AAA:
(a) Initials of the Initiatic
Name of the Mother, conferred through subtle Voice transmission
from the higher planes December 19, ‘79. Signifies Ama Amrita
Aima (for exposition of Name’s meaning, see The Mother Book).
(b) Chief symbolic signature of the European Renaissance Mahachohan
Sir Francis Bacon (qv), alluded to in the
pseudonymously authored A Choice Of Emblems by “Geoffrey
Whitney” first published by Christopher Plantyn of Leyden in
Holland, 1586 and dedicated, as were other of Bacon’s now. de
plume works, to the Earl of Leicester. Using the old English
Alphabet of 24 letters by the simple letter-number count, the
word Sowe adds to 53. Both Sowe and 53 are frequently used in
Baconian cryptography to represent or otherwise indicate the
presence of the author.
On page 53 of “Whitney” we find the
picture of a sow rooting (a sow was the ancient symbol of the
Mother in societies of the matriarchate, and carried over into
times of the Egyptian dynasties as a fertility emblem of the Skygoddess Nuit). Near the sow in the center of the picture is a
pyramid, identified by various authorities as Bacon’s “favorite
symbol for his philosophy” (Johnson, The Shakspere Illusion page
110). One side of the pyramid shows a dark A and the other side
a light A, “similar to the dark and lights ornaments in the
First Folio of the ‘Shakespeare’ plays” (op. cit.).
Together
with the central A-shaped pyramid, the flanking mirror letters
comprise a signature AAA emblem. In conjunction with the rest of
the symbolism, it’s clear the intent was to associate this
classically Baconian signature with a Mothering principle. The
pseudonym “Whitney” was assumed by Bacon when at Great Yarmouth
visiting his Lord High Steward the Earl of Leicester, whose
under steward Geffrey Whitney was at that time sent to Leyden
with the task of seeing the Choice of Emblems volume through to
Plantyn’s press publication. “Geffrey Whitney” was simply
converted to “Geoffrey Whitney”, as was typical of so many small
alterations worked upon Bacon’s pseudonymously assumed
identities. (See Shakespeare, William.)
(c) Emblem and abbreviation of the chief female deity acknowledged
in the ancient
Cthronouswren Mysteries. Owing to the secret character of the
rites, little information is contemporaneously
available on the actual Name to which the more generally-known
initials applied;
however, from excavations, various intact or reconstructed
inscriptions and careful analysis of
surviving literatures we may obtain a fairly clear idea of the
general tenor and pronunciation of the
Name, as well as the character and significance of the deity to
whom it belonged.
Strangely,
philologists now seem certain there’s an etymological connection
between the Elusinogenic Name
and that of the Japanese Sun-goddess Ama Terasu, though little
recommends itself in the way of
explanation as to how such apparently disparate cultures
patently isolated in intercourse might
possibly have sown the same mnemonic typology between
themselves.
However, AAA does
apparently render itself, by way of certain keys proceeding both
from Lucian and Hippolytus, as Ama-Atarseus-Avi (this last part
variantly rendered as AVI-LN, AIVB or AIAVA depending on
authority cited or, according to the questionable interpretation
of Porphyry preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea, depending on the
particular usage/intonation of the daduchos or hierokeryx at
given intervals of the rite—whether invoking Her aspect as the
Essence, as Bearer of Gladness or Grief, Moderator of curses
etc.). In any case it is more certain under authority of
Hippolytus that the first two portions of Her name were
invariably recited in a kind of liturgical antiphony when her
hogshead emblem was displayed by ho epi bomo, the sacrificial
priest, such emblem no doubt constituting the Elusinogenic
teleiotaton epoptikon mysterion itself.
We may not know for certain the content of these most sacred
Cthronous-wren rites since they were closed to uninitiates of
the general social order, and revealed only by special
invitation of its hierophantic moderators. There is evidence
however such invitation wasn’t confined solely to candidates in
the membership-culture but was on occasion extended to those of
neighboring societies, often as far as Patroclos to the north
(apparently the appellation “barbarian” applied to the latter by
the host society had no true bearing on qualifications for or
potential candidacy to the Mysteries. This fact is no doubt
connected to the syncretism and polytheism indicative of the
conquering Kronons, traits known to foster forbearance and a
type of incorporative tolerance for the invaded cultures, their
deities and peoples.)
Though we may not with certainty detail the actual proceedings
of the rites of AAA themselves, begun each year on Boedromion 21
and completed late September of the Julian year (possibly, the
22nd of September or the Autumnal Equinox), a fair approximation
of their spirit if not their content may be derived from known
myths incorporating characteristics and attributes of the
goddess and of her chief consorts. Thus in Mygraves we find a
version of the common myth, celebrated amongst the greater
Kronon population and neighboring societies from pre-Helic times
till at least the post-Tempfloral restorations, regarding the
wanderings of one Imach Shomiv V’Char-gojen and his efforts to
obtain the Sacred Firebird GShEQI (literally,
“Firebird-All-Knowing-Everything”).
According to most redactions
of the myth which Mygraves simply reiterates, the protagonist
V’Char-gojen had long sought the Likeness of the legendary
Firebird in the old country of Ritzeus-Keys (presumed
archeologically to correspond to an ancient Mycenaean settlement
at the same approximate site of sacred buildings dedicated to
the Ama-Avi Mysteries in historical times). Having no success on
his own but continuing, impelled by greed of what possession of
the Bird’s Likeness implied in terms both of sublime and mundane
knowledge, V’Char-gojen was at last directed to the Cave of
Machpellah at the abyssal edge of Amaten Mountain—his instructor
being variously a torchbearing Harpy, a Valerian plant or a
featherless Moa depending on the region and timeperiod from
which the tale is taken. He is instructed to recite the magical
cry “Iakch ‘o Iakche” upon approaching the bridge to the lesser
chasm that leads to the Enchanted Cave directly overlooking the
Abyss of the Greater.
