In the last post we saw that the star or soul of each individual is composed of two parts: the Khabs and the Khu. The Khabs is the manifestation of a distinct individual within the context of Nuit. The Khabs is the “house” of Hadit—your individual point of view—and as such it is the spiritual essence of who you are as an individual. We also saw that the Khabs is identical with the supernal triad on the Tree of Life, and as such it takes a triadic, reflective structure.
The Khu, on the other hand, is the “magical garment” of the star.
Khabs is the secret Light or L.V.X.; the Khu is the magical entity of a man […] This ‘star’ or ‘Inmost Light’ is the original, individual, eternal essence. The Khu is the magical garment which it weaves for itself, a ‘form’ for its Being Beyond Form, by use of which it can gain experience through self-consciousness
Old and New Comments on AL I.8
Each of us is Hadit, the core of our Khabs, our Star, one of the Company of Heaven; but this Khabs needs a Khu or Magical Image, in order to play its part in the Great Drama. This Khu, again, needs the proper costume, a suitable ‘body of flesh’, and this costume must be worthy of the Play.
New Comment on AL II.70
The Khabs represents the essence of who each of us is. It is possessed of the attributes of light, originality, individuality, and immortality. The Khu on the other hand is the mode by which the Khabs interacts with Nuit. If the Khabs is monistic (completely self-sufficient), the Khu is relational. It doesn’t exist without the interaction between the Khabs and Nuit.
And for that matter, the relationship between Khabs (or Hadit) and Nuit does not exist without the Khu. In other words, experience or embodiment of some kind is the necessary condition of the love “play” between Nuit and Hadit.
One answer to the question “Why do we incarnate?” is that incarnation (whether on this plane or some other) is a necessary precondition for Hadit’s going. In a subsequent post we can look at what some of the consequences of that are.
Unlike the Khabs of an individual which cannot be seen (arguably not even by the individual whose Khabs it is), since the Khu is relational, it is also manifest and can be seen either by the individual whose Khu it is or by others.
Also, since the Khu is a function of the interaction between the Khabs and Nuit, it is experiential and elastic. It grows and shrinks and changes in complexity in accordance with how much and what kind of experiences of Nuit one chooses to have.
“Every man and every woman is a star,” that is, an aggregate of such experiences, constantly changing with each fresh event, which affects him or her either consciously or subconsciously.
“Introduction” to the Book of the Law
the more complex the Khu of the Star, the greater the man, and the keener his sense of his need to achieve it.
New Comment on AL II.74
If the Khabs is the supernal triad on the Tree of Life, the Khu is composed of the subsequent seven sephiroth.
With each incarnation, the sephiroth below Binah are recreated anew, following the path of the Flaming Sword. At death, the lower sephiroth are jettisoned, and the essence of the Khabs is completely withdrawn back into the supernal triad.
The exception to this is the individual who, through mystical and magical discipline, has opened and strengthened the pathways to their own Khabs.
[T]he Supernal Triad constitutes (or, rather, is an image of) the “eternal” Essence of a man [i.e., his Khabs]; that is, it is the positive expression of that ultimate “Point of View” which is and is not and neither is nor is not etc. Quite indestructible. Now when a man spends his life (a) building up and developing the six Sephiroth of the Ruach so that they cohere closely in proper balance and relation, (b) in forging, developing and maintaining a link of steel between this solid Ruach and that Triad, Death merely means the dropping off of the Nephesch (Malkuth) so that the man takes over his instrument of Mind (Ruach) with him to his next suitably chosen vehicle.Magick without Tears, chapter 38
Appear on the throne of Ra! Open the ways of the Khu! Lighten the ways of the Ka!
AL III.37
This is how the magical memory of a star can be built up over a series of incarnations.
This doctrine seems to imply that wisdom is not just passed down through the historical record but can also accumulate in certain stars on the Akashic plane.
Every star is already irreducibly individual and therefore unequal with any other star. But additionally it is also possible certain stars are “great beings” who, for reasons of having built up a magical memory over time, are possessed of extraordinary wisdom.
[C]ertain vast “stars” (or aggregates of experience) may be described as Gods. One of these is in charge of the destinies of this planet for periods of 2,000 years.“Introduction” to the Book of the Law
It’s possible Crowley understood this as the mechanism by which “Secret Chiefs” are created.
It would explain why he used names such as “Aiwass” and “V.V.V.V.V.” both as aspects of himself and as names of separate individuals. “Aleister Crowley” was merely the latest expression or mode (Khu) of an essence (Khabs) of which Aiwass and V.V.V.V.V. were others.
