings. I never had a chance to peruse the bad press before reading his primary works, and they were sublime; not only The Book of the Law but also The Book of Lies, both filled with Qabalistic puzzles, brilliant apocryphal riddle–like verses and poetry, even including a few compelling rituals. If I had been poisoned against him without first reading for myself, I would have never known the rich legacy of his brilliant philosophical, spiritually uplifting, and I dare say, divinely inspired writing. After getting to know his punctilious style well, it becomes readily apparent that his “Liber L Vel Legis,” or at least most of it, did not come from his mind alone.
An accomplished and prolific author and poet, Crowley sorted his works into five main Classes categorizing the writings by how they were either “received” or conceived, and their function as “organs” of his A∴A∴ and OTO organizations. Any works that he considered to be a product of his “Knowledge and Conversation of his Holy Guardian Angel” are identified as Class ‘A’ and are referred to as the “Holy Books of Thelema,” with “Liber AL vel Legis — The Book of the Law” heading the list. Following the injunction from Liber Legis itself: "Change not as much as the style of a letter,” he asserts that they are not to be “reproved” or otherwise "tampered with" since, as he tells us, "… they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization."
Unfortunately, neither Crowley nor his heirs have obeyed the injunction much with “Liber Al vel Legis,” even after the gods commanded the book’s prophet not to change a thing!
Meanwhile, those entrusted with formal control of Crowley’s written works argue over “fill me” or “kill me,” offering only edited and redacted publications of “The Book of the Law.” I and many others feel this is simply untenable, contradicting the plain demands written therein. It’s unfaithful to the spirit and words of the book as a sacred text to edit out anything, and it simply isn’t the same without these sections left intact for the reader’s edification.
Crowley changed the title of the manuscript from ‘L’ to ‘AL’ for his typeset publications upon the discovery by his (later disowned) protégé’ and “Magickal Child,” Charles Stansfield Jones, that both the Hebrew AL (God) and Nothing (LA) add to 31 in Qabalistic Gematria. Thus, the subtitle “Sub Figura XXXI” is given for all print publications of the redacted text.
Being virtually impossible to read the facsimiles of Crowley’s cursive Liber L manuscript, I have sought to remedy the situation with the Wandering Stars edition and publication of “Liber L vel Legis, The Threefold Book of Law,” a rectification and transcription of the original unredacted handwritten holograph manuscript published per the laws of the Public Domain. Again, the goddess Nuit identifies its title in the writing itself: “This that thou writest is the threefold Book of Law.”
The Wandering Stars edition of “The Threefold Book of Law” and “The Comment” is presented in red and black print, per LL III:39:
“All this and a book to say how thou didst come hither and a reproduction of this ink and paper forever — for in it is the word secret & not only in the English — and thy comment upon this the Book of the Law shall be printed beautifully in red ink and black upon beautiful paper made by hand…”
In the ancient Egyptian “Book of the Dead” and other magical papyri, the titles, commentary, descriptions, and instructions were written in red hieroglyphs, with the body of the text black. The palettes of the scribes, called zeha (zẖꜣ), had both red and black ink wells expressly for that purpose.
Following the Egyptian dispensation of the book, Crowley’s original manuscript of “Liber L vel Legis, The Threefold Book of Law” text is therefore set in black, using my favorite Goudy Old Style font, including his crossed–out redactions likely done at the time of its writing. Aleister and Rose’s later insertions in ink are set in bold red, hers in Gabriola font (which looks remarkably similar to her handwriting). Most of these are included in all subsequent print editions. Crowley’s penciled notes, instructions, and numbering are presented in plain red.
The two presumably jotted these down on the manuscript soon after the reception, amending what Crowley had missed while hurriedly taking the dictation — things they had either remembered, understood, heard, or said. This includes a passage that he was adjured to clarify later where you can see Crowley struggling to keep up and to grasp and write down what he was hearing, striking out sentences, with Rose explaining or filling in the blanks later.
These are organic and show his more passive and receptive role in contrast to Rose’s active role in the reception of the book, negating assumptions that it all came from Crowley’s mind alone. And again, there are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perspectives throughout. It was at this time that the enigmatic cover page was first created with the title Liber ‘L’ vel Legis.
Per the instruction of the Neteru in the first and third chapters, all subsequent print versions were to insert portions of Crowley’s poetic paraphrase of the hieroglyphic text Stele’ of Revealing, and these are included in the Wandering Stars publication of “The Threefold Book of Law” in quotations and plain red italics. Compare these to the translation of the Stele text by Dr. Alan Gardiner and Battiscombe Gunn at: The Stele of Ankh af na Khonsu. Lastly, a black–and–white scale photocopy of the holograph manuscript is also included per the order of Ra Hoor Khuit above.
Once you have read this, my work here will be done. My suggestion is to do so ceremoniously, one chapter at a time beginning precisely at noon, rising at 1:00 p.m. — ideally, on the auspicious days of April 8, 9, and 10.
LL III:39 continues, “… and to each man and woman that thou meetest, were it but to dine and drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds. Do this quickly!”
Appended to every published copy of “Liber AL vel Legis, The Book of the Law” is Crowley’s penultimate “Comment” concerning the book, signed as the deceased Ankh–f–n–Khonsu. Nuit identified him by that title in the writing, after which Crowley believed himself to be the reincarnation of the long–dead Egyptian priest who was the owner of the stele. The comment, his response to an injunction for him to do so in Liber Legis, is often appropriately called “The Short Comment.”
This too is included in the Wandering Stars publication of Liber L vel Legis – The Threefold Book of Law:
THE COMMENT
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole 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.
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
Love is the law, love under will.
The priest of the princes,
On The “Short” Comment:
Looking closely into the intention of these cryptic words and flipping the perspective we can see how the study of The Book of Law would be, beyond any doubt, “forbidden.” Most Christian folks, as well as the regular mainstream secular authorities, would have you believe, based upon the flimsiest of facts, anecdotal evidence, gossip, if not outright fabrications, that the book was written by an all–around evil person — a child–sacrificing Satanist even — and thereby should be rejected offhand as unacceptable to the social norm.
Even today, because of Crowley’s skewed negative press, Thelema has a personality crisis. His work is mostly either sensationalized in the media, or is ignored and looked down upon by almost everyone else, even by otherwise Neo–Pagan, New Age, Western Esoteric, or occult communities. Meanwhile, the “Satanic Panic” seems to be making another comeback in these latter days of the Great Precession.
If you disregard the warning by leaving a copy sitting around, or openly discussing its contents, you indeed do so at your own risk and peril, the least of which being ostracism by your community — especially if it is predominantly Christian, to which I can personally attest. What was true in Crowley’s day is certainly still true today, although the great shift is changing things in ways he never could have foreseen. War appears to be brewing between the Christian nationalists and the secular community, and things could get, well, inquisition–like now that they've gained gain authoritarian power. Add to that the invasive power of Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence, and, well, discretion is sometimes the better part of valor.
Notice that the comment is written by Crowley as the deceased owner of the Stele, Ankh–f–n–khonsu. Oddly, while Liber Legis does identify Crowley with the priest, the only instance of his writing and signing off by the name is this one short enigmatic comment. Otherwise, the only other writings we have that are physically attributable to the priest Ankh–f–n–Khonsu are written in hieroglyphs on the Stele of Revealing itself.
As for the three symbols under the signature, Egyptologists will see three Egyptian flag hieroglyphs (Netjer 𓊹 , which means “divinity”) facing right, representing the trinity of Neteru depicted on the Stele. Words and names written in hieroglyphics bestow magical powers, and if a figure faces right, it means that the text reads from left to right. Indeed, the “Short Comment,” written in English up to that point, does just that. To my knowledge, Crowley never mentions this Egyptological nugget.