Thus V’Char-gojen proceeds safely over the
bridge, noticing however while he does that in the ravine below
is a veritable rack of bleached bones belonging to sundry
deceased who’d challenged the bridge unfortified by technical
knowledge of the “cry”.
At the pitch-black entrance of the Cave
he stops, and shouts as per instruction:
“Oh Mahakala, great
Black Transcendental Lord of Wisdom and revered husband of
Ama-Atarseus-Avi: I, Imach Shomiv V’Char-gojen entreat you by the Names of Iakche
and Kore, Kteis and Mnemosyne and Gamymede to call upon your
wife the All-powerful goddess AAA forthwith that she may furnish
me a Perfect Likeness of the Firebird GShEQI.”
At first there’s a pause; we may presume that, where the actual
mysteries parallel these features of the myth, the candidate
awaits to see whether the hierokeryx will respond as anticipated
allowing him to pass to the greater Hall. Presently an echoing
Voice, at first frightening to Imach in its resounding
abruptness, issues from the blackness of Machpellah Cave: “It
may be as you wish,” the Mighty Mahakala intones, “but you must
wait. Since you’ve appealed for the Firebird’s Likeness, it will
take some time for Ama to fashion it so the Image is magickally
effective; and she must fashion it only with one hand, for her
Other and right hand is wholly occupied in battling the Demons
of Amaten Abyss.
Since we are the only Deities who may dwell in
the Pit while retaining our place in Heaven, we are the only
ones standing between the host of hell here with us and the
World outside beyond the cavewalls, where dwell you yourself and
all your kindred.” On hearing this, Imach Shomiv V’Char-gojen
bridles, and begins to balk; but, recovering himself, he
inquires discreetly “how long then must I wait?” “I can’t tell
you, precisely,” comes the reply, “but you may return tomorrow.”
Bright and early on the ‘morrow, V’Char-gojen returns, giving
the appropriate cry of Iakch ‘o Iakche in order safely to cross
the bridge and then repeats his request in the same phraseology
at the cave-entrance.
This time the resounding voice of the
great Black Transcendental Wisdom Lord Mahakala issues from the
impenetrable darkness of the cave-mouth, saying:
“V’Char-gojen, you worthy soul knowing the password to Chaironyx
Bridge—I have requested the Likeness of the Firebird on your
behalf to my Wife, and it may be as you wish; but you must wait
as She’s only able to fashion it with her left hand as her right
hand is wholly occupied with battling the demons of Amaten
Abyss. And, because of the aeonic length of this battle and the
fact we have no other help except the occasional candidate (such
as yourself) Heaven might see fit to send us, Ama-Atarseus-Avi
has become very weak and is now passing sick. So again I say
that you must wait.”
At first V’Char-gojen is almost audibly upset; feeling however
that, being deep inside the Cave and utterly Invisible neither
Mahakala nor Ama may perceive his vexed vituperative expression,
Imach quickly recovers audible composure while the grimace
clings fast to his face and inquires, in the meekest tone he can
muster:
“Then how long must I wait?” “That I cannot say with
exactitude, dear Imach,” came the reply, “but you are privileged
to return the next day and ask again.”
The next day, Imach is at the cave-entrance even before the
orange of dawn can crawl
across crenelated clouds above the mountaintops; in a voice he
doubtless assumes, with ravaging
impatience, is a model of restraint, Imach asks again and again
the voice roars up from the darkened-entrance in response.
“It may be as you wish, but you must
wait.”
This time it occurs to Imach that,
as with all such fabled procedures, three times is certainly the
charm; this is surely that type of test
which tries the patience of the most forbearing but, marked
beforehand by its patent limit may
encourage perseverance of the canny past its penultimate
offputting.
He need but return again, and
such virtue of persistence will surely be rewarded as the
three-fold masks of opposition are
ceremoniously lowered in revelation of the pedestaled and
preening Firebird, from which all the
wealth-garnering knowledge in the world may be freely taken. In
the meanwhile, swelled with the
magnanimity permitted by imminent triumph, Imach casts his
glance quickly about and providentially
perceives a summana plant, legendarily capable of curing any
ill.
He swiftly rips it out of the
ground, unmindful of its tender roots, and, casting it down into
the foreboding pitch of Machpellah
Cave he shouts after it:
“I have gone to great expense and much
trouble of time to find precisely
what your beleaguered wife most sorely needs. Have her brew an
extract of these wondrous roots and she shall be well before the
day is out.”
The voice of Mahakala deep within the cavern issues gratitude at
the gift; and Imach, satisfied that his sacrificial offering
would dispose the gods favorably toward granting his request,
departs only to return early the next morning.
Having cannily
calculated his ritualized combination of moves for this the
portentous third effort, the self-styled candidate V’Char-gojen
calls down into the pit with nary pause nor ablution for holy
composure,
“how is your Wife, Oh great Mahakala? and how is She
coming with the Likeness of the Firebird you promised me?”