Crowley elaborates on metempsychosis inLiber Aleph, “De Adeptis R. C. Escatologia,” which should be studied closely by initiates of the III° of Mysteria Mystica Maxima.
But it is this continual extension and withdrawal of the Khu—and hence the relations of the Khabs with Nuit—which is visually depicted again and again in the movie.
I spent some time recently looking closely at Liber V vel Reguli along with the commentary and the early draft notes, and feel like I have come to a few insights which could be of use to others.
As I’ve shown before, one of the main themes of Crowley’s spirituality is the movement from speech to silence and back again. This could also be viewed as the expression of nullity (Ain of Kabbalah) into manifestation (the Tree of Life itself) and the individual’s path of return back to nullity. The first part of this equation expresses Thelemic cosmology, the latter Thelemic soteriology.
In Reguli these movements are dramatized and expressed in the formula LAShTAL. LA means “not,” while AL means “God”. LA and AL represent nullity in concealment and manifestation respectively, while ShT is the process that mediates between them.
In order for ShT to mediate between LA and AL, they have to conjointly share something in common between LA and AL while also adding new information.
LA and AL both add to 31 by gematria. ShT also adds to 31 by way of the tarot cards these letters are attributed to. Sh or Shin is the Hebrew letter assigned to The Aeon, Atu XX, and T or Teth is assigned to Lust, Atu XI.
As someone recently pointed out to me, there is a tradition in the Golden Dawn, recorded in the Z1 document, of ST denoting an influence from Kether. ST is the Coptic letter ⲋ (“ⲥⲟⲟⲩ” or “soou”). Crowley continues this tradition by assigning this letter to Kether in 777, Column LI.
So by means of its association with 31 and Kether, ShT is identical with the (N)One at the foundation of Thelemic ontology and theology.
But ShT has an additional function. It also indicates the Beast and Babalon conjoined. It is a sexual formula. This sexual formula is indicated by how it is represented in Reguli on the human body and on the Tree of Life.
In the ritual, Aiwass, Therion, and Babalon are attributed to the cross paths of the Tree of Life: Daleth, Teth, and Pe respectively. The cross paths are important as they mediate between the Pillar of Severity and the Pillar of Mercy.
As taught in the Golden Dawn 4°=7□ ritual, the left pillar, the Pillar of Severity, is associated with the letter Shin, which is assigned to elemental fire, while the right pillar, the Pillar of Mercy, is Mem or elemental water. The Middle Pillar is then Aleph, which is elemental air. Fire is archetypally masculine, water feminine, and air androgyne.
However, these sexual characteristics are not assigned to the pillars in a straightforward way. While the Pillar of Severity is fiery and masculine, the topmost sephira, Binah, is archetypally feminine. She is the supernal Mother. And opposite her, on the Pillar of Mercy, we find Chokmah, which is archetypally masculine, the supernal Father. They are “reflected” in Netzach (masculine-feminine) and Hod (feminine-masculine) respectively, as Kether is reflected in Tiphareth. This reflection occurs both horizontally across the Tree (Binah and Netzach and Chokmah and Hod are opposite each other across the Middle Pillar) and vertically down the Tree (they are opposite Tiphareth). The vertical and horizontal “components” of Liber V vel Reguli work with this double-reflection of sexual energy.
One can view this double-reflection of magical sexual polarity taking place on the Tree as a movement of energy down the Tree of Life from Kether into the subsequent Sephiroth along the paths. One androgyne current emerging from Kether, represented by the path of Aleph, becomes masculine upon reaching Chokmah. There it progresses down the tree along the archetypally masculine paths of Vau, Yod, Ayin, and Resh, into Yesod. In Yesod it is met by a complementary feminine path, originating with Beth’s entry into Binah, and progressing down the Tree along the paths of Cheth, Lamed, Nun, and Tzaddi.
This exchange and “mixing in Yesod” is represented on the Art card, Atu XIV. Art is a hieroglyph of the path of Samekh, which links Yesod with Tiphareth. Here we see the Lion and the Eagle which have exchanged their colors as represented earlier on the Lovers card, Atu VI. If the paths on the Tree represent these essences or potencies, then they were exchanged at Tiphareth, a sphere which, among other things, is the site in which the Rose (Kteis) and Cross (phallus) are conjoined. The caldron is Yesod, which is linked with the sexual organs and the Muladhara cakra. We see spiritual air—presumably the Medicine of Metals—rising out of the caldron, represented by the arrow, as the Caput Mortuum (skull) drops to the bottom.