On Religion and Thelema:
Crowley writes the following concerning this, continuing in Chapter 49 of his “Confessions”
“The importance of religion to humanity is paramount. The reason is that all men perceive more or less the “First Noble Truth”— that everything is sorrow; and religion claims to console them by an authoritative denial of this truth or by promising compensations in other states of existence. This claim implies the possibility of knowledge derived from sources other than the unaided investigation of nature through the senses and the intellect. It postulates, therefore, the existence of one or more praeter–human intelligences, able and willing to communicate, through the medium of certain chosen men, to mankind a truth or truths which could not otherwise be known. Religion is justified in demanding faith, since the evidence of the senses and the mind cannot confirm its statements. The evidence from prophecy and miracle is valid only in so far as it goes to the credit of the man through whom the communication is made. It establishes that he is in possession of knowledge and power different, not only in degree but in kind, from those enjoyed by the rest of mankind.”
“The existence of true religion presupposes that of some discarnate intelligence, whether we call him God or anything else. And this is exactly what no religion had ever proved scientifically. And this is what The Book of the Law does prove by internal evidence, altogether independent of any statement of mine. This proof is evidently the most important step in science that could possibly be made: for it opens up an entirely new avenue to knowledge. The immense superiority of this particular intelligence, AIWASS, to any other with which mankind has yet been in conscious communication is shown not merely by the character of the book itself, but by the fact of his comprehending perfectly the nature of the proof necessary to demonstrate the fact of his own existence and the conditions of that existence. And, further, having provided the proof required.”
The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof. But one must speak the native tongue to place one’s order, and it is here that education comes to the forefront. Unless a person is singularly fortunate, most of us have had to be taught to talk, walk, write, perform mathematics, and learn life skills in this world — that, or learn the hard way in the school of hard knocks. The same holds for any established spiritual knowledge and practice.
That being said, a simple study of comparative religion goes a long way toward understanding. From my own experience, a limited study and practice of more than just one authentic spiritual tradition was helpful if not a prerequisite to the ongoing development of my personal spiritual awareness and consciousness, and was key to perceiving the fascinating correspondences secreted in the otherwise impenetrable writings in The Threefold Book of Law. Some have stayed with me most of my life, and some were more or less like ladders leading to another “level” of understanding.
There is no getting around it — reinventing the wheel is impossible if not foolhardy in this regard, as there are certain obstacles and pitfalls upon the many spiritual paths (which Gautama the Buddha tells us, with a wink and a nod, all lead to the Center). The truly authentic traditions were developed by generations of adepts and shamans and provide dependable road maps for students to traverse their chosen Path without a great fall, step by step closer to accomplishing what the Hindus call Samadhi and the Greeks called Gnosis – the realization of one’s own true Thelema: to “achieve Hadit” — never forgetting that the map is not the actual terrain. As it is for any school of higher learning, retaining and passing knowledge down requires some form of symbolism and an organized infrastructure of institutions, teachers, books, and/or oral traditions, even among “uncivilized” shamans.
Institutions that teach some form of metaphysics based upon communion with a great spirit, spirits, gods, or ancestors are generally called “religions” (from the Latin re–ligio — to reconnect), a verb not a noun - a term that has lamentably lost its meaning in this age of the “spiritual not religious” refrain. Truly, those who claim this are invariably speaking from their personal negative experience with the corrupted and restrictive exoteric Abrahamic religions, from which so much harm and grief has come, and that quite understandably do not serve their Spirit. Lamentably, most are too quick to throw the dishes out with the dishwater.
“The ancient paths of mysticism and occultism resolved the problem of the Unconscious from the very beginning, even before it became a problem, for their first requirement was that man should know himself. Whereat he very quickly found that the huge, brute forces of Nature had their counterparts in his soul, that his being was not a simple unit but a pantheon of gods and demons. In fact, all the deities of the ancient theologies were known to the initiated as the inhabitants not of Olympus but of the human soul. They were not mere products of man's imagination any more than his heart, lungs, and stomach are products of his imagination. On the contrary, they were very real forces belonging both to Nature, the macrocosm, and man, the microcosm. Occultism was thus the art of living with one's gods and demons, and you had to know how to deal with them in yourself before you could deal with them in the universe.”
- Alan Watts, “Becoming What You Are”
That “knowledge” is not necessarily inherent to all, being more efficiently passed down through some system of learning, and within institutions of teaching. Recall that Thoth, the god of wisdom and inventor of the hieroglyphs and writing, was the Lord of the Temple Library and School for scribes, called Per Ankh, the House of Life in ancient Egypt. Consider too his association with the Great Equinox of Aquarius, the sign of human understanding. Many, especially Hermeticists, rightfully consider Thoth the original benefactor of the teaching tradition of not only the Emerald Tablet, but of the Qabalah, the Tree of Life, and Tarot, just as Crowley most certainly did.
We even know now and have English translations of a bonafide Book of Thoth (see: “Conversations in the House of Life – A New Translation of the Ancient Egyptian Book of Thoth” by Richard Jasnow and Karl-Theodor Zauzich). Surely Thoth’s time as a benefactor and teacher has come in this, the New Age od Aquarius.
Undoubtedly, hard-won knowledge could never have been preserved and handed down without religions and religious institutions. Without organized religions, we would have no practice of yoga or meditation, no seven chakras, no Yin and Yan, no Qabalah, no tarot or astrology, nor any of the other cultural spiritual religious symbolism and technologies we so freely appropriate for our benefit today in this “New Age.”
The ritual use of fragrances, intoxicants, invocations, chants, trance, imagery, and music in ceremonial settings was a well–developed spiritual technology far back in the hazy past, and it behooves us to partake of that ancient wisdom once again since we have so much of it left to us intact from several religious currents that predate Roman Christianity, particularly the Egyptian Sacred Science, and so little to choose from in the way of contemporary religions that might satisfy our spiritual appetites.
For all practical purposes, global religious currents can be said to flow from four primary geographic locations, each with traditions that can be considered useful spiritual technologies for the contemporary Western psyche. I have found that simply reading some, practicing a little, and perhaps personally experiencing a few of their various methods is usually enough for most people without necessarily joining a circle, ashram, order, or any particular “religion,” although it might be one’s Thelema to do so.
After all, Thelema the Law as “Do what thou wilt” is necessarily syncretic and more philosophical than religious anyway, and therefore open to religious pluralism or “perennialism,” which holds that all major religions share an “abstract core of truth” (to quote Castaneda). These recurring common themes illuminate universal truths — about reality, ethics, consciousness, and humanity. The Golden Rule stands out. Crowley was famous for telling Thelemites to seek the core truth in all belief systems, no matter how appealing, appalling, seemingly perfect, or flawed any ideology may appear, and to ignore the rest.
The Four Geographical Religious Currents:
Eastern: Vedic/Hindu polytheism (with emphasis on Yoga*), Buddhism — India; and Taoism — Far East, Asia
Western: Egyptian and Sumerian polytheism, Hebrew Kabbalah, Greek/Roman polytheism, Christian Gnosticism, Hermeticism — Mediterranean and Near East
Northern European: Druidry and Craft Traditions, Nordic/Germanic paganism, Steppe shamanism — Northern Europe, Italy and Greece, Eurasia
The New World: Shamanism/polytheism — North America, Mesoamerica, South America, Australia, Pacific Islands
*Note: There are actually Five Yogas: 1) Gnana — study of symbolism, sacred texts, and writing; 2) Raja — contemplation, meditation, dreaming, vision quests; 3) Hatha — poses and mudras, sex, diet, bodywork, mantra and breathing; 4) Bhakti — spiritual loving devotion and ceremonial offerings to and invocation of god–forms, and 5) Karma — living in accordance with your true Thelema / Dharma / Ma’at.