There
ensues what to Imach is an unacceptable silence, an
uncomfortable—even irritating—pause before Mahakala’s subdued
voice eventually rejoins:
“Ama-Avi is still very ill, oh worthy Imach; though she has never ceased working on the Firebird
Likeness, such a thing must be done with surpassing care simply
for the sake of your safety and well-being; and we must add to
the native delicacy and even tediousness of such work the
inescapable fact that Ama must perform this task with her left
hand alone, for her right is wholly occupied with keeping the
demons of Amaten Abyss at bay which work is also for no one’s
sake other than yours.”
“Yes, yes,” Imach replies with
ill-concealed disappointment and an impatience no longer so
willing to suffer the suppression of its imperious sovereignty,
no longer so sanguine to subordinate its own indignant right to
self-expression. “But has she taken the summana plant I obtained
for her at such trouble and expense?”
The reply was
unsatisfactory; Imach could scarcely make out what obfuscating
babble Mahakala seemed to be speaking at this point, as he
answered in a voice so soft it might have been that of an old
woman mumbling prayers under her breath at the sanctuary of
Heliclos beseeching the healing fountains for some twilight hour
fertility—Imach was chagrined to believe he was hearing
incomprehensible matters having to do with the “transcendental
nature” of the Mother-Goddess, how she wasn’t like any mortal
who might “take something” for an ache or pain and be swiftly
healed in the protective insularity of an individualized
self-enclosure or Auric “shell”, but how instead her “Health
Aura” was an open continuity to and for the world, a sublime and
sanctified Spirit-aura to which all things were associated
umbilically and through which all “private” energies secretly
circulated like the purifying womb-egg of the Mother, in which
the fetus-consciousness abides and is continuously fed and
cleansed—These things Imach heard, but scarcely, as he was not
disposed in the first place to strain himself unduly over the
softer tones emanating up from the Cave—and since what he did
seem to hear was a clear affront to his own sovereignty as a
being owing nothing to anything much less to the Divine Process
that was pleased to serve the beating of his heart and
effortless whisper of his lungs...
Imach interrupted Mahakala’s barely intelligible speech,
intruding the sole important
theme in no-nonsense manner, “cutting to the chase” with
admirable efficiency as it were... “Then
just how long must I wait?” As an answer did not immediately
issue up out of the cave, Imach
blanched and had manfully to check an onrushing fit of
apoplexy—after all, he’d waited the decent
formal interval of three full times in uncustomary supplication
before the cavemouth at which no
visible appearance deigned to palliate his indignity...in the
midst of recomposing himself, Imach
Shomiv V’Char-gojen was mildly startled to hear a horrible and
multitudinous Wail emit instead
from deep within the Cave.
It did not sound at all like Mahakala,
nor did he believe it could be
Ama-Atarseus-Avi though he’d never really heard her Voice; but
it was an awful cacophony, a
hideous roaring upswell of cackling and keening as if carrion
creatures were of a sudden rejoicing
at some providential death in the wilderness. Indeed it would
have alarmed Imach out of all bounds
or reason rather than merely moved him in mild self-concern for
the moment, had he not realized almost at once that the demonic
Din, while flying from the cavemouth in all directions like bats
of sound, gave no impression that its unknown Source was rising
toward the entrance; rather he felt quite confident it was
confined below, and was safely there in the invisibility where
only Ama-Avi and Mahakala dwelt.
Though sheets of fire soon
belched from the cavemouth, and a dark rumble like an earthquake
from the Kore made him momentarily tremble in response, Imach
was soon secure in his belief that the whole ruckus, whatever it
was, was confined below. He did not realize that part of what
Mahakala had been trying to tell him in such soft voice, was
that owing to Ama-Avi’s Purifying and Mothering continuity with
the whole They were uncommonly knowledgeable as to the way in
which disturbances seemingly taking place deep within the
“separateness” of the Cave actually stretched out on flowlines
like a fanning horse’s tail sending flaws and fissures all
through the very ground on which Imach stood, so that at any
time such solid-seeming earth could split and crack straight
under his too-confident feet disgorging hosts of demons as it
did so.
Yet of this Imach knew nothing, for he had scant
patience to hear anything but the word as to how long he must
now wait. He was given such word, therefore, after the horrid
din died down, being told merely to return tomorrow.
Three more times Imach came back, in an early morning hour he
knew would leave him the whole rest of the day giving him a
great head start on extracting treasure from the Firebird; but
he did not receive the promised Firebird on these occasions,
though he was carefully courteous to obey the ritual form by
inquiring first (or, at least, sometime) “how is your Wife?”
before demanding to know if the Likeness of the Firebird was
ready for him or how long he must wait if it weren’t.
These
repeating passages of the Ama-Avi myth are almost certainly
reflections of the actual Mystery proceedings of the goddess’
sacred rites, and probably served as “instructions” for the
potential candidate; from the interpretations of Mygrave and
ingenious archeological studies of the Sutcliffe school, a
certain soupcon of intelligibility is extracted from the Stew of
fragmentary evidences leading scholars to conclude that the
candidate to the Avian mysteries was inducted under precisely
such challenges; the cautionary character of the myth dovetails
with studies of socio-religious propriety and contemporary
etiquettes of the Kronon culture so it seems safe to conclude
the “Imach” character furnishes a crude cartoon of the extreme
negative model, i.e. a veritable “what not to do” during the
course of the Mystery proceedings unmistakable to the most
opaque aspirant or northern barbarian of Myle, a region
apparently famous to the Kronons for its general loutishness.