The cross paths are important to this process, because they are mediating the exchange of energies down the Tree. They are in a sense guiding and determining the separation and mixing of these sexual polarities. That these paths add up to 93 is significant. It tells us that the 93 magical current has something essential to do with the production of sexual polarity from out of androgyny and back again. It has to do with the movement of 0 to 2 (magick) and from 2 to 0 (mysticism), both as a personal spiritual journey and as a cosmological process. Aiwass, Therion, and Babalon are personages representing these governing principles.
For me personally, this is not simply theory. When I’m serving as Priest in the Gnostic Mass, I picture this exchange of energy occurring—moving down and wrapping around and joining mine and the Priestess’s hearts—at the consummation of the eucharist. We are linked energetically at the levels of mind (Daleth and Kether), heart (Teth and Tiphareth), and body (Peh and Yesod). The Tree of Life with the cross-paths can also be used as scaffolding for visualizations during sex magick workings.
If the horizontal component is governed by Aiwass, Therion, and Babalon, the vertical component is governed by Nuit, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, and Hadit. Nuit is associated with the Sahasrara cakra/Kether/the Three Negative Veils; Ra-Hoor-Khuit is linked specifically with the Anahata cakra and the paths of Teth, Yod, and Lamed (which add to 49), but also arguably with the entirety of the Tree in manifestation (hence Microprosopus); and Hadit is linked with the Muladhara cakra and Yesod and/or Malkuth (Crowley refers to this as the “seed” in his commentary).
The conjunction of Nuit and Hadit produces the godhead, Ra-Hoor-Khuit (or Heru-Ra-Ha, so as to include Hoor-paar-kraat). Hadit, as the consciousness or point of view of the individual, is implanted in Malkuth as a seed represented by Heh-final, the Virgin Daughter whose destiny is to be seated upon the Throne of the Mother (Binah). Crowley consistently related the three deities of the Book of the Law to the Tree of Life this way.
So one thing to take note of when attempting to understand LAShTAL is that it shares the same form or structure taken by these three personages in relation to the Tree of Life. You have two simple extremes mediated by a complex third thing sharing characteristics with both of the extremes. Indeed, the entire Tree of Life itself—or Ra-Hoor-Khuit—could be seen as a means of mediating between these oppositions.
But how does the introduction of the horizontal component modify or inform this cosmological and theological process of the implantation, germination, and return of Hadit to the source?
The cross-paths enter into this as they are involved in the drawing of the Hexagram of Nature on the Tree of Life. Generally speaking, the hexagram is the symbol of the union of the individual with the divine, with the mirroring in the microcosm of the structure of the macrocosm. As such it is symbolic of the individual who has become divine. The cross-paths of Teth and Pe are involved in this hexagram—in fact are the only actual paths involved—as they form bases of the two interlocking triangles.
Typically the upward-pointing triangle represents fire and is therefore masculine, while the downward-pointing triangle is water and feminine. But a different connotation is suggested in Reguli where the base of the upward-pointing triangle is assigned to Babalon, and the base of the downward-pointing triangle is Therion. The polarities are reversed.
This suggests not so much the familiar Hexagram of Nature but rather the Magical Hexagram as described by Crowley in the Book of Lies, where fire points down and water up.
In the ordinary Hexagram, the Hexagram of nature, the red triangle is upwards, like fire, and the blue triangle downwards, like water. In the magical hexagram this is reversed; the descending red triangle is that of Horus, a sign specially revealed by him personally, at the Equinox of the Gods. (It is the flame desending upon the altar, and licking up the burnt offering.) The blue triangle represents the aspiration, since blue is the colour of devotion, and the triangle, kinetically considered, is the symbol of directed force.
Book of Lies, Chapter 69
Crowley explicitly associates force with the path of Teth in Reguli, as he associates fire with Shin. Hence ShT represents “force and fire”. In the context of the ritual, these triangles would interlock and interpenetrate around Tiphareth, representative of the Anahata cakra, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, and, as we saw earlier, Kteis-Phallus or the Rose-Cross.
As the upward-pointing blue triangle represents Babalon, the Mother, we could attribute the three Mother Letters (Aleph, Mem, and Shin) to its three points, as we might attribute the masculine trinity, IAO, to the three points of the downward-pointing red triangle. Their conjunction gives us the word AShIAVM, which has the same value as MShICh (Messiah) and NChSh (Nechesh, Serpent).
The Messiah or Anointed One affects the union between the individual and the divine. The Serpent in the Garden of Eden is the initiator of mankind into knowledge or gnosis. In Thelemic soteriology, this saving, initiating power is not one individual but rather the conjoining of two individuals, Therion (666) and Babalon (156). And the way in which this union between the divine and the individual is affected is sexual in nature.