Of these traditions, the Egyptian religious sacred science of magic is among the more poorly represented active religious currents today, although it truly is the fountainhead of all the Western Abrahamic religions. Both the Hebrew Kabbalah as an oral tradition and Christian Gnosticism historically derived from and commingled with the Egyptian religion almost exclusively in Alexandria and the Nile Delta during its final days, and these are the most critical to understanding many of the cryptic sayings in The Book of Law.
My work at Wandering Stars is to help spread the word about the relevance of the Sacred Science of ancient Egyptian civilization and religion, which endured for over 3,500 years, inherited from progenitors going back thousands of years. And then perhaps introduce them to Liber L.
Certainly, this isn’t to suggest that any of those traditions I may have left unlisted, ancient or contemporary, have no value in seeking our true Thelema. Quite to the contrary. But I cannot speak for them personally as practices. That’s somebody else’s Thelema to explore. My perspective is suggestive at best and offered with a healthy helping of subjectivity. As a prime example, while I can dig it academically, I do not emphasize Greek polytheism myself, even though Thelema is a Greek word. After all, Alexander, Egypt’s great liberator, appears to have converted emphatically to the Egyptian religion, followed by his Greek Ptolemaic successors in the last days of Egypt. I guess I can relate.
There is much to say about the Hellenistic religions, however, particularly of the Eleusinian mysteries, and their powerful influence on Mediterranean coastal cultures, even upon the Jewish Theraputae, Gnostic Christians, and Islamic Sufis, esoteric light–bearers of their oppressive fundamentalist brethren. I haven’t gone beyond a shallow study of the Eleusinian tradition myself, but their use of some kind of psychoactive sacramental beverage called Kykeion in their initiation rites into the mysteries is telling, and shamanic to say the least. Their pantheon of gods and goddesses are easily correlated with the Egyptian Neteru, and likely were heavily influenced by them.
Like Buddhism, one has religious freedom in syncretic Thelema. One can be a Gnostic Christian Buddhist and Thelemite simultaneously — a worthy contemplation. There is just one detail, of course, a caveat, and it is a very problematic one for atheists and materialists alike: the unmistakable signature of actual, not literary, Egyptian divinities in The Book of Law. It should behoove us then to explore that rich Kemetic concordance more thoroughly, if not first and foremost, for a stronger grasp and better understanding of the meaning of some of the more “difficult” passages, while recalling Alan Watt’s words quoted earlier. The Threefold Book of Law is, after all, an Egyptian dispensation.
Despite the claims otherwise, Liber Legis is not anti–Christian, nor is it anti–Muslim, anti–Taoist, or even anti–Hindu. The fact that each is addressed in Chapter Three of the book by the powerful Egyptian solar deity Ra Hoor Khuit should be noteworthy enough to those with eyes to see. That is, Mohammed and Jesus, and the “Buddhist, mongol and djin,” are all advanced spiritual human beings who were, in the end, equally subject to the effects of time: birth, life, and inevitable bodily death — to ultimately face the Lord of the West, Ra Horakhty, in Amenti.
The elder Horus as the winged solar disc B’Hedet is the Lord of time and duration, and his name is the root of the word Hours, Horology (timekeeping), and Horoscope in Astrology. One can be a follower of the teachings of any of the great prophets and religious currents in the process of practicing Thelema — Chapter Three of Liber Legis simply tempers them with the Egyptian understanding of the hard reality of the passage of time and inescapable physical death for everyone incarnate, with no exceptions. “But there is that which remains.”
Neither does Liber Legis call for child sacrifice, as is often claimed. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood and even reviled statements in The Book of Law again comes from Ra Hoor Khuit when he instructs: “Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child.” The casual reader will think that he is telling us to literally sacrifice a human child before killing some cows, and some low–vibration or mentally compromised individuals might actually think about acting upon that if they are truly debased. The casual reader, if they have even gotten thus far, will most likely consider the passage as proof positive that the book is repugnant, along with the people who promulgate its teachings, and should be shunned.
On the other hand, especially when reading through an Egyptian lens, an enlightened person understands the meaning and punctuation well, knowing that “after a child” is to be taken in much the same spirit as “the child takes after his mother”. In other words, if we must sacrifice cattle for our life–giving sustenance and for their valuable byproducts, we should do so with the same reverence as sacrificing a child; for indeed, they are — as are all sentient living beings, including plants — all of us together, inextricably related and connected, all children of the Great Mother/Father Spirit.
The ancient Egyptians never sacrificed valuable human beings after the early Old Kingdom, and then only as retainer sacrifice, when pharaohs and occasionally other high court nobility would have servants killed, or allow them to sacrifice themselves after the pharaohs' deaths to continue to serve them in the afterlife. In grief at the loss of their benefactor, they most likely went to their deaths willingly.
The Egyptians revered their cattle, elevating some to holiness, such as with the representatives of Horus — the Apis bulls. Horus was the child of Isis, and so to sacrifice the Apis bull was to sacrifice the child Horus, thus “sacrifice cattle… after a child”. The great mother goddess Hathor is almost always depicted with cow ears or horns and is most especially represented as “the heavenly cow” nursing her divine progeny, the Pharaoh. Unlike the Hindus, the Egyptians feasted on the sacred beef sacrificed to the gods, after a “reversion” ritual back to the priests, their acolytes, and sometimes high–ranking folk outside of the temple.
The Egyptian medical papyri and the Greek Magical Papyri do show evidence of Egyptian magic spells using blood, both animal and human, as is mentioned in Chapter Three, but none necessarily demand the killing of the host; except of course, the religious sacrifice of animals as practiced in ancient Egypt (and other cultures throughout the Levant) mentioned above, even in late antiquity.
In this case, Ra Hoor Khuit offers some tame alternatives anyway. Unfortunately, this is where all the lurid juvenile tales about slitting goats' throats and crucifying frogs come from in the OTO circles. Meanwhile, unlike the spiritual ancient Egyptians who performed religious ritual sacrifice of animals, Western society has a vicarious relationship with the slaughter of the meat they eat and the killing of the human “enemies” they hate, who they will likely never encounter personally. Enough said, I hope.
Per our earlier discussion of the war–like passages in Chapters Two and Three being examples of apopotraic magic to avert evil, a little Egyptology goes a long way to understanding them. Such deeper meaning as is evidenced by these instances is the case for the other inscrutable sayings of the Neteru in Liber Legis as well, hidden in layers of Egyptian religious symbolism that only those with the “eyes to see and ears to hear” may catch glimmerings of.
Gnosis, the Akh, and Thelema:
Engraved over the portico of the temple of the Greek Oracle of Delphi (see Pythia) was “Gnothi Seauton” (γνῶθι σεαυτόν) “Know Thyself”. Better known from the later Gnostic Christians, the term Gnosis (γνῶσις, gnōsis), is a Greek noun meaning “to Know.” A feminine word used in various Hellenistic religions and philosophies, gnosis was used most notably in the Eleusinian Mysteries, signifying, according to my AI assistant: “an inner personal knowledge and insight into one’s true nature as divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within from the constraints and illusions of earthly material existence.” Bravo, AI.
In this way, Gnosis and Thelema are identical and mutually supportive of the Egyptian spiritual tradition of the Khabs and the Akh.