It
seems rather clear from scholarly reconstructions that the
appropriate behavior of the candidate would consist in making
preliminary inquiry after the Firebird, then on hearing of the
ill-health of the Mother merely inquire thereafter—with
sincerity—as to her well being, prudently refraining from making
any farther mention of the “Firebird” for an indefinite length
of time (apparently the three-fold call between candidate and keryx functioned as a formal minim during celebration of the
rites, but could be repeated a variable number of times in
practice depending on conditions of the season, attributes or
characteristics of the candidate etc.).
In any case the myth ends, with this illustrative negative
model, at the point Imach
Shomiv V’Char-gojen is satisfied at last in his insistent
request and receives the Likeness of the
Firebird, magickally transported on Air out of the Machpellah
cave with brilliant peacock crest and
flaming pages of electric feathers fluttering and flowing like
an opalescent ermine to the ground
behind it—its Eyes two gemlike discs issuing lights in all
directions; but of all this Imach is
manifestly unaware as he abruptly seizes what is his Due, and
without further ceremony or pretense
of show before the black mouth of Machpellah Cave stalks off to
find a solitary place where he may interrogate the Likeness at
Leisure, and extract from it all the expected Treasures.
A narrative coda to the myth is often appended, ensuring that
the hearer understands:
had the erstwhile “candidate” Imach approached with ritual
propriety and a sincere heart, he’d automatically have had the
patience to wait forever, not for the Firebird Likeness but for
Word of the Mother’s recovery and well-being so that in the End
he would not have received the Likeness of the Firebird at all
(thus, he would not have “created his own” reality and so would
have been spared the calamitous consequences of that uninitiate
orientation to the legendary Mysteries); he would not have
received the Likeness of the Firebird since in his authentic
caring he would have long abandoned the conceit of “personal
reality creation” altogether therefore abandoning selfish
attachment to his request, and inferentially to the things with
which he was most identified (i.e. the “treasures” devolving
from “possession of the Firebird’s Likeness”).
He would not have
received the Firebird’s Likeness, but rather (the hearer is
assured) he would have received the Firebird Itself, in the form
of the Personal Appearance to him of the Whole and Restored
Mother from out the black cave of Machpellah.
This indeed seems to be the actual denouement of the
Ama-Avi
Mysteries, when the goddess herself emerges from a cavemouth
entrance to the accompaniment of thrashing sistrums and
torchlight to Receive the successful candidate.
The hearer is informed as well in this useful Coda, how Imach
had he merely adhered to formal propriety (being in his
constitution incapable of the requisite sincerity), refraining
from announcing the trouble, time and expense it took him just
to get to Machpellah Cave etc. and discreetly inquiring after
the Mother’s well-being according to minimum formal prescription
of the rites, would have been able at least to walk away with
the Likeness of the Firebird in relative impunity—rather than
suffering the irreversible Subtraction from the wholeness of his
Soul-being thereafter accompanying every emolument and prize
received from possession of the Firebird till finally being
eroded by weight of his sum acquisitions both in body and soul
to a final Oblivion.
Absolute: Despite what detractors of
certain philosophic persuasions—including the ostensibly
“metaphysical”—have to say, an indispensable concept at a
threshold stage of spiritual development. Properly understood,
the misgivings many feel in the face of so formidable an idea,
melt away; though, like many another term, “absolute” has been
used (both as noun and verb) to reinforce perfectly political
notions with an unimpeachable cant, understanding of the concept
mustn’t be allowed to stop at the doorstep of its flagrant
abuses (it should be obvious such “argument” against the
validity of a term may be brought against any whatsoever, since
no term boasts a history free of abuse; the same objection has
been sustained against the concept “god”, simply because of the
priestly distortions to which it has been subjected
historically—yet for any reasoning soul it should be clear, that
to scotch the entire theme due to the more belying
interpretations found in the mouths of perfectly disingenuous
perpetrators is to empower the latter with an efficacy that
never should be granted, i.e. the power to deprive mankind of a
key idea simply because they have wrongly employed it).
Understood in the Initiatory context, “absolute” is an
irreducible/fundamental reality
more than merely a theme, with which the authentic initiate must
become familiar on a first person
basis. Indeed the historical case in the initiatory context
shows the inevitable requirement for coming
to terms with the idea as reality rather than concept. The
intelligence of the true, initiatory Gnosis
proclaims the ultimate knowability of Absolute; it insists that
absolute must be known and that its knowledge need not wait upon
completion of the last step in an infinite series. Two important
ideas flow immediately from this fact alone: first, the Gnostic
“viewpoint” necessarily implies that, whatever “Absolute” should
prove to be, It can’t be separate from the subject who would
“knowit.
Far from such gnosis involving a conceptual confusion
between “knower” and “known” as some commentators have suggested
(as if all the “knower” could ever know would necessarily have
to be self-estranging, objectified objects of knowledge), it
embodies the primary wisdom-insight that, m order to qualify as
Absolute such reality can’t be other than the subject who would
“know it”. Implied in this, is that Absolute
is—minimally—all-inclusive. Should the “initiatory subject”
prove to be other than or apart from the Absolute he determines
to Be, such “absolute” necessarily fails the first test. Thus,
whatever Absolute ultimately is, it must be more than “knowable”
in the usual conceptual sense, since any concept no matter how definitionally inclusive can’t—self-evidently—be considered
equal to reality as a whole. Any conceptualization of the theme
immediately belies its indispensable element of
comprehensiveness, since the cognizing subject can never be
delimited by or pinned down to a concept.
Another necessary implication immediately springs forward; the
“Knowing” required of an Absolute needn’t depend on definition
through the common organs of knowledge There is a fundamental
sense in which the value of knowing ontologically precedes the
specific “organs of knowledge” that may enforce its spirit
categorically. To know something in this primary sense is
inseparable from being, identical to and consistent with that
which is to be known.
