In Memorial: Frater Adamas

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

On Wednesday the 15th of March, 2017 Frater Adamas 161, my long time mentor and friend passed away in New Zealand, survived by his wife, Soror Neirika, and family.

For over fourteen years Fr. Adamas played a significant role in my life as the founder and self-proclaimed Magus of the Temple of Baphomtr (spelling intentional).

Having initiated me into his syncratic guerilla A.’.A.’. System in 2003, (in a ceremony that literally made me laugh and cry) Adamas proscribed a modified version of the original A.’.A.’. system, suplimented with Maat Magick, Typhonian Magick, Vodoo (and other systems) along with his own blunt, direct techniques of attaing True Will and approaching The Abyss.

These techniques–which consisted of chemo-gnosis and sex-magick, along with shock-space techniques like self-piercing etc–were designed to strip social accretions and programming at an alarming, sometimes even traumatic rate. In my personal experience, I found them to be sound but often extraordinarily painful. They did, however, absolutely work.

Adamas’ system was not for the faint hearted. Nonetheless, without pretention or ornamentation he drove me forward towards Ultimate Truth.

The Temple itself, being designed along A.’.A.’. lines, consisted of a short lineage taking its cues and instruction directly from The Secret Chiefs. There was no claim of official sanction. Moreso, Frater Adamas shunned the idea of official lines.

Initiation to the ToB was by invitation only and diligence was taken to ensure an understanding of the difference between Crowley the Prophet and Crowley the Man. While the Holy Books were in line with the Universal, Self-Evident and Consistent forces of nature, ‘Crowley the man’ often had other, personal agendas. Idolatry was not a tenant of the ToB.

Before he died, Frater Adamas sent me an email asking me to take his mandate to assume his position as chief officer of the Temple. I kindly refused.

In the long run, I have learned that for me at least, the traumas induced by Adamas’ path were beyond my capacity to sustain–I would not inflict them on anyone else. After a long period of reflection, I have arisen from the ash of that incarnation of Self and I have chosen a slower, safer, proven route that is allowing me to finish integrating many of the lessons Adamas taught me.

Despite his human flaws, Adamas was an exceptional individual and what he accomplished was astounding and utterly profound (Especially in context). I have no regrets for the work (and it was indeed work) that we performed. His efforts went above and beyond the realm of duty. He was indeed a King, a true psychonaut, explorer and pioneer. He will always have a place in my heart.

Now it seems that Fr. Adamas has achieved his Great Work and his Greater Feast is done. Never was there a braver, bolder magickian who ‘desired death much’, to walk the firmament of Nu.

Frater Adamas 161, may you find your place among the Stars.

Love is the Law. Love under Will.

Source: In Memorial: Frater Adamas

Ancestral Veneration 

I have decided that there must be reconciliation for the current concept of the individual regarding the death of the many parts of himself in this life. I believe in reincarnation in regards to parts of the soul which need it, and that this happens on a microcosmic scale while we are living. After all, the Invokation of the “Bornless” (Head-less) One before the evokation of the Goetia is a bringing forth of the archetype of the “be-headed” King and Queen in the Chymical Wedding, of the myth of Osiris, etc. This is an archetype of the Higher Self, the HGA which commands the “dead” parts of us (shells of the personal unconscious, spirits of the Goetia) to rise and be guided under Will. There appears a literal connection to these ideas and that of the old depictions of Atu XX; the dead rising from their tombs and are given eternal life.

I’ve looked forward so much that I seem to have forgotten how I got here. There is an undeniable aspect of energy in ancestral workings (harnessed primarily for thaumaturgical purposes) but albeit powerful and has been dominant throughout the centuries.

To the theurgist, although all parts of the self end up in Sheol, they are either resurrected for the purposes of the Great Work, or abide as Qliphotic aspects of self which must continue to be rectified–both for our sake, and “theirs.” It is interesting that by understanding the microcosm in this manner, we understand that these aspects of our self contain in themselves a type of base consciousness; a persistence to exist and stubborness to attempt to avoid change or the death of itself.

This is essentially what our individual manifestations are to the macrocosm.

The aspects of self which are “righteous” i.e. in alignment with the True Will of the Individual, having been resurrected, can be interpreted to be living in Heaven/the Supernals/in Harmony with the All.