About the Akh from Wikipedia:
“The akh or ꜣḫ " (magically) effective one”, was a concept of the dead that varied over the long history of ancient Egyptian belief. Relative to the afterlife, the akh represented the deceased, who was transfigured and often identified with light.
It was associated with thought, but not as an action of the mind; rather, it was intellect as a living entity. The akh – ꜣḫ also played a role in the afterlife. Following the death of the khat – ẖt (physical body), the ba – bꜣ and ka – kꜣ were reunited to reanimate the akh ꜣḫ. The reanimation of the akh ꜣḫ was only possible if the proper funeral rites were executed and followed by constant offerings. The ritual was termed sa – akh, s – ꜣḫ "make (a dead person) into an (living) akh ꜣḫ.”
Here we see a metaphor of the reunion of the Ka and the Ba as Khabs, shining as an Akh. The Egyptologist Gertie Englund summarizes the Akh as:
“the effective one... a glorious and shining spirit which has risen up to the heavenly realm to enjoy the eternal life... the consciousness or immaterial part of the person after the transfiguration of the Ba.” (Gertrud Englund – Akh – A Religious Concept in Pharaonic Egypt 1978).
From my “The Woman with the Alabaster Box:”
“This Egyptian concept of the “Divine Union” of the Ba (soul) with the Ka (spark) to animate the Akh (effective spirit) is mirrored in the general Gnostic view of the nature of the “transfigured” or “risen Christ” as opposed to the physical resuscitation from death, and appears derivative of it. We see this especially when comparing Mary’s encounter with the transfigured Christ related in the gospels with the passages in The Gospel of Mary, a Gnostic text. It also appears that Jesus was the Gnostic shower of “the way” in this regard, his teaching, in essence, being that such transfiguration is possible for all, and not solely limited to himself.
Also, the Egyptian concept of the vital spark, the Ka, within its “house” the Khabs, is integral to the Gnostic and Kabbalistic doctrines, which tell us that we all contain a shard or spark of the divine Light of “the All”, “the Entirety”, or “Pleroma” within each of us after a sort of primordial “shattering”. These Divine Sparks are said to have “fallen” from the immaterial spiritual world, involving and manifesting the bodies of all sentient life, culminating with sapient human beings who might perceive it and perhaps reconnect with their divine source.”
Speaking of Gnosis, those unfamiliar with the early Christian Gnostics and the how and why of their gospels being labeled heretical and viciously stamped out by the Roman church after it became the official state religion, I heartily suggest “The Gnostic Gospels” by university professor and scholar Elaine Pagels. In it, she documents the fascinating story of the 1945 discovery of Gnostic codexes in a cave or tomb in nearby Nag Hammadi, Egypt (a short distance from sacred Abydos), and goes on to show how their content upsets the apple cart of Roman Christian dogma (see The Nag Hammadi Library). Being a Catholic herself, she sees Gnosticism as neither the end of — nor as a replacement for contemporary Christianity, but rather as an important foundation from which to forge a path forward. I couldn’t agree more.
As for “religion,” Jesus says in verse 2 of “The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas,” written circa 30 CE:
“Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled he will be astonished, and he will rule over the all.”
And so, Thelema is the birthright of every sentient being — to seek, find, and do their will. In this seeking, it is all about the journey… and Self Gnosis.
Now we can chew a little fat and add some grist for the mill…
On the Contemporary Criticisms of Crowley:
Aleister Crowley is still often referred to as "the wickedest man in the world," a tabloid epithet stemming primarily from his larger–than–life personality, occult writings, and spiritual beliefs that challenged the societal norms and traditional religious values of his time. To be sure, Crowley's flamboyant and provocative lifestyle was controversial and even shocking to the gentile society in the post–Victorian era in which he lived, and for many, it still is.
Besides his occupation with the occult, he was vocally defiant against Christianity and the prevailing Victorian prudishness toward sexual subjects. He was openly promiscuous with both genders while homosexuality was still illegal in Britain, and his involvement in secret societies and practice of sex magic, coupled with his experimentation with psychotropic drugs, especially the novel entheogens cannabis and mescaline, all contributed to the perception of him as depraved and immoral in the eyes of his British contemporaries.
As a final ignominy, he suffered from heroin and morphine addiction later in life due to chronic health problems. Despite all this, while Crowley did detest Christianity, he was an immensely religious and spiritual person, and his writings all attest to that in no small way. He was 50 years ahead of his time, and undoubtedly influenced the subsequent counterculture of the 60s.
Crowley's reputation was to a significant extent based on sensationalism and exaggeration by the tabloid press and his critics of his day, which he often encouraged for notoriety. And while Crowley certainly courted controversy by billing himself “The Beast 666,” deliberately cultivating the dangerous image of an anti–Christian rebel and provocateur, his actual spiritual beliefs and practices were far more nuanced and complex than the caricature of evil that was often attributed to him.
Nowadays, Crowley is generally recognized as a misunderstood and complex genius who made significant contributions to the occult and Western Esoteric Traditions, posthumously playing an influential role in the 60s counterculture. While his lifestyle and beliefs were certainly unconventional in his day, his writings and teachings continue to be studied and respected by many scholars and practitioners of contemporary esotericism and spirituality.
There are, however, five main criticisms of Crowley and his work that we should address here: 1) the questioned originality of Thelema, 2) his sexual appetite and libertinism, 3) his vehement anti–Christian stance, 4) his alleged social Darwinism, and 5) his role in the dissolution of the Golden Dawn and the breaking of his oath of secrecy with them. Let's take a look, shall we?
First, as for his originality with the use of the word and concept of Thelema, based on his general erudition, I can’t imagine Alester Crowley hitting the library after writing “The word of the Law is θέλημα (Thelema). Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look but close into the word.” Whether or not he knew about the following publications about Thelema before looking closely, is hard to ascertain. His critics claim some form of philosophical plagiarism. He might have encountered these instances in his Cambridge studies beforehand, or his research afterward, but let’s face it, they’re obscure, and many latter–day Thelemites are still completely unaware of them.
• First, in the mid–18th century, Sir Francis Dashwood inscribed the adage “Do what thou wilt” over the doorway of his abbey at Medmenham, where it served as the motto of the Hellfire Club.
• Second, a female character named "Thelemia" appears in the “Hypnerotomachia Poliphili” by the Renaissance–era Dominican friar and author Francesco Colonna. The protagonist Poliphilo has two allegorical guides, Logistica (reason) and Thelemia (will or desire). When forced to choose, he chooses fulfillment of his sexual will over logic.
• In the third instance, possibly inspired by Colonna, the ex–Franciscan friar and writer François Rabelais used Thélème (Thelema) as the name of a fictional Abbey in his 1564 comic novel, “Gargantua and Pantagruel.” This Abbey was also referred to by later authors Sir Walter Besant and James Rice, in their 1878 novel “The Monks of Thelema.” In “Gargantua and Pantagruel,” the “Abbey of Thélème” was taken over by a giant called Gargantua, who traveled over Europe ending wars and freeing prisoners. His simple rule for the Abbey was "fais ce que tu voudras," which translates to “do what thou wilt.” Enjoy, if you will, Rabelais’s description of how the “Thelemites” of the Abbey lived:
"All their life was spent not in laws, statutes, or rules, but according to their own free will and pleasure. They rose out of their beds when they thought good; they did eat, drink, labour, sleep, when they had a mind to it and were disposed for it. None did awake them, none did offer to constrain them to eat, drink, nor to do any other thing; for so had Gargantua established it. In all their rule and strictest tie of their order there was but this one clause to be observed, 'Do What Thou Wilt'; because men that are free, well–born, well–bred*, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour. Those same men, when by base subjection and constraint they are brought under and kept down, turn aside from that noble disposition by which they formerly were inclined to virtue, to shake off and break that bond of servitude wherein they are so tyrannously enslaved; for it is agreeable with the nature of man to long after things forbidden and to desire what is denied us."