There is a trick clause embedded in this
(progressively self-evident) requirement. First of all, we see
the wisdom of this reasoning; all those things conventionally
considered “known” as a matter of course, e.g. the objects of
perception, the litany of familiar ideas circulating through the
“interior monologue” etc., can’t possibly be “known” in any but
a passing way. Indeed they fit the Tibetan metaphysical analysis
as kunji namparshespa, “acquaintanceknowledge, basis of
everything”—that is, our knowledge of ideas and objects is a
kind of chronic “passing acquaintance” rather than irreducible
knowing since every such object of knowledge is necessarily
conditional, externally and internally; externally, “idea” or
“object” is conditional in the sense of pure contingent
juxtaposition.
Everything occurs along with everything else (the
Buddha’s “interdependent originations”), and in no “eternal
order” at that! but as a pure function of contingency;
contingency, in turn, is a function of perspective. Some would
insist “perspective” is a product of contingency, e.g. Sartrian
phenomenology; astute analysis shows, however, that
“contingency” is an observational hypothesis issuing from the
irreducible immediacy clinging to the fact of perspective—on the
other hand, the existence of “perspective” as product of
contingency is the result of reasoning inference; it shares no
symmetry with respect to the observational hypothesis of
“contingency” as a function of perspective.
The latter is an irreducible datum belonging only to the simple
immediacy of observation:
shift the locus of perspective and the contingent juxtaposition
of objects shifts; change the bracketing
psychological or subjective “perspective” of the internal
monologue, and the order of emphasis
amongst ideas shifts and shuffles accordingly; it is not
symmetrically simple to establish perspective
as a product of contingency; complex hypothetical
“reconstructions” have to be made with a
number of underlying assumptions in support, in order to
“conclude “upon the case for perspectival
contingency (this is how “evolutionary” ideas of chance are
derived, e.g. “your” existence at this
contingent place and time is sum-product of a number of random
“accidents” or incident
impingements generating a unique series belonging to sheer
circumstance, giving rise to the induplicable transiency of “you
“).
All of this belongs to the order of external conditionality; the
contingency of objects and ideas, as function of perspective,
applies to the “exteriorized” ordering of cognizable events; yet
the modes through which the given, perspectival locus
necessarily discerns conditional/interdependent items and ideas,
themselves belong to the order of internal conditionality. Note
here as well, that we may not leap to any hypothesis of random
conditionality (or sheer contingency) for the perspectival locus
itself, but may only state the obvious case for all
“externalizing” phenomena appearing through conditional
instruments.
As far as the cogency of our original conclusions
is concerned, such instruments are themselves only self-evident
functions of perspective, like their corresponding objects—not
the other way around. In the cases of both external and internal
conditionality, the perspectival limit makes all cognized
products descriptively conformant to “acquaintance knowledge”
only, which consigns them to a partializing “group” unsuitable
for qualifying as that kind of knowing commensurate with
absolute. The conditionality of all such polarizing instruments
and corresponding, complementary objects makes the whole format
obtained through such means unequal to the totality of the
subject-self moderating the given perspectival locus. Thus all
such “knowledge” discloses itself as approximation (and
instrumental representation) of a fundamental value informing
its operations and underwriting its operations, but for which
the products of its operations are ultimately-unsuitable
substitutes.
We’ve already seen how any “Absolute” must be
knowable, since it can’t be other than the subject-self or
cognizing consciousness (i.e. Absolute must be non-exclusive).
At the same time, we understand how the objects of cognition and
perception are only provisionally “knowable” since by the rule
of contingency they can never correspond to the transcendent
totality of the cognizing subject. The perspectival locus,
moderated by the subject-self, is curiously without limitation
in itself except secondarily by reflection of contingent (and
therefore changing) contents. It becomes progressively clear:
the only thing that can be known in the ultimate sense is
Absolute, since the conditional objects of knowledge can never
correspond to the whole-being reality of the subject (which,
remember, cannot be other than or apart from Absolute, since
Absolute is necessarily inclusive; at the same time, Absolute
cannot ultimately be known by anything which is other than It,
since to Know something implies identity—even the conditional
objects-of-knowledge are expressions of identification, i.e.
contingent forms of Identity).
We’re perfectly aware that the above description exactly
reverses the classic Shankara definition: “everything can be
known, but the Knower can never be known”. However, honoring the
sage’s understanding we nonetheless insistently detect a flaw in
the description; and here it is: obviously Shankara means that
“everything which can be known is expression of some conditional
instrument that—comparatively—allows it to be known, whereas the
Knower, being equivalent to the inexpressible totality can never
be accounted-for or subsumed through the delimiting focus of the
knowledge-instruments (ever reducing-down the whole to a
representative/synthetic part)”.
However, we must then ask of this description, from whence comes
the value of knowing, which
takes such operative delight in the conditional instruments? If
the “knower can never be known”,
then “knowing” and “knowledge” arise mysteriously through Being
as obviously futile and
superfluous modes! Where’s the call for them in the first place?
In order to keep up consistency with the classic definition we must credit Maya with a power of
illusion, ultimately, that borrows
nothing from the very Absolute out of which it contrastively
springs!
Thus inferentially we grant
to Maya an independent creative power, one capable of endowing
the whole realm of creation (constitutionally “without
denouement” in itself) with qualities and properties not to be
found in the Creator source.
