Originally posted by Palasheea
Thanks undo! I'm reading it over now. Just don't know which ones out there are more correct than others... hard to tell which definition of that term is closer to it's original meaning.

so far he seems like he takes the subject very seriously and doesn't cut his presuppositions any slack. for example, he discovered the gods were not just idol statues. there are many christian people who believe the other gods were just statues not real entities but that isn't scriptural. he also does a good job on separating out the description of the serpent. i like that his background is in the ancient languages, especially the ancient hebrew and other biblical languages. it makes it more useful in the larger context, to know what the original words were and what they meant and how they were used

In an effort to get back to the painting,

The entity in this painting is named "Lam"

'Lam' is the Tibetian word for 'the Way' or 'the Path'

Could we actually be looking at Crowley's portrait of THE LAMB

would this tie any of this together

Originally posted by pavlovsdog
In an effort to get back to the painting,

The entity in this painting is named "Lam"

'Lam' is the Tibetian word for 'the Way' or 'the Path'

Could we actually be looking at Crowley's portrait of THE LAMB

would this tie any of this together

Probably not. This would be the anti-thesis of the Lamb.
For example, Jesus teaches that in Heaven, you'll be like the angels
who do not marry and are not given in marriage (et.al, there's not
supposed to be any hanky panky because it's only a function of
this physical dimension). We are encouraged to fight against
the hankerings (hehe) of the flesh, the desire for sex is a flesh
based desire and to focus more on the spirit, which wars
constantly with the flesh on matters eternal (being that the flesh
is temporary housing, and the spirit is eternal).

It would also be anti-thesis in that it suggests love in the context
of sex, when love is actually not sex at all. Sex is frequently
exchanged without love involved at all. So, his LAM is definitely
his idea of the anti-christ.

Hi all,
I've just finished reading the posts on the thread and hope you don't mind me adding my little bit of input. On the comments made by 'Pav' I have to say that I both agree and disagree. Reason being the man 'Crowley' was IMHO confused and contradictory.

I agree that he was 'not' a Satanist ... but I do believe he was a Demonologist. And from information provided by 'Pav' he was also a Buddist and a Khaballist ... and of course we cannot forget that he was the self-proclaimed 'King of The Witches' !!!

This kind of gives the impression that he was a 'jack of all faith's ... master of many'(in his own mind). We are also told that he liked to be referred to as 'The Beast666' (sounds like a username on ATS), to 'shock' and 'mock'.
So maybe it would be easier for all of us if he had one title ... let me think 'Egomaniac' ... yes, that about sums him up in one neat little package.

This is displayed in his lore; 'Do what thou wilt, let that be the whole of the lore'.

Some Pagans practice sex-magick rituals as a mutual act, for the purpose of raising the energy. It is well documented that Crowley's agender was often more perverted and a method of dominance and control of his 'subjects' ... and another ego-boost.

He also condoned 'blood sacrifice' ... but for obvious reasons this was usually thinly disguised by using the word 'prana' as a metaphor.

The confusing part is (for someone who referred to himself as the King of the Witches) ... he seemed pretty well obsessed with the Devil / Satan / Lucifer ... and yet they are Christian concepts ... true witches don't acknowledge this Christian entity.

In truth this man did witches no favours at all. In fact he and his writings are responsible for a lot of the ridiculous ideas and misconceptions that people have of modernday witches.

I agree with the person who posted that his artwork was mediocer and the drawing in question was quite possibly a self-portrait (whilst under the influence) ... the large head would be a perfect symbollic representation of his superior brain and intellect.

This is only my opinion and you might have guessed that I'm not too keen on anything the guy stood for.

Woody

Originally posted by woodwytch

and of course we cannot forget that he was the self-proclaimed 'King of The Witches' !!!

Woody, you disappoint me, Alexander Sanders (founder of the Alexandrian Wiccian Tradition) proclaimed himself 'King of the Witches' in the 1960's. This was never attributed to Crowley

We are also told that he liked to be referred to as 'The Beast666' [(sounds like a username on ATS), to 'shock' and 'mock'.

Please refer to my earlier post where I explained the origin of that name. If you have questions on it I'll be happy to answer. I'm not sure why you are bringing this back up, except to stir the pot. If you have issue with my explanation of the moniker, pls state it. Other wise this part of your post is just being sensationalistic. Something you seem to be accusing Crowley of

So maybe it would be easier for all of us if he had one title ... let me think 'Egomaniac' ... yes, that about sums him up in one neat little package.

He was an egomaniac. The ego is a very strong and powerful force. Ever study Jung? You might understand Crowley's 'demons' a bit better if you do.

This is displayed in his lore; 'Do what thou wilt, let that be the whole of the lore'.

Law NOT 'lore' also please dont forget the second part....Love is the law, love under will

Some Pagans practice sex-magick rituals as a mutual act, for the purpose of raising the energy. It is well documented that Crowley's agender was often more perverted and a method of dominance and control of his 'subjects' ... and another ego-boost.

Crowley was into kinky sex. So are many Christians, wiccians and members of many other religions. There was one key difference between Crowley's sex magic and the sex magic of your referenced pagans however. And to Crowley and many gnostics, it's the anthesis of being Luciferian.