*This language is often flagged as suggestive of the sort of social Darwinism that both Nietzsche and Crowley were often accused of, when all it really means is being born into a happy and financially secure home without any congenital mental defects or disease. Crowley’s talk elsewhere of “improving the race” in this regard means the human race, and never its white color variants.
Did Crowley know about Rabelais’s Utopia before writing The Book of Law? Nobody knows for sure. Perhaps… I suppose it would be profound if he didn’t. He was well–read at Cambridge. It wasn’t a critique from among his academic peers until he was well into his magickal career. The goddess Nuit sure appears to have been aware of Thelema and “Do what thou wilt,” but hey, she's a divine being! Meanwhile, we have no documentation that Crowley knew about Rabelais’ Abbey of Thélème beforehand, and while it certainly may be important, it doesn’t matter either way if Gargantua influenced his vision, or the naming of his Abbey at Cefalu, or the writing of Liber Oz, before, during, or after the writing of Liber Legis.
One might wonder about the need for secret societies and initiation degrees at all after reading Rabelais’s account! Even if he was previously aware of it, the Egyptian transmission through Rose shows that the Neteru were trying to speak to him in a language he would understand and relate to; as Crowley tells us, they intimately knew his innermost thoughts. This may be an example.
Does it mean Crowley made up the whole of The Book of Law? Not at all. Does it mean he was previously inspired by Rabelais? Probably. It could have already been in his subconscious, or it could have been percolating in his mind at the time. He certainly discusses it unabashedly in his writings. These are universal ideas in the ether after all, and nobody can claim ownership of them.
As for the critique of his sexual libertinism, anti–Christianism, and allegations of his social Darwinism, let's use this overview by Crowley critic Marco Pasi from “Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics” as a platform to lay out the issues.
“The first element is primarily centred around the question of sexual freedom. Crowley inveighs against the “bourgeois” (i.e. Christian) concept of sexuality, and above all against marriage. All people must be allowed to pursue their own sexuality freely, without rules imposed from the outside, exclusively on the basis of their own inclinations. In this domain, absolute and unconditional individual liberty must reign. In this regard, one can sense Nietzsche’s influence, and indeed he is expressly cited.”
I, for one, support unconditional sexual liberation in theory, as long as it’s always between fully aware and consenting adult parties, and causes no untoward physical or mental harm. And as long as it's kept private! Beyond that crosses the border of criminality. That being said, I also regard a few of Crowley’s higher–degree OTO initiation rituals to be a form of sexual totalitarianism. The Law may be for all, but these ordeals sure aren’t; in fact, they’re unnecessarily severe, subject to abuse, and even toxic as far as I’m concerned.
Now, I can understand the teachings of the Hindu Aghora, or how applying pressure to certain nerves in the lower chakra can lead to mystical states, but it seems to me that Crowley’s sex magic rites are suspiciously selective for sociopathy, sadomasochism, and/or a breaking of the aspirant’s will in the higher ranks. In other words, methinks the gentlemen doth protest Christian prudery too much.
As Rabelais wrote: “Those same men, when by base subjection and constraint they are brought under and kept down, turn aside from that noble disposition by which they formerly were inclined to virtue, to shake off and break that bond of servitude wherein they are so tyrannously enslaved; for it is agreeable with the nature of man to long after things forbidden and to desire what is denied us."
That’s fine for Crowley and the Marquis de Sade with their “shadow work” on their psychological complexes, and for others who might share them to that degree I suppose, but not everybody does. Therefore, it is here where he and the Order rightfully deserve criticism for keeping such rites secret until the aspirant had gone thus far in a magickal society whose “Law is for all.” Again, it’s sexual totalitarianism, pure and simple. Mysticism is about Remembrance, and a return to “that noble disposition by which they formerly were inclined to virtue.” The Egyptians called it Ma’at, and that, when all is said and done, is true Thelema.
In both the mundane and spiritual guru worlds, it’s similar to the “horny celibate” of Ram Dass’s teachings, except in this case, it’s the “horny libertine.” While one tries to repress it, the other attempts to sublimate it, and yet both remain equally horny. Or like the ex–smoker who hates smokers and vice versa.
And while statements like “I hate Christian prudes” by the sexually liberated secular person may, at first blush, seem as unfair as the Christian fundamentalist that slut shames them, both have their roots deep in nearly 2,000 years of institutionalized patriarchal religious misogyny and restriction and demonization of sex. In this case, Crowley’s lifelong rebellion against the sexually repressive Victorian Christian environment he grew up in was entirely understandable, even though it was hopelessly out of place at the time, and still is even to this day among about a third of the Western population. Thus, we have the continued criticism of Crowley’s sexual libertinism.
Only now are a majority of folks ready to objectively see how liberating the “sexual revolution” of the 60s was, as well as recognize aspects of its folly, with the upper–degree OTO initiation rituals perhaps representing the latter. Simply put, they’re as abhorrent to the spirit of Thelema as bible–thumping Christianity… so, no thank you. These rites may be fine for someone’s personal magickal practice with other consenting adults, but to make certain forms of sexual magick a prerequisite initiation for spiritual enlightenment within a large group is distinctly cultish. The same by the way, goes for Wicca. Some love it, others not so much.
Having said all that, such practices hearken back to the creation/fertility rites performed in the ancient temples, and so a true sexual liberation must necessarily include sex as a spiritual and even religious act of communion and union, and this is what they have right. We see such ceremonies in the early East Indian Vedanta and Hindu Shiva/Shakti traditions, the Tantric Buddhist practices, the office of “God’s wife” in the Egyptian and Sumerian temples, the Heiros Gamos or Holy Wedding in the Greek religion, and the Jewish/Gnostic Union of the Shekinah Bride with the Messiah Bridegroom. But there is no room for the goddess, priestess, or sex as a sacrament in the patriarchy, and hasn’t been for over two millennia. That will have to change.
This ties into the politically charged issue of women's rights as well. The harmful legal controls over a woman’s body, over whom one may marry or have children with, or with what gender one may identify, or how we may explore our sexuality and consciousness — draconian laws heavy–handedly enacted by the Christian theocrats, is truly beneath contempt for Thelemites. Nobody is telling them what to believe, but they’re busy buying justice appointments and making laws that restrict non–believers' sovereign liberties, intentionally blurring the division of church and state. This is what the Law of Thelema addresses most directly here. Sexual repression is just the tip of the iceberg of Christian nationalist autocracy.
As to the Nietzsche sneer, Pasi is referring to the now disproven claim that he was a social Darwinist, i.e. a believer in Eugenics and a Nazi. Undoubtedly, Crowley was influenced by Nietzsche, and rightly so, because his advanced philosophical theories tie in so well with Thelema. From Wiki:
“The Nazis attempted to incorporate Nietzsche’s concept (of the “Ubermensch” or Superman) into their (white supremacist) ideology by means of taking Nietzsche's figurative form of speech and creating a literal superiority over other ethnicities.
After his death, Elisabeth Förster–Nietzsche became the curator and editor of her brother's manuscripts. She reworked Nietzsche's unpublished writings to fit her own German nationalist ideology while often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism.
Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism; 20th–century scholars contested this interpretation of his work and corrected editions of his writings were soon made available.”
I hereby rest my case on whether or not Nietzsche, and in turn, Crowley, were social Darwinists or Nazis, but I will let Pasi continue:
“A strong component of social Darwinism is also perceptible, very probably absorbed by Crowley during his years of study at Cambridge. The various references to the “weak”, who must be exterminated by the “strong”, and toward whom no compassion must be shown, are highly significant. And among the authors Crowley refers to in his commentaries we find Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), the most influential proponent of social Darwinism in England, specifically in connection with the “unfit.” Although ideas of this kind are almost entirely restricted to Neo–Nazi movements, in those days—especially before WWI—they were fairly widespread among various groups, especially in progressive and leftist circles.”
Here we have the same old difficulty with somebody taking the words from the Book of Law out of context, as if they were ideas exclusively from Crowley’s mind, rather than a prophetic message from 26th Dynasty Egyptian god forms. Issues like this are easily dispatched with a healthy dose of Egyptology and a spiritually opened eye. There is also an understanding that the “weak” in Liber Legis are not only directed at those spiritually unevolved beings who seek to restrict or harm others, but as metaphors for elements of one’s own psyche that are unfit and must be purged. Much of the book tends to cross planes like this. We have already discussed such militaristic passages as Pasi notes from Liber Legis concerning the Egyptian dispensation.
This isn’t to say that Crowley didn’t take the sayings as carte–blanc for his take on social Darwinism, for good or ill. Even so, his interpretation was about spiritually evolving consciousness — not a “superior race,” but a more spiritually connected and thereby “superior human race.” Understandably, materialists and atheists have a hard time getting this. Like it or not, he and Liber Legis sought to prepare us for an eventual battle, spiritually and materially, inner and outer, against such restrictive forces as Christian nationalism, and the materialism that stupefies and binds the masses, the “slaves that serve.” Which side are you on?
It’s a conundrum Crowley often found himself in. For example, on the eve of WWII, Hitler’s interest in the occult and the possibility of harnessing magic to his cause had turned him on to Crowley’s writings, and the martial passages from Liber Legis earned Thelema a cadre of Nazi disciples in Germany. Horrified by what he saw was about to take place, Crowley broke with them utterly with a strongly worded letter suggesting that “Germans are to Jews as apes are to men,” likely referencing what he viewed as the spiritually more evolved Hebrew Kabbalah compared to the German “fatherland” paganism that spawned the fascist movement.
One can only imagine the Fuhrer’s ire. After Hitler banned Liber Al vel Legis, OTO Treasurer Karl Germer was arrested by the Gestapo while visiting his homeland in Germany and spent the rest of the war in concentration camps. This is the same problem we see today with white nationalism amongst certain individuals in the ranks of the OTO chanting “Jews will not replace us!” while muttering sotto voce, “… but we sure do love their Kabbalah!”
It's true that the martial elements of the “strong stamping down the weak” can be unnerving in Liber Legis, and sound like social Darwinism — that is until it is turned back on the accuser. It must be understood that the book describes metaphorically, prophetically, and directly what we are facing today — a literal battle between the “weak” and “unfit”, i.e. the blind fascist forces of unyielding white Christian nationalism and unbridled autocratic capitalism, against the “strong,” i.e. those who support returning power to the people, an egalitarian society, democracy and liberty above all, a conflict going back nearly two millennia.
Folks will have to face it again soon enough when they discover after push comes to shove and the first shots are fired in their direction, that pacifism is pathological in the face of survival against these autocratic predators. And that makes The Book of Law prophetic, not social Darwinism, and very relevant indeed, be it manifest or metaphor. It may seem all Doom and Gloom but ‘tis better to be prepared than sorry.
Pasi goes on:
“Perfectly in line with this theory, Crowley claims that the dominance of the stronger over the weaker is not so much an ethical question as a biological one… There was a time when natural selection was able to act undisturbed, and “the race, as such, consequently improved.” But then Christianity overturned this equilibrium, and “the unfit crowded and contaminated the fit.” This has been made even worse in recent times thanks to the propagation of an image of Jesus as “the pacifist, the conscientious objector, the Tolstoyan, the passive leader,” put forward as a model for life.
For this reason the struggle against Christianity must be radical and merciless; no compromises can be made. Crowley then wonders whether it would not be better to directly exterminate the Christians, whom he calls “parasites of man”, and also the Jews, who fundamentally belong to the same religious stock… it may be hard to believe that Crowley literally meant what he was saying.”
Crowley may or may not have meant it literally, but I can’t say that I disagree with any of this, truth be told, except for the extermination part, which IS Nazi–ish if taken literally. “Enlighten” would be a better word. As for the Jews too, the fact is that Crowley was never at all antisemitic, and so that final assumption is completely unfounded and erroneous. But yes, Crowley did dare to stare down the 1700–year genocidal colonialist legacy of the Roman Catholic church and its spawn of Protestant, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christianity. Looking it squarely in the face he saw it for the horror it truly is — a multi–headed, authoritarian, crapulous, power–hungry medusa, intent upon the subjugation and exploitation of humanity and nature itself. He truly believed that “you are either with us or against us” in this regard, and that The Book of Law spoke directly to it… I, for one, do too.
Despite his limited knowledge about the Christian Gnostics (the Nag Hammadi codices were only discovered in 1945, just a few years before his demise), Crowley’s “Three Aeons” hypothesis shows that his acquaintance with them was not superficial. We know that he considered them a source of Rosicrucianism, which he had extensive knowledge about. Crowley knew that the Rosey Cross he put on the back of his Thoth Tarot was the Gnostic/Rosicrucian symbol of the divine Union of the Bride (Shekinah) and Bridegroom (Messiah), in the Bridal Chamber of the Heiros Gamos. He may have therefore believed, though never saying so, that Christianity could only be redeemed by returning to its Gnostic roots before Peter and Paul took it to Rome.
This was back when Christianity was still an oral tradition, back when Jesus had a human father as well as a spiritual one, was born of a woman who had sex with that human father, and who died just like everyone else. Back when his followers still remembered that he was a human being, an itinerant healer, a miracle worker, and a magician (likely an Alexandria–trained Jewish Therapeut), who remembered the Jesus who upturned the tables of the money changers at the Temple and said “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Back when his adherents remembered that he was supported financially by his beloved, the anointer Mary from the Magdala temple, and how they traveled the Holy Land together, threatening the return of the divine feminine to Judaism, which had embraced monotheism and kicked their goddess out of the religion around 450 years prior. No wonder the Pharisees had him crucified and made her into a sinner and prostitute. (See my research paper “The Woman with the Alabaster Box”)
Being counter to “Love is the law,” Roman Catholicism was the anti–Christ Demiurge in Aleister Crowley’s mind, just as it was for the Egyptian Gnostics and the author of The Apocalypse. This is possibly why he patterned the ecclesiastical arm of the OTO as the Gnostic Catholic Church, i.e. the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica (EGC), with its Gnostic Bishops wearing the Sumerian fish-head miter and bearing all the regalia. The High Ceremony of Thelema is the “Gnostic Mass,” with the Priestess, The Book of the Law, and a reproduction of The Stele of Revealing on the main Eastern altar.
So, as it turns out, he wasn’t anti–Christian after all, but rather, Aleister Crowley might better be regarded as the first Gnostic Christian in Thelema! Truthfully, there wouldn’t be a problem with Christianity at all if they weren’t so hell–bent on converting the whole wide world to their pernicious, genocidal, sexually repressed patriarchy, raping the planet of her wealth, and destroying her ecosystems while they’re at it. But they were, are, and will continue to do so until they are stopped. “Live and let live” does not apply in their dogma, nor, I dare say, should it apply in our response to it when all is said and done.