This introduces an unwanted magnitude, and indeed imbues
“reality” with an irreducible dualism; Maya, or the creative
power of “illusion”, is inferentially granted equivalency status
with Absolute since She now seems capable of
independent/antithetical productions owing nothing whatever to
the original Source! “Knowledge” now appears as Her own
whimsical and extraneous idea; and, deprived of the dignity of
innate connection to some Quality native to the Source, it takes
on the inferential stature of a demonic endowment proliferating
the manifest field for its own sake, like a cancer.
We may even
see how this isn’t just a little descriptive weakness of the
traditional (Hindu) viewpoint; it has shipped enormous cargoes
of functional implication over the centuries, elaborated
straight from the ideative defects, so that indeed as a yogic
orientation the World and all its attributes has tended to be
viewed as dysfunctional, strictly superfluous and refractorily
“competitive” with divinity to the degree of being regarded
as...a cancer (see the works of Guru Bawa Muhaiyadeen for
explicit exposition of this viewpoint). In order to avoid the
infinite regress embedded in this implicit philosophical
dualism, it’s necessary to see that the Shankara and Southern
Crown definitions are not just “basically two different ways of
expressing the same thing”.
They are fundamentally different,
and have two divergent Worlds of implication branching off from
them. We’ve seen the World implied in the Shankara definition.
It leads to such doctrinal absurdities and crippling self
contradictory edicts as those modernly issued by the “Siddha Da
Free John”, e.g. regarding the ultimate Divine Agnosticism of
Reality (which ranges, illogically, from “we can’t know a single
thing” to “we can’t know Absolute, the Divine etc.” as if the
two types of “knowing” ranged on an unbroken continuum...an
“interesting” proclamation, perhaps, until or unless one were to
question the unimpeachability of “Master Dα ‘s “ Spiritual
Realization, at which point of course one is inevitably assailed
with an Indubitability cosmic in its Certitude and instantly
belying all pretensions to a “Divine Agnosticism”...).
The World implied in the Southern Crown characterization, on the
other hand, does the classically Satanic thing of standing the
traditional masters on their heads, at which point their polka
dot underwear shows and we notice that “Maya” or the creative
power of manifestation necessarily borrows everything She has in
Her expressive wardrobe from Absolute, or Creator source.
Thus
the impulse to “knowledge” through the inexhaustibility of
conditional instruments takes its point of departure from the
value of Knowing, eternally resident in Absolute—and resident by
virtue of the very “requirements” for an “Absolute”, i.e. the
uninterrupted Self continuity with Itself even through, with,
above and beyond all “conditions” (themselves eternally
“permitted” by the All potential and non exclusivity of
Absolute), a Self congruence and perfect homogeneity necessarily sealed by a seamless Self coming to Itself which renders
Its inherent Quality as a Knowing.
Thus we may only truly know what truly Is. That which alone may
truly be known, can
never be separate from or different than the Knower. This
indicates a value of Knowing which is
immediate, apodictic, Intuitively whole and self subsistent
without the need of enabling instruments
or augmenting appendages but which may enhance and inform such
instruments and such append
ages, under conditions of their proper alignment and deferential
orientation toward Its informing
Presence. That value of Knowing takes its sufficient warrant
from the immediacy of Whole being
alone; it is an innate value of Consciousness so that, in mock
Mass of the messy Shankara mockup
of Spiritual Realization we may contrarily assert that “Nothing
may ever be known, except the
Knower”—(“Yet she shall be known and I never”: Liber Al vel
Legis, 2:4. Note that MT never quotes in reliance from any
Source, other than Himself and AAA; therefore see The Great
Instauration, Finis, part III, Liber Al Recurso in The Mother
Book).
Moreover this Absolute, being inseparable from the
Knowing of one’s total Being, is never necessarily the ultimate
rarefied disclosure of an infinitely receding “last step” in an
initiatory series, as if Absolute could only reside in Sach Kand
or Brahm Lok or whatever exclusivist heaven of heavens might be
posited by the hierarchist in question. Past a certain
initiatory threshold of mind/body integration alignment
minimally congruent with whole being value, the Spirit of
Absolute may be known, tasted, touched, experienced, drawn upon
and progressively identified as one’s own Being to the degree of
indelibility.
So surely is this a key feature of all real
spiritual practice, and so uniformly is its presence to be found
and confessed at every historical juncture of the Mysteries,
that we would really have to question any ostensibly “celestial”
or supramundane source such as “Bashar”, the Marciniak
“Pleiadeans” etc. who question the propriety of a posited
Absolute. We are here in the position of, say, an experienced airforce pilot listening to someone proclaiming before a rapt
audience of enlistees how he has logged in over a thousand hours
of flight-time in the ionosphere, how he’s test piloted landing
craft for Mars, how he’s flown shotgun for reentry modules over
the Pacific—yet who, when asked an elementary question on
aerodynamics, bluffly proclaims upon the inauthenticity of any
such thing as “airflow” or “wind resistance” and further
questions the integrity of anyone who doesn’t believe you can
just flap your arms and fly!
For those who yet need an “answer” to the sophistries of the
aforesaid sources, let’s just note that the complete
“relativity” of everything is an idea which collapses on itself
as self evidently lame. If everything we may experience as
“reality” is eternally resigned to the “relative”, how may we
know that? What’s our reference point for determining the
relativity of everything? If everything were “relative” with no
contrastive or comparative Reference we would not experience
relativity at all, but on the contrary we’d have to experience
the “absoluteness” of everything equally since everything
whatsoever would be equivalent without distinction.