In this formula AShIAVM, the three mother letters are concealed by the letter Heh, giving us AHIHVH, the Great Name which is the conjunction of AHIH and IHVH.
AHIH is the godname of Kether. It represents existence in is most abstract quality or Macroprosopus. In the context of Reguli, it is LA, Nuit and Hadit conjoined.
IHVH represents god in manifestation or Microprosopus. It enumerates to 26 by gematria, which is 13 x 2. 13 is the enumeration of AChD or unity. IHVH therefore expresses unity (AL) by means of duality (ShT or Beast and Babalon conjoined). It is the way in which nullity expresses itself in manifestation or as the Tree of Life or 0=2.
The conclusion would be that all the points of the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram (32) on the whole create another Hexagram that symbolizes the Qabalistic Zero, radiating from the center of the Column and flooding the whole Circle with the Limitless Light of Ain Soph Aur. And the Hexagram is the formula of unifying opposites (positive and negative, active and passive, male and female), by the 0=2 Equation.
This sheds light on what it means that Reguli is meant to “invoke the energies of the Aeon of Horus.” The “first gesture” of the ritual—the drawing of the Elevenfold Seal—is depicting the unfolding process leading to the creation of the cosmos. It is also establishing the scaffolding—the cross-paths—that allow for the process of return. The “second gesture”—in which the Son raises the Daughter to the Throne of the Mother—is the familiar process of Tetragrammaton which, by means of sexual interaction between Son and Daughter, the process of return takes place. What Reguli adds to this conception is the idea that Nuit and Hadit (Daughter and Son) must become “sexually mature” as Babalon and Therion on their way of return.
AHIHVH is important for other aspects of Crowley’s spirituality. He relates it to the Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram. By means of the LRP it is indirectly connected with the production of the Medicine of Metals. The connection with the Medicine of Metals is made explicit through Crowley’s discussion of the production of the Eucharist of Six Elements in Magick in Theory and Practice Chapter 20. The production of this medicine is a secret guarded by the Sanctuary of the Gnosis of O.T.O. This formula is also the guiding structure behind Liber HHH, which describes some of the work of the Outer College of A∴A∴. At least one Thelemic author, J. Daniel Gunther, has made an extensive case for the AHIHVH formula being essential to a comprehension of Thelemic initiation in general. (See Initiation in the Aeon of the Child and The Angel and the Abyss.)
As I said in my recent talk on art and magick, when a magical formula is involved in so many disparate aspects of Crowley’s magick—especially when it illuminates mysteries of both A∴A∴ and O.T.O.—you can bet it is essential to an understanding of Thelemic spirituality generally. I hope to deal with this formula in greater depth in subsequent writings, exploring more fully its importance for Thelemic magick generally.
As for Reguli, my treatment of it here is not exhaustive. I have hardly dealt with the function of the cross-path of Daleth or how Aiwass figures into all of this. (There’s another hexagram that uses the path of Daleth as the base of a triangle.) I didn’t even touch on the elemental attributions of the deities/quarters, and I barely dealt with the significance of the cakras. But hopefully this shows the way in which Reguli is expressive of the underlying ontology and theology of Thelema and how the sex magick implicit in it relates to Crowley’s broader spiritual concern as expressed in the AHIHVH formula.
Please Note: It is up to each individual to decide this question (and all questions regarding Liber AL vel Legis) for themselves by appeal to Crowley’s writings (or however they see fit).
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Crowley’s condemnation of compassion. This condemnation is in the Book of the Law itself (AL II.18-21), and Crowley himself elaborates on it in many places. Here are just two examples:
Compassion, the noblest virtue of the Buddhist, is damned outright by Aiwass. To “suffer with” some other being is clearly to cease to be oneself, to wander from one’s Way. It always implies error, no Point-of-View being the same as any other: and in Kings—leaders and rulers of men—such error is a vice. For it leads straight to the most foolish Rule ever laid down, “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.” (Djenerensis Comment to AL II.21)
And:
Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of Tuberculosis, and such diseases, as we now do? Nature’s way is to weed out the weak … We must therefore go back to Spartan ideas of education; and the worst enemies of humanity are those who wish, under the pretext of compassion, to continue its ills through the generations … Let weak and wry productions go back into the melting-pot, as is done with flawed steel castings. Death will purge, reincarnation make whole, these errors and abortions. Nature herself may be trusted to do this, if only we will leave her alone. (New Comment on AL II.21)
But the condemnation of compassion does not necessarily entail indifference toward the distress of others:
Pity, sympathy and like emotions are fundamentally insults to the Godhead of the person exciting them, and therefore also to your own. The distress of another may be relieved; but always with the positive and noble idea of making manifest the perfection of the Universe. Pity is the source of every mean, ignoble, cowardly vice; and the essential blasphemy against Truth. (“Duty”)
In other words, acts of kindness are permissible if they are carried out for reasons other than pity. It’s not the effect that is condemned but the passion that could motivate it.