The Earth is Gaia, our Great Mother, and it is high time everyone started remembering this. As Dion Fortune wrote: “Any religion without a goddess is halfway to atheism,” and in The Threefold Book of Law, the goddess Nuit comes first.
Crowley and the Golden Dawn:
Finally, concerning the criticism of Crowley for bringing about the dissolution of the Golden Dawn and breaking his oath by publishing Liber 777, I will respectfully call bullshit. His undeniable brilliance notwithstanding, the issues in the GD were primarily with ‘MacGregor’ Mathers: his alcoholism, his not showing up for knowledge lectures, and his financial improprieties.
Problems in the organization began in 1895 when Mathers had a fallout with his financier, member Annie Horniman, concerning these issues, and she resigned as chief financial officer as a result. Further conflict with other Order members caused him to publish a Manifesto in 1896 demanding absolute obedience to his administration. Horniman did not comply and after refusing him funds, Mathers expelled her from the Order. Discontentment continued due to all of this, and Wescott resigned his position to Florence Farr, who by 1900 was also irreparably conflicted with Mathers, so much so that she requested that the order be dissolved.
The straw that broke the camel’s back was the scandal of Mathers's revelation that Woodman had forged the “Cipher Manuscript” (the founding document of the Order) after it looked like Wescott was poised to return and take over leadership. Based upon Mathers’ academic erudition and a contested letter from a German RC head named Anna Sprengel, Woodman apparently concocted the document to give the group an aura of authority. Both the pretense and the loss of their connection to an authentic German Rosicrucian lineage threw the whole membership into disarray. Never mind that the system actually worked…
Add to that the deep enmity between Crowley and Yeats, exacerbated by Crowley being allowed into the Second Order and coming to Mathers’ defense financially — and the next thing you know, the Order (read: Westcott, Farr, Yeats, et al) unceremoniously expelled them both. Crowley was only guilty because of his wealth and close association with Mathers, along with the fact that certain gentile members didn’t like him very much in the first place. Human nature considered, we might assume that a few resented his closeness to the leader of the Order and rapid rise through the grades — if they weren’t outright jealous. Adding insult to injury, Yeats then took control of the organization, reinstating Horniman. One cannot blame Crowley for being bitter about it.
Then, in 1901 a certain Madame Horos and company deceived the Order and made off with their documents. When the authorities later charged them for an unrelated offense, they claimed to be leaders of the Golden Dawn. During the legal process, the GD was discredited in the tabloids and most of their private information was made public. This ordeal fractured the order into four smaller organizations: Mathers’ Alpha et Omega, Crowley’s A∴A∴, Waite’s Isis–Urania, and after a few false starts, a group of Yeats followers who started the Stella Matutina (Star of the Morning). All were equally valid offshoots intended to continue the Great Work of the Golden Dawn in their own way after the blowup.
Therefore Crowley, in truth, had very little at all to do with the dissolution of the Golden Dawn as is so often wrongfully claimed by his critics. In addition to being unfairly expelled, his was a solemn oath of secrecy to an Order founded upon a verifiable forgery! The young magician had already availed himself of Mathers’ revelatory publication “The Kabbalah Unveiled” a year before even joining the GD, which would have accelerated his rise through the grades without the alleged favoritism of Mathers. Additionally, Crowley was a Second Order Adeptus Minor, and a Master of England at the time of the schism.
Perhaps tellingly then, besides the A∴A∴, no temples with an original Golden Dawn lineage have survived past the 1970s. Now, after all the dust has settled, we can see how Crowley had as much of a right as any of the others to use the GD system in his Order, with its “true attributions” (read: the Order initiation degrees) of the 10 Sephiroth and 22 Hebrew letters of their connective Paths of the Tree of Life, (which were, by the way, derived from the Masons and SRIA, and were the result of Mathers genius — see David Allen Hulse “The Western Mysteries”). But, according to his oath of secrecy, not so much in publishing them; though honestly, the amount he borrowed was eclipsed by his erudite additions. As to the issue of breaking his oath of secrecy with Liber 777, I’ll let Crowley himself do the talking:
“All this secrecy is very silly. An indicible (unspeakable, inexpressible) Arcanum is an arcanum that cannot be revealed. It is simply bad faith to swear a man to the most horrible penalties if he betray …, etc., and then take him mysteriously apart and confide the Hebrew Alphabet to his safekeeping. This is perhaps only ridiculous; but it is wicked imposture to pretend to have received it from Rosicrucian manuscripts which are to be found in the British Museum. To obtain money on these grounds, as has been done by certain moderns, is clear (and I trust, indictable) fraud.
The secrets of Adepts are not to be revealed to men. We only wish they were. When a man comes to me and asks for the Truth, I go away and practice teaching Differential Calculus to a Bushman; and I answer the former only when I have succeeded in the latter. But to withhold the Alphabet of Mysticism from the learner is the device of a selfish charlatan. That which can be taught shall be taught, and that which cannot be taught may at last be learnt.” ~ Preface of Liber 777
I am sure many of you are as grateful as I am for Aleister Crowley’s publishing of Liber 777. There would be no Western Esoteric Qabalah without him — and Macgregor Mathers.
As for those claiming Gnostic, Hermetic, or Rosicrucian roots who take a dim view of Crowley and Thelema in the Western Esoteric Traditions — as I note elsewhere in my About The English Cabala — 111:
“The way I see it, Western Esoteric groups like the BOTA and the current so–called Golden Dawn groups, who ostracize and demonize Crowley and his followers while still utilizing the fruit of the great man’s work without crediting him, are simply being hypocritical and narrow–minded, if not mean–spirited, despite what they believe to be true — real or imagined. It seems they at least owe him credit for his Qabalistic erudition, from which they all have borrowed wholesale, along with the caveat of their disapproval. I judge the Tree by its Fruit. Nobody’s perfect, one might suppose.
I learned early on that Thelema was often frowned upon by other Mystery Traditions; not only because of what they think Crowley’s role was in the dissolution of the Golden Dawn and his supposed spilling the beans on much of their “secret” Qabalistic teachings in his Liber 777, but mostly due to his bad reputation, especially in the sexual realm. Some contentions are real, of course, but most are tabloid fabrications — leading to the ridiculous accusations of human sacrifice from people who don’t know his wry humor and actual Great Work.
And so, it is all quite understandably too much for most folks to deal with, secular or religious alike, even esoteric groups like the BOTA, GD, AMORC, et al. Quite honestly, I have no problem at all with that — the man had his downsides no doubt. However, I feel that he has been overly and unfairly marginalized by their promotion of the sordid at the expense of the truth, which they all would do well to discover. My personal practice of Thelema was never really about most of Crowley’s Order rituals and initiation ordeals anyway, and I never became a member of his orders. For me, it was always about the Book of Law, the words of the Egyptian Neteru, and my own Thelema, first and foremost. Everything else follows, including Crowley’s writings — both the sublime and the ridiculous. I still regard him, far more for good than for ill, as my beloved spiritual father.”
To boil down my objective take on Crowley in his later years, the brilliant and all–too–human man, he appears to have begun veering off the rails not long after taking charge of the OTO in 1921. Intoxicated with his semi–Masonic authority and power, his already overbearing personality and messiah complex, coupled with increasing abuse of opioids both illicit and prescribed likely had some influence. This is when the more lurid tales started coming in. In some ways, I view it as a result of mental/psychic overload, especially when reviewing the vast library he authored. Even so, there is absolutely no denying his genius, his integral role in the reception of The Threefold Book of Law, and his indelible influence on the Western Esoteric Traditions and the so–called counter–culture to this day.