The
“relativity” of any one thing to anything else with no other
factor subliminally embedded in the equation, could never serve
to modulate the presentational impact of either; for each would
ever be offset by an exactly equivalent amount so that a
proportional relativity could never be determined. We’d be stuck
in a universe where everything was, necessarily, an absolute
along with everything else no matter how contradictory such a
condition would seem, since the peremptory “relativity” between
each and all without appeal to a higher court allows them no
means of contrast and comparison (how do you “compare” two
things that are equally relative, and therefore exactly
equivalent?)
Absolutization of “the relative” gives no solution
but a sophistical one to the terms of existence. And make no
mistake about it; by demeaning the idea of Absolute (i.e. Divine
Reality) and exalting the idea of pure relativity, the pseudo
philosophus has only succeeded in absolutizing the relative,
which is no “success” at all. Yet the very identification of a
“relativity” amongst the compound things, should alert the wise
as to the self evident existence of a comparative and
contrastive Standard (through which such relativity would
possess a proportional magnitude, permitting a kind of weighing
upon a Scales whereby values may receive diminution or increase
according to their proximal correspondence to the Universal
whole being yardstick).
The comparative and contrastive Standard against which the
compound things may
legitimately be weighed, then, is none other than one’s own
Whole being value, ordinarily recessed
into quietly-subtending invisibility, in unobtrusive support of
those very “measuring” processes informing even the relative
instruments whereby we may intuitively assess the real tightness
of any given idea or action.
(Unerring assessment awaits degrees
of integration corresponding to a real threshold congruence with
whole-being value; otherwise, 3rd-stage psychology seizes upon
the vague/unfocused existence of such a Standard but immediately
conscripts it to its service and applies it on behalf of
contingent formations composing the operative psychic structure
already built on repressions, sublimations, projections etc.
This is the source of our “fear” regarding certitudes that seem
to collect around the very intimation of any such value as
“absolute”. Now it should be evident this is a fear founded in
the 3rd stage dilemma, without any basis on ontological
grounds.)
Aiwass:
Second non-incarnate manifestation of the
Mahachohan for the present Era (see
Malak Ta’us) identified as
the “Minister of Hoorpakraat”. Voice-dictated Liber Al vel Legis
(qv) to the poet
Aleister Crowley (qv) in Cairo 1904 on three
successive days.
Akhnaton:
Name of the first embodiment of the Mahachohan (qv) for the present world-period; Egyptian Pharaoh,
New Kingdom. “That criminal Akhnaton”. (See
Mahachohan.)
Ashtar/Hatton:
Early, space-cadet Beavis and Butt-head (see “Pleiadeans”).
Their initials compose the call-letters of their favorite 20th
century terrestrial folk-hero.
Bacon,
Francis:
Name of European Renaissance manifestation of the
Mahachohan (qv), born Jan. 22, 1561, allegedly died from
hilarious incident occurring on April 1st (All Fools’ Day) 1626,
taking its “final toll” of England’s Lord Chancellor that Easter
Sunday (Day of Resurrection).
The account of his ostensible
“death” is such a patently false concoction of Baron Verulam
himself that indeed only a Fool could believe it—which is why,
of course, scholars accept it as gospel to this day, and
encyclopedias solemnly repeat the playwright’s greatest Comedy
as if it were tragic fact...despite the fact that, when years
later exhumation of his body from its “burial place” in Saint
Michael’s Church, St. Albans, was attempted, nothing whatever
was found, Lord Bacon having long left for Germany to become,
among other contemporary marvels, Valentine Andrea (below
image) author of
Fama
Fraternitatis, the Rosicrucian Manifesto.
(V for Verulam and
Viscount, A for Albans: Baron Verulam, Viscount St. Albans. In
honor of this fact, a modern author/compiler has assumed a
pseudonym using these very initials thus com- From National
Portrait Gallery, London memorating his eternal love, Worship
and respect of the Renaissance Mahachohan.)*
As the true author of the
“Shakespeare” plays and many other works attributed to
pseudonymous contemporaries, (see The Mother Book) the challenge
Bacon presents to the modern sensibility makes of his whole
refractory Being a monumental Heresy (seeing that the myth of
“Shakespeare”, though easily punctured, has taken on the
sacrosanct character of that of a secular “Christ”, supported by
“authorities” who’ve never answered the charges, though they
claim to, but have quietly buried the evidence—far better than
the Lord Chancellor was ever buried—and look continuously the
other way in the hopes they persuade all others to do so). See
Mahachohan.
click images to
enlarge
left: From
Chymische Hochzeit - right: from a rare print 552
Breath-soul
(and causal body, karana sarira, suksma
sarira etc.): Compound vehicle created on patterning
implications of the (individuating) point-presence arising in
the Supernal Hypostasis of Mind, reflected toward, through and
in the “astral” medium of affective polarization. The
origination point and enfolded-but-extensible patterning process
through which Identity projects its potential “selves” into and
as the field of experience.
Human self-reflective consciousness “has” or functions through
the “causal lotus” or breath-soul. Kingdoms of nature preceding
the human, function indirectly according to coordinative
typologies organized through instrument of a supervisory
breath-soul situated congruent with the pleromatic axis (see
Pleroma) of those kingdoms. The breath-soul itself is a
distilled seed of the total nature-pattern, functioning as
multidimensional autonomic nerve-network and current processor
integrating through-and-as forms of the presiding ideotype.