He also condoned 'blood sacrifice' ... but for obvious reasons this was usually thinly disguised by using the word 'prana' as a metaphor.

He recognized the powers inherent in blood and seminal fluid. Do you deny that they are conduits?

The confusing part is (for someone who referred to himself as the King of the Witches) ... he seemed pretty well obsessed with the Devil / Satan / Lucifer ... and yet they are Christian concepts ... true witches don't acknowledge this Christian entity.

Again, wrong person. I guess you might be Gardenerian
Once we get past your incorrect comment, - - His use of Lucifer is in a gnostic alchemical sense. Lucifer is not Satan. Crowley had nothing to do with satan or devils, he DID work with demons, and once again, I encourage you to read Jung for more background on this.

In truth this man did witches no favours at all. In fact he and his writings are responsible for a lot of the ridiculous ideas and misconceptions that people have of modern day witches.

These misconceptions are not the fault of crowley but more the fault of the media and pop culture. Just as I said before, what most people know about Crawley is what they hear about from rock bands, juvenile black arts practicioners, and the 700 club. Crowley never set out to smear witches. I'm not sure he ever had anything to say on the subject actually.

This is only my opinion and you might have guessed that I'm not too keen on anything the guy stood for.

I'm actually not keen on the man either. Much of what he wrote is intentionally misleading, and I question the reason for that. I believe by being intentionally misleading, he endangers people in an effort to hide his real meaning. I'm not a Thelemite. I'm not a member of the OTO. But, I HAVE studied him. I have done much more than read his books. I have done nothing but play devils advocate and watch others continue to spit inconsistencies. Spreading mis information does not help us 'deny ignorance' instead it propagates it.

BigWhammy,

I just listened to your music for Guy's show. Awesome!
You know Zeph Daniels, by chance?

Oh this next song is good, too! Reminds me of Steve Taylor.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by undo]

Hey undo, used my 'secret option' to find you...

So what's going on here? Are we unraveling another mystery?

A contribution, lets see, hmm...

I think of the 'beast' as Man...the number of (not 'a') Man, possibly Crowley's early idea of Jung's collective subconscious. LAM would then symbolize the Id-

Looky there! Dr. Reich called them the Ea, get the Id-Ea?

Nah, probably coincidence, yeah, right...as if.

Originally posted by Matyas
get the Id-Ea?

LOL!!

Yeah, we all trying to figure out what LAM has to do with Greys.
I think this would be a good place to show the statue from the Iraq Museum, the one from Eridu, ya know?

I thought of that Statue way back on page one of this thread. Was even giong to link it, but didn't want to dig thru your massive thread to find it

A talisman, and a god.

Doubtless of offworld origin, he must have appeared as a god to men of that age.

The staff is reminiscent of authority. I havn't a clue about the dress.

So what kind of environment would require such a physiology? Is the head a dress not unlike an official of the Church? Or is it part of the cranium? And what need would there be for such a large nasal cavity, and deeply slanted eyes?

It would seem to me that if indeed he is of offworld origin, a mask would be needed for respiration, and goggles for strong solar radiation, perhaps even a helmet for temperature control. Those lumps look more like dress than anything else, and could conceivably be part of a suit to manage an environment the creature is more accustomed to.

But that is assuming a technological origin which the creature may not have any part of. It could be a different biological adaptation for the same environment man is in.

Or it could be a manifestation of the collective subconscious will. I will go with this for Crowley's sake.

It's a 6000 year old statue from Enki's city of Eridu.
It matches the description of Satan, as described later in
the texts. He is called the tricky and the crafty god. I also forgot to
mention, he may also be Norse, Loki.

It isn't a hat, at least, not that I can tell. I think that's his head.
The bumps on his shoulders may be crystallized scales, like
gemstones,that reflect the light and bounce it around like prisms.

The staff in his hands, I theorize, is the ME (sumerian powers
of destiny), which I think is more than a sceptre, but that ties
into my star gate theory.

The biblical texts say that we will be surprised when Satan is finally revealed to the human race. We'll be like.... THIS is who caused all the damage, the years of war, the suffering, etc. It's obvious that we as free will agents play some part in all of this. We're expecting some huge red guy with bull horns and a pitchfork, apparently, which I think is more related to his dominions than his actual appearance.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by undo]

oops see above

[edit on 20-2-2008 by undo]

Ah, yes, he is a handsome devil, isn't he?

We may never know what all the instruments of his dress are, let alone origin.

I fear our long term racial memory has atrophied. The being represented may have a different lifespan than ours, on the longer side, which makes sense for maintaining control over interstellar distances.

I would be interested in any other forthcoming information.

If this is an actual drawing of an entity then he could of made way into something greater. He could of done many things that would be typical and maybe unlikely in that day and age. When you are before something unfamiliar the last thing you would do is have rememberance of a sad depressed little man. Weak at best. especially with a brain that large. How would you pertain an expression for that amount of time while an underated artist humiliated your superiority. Psssf. Aliens. They and the big brains they have to keep on theirs shoulders. Do you ever wonder how they can balance that world on top of such a fraile body?