When we venerate our ancestors, we are acknowledging the continuation of the cycle and drawing forth all the energy of the transformations they’ve made throughout time, feeling the energy of the All propelling us forth into the Light. Therefore any progress made in the present is never ours, nor our ancestors, but the permutation of the One. 

Giving Thanks

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.


I have been grateful for many different things throughout the course of my life, but there is nothing more humbling and ecstatic than change and the expansion of one’s own conscious limitations. Even when this entails a brand new perspective on consciousness and change itself. I am grateful for the ability to feel the LVX when I can, and I am grateful (although usually in retrospect) for the realization of how limited my own abilities are. I am grateful for having the chance to be grateful for things I would have resented in the past, and I am grateful for every second of life where I am aware of this potential to continue evolving in me.


All the power that ever was or will be is here now. The only thing we can do is keep learning and changing and not judge ourselves or others based off of what we think the truth is at any given time. This includes the truth that none can know the truth – whether or not one can, the “I” will likely never know, as the “I” is defined by its limitations in language to express the truth.


In the few months I’ve put up this blog and re-read some of my older posts, I have felt at times embarrassed, and other times surprised at my own writing. I have felt the “I” turn red in its cheeks, hide away, and attempt to manifest this energy by deleting posts and spiral down with shame, shutting down the entire blog.


And perhaps one day I will give in, but not today as I realize (or perhaps, re-remember) that growth is nothing to be ashamed of. I am grateful for the patience of others, and of God in dealing directly with my soul through the expansion of what little Understandings I have.


May we all be thankful for the good and the bad – let no difference be made! And may we rejoice in our efforts, sometimes failing and sometimes succeeding, but at all times transforming and knowing a little bit more about ourselves through each effort in our lives.


Love is the law, love under Will.
Soror N.O.

The Image of God

My Love for God and God’s Love for Me springs from the Great Secret we share.
The Secret is: God and I will achieve Supreme Enlightenment at the same moment.


When the “I” searches for the “I” itself, it disappears.
The “I” is like Chokmah as the reflection of Kether. Binah represents Kether being aware of its own reflection, at which point the reflection is Understood as not another Kether, but as a reflection – and returns unto Kether. It is said that because Binah is “Infinite Goodness,” the Light which descends down beyond the Supernals into a Finite vessel shatters this vessel, creating Da’ath and the Qliphoth. Because Da’ath is not a true sephira, it only appears when Kether does not; in other words, when Da’at is constricted, the Light from the Supernals do not reach us. It is Knowledge from seeing a reflection and identifying the “I” with it and not the Origin of the image.

The only “thing” that the “I” can do is mirror the actions of the Origin which is True Will. We are all ideas (images in motion) of the One, but we interact with one another like we are all separate entities. Because we are all images of God, the images/ideas of the One includes the ability to think – the motion of the image. Hence, if we silence our thoughts, magick manifests perfectly because we are at all times mirroring the actions of the True Will – we just think ourselves away from simply being.

Thought is defined as “an idea produced by thinking or occuring suddenly in the mind.”
Through me, its unfailing Wisdom takes form in thought and word.

“The mind circles round and round a key idea – the ‘seed’ of the meditation – and the process bores a ‘well’ down through the layers of the concrete mind until (if persistently pursued) a breakthrough is made to the intuitional levels of consciousness.”

The “I” is no different; it is the idea/seed (of the One) which we continuously think around but cannot think of. It is from Hod, the Binah of the Microposopus, that the “I” is able to rationalize what “it is” based off of seeing images of “others,” but never itself.

If there is no other watching the “I,” it does not know what to be – it knows what it can be from the illusion of memory – (sensations which stir into motion a record that appears separate from the present), and it knows what it thinks it wants to be from the personal unconscious, where our thought patterns are habit calcified through the many years (a reinforced type of illusion of memory). These are the interferences which must be squashed in order to allow True Will to operate. The “I” never knows what it’s supposed to be until the ruach forges a link with the neshamah, which is informed by the chiah. The Supernals represent the (capital O) Other, whereas other people are actually images of this Other. We all practice (here mainly in the world of Yetzirah) figuring out what our True Will is through other people until the “I” is ready to behold the Supernals. When it is linked without obstruction to the yechidah, the “I” is One with True Will; other and Other are united.

Lux ex Tenebris

Comfort is not a substitute for faith. 