The breath-soul is not itself identical to the astral chakra or
anahata of the standard yogic heart center, though the anahata
is a kind of symbolic reflection of the mind-born presence that
“sits” within the “space” of the astral. The breath-soul is
distinguishable as the causative agency, or projection of
patterning light geometries from Mental Hypostasis of the
Creative World (Olah ‘m H’Briah) reflecting correlated identity
codes toward convergence-nuclei or “cicatricose” pockets,
indenting the threshold membrane of astral space responsively
polarizing—through its own level—around saddles and dimples of
the informing impressions.
Light codes from Briatic identity
patterns (samskaras, memory-impressions) don’t directly infuse
or “light up” astral materia from inside (as it may seem through
their summary “soul vehicle” portrait); rather, maintaining
discrete densities of function they reflexively light—in
pointillist loci or coded concentrates of varying intensity
value—a contour field of topological twists around which
pranized or excited astral states roll and revolve as
kaleidoscopic vortices (the vritti, whirlpool-like disturbances
of “mind-stuff’ in the ocean of chitt).
Breath-soul is causal vehicle or instrument of Psyche (see “The
Great Instauration
Finis”), the ego-soul. Ego-soul is the individuating doer-like
projection of the informing Identity,
or Noetic hypostasis, serving a focal-coordinate function. As
the efficient self-referent or organizational
locus of patterning typologies the ego-soul represents the
Enjoyer, i.e. the Consciousness
which experiences the fruit of its potential in real acts and
events. There is no doctrine of
*For those less than convinced, 33 hours after school detention
and mandatory reading (or rereading) of The
Anatomy of Melancholy by “Democritus Junior”, first published
1621, in which is to be found the blatant footnote
legendary of occultists and theosophical scholars everywhere
stating:
“Joh. Valent. Andreas, Lord Verulam”.
Apparently Our Valued Francis wasn’t above occasional Minor
Telegraphing of a point, at least in footnote!
“authenticity” here, concerning independent existence of any
such operative of the Psychic coefficient (Buddhism for example
denies the reality of an “Atman”, Hinduism appears to
apotheosize it as a valid factor in itself. Understanding of the
values embedded in the “argument” depends on understanding the
presence, function and independent consideration of the
breath-soul. See also, Ahamkara).
For purposes of convenient comprehension we may draw on some
general categories which, while basically viable, possess
variations in actual expression—much as the worlds of donkey and
horse tend to retain their integrity though interesting
modulations arise. We may say then that the Identity of an
oversoul consciousness (a Noetic Hypostasis belonging to a
distinct typology—or ontological category—of first principles
such as Mother, Father, Father-of-Manifestation, Ancient One,
Dhyans Chohans etc.) finds within Itself twelve basic or
archetypal potentials—think of the Zodiac or Wheel of Stars, the
Primum Mobile for example.
Oversoul consciousness projects each
archetypal phase of its whole-identity by discriminated
individuation into the experiential field, to learn about the
specific potential possessed by that latent phase. Because each
such projection is “discreted” through the same essential
breath-soul or causative vehicle, such projections may be
interpreted as taking place “by turns”—though this is more an
ontological expression than temporal. Each projection, owing to
involved identification patterns of its experience, projects or
“splits off” in turn an ideal subset of twelve personality
variations etc. In practice there may arise such a reified
subdivision that the phases become efficiently fragmentary, and
have little-to-no opportunity of evolving further (though
technically of the degree of Self-consciousness) until or unless
a more whole prototype of the fragmentitious self affects the
particular resolution—through venue of its own
experience—corresponding to the psychic barrier debarring
further advance of the latter. In this case, the barrier seems
simply to dissolve for the more fragmentary projection-self, and
it thence has available to it real acceleration potential toward
individuation in its own right.
As each primary soul-division from the initial “twelve”
progresses in integration and coordinate harmonization of
faculties and functions toward greater degrees of real awareness
(becoming cannier, more wise, more objective in intelligence and
more understanding or empathetic in spirit etc.), the
subdivisions into which it has apparently fragmented begin to
“knit together” again so as to form “composite” incarnations at
intervals that successfully reconcile, resolve and blend into
one incarnative agency the formerly separated elements.
Eventually one of the original twelve projections absorbs its
secondary subdivisions as a whole and is able to incarnate all
their organized/harmonized traits as developed from
intensification of their respective experiences. The awareness
of the separate “past” incarnative fragments are all
incorporated in, and constitute the total incarnative potential
of, such a Threshold Personality. They are embodied in the
additively greater awareness of that Personality and no longer
emerge independently.
Such a threshold Personality has, then, potential to become a
spiritual adept of primary
degree or significance, correlating with or being equivalent to
the Offices of Manu, Bodhisattva or
Mahachohan (qv). The Awakening and ongoing service function of
mis primary twelfth part of the
Initiating Oversoul consciousness, acts thereafter as quickening
agent for the other eleven aspects
so as to accelerate their respective developments and
individuations. When all twelve have
Awakened equally after aeons of “time”, they become integrated
completely with and equivalent
to the Oversoul Hypostasis from which they originally sprang.
Collectively however, they add a
sum of experiential consciousness and aggregate Wisdom that didn
‘t exist directly in that Oversoul Hypostasis previously. Thus
the breath-soul has served as common vehicle for all twelve
(ego-soul) phases of the hypostatic Oversoul.
The breath-soul is then graduated, through Void-value of the
Pleromatic Axis, to the power of a Self-reflective consciousness
unit (qv). It no longer participates as the pre-consciousness of
nature-matter, but as the intelligence focusing
consciousness-matter. It exists hypostatically as Identity and
Mind; it acts and engages hypostatically as Psyche, and the
projective ego-soul.
Go Back