Of course one can cavil endlessly over what words mean, but these statements do not strike me as any more ambiguous than statements Crowley makes on subjects such as individual liberty and sexual freedom that many Thelemites take for granted.
The condemnation of compassion is not a standalone claim, something merely tacked on as an afterthought to Thelema. Crowley presented an argument against compassion that proceeds from premises accepted by many Thelemites, viz., love under will and the joyous nature of existence:
(1) “All Events are Acts of Love Under Will.” (DC on AL II.9)
(2) “[Therefore] Hadit now sayeth to all that they should be mindful of the Nature of that which exists; it is pure joy” (Ibid)
(3) “The highest are those who have mastered and transcended accidental environment. They rejoice, because they do their Will; and if any man sorrow, it is clear evidence of something wrong with him.” (NC on AL II.19)
(4) “[Those who suffer] had better “die in their misery”; that is, cease once and for all to react so feebly and wrongly as they do: for such a Point-of-View as they shew forth is not to be endured. It is not truly Hadit at all; not any one Point, but a shifting fulcrum: let it be no more counted among True Things.” (DC on AL II.21)
The argument is a little obscure between (2) and (3). A generous reconstruction might be:
Any change from one thing into another is willed on the part of Hadit. But this is the same thing as Hadit once again loving Nuit, thereby dissolving the previous moment into ecstacy.
So despite appearances, each moment is joyful or blissful. Dukkha is not the preeminent reality; ananda is.
If one fails to perceive this, the fault lies with the individual who is misperceiving things, not with reality itself.
Therefore, don’t feel sorry for the person who is miserable. They’re doing it to themselves.
Leaving aside whether the argument is sound, it is simple and clear enough to understand. That being the case, these seem to be the possible responses to it:
(1) There’s something wrong in AC’s argument here, either the premise or the inferences connecting the premise to the conclusion.
Since the premise is love under will—in other words, a part of Thelema many Thelemites agree is its essence—then if the problem is with the premise, Thelema (at least as many Thelemites seem to understand it) is nonsense. One should probably not be a Thelemite.
If it’s the inferences, then the condemnation of compassion in Liber AL is not what AC thought it was. This challenges the notion, oft repeated by AC himself, that he was in a unique, privileged position to interpret the BotL. (Crowley also denied he was able to exhaust the meaning of the book by means of his own analysis.) It also challenges at least the literal interpretation of The Comment, a Class A text, which O.T.O. policy and the behavior of a lot of Thelemites is based on.
The premise (also) does not mean what AC thought it meant. This leads to the consequences of 1(b) and the additional consequence that there is no reason to agree on what the essence of Thelema even is. Some would undoubtedly celebrate this result.
(2) Both the premises and the inferences are correct. The problem is with those of us who still “suffer with others”. We’re not living in accordance with nature. We can either:
Get our act together and “be Hadit” and “be kings,” or
Choose not to. We’re always free to do that. Aiwass’ word for such people is “slaves”.
(3) Both the premises and the conclusion are correct, but one will just not be consistent on this point. Most followers of most religions aren’t consistent, and cognitive dissonance isn’t exactly rare, so this wouldn’t be anything new. Depending on how they interpret AL II.32, one might choose to fall back on Aiwass’ condemnation of reason.
While I present (2b) and (3) as separate, I think they’re effectively the same. In other words, I think being inconsistent on this particular point is just what AC (and for that matter Aiwass) meant by being a slave.
Another possibility is that there is no good reason to condemn compassion, but you had better do it anyway, because Aiwass commands it.
You disagree with Aiwass—so do all of us. The trouble is that He can say: “But I’m not arguing; I’m telling you.” (Magick Without Tears, XLVIII)
But I am assuming for the sake of discussion that there is an argument in favor of the position. Crowley seems to agree, otherwise he wouldn’t have presented the argument in the first place.
While I consider it of service to others to show what Crowley said about this issue, why he said what he said, what I perceive to be possible responses to this issue, and what I perceive to be the likely consequences of those responses, I have made an effort not to tell anyone what the best response is. If it appears as though I have attempted to tell anyone what they should do, then that is the result of accident rather than design. It is ultimately up to each individual to decide this question (and all questions regarding Liber AL vel Legis) for themselves by appeal to Crowley’s writings (or however they see fit).