By “faith,” I mean knowledge of True Will; there is a tendency of the mind to separate “events which happen to us” with “events that we cause.” Without this disposition, we are unable to make sense of the world, but as we remember the nature of our true selves, we become aware of the appearance of separation itself. We are Will, and we do Will, and – “Every act that is not in definite course of that one orbit is erratic, an hindrance. Will must not be two, but one.” 

Trust is letting understanding show which colours to perceive, even with impure eyes. Even colours have natural complements of one another, and what is natural is merely consistent enough to rely on from experience. It is the acknowledgement of both the consistency and possibility of inconsistency in one’s own experience – and faith, being complete trust – is knowing this and being at peace with it. 

It is the ordeals of our own darkness which allow us to see a truth that what we once thought was faith or True Will, was merely comfort; fickle and expensive. Once the light is sought and seen, it does not leave us. We just have to remember it. Suffering becomes a reminder that we are only concealing it against ourselves, and that if we let it shine, it will.

Esoteric vs. Exoteric Analysis of Liber OZ



From a previous post titled “Karma & the Ethics of Thelema” – “the nature of ethics lies firstly in the differentiation between acts and intentions, secondly in the evaluation of whether an act aligns with a society or culture, thirdly whether an act aligns with intent, and lastly whether an intention aligns with one’s Great Work.”

Using the Five Precepts/Virtues of Buddhism: No killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and the taking of intoxicants – Crowley’s essay, Pansil explains the invalidity and impossibility of avoiding these acts, and how the 5 Precepts are “sarcastic and biting criticisms on existence, illustrations of the First Noble Truth; reasons, as it were, for the apotheosis of annihilation.” I would add that although they are just that, the Law of Thelema, being Do What Thou Wilt – adds the perfect “ethical” intention to the degrees of doing these things.

Compare the 5 Precepts with the 5 Points in Liber OZ, which would mean the same thing, if not for Liber OZ’s emphasis on Will:

– No killing vs (5). “Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.”
– No stealing vs (1). “Man has the right to live by his own law.”
– No sexual misconduct vs (4). “Man has the right to love as he will.”
– No lying vs (3). “Man has the right to think what he will.”
– No taking of intoxicants vs (2). “Man has the right to eat what he will.”

The intentions, that one might have for performing any of these acts, however, must always be in accordance with one’s True Will. Therefore,

(1) “Man has the right to live by his own law,” allows him to take what he needs according to his Will, since there are no such things as “thieves” to the universe.


The Second Precept is directed against theft. Theft is the appropriation to one’s own use of that to which another has a right. Let us see therefore whether or no the Buddha was a thief. The answer is of course in the affirmative. For to issue a command is to attempt to deprive another of his most precious possession—the right to do as he will; that is, unless, with the predestinarians, we hold that action is determined absolutely, in which case, of course, a command is as absurd as it is unavoidable. Excluding this folly, therefore, we may conclude that if the command be obeyed—and those of Buddha have gained a far larger share of obedience that those of any other teacher—the Enlightened One was not only a potential but an actual thief. Further, all voluntary action limits in some degree, however minute, the volition of others. If I breathe, I diminish the stock of oxygen available on the planet. In those far distant ages when Earth shall be as dead as the moon is to-day, my breathing now will have robbed some being then living of the dearest necessity of life.

That the theft is minute, incalculably trifling, is no answer to the moralist, to whom degree is not known; nor to the scientist, who sees the chain of nature miss no link.

   If, on the other hand, the store of energy in the universe be indeed constant (whether infinite or no), if personality be indeed delusion, then theft becomes impossible, and to forbid it is absurd. We may argue that even so temporary theft may exist; and that this is so is to my mind no doubt the case. All theft is temporary, since even a millionaire must die; also it is universal, since even a Buddha must breathe.



(2) “Man has the right to eat what he will,” allows him to be intoxicated according to his Will, since there is no such thing as not being affected by the universe.


At last we arrive at the end of our weary journey—surely in this weather we may have a drink! East of Suez,† Trombone Macaulay (as I may surely say, when Browning writes Banjo-Byron‡) tells us, a man may raise a Thirst. No, shrieks the Blessed One, the Perfected One, the Enlightened One, do not drink! It is like the streets of Paris when they were placarded with rival posters—

Ne buvez pas de l’Alcool !
L’Alcool est un poison !
Buvez de l’Alcool !
L’Alcool est un aliment !