Of course, this should not suggest that I agree with him on every point. I don’t believe his experience in Cairo was the “first” with a “new order of beings” as he claimed, although it surely was an important one. The ancient Egyptians called them the Neteru, and their priests understood the spiritual technology of 2nd person communion, union, and transcendence through them. The Neteru want us to Remember, as many people do after visiting the temple ruins of ancient Egypt, with no need for The Threefold Book of Law. It just happened to be what drew me to Egypt in the first place… Sekhau!
And so I will finish “About Thelema” with Crowley’s own words on what The Book of Law ultimately meant to him, with the above caveat — continuing on from the same Chapter 49 of his Confessions quoted earlier in this section on Religion and Thelema:
“THE CLAIM OF THE BOOK OF THE LAW IN RESPECT OF RELIGION.
…
“The history of mankind teems with religious teachers. These may be divided into three classes.
1. Such men as Moses and Mohammed state simply that they have received a direct communication from God. They buttress their authority by diverse methods, chiefly threats and promises guaranteed by thaumaturgy; they resent the criticism of reason.
2. Such men as Blake and Boehme claimed to have entered into direct communication with discarnate intelligence which may be considered as personal, creative, omnipotent, unique, identical with themselves or otherwise. Its authority depends on “the interior certainty” of the seer.
3. Such teachers as Lao–Tzu, the Buddha and the highest Gnana–yogis announce that they have attained to superior wisdom, understanding, knowledge and power, but make no pretense of imposing their views on mankind. They remain essentially sceptics. They base their precepts on their own personal experience, saying, in effect, that they have found that the performance of certain acts and the abstention from others created conditions favourable to the attainment of the state which has emancipated them. The wiser they are, the less dogmatic. Such men indeed formulate their transcendental conception of the cosmos more or less clearly; they may explain evil as illusion, etc., but the heart of their theory is that the problem of sorrow has been wrongly stated, owing to the superficial or incomplete data presented by normal human experience through the senses, and that it is possible for men, but virtue of some special training (from Asana to Ceremonial Magick), to develop in themselves a faculty superior to reason and immune from intellectual criticism, by the exercise of which the original problem of suffering is satisfactorily solved.
The Book of the Law claims to comply with the conditions necessary to satisfy all three types of inquirer.
Firstly, it claims to be a document not only verbally, but literally inspired. “Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.” … “This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all.”
The author claims to be a messenger of the Lord of the Universe and therefore to speak with absolute authority.
Secondly, it claims to be the statement of transcendental truth, and to have overcome the difficulty of expressing such truth in human language by what really amounts to the invention of a new method of communicating thought, not merely a new language, but a new type of language; a literal and numerical cipher involving the Greek and Hebrew Cabbalas, the highest mathematics etc. It also claims to be the utterance of an illuminated mind co–extensive with the ultimate ideas of which the universe is composed.
Thirdly, it claims to offer a method by which men may arrive independently at the direct consciousness of the truth of the contents of the Book; enter into communication directly on their own initiative and responsibility with the type of intelligence which informs it, and solve all their personal religious problems.
Generally, The Book of the Law claims to answer all possible religious problems. One is struck by the fact that so many of them are stated and settled separately in so short a space.
To return to the general question of religion. The fundamental problem has never been explicitly stated. We know that all religions, without exception, have broken down at the first test. The claim of religion is to complete, and (incidentally) to reverse, the conclusions of reason by means of a direct communication from some intelligence superior in kind to that of any incarnate human being. I ask Mohammed, “How am I to know that the Koran is not your own compilation?”
It is impertinent to answer that the Koran is so sublime, so musical, so true, so full of prophecies which time has fulfilled and confirmed by so many miraculous events that Mohammed could not have written it himself.
The author of The Book of the Law foresaw and provided against all such difficulties by inserting in the text discoveries which I did not merely not make for years afterwards, but did not even possess the machinery for making. Some, in fact, depend upon events which I had no part in bringing about.
It may be said that nevertheless there may have been someone somewhere in the world who possessed the necessary qualities. This again is rebutted by the fact that some of the allusions are to facts known to me alone. We are forced to conclude that the author of The Book of the Law is an intelligence both alien and superior to myself, yet acquainted with my inmost secrets; and, most important point of all, that this intelligence is discarnate.
The existence of true religion presupposes that of some discarnate intelligence, whether we call him God or anything else. And this is exactly what no religion had ever proved scientifically. And this is what The Book of the Law does prove by internal evidence, altogether independent of any statement of mine. This proof is evidently the most important step in science that could possibly be made: for it opens up an entirely new avenue to knowledge. The immense superiority of this particular intelligence, AIWASS, to any other with which mankind has yet been in conscious communication is shown not merely by the character of the book itself, but by the fact of his comprehending perfectly the nature of the proof necessary to demonstrate the fact of his own existence and the conditions of that existence. And, further, having provided the proof required.
THE CLAIM OF THE BOOK OF THE LAW TO OPEN UP COMMUNICATIONS WITH DISCARNATE INTELLIGENCE.
In the above section I have shown that the failure of previous religions is due, not so much to hostile criticism, but to their positive defect. They have not made good their claim. It has been shown above that The Book of the Law does demonstrate the prime position of religion in the only possible way. The only possible argument, on the other side, is that the communication cannot have been made by a discarnate intelligence, because there are none such. That indeed constitutes the supreme importance of The Book of the Law. But there is no a priori reason for doubting the existence of such beings. We have long been acquainted with many discarnate forces. Especially in the last few years science has been chiefly occupied with the reactions, not merely of things which cannot be directly perceived by sense, but of forces which do not possess being at all in the old sense of the word.
Yet the average man of science still denies the existence of the elementals of the Rosicrucian, the angels of the Cabbalist, the Nats, Pisachas and Devas of southern Asia, and the Jinn of Islam, with the same blind misosophy as in Victorian days. It has apparently not occurred to him that his position in doubting the existence of consciousness except in connection with certain types of anatomical structure is really identical with that of the narrowest geocentric and anthropocentric Evangelicals.
Our actions may be unintelligible to plants, they might plausibly argue that we are unconscious. Our real reason for attributing consciousness to our fellow–men is that the similarity of our structure enables us to communicate by means of language, and as soon as we invent a language in which we can talk to anything soever, we begin to find evidence of consciousness.
It was therefore clear for me to come forward and assert positively that I have opened up communication with one such intelligence; or, rather, that I have been selected by him to receive the first message from a new order of beings.”
~ ~ ~
I do not for a moment believe that this is the first message, nor that the order of beings is in any way “new,” except to those who have yet to connect with them. It is my own “pure will” to do what I can to properly present both Thelema and The Threefold Book of Law in a clear way that is fair to its scribe, who has suffered greatly for his often rash and rebellious bravery, while at the same time remaining faithful to the Egyptian Neteru who delivered this truly divine message. Most importantly, I wanted to be sure that Rose Edith Kelly–Crowley is given full credit for her altogether crucial role in receiving and channeling Liber L, too often neglected in the past. As Dion Fortune admonished “Any religion without a goddess is halfway to atheism.” And every goddess, including Nuit, needs a priestess.
“At all my meetings with you shall the priestess say – and her eyes shall burn with desire as she stands bare and rejoicing in my secret temple – To me! To me!
calling forth the hearts of all in her love – chant.”
(except where noted)
All rights reserved.