by MT

extracted from MATRIX IV

from Chaozation Website

recovered through WayBackMachine Website











(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 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 “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