We know now that alcohol is a food up to a certain amount; the precept, good enough for a rough rule as it stands, will not bear close inspection. What Buddha really commands with that grim humour of his, is: Avoid Intoxication.

But what is intoxication? unless it be the loss of power to use perfectly a truth-telling set of faculties. If I walk unsteadily it is owing to nervous lies—and so for all the phenomena of drunkenness. But a lie involves the assumption of some true standard, and this can nowhere be found. A doctor would tell you, moreover, that all food intoxicates: all, here as in all the universe, of every subject and in every predicate, is a matter of degree.

Our faculties never tell us true; our eyes say flat when our fingers say round; our tongue sends a set of impressions to our brain which our hearing declares non-existent—and so on.

What is this delusion of personality but a profound and centrally-seating intoxication of
the consciousness ? I am intoxicated as I address these words; you are drunk—beastly drunk !—as you read them; Buddha was as drunk as a British officer when he uttered his besotted command. There, my dear children, is the conclusion to which we are brought if you insist that he was serious!

I answer No ! Alone among men then living, the Buddha was sober, and saw Truth. He, who was freed from the coils of the reat serpent Theli coiled round the universe, he knew how deep the slaver of that snake had entered into us, infecting us, rotting our very bones with poisonous drunkenness. And so his cutting irony—drink no intoxicating drinks!
* Quoted in “Science and Buddhism”, s. IV., note.
† “Ship me somewhere East of Suez, where a man can raise a thirst.”—R. KIPLING.
‡ “While as for Quilp Hop o’ my Thumb there Banjo-Byron that twangs the strum-strum there.” —BROWNING, Pachiarotto (said of A. Austin)



(3) “Man has the right to think what he will,” allows him to express his thoughts according to his Will, since the very construct from which he thinks with, is a lie of the ego to his ego, to begin with.


Here we come to what in a way is the fundamental joke of these precepts. A command is not a lie, of course; possibly cannot be; yet surely an allegorical order is one in essence, and I have no longer a shadow of a doubt that these so-called “precepts” are a species of savage practical joke.

Apart from this there can hardly be much doubt, when critical exegesis has done its damnedest on the Logia of our Lord, that Buddha did at some time commit himself to some statement. “(Something called) Consciousness exists” is, said Huxley, the irreducible minimum of the pseudo-syllogism, false even for an enthymeme, “Cogito, ergo sum !” This proposition he bolsters up by stating that whoso should pretend to doubt it, would thereby but confirm it. Yet might it not be said “(Something called) Consciousness appears to itself to exist,” since Consciousness is itself the only witness to that confirmation?

Not that even now we can deny some kind of existence to consciousness, but that it should be a more real existence than that of a reflection is doubtful, incredible, even inconceivable. If by consciousness we mean the normal consciousness,
it is definitely untrue, since the Dhyanic consciousness includes it and denies it. No doubt “something called” acts as a kind of caveat to the would-be sceptic, though the phrase is bad, implying a “calling.” But we can guess what Huxley means.

No doubt Buddha’s scepticism does not openly go quite so far as mine—it must be remembered that “scepticism” is merely the indication of a possible attitude, not a belief, as so many good fool folk thing; but Buddha not only denies “Cogito, ergo sum”; but “Cogito, ergo non sum.” See Sabbasava Sutta, par. 10.*

At any rate, Sakkyaditthi, the delusion of personality, is in the very forefront of his doctrines; and it is this delusion that is constantly and inevitably affirmed in all normal consciousness. That Dhyanic thought avoids it is doubtful; even so, Buddha is here represented as giving precepts to ordinary people. And if personality be delusion, a lie is involved in the command of one to another. In short, we all lie all the time; we are compelled to it by the nature of things themselves—paradoxical as that seems—and the Buddha knew it!
* Quoted in “Science and Buddhism”, s. IV., note.


(4) “Man has the right to love as he will,” allows him to give his love freely according to his Will, since love has no restrictions, all being one – to violate oneself is not love, but the withholding of.


This precept, against adultery, I shall touch but lightly. Not that I consider the subject unpleasant—far from it!—but since the English section of my readers, having unclean minds, will otherwise find a fulcrum therein for their favourite game of slander. Let it suffice if I say that the Buddha—in spite of the ridiculous membrane legend (Membrum virile illius in membrana inclusum esse aiunt, ne copulare posset) one of those foul follies which idiot devotees invent only too freely— was a confirmed and habitual adulterer. It would be easy to argue with Hegel-Huxley that he who thinks of an act commits it (cf. Jesus also in this connection, though he only knows the creative value of desire), and that since A and not-A are mutually limiting, therefore interdependent, therefore identical,
he who forbids an act commits it; but I feel that this is no place for metaphysical hairsplitting; let us prove what we have to prove in the plainest way.

I would premise in the first place that to commit adultery in the Divorce Court sense is not here in question.

It assumes too much proprietary right of a man over a woman, that root of all abomination!—the whole machinery of inheritance, property, and all the labyrinth of law. We may more readily assume that the Buddha was (apparently at least) condemning incontinence.

We know that Buddha had abandoned his home ; true, but Nature has to be reckoned with. Volition is no necessary condition of offence. “I didn’t mean to” is a poor excuse for an officer failing to obey an order.

Enough of this—in any case a minor question; since even on the lowest moral grounds— and we, I trust, soar higher!—the error in question may be resolved into a mixture of murder, theft and intoxication. (We consider the last under the Fifth Precept.)


and lastly,


(5) “Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights,” allows him to sever the efforts according to his Will, which no longer serve his Will; or in fact seek to disrupt it.


This forbids the taking of life in any form.* What we have to note is the impossibility of performing this; if we can prove it to be so, either Buddha was a fool, or his command was rhetorical, like those of Yahweh to Job, or of Tannhäuser to himself—

“ Go! seek the stars and count them and explore!
Go! sift the sands beyond a starless sea!”

Let us consider what the words can mean. The “taking of life” can only mean the reduction of living protoplasm to dead matter: or, in a truer and more psychological sense, the destruction of personality.

Now, in the chemical changes involved in Buddha’s speaking this command, living protoplasm was changed into dead matter. Or, on the other horn, the fact (insisted upon most strongly by the Buddha himself, the central and cardinal point of his doctrine, the shrine of that Metaphysic which isolates it absolutely from all other religious metaphysic, which allies it with Agnostic Metaphysis) that the Buddha who had spoken this command was not the same as the Buddha before he had spoken it, lies the proof that the Buddha, by speaking this command, violated it. More, not only did he slay himself; he breathed in millions of living organisms and slew them. He could nor eat nor drink nor breathe without murder implicit in each act. Huxley cites the “pitiless microsco-pist” who showed a drop of water to the Brahmin who boasted himself “Ahimsa” harmless. So among the “rights” of a Bhikkhu is medicine. He who takes quinine does so with the deliber-ate intention of destroying innumerable living beings; whether this is done by stimulating the phagocytes, or directly, is morally indifferent.

How such a fiend incarnate, my dear brother Ananda Maitriya, can call him “cruel and cowardly” who only kills a tiger, is a study in the philosophy of the mote and the beam!†

 Far be it from me to suggest that this is a defence of breathing, eating and drinking. By no means; in all these ways we bring suffering and death to others, as to ourselves. But since these are inevitable acts, since suicide would be a still more cruel alternative (especially in case something should subsist below mere Rupa), the command is not to achieve the impossible, the already violated in the act of commanding, but a bitter commentary on the foul evil of this aimless, hopeless universe, this compact of misery, meanness, and cruelty. Let us pass on.
* Fielding, in “The Soul of a People,” has reluctantly to confess that he can find no trace of this idea in Buddha’s own work, and called the superstition the “echo of an older Faith.”—A.C.
† The argument that the “animals are our brothers” is merely intended to mislead one who has never been in a Buddhist country. The average Buddhist would, of course, kill his brother for five rupees, or less.— A. C.


The exoteric analysis of the tenets in Liber OZ is simpler, and aims to avoid the acquisition of negative Karma for all that follow the 5 Precepts simply, at face value. “[…] before we know our Wills, we can only escape Karma by means of a strict regimen like this system, or that of the Noble 8-Fold Path. This helps us not step off the path and spiral down into negativity.”



“But, Lord,” said the Five Hundred Thousand and One Arahats in a breath, “thou art then guilty of six violent deaths !

Nay, thou hast hounded one soul from death to death through all these incarnations ! What of this First Precept2 of yours ?”

“Children,” answered the Glorious One, “do not be so foolish as to think that death is necessarily an evil. I have not come to found a Hundred Years Club, and to include mosquitoes in the membership. In this case to have kept Perdu’ R Abu alive was to have played into the hands of his enemies. My First Precept is merely a general rule.3 In the bulk of cases one should certainly abstain from destroying life, that is, wantonly and wilfully: but I cannot drink a glass of water without killing countless myriads of living beings. If you knew as I do, the conditions of existence: struggle deadly and inevitable, every form of life the inherent and immitigable foe of every other form, with few, few exceptions, you would not only cease to talk of the wickedness of causing death, but you would perceive the First Noble Truth, that no existence can be free from sorrow ; the second, that the desire for existence only leads to sorrow ; that the ceasing from existence is the ceasing of sorrow (the third) ; and you would seek in the fourth the Way, the Noble Eightfold Path.

“I know, O Arahats, that you do not need this instruction : but my words will not stay here : they will go forth and illuminate the whole system of ten thousand worlds, where Arahats do not grow on every tree. Little brothers, the night is fallen : it were well to sleep.”
2 Here is the little rift within the lute which alienated Crowley from active work on Buddhist lines; the orthodox failing to see his attitude.
3 A more likely idea that the brilliantly logical nonsense of “Pansil,” supra.

By following the Noble 8-fold Path, we avoid the desire for existence, and therefore sorrow. But keep in mind, Liber AL II:

70. There is help & hope in other spells. Wisdom says: be strong! Then canst thou bear more joy. Be not animal; refine thy rapture! If thou drink, drink by the eight and ninety rules of art: if thou love, exceed by delicacy; and if thou do aught joyous, let there be subtlety therein!

71. But exceed! exceed!

72. Strive ever to more! and if thou art truly mine – and doubt it not, an if thou art ever joyous! – death is the crown of all.

73. ah! ah! Death! Death! thou shalt long for death. Death is forbidden, o man, unto thee.


74. The length of thy longing shall be the strength of its glory. He that lives long & desires death much is ever the King among the Kings.

Ambiguity & Wisdom



Liber AL III:2. There is division hither homeward; there is a word not known. Spelling is defunct; all is not aught. Beware! Hold! Raise the spell of Ra-Hoor-Khuit!

“A commonly-held trope about occultism is that it is ‘scientific’ in the same way that physics or biology or engineering is ‘scientific’, and a consequence of that is the tendency to assume that when one writes about a specific occult term – be it egregore, aeon or chakra, that anyone who encounters the term is going to understand it in the same way that the writer does. In my experience at least, that’s usually not the case. Scientists go to great lengths to define precisely their terms of reference. Occultists tend not to. Yet there is the common assumption that a term, when it appears, has the same meaning for everyone. Worse yet, to my mind, there’s a tendency to reduce words to a single meaning. This becomes particularly apparent when words are lifted from other languages, and placed in a different context.” Phil Hine, 2005.


Language is limited by the rules which construct it, the forms which comprise it, the connotations that accrete it, its presentation or tone, and by the spirit of any individual’s intention to relay the message in question.
The beauty of ambiguity therefore lies in its ability to mirror that which perceives the message and attempts to interpret it. It forces the observer to reproduce the deduction by themselves. If the recipient is unable to interpret it (due to an inhibition from the ego), it is dismissed as nonsense. This inhibition is not a “bad thing.” This function prevents us from slipping into the chaos (LAW/LOGOS) of the unconscious mind. However, it is not always a good thing either, because it portrays a fear from the individual to avoid knowing that chaotic part of himself.


I:54. Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shall not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.



There are three types of definitions when it comes to language (taken from –


  1. Lexical: A Lexical definition simply reports the way in which a term is already used within a language community. The goal here is to inform someone else of the accepted meaning of the term, so the definition is more or less correct depending upon the accuracy with which it captures that usage.
  2. Stipulative: Freely assigns meaning to a completely new term, creating a usage that had never previously existed. The goal in this case is to propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term, and by virtue of there being no existing standards against which to compare it, the definition is always correct.
  3. Theoretical: Special cases of stipulative definition, distinguished by their attempt to establish the use of this term within the context of a broader intellectual framework. The adoption of any theoretical definition commits us to the acceptance of the theory of which it is an integral part.

In logic, mathematics and science, the use of ambiguity is disadvantageous due to the objective of avoiding contradiction, changes of assigned meaning, and overall aspects of unpredictability which all threaten their foundation  – but art, philosophy, and occultism all have the potential to function in the realms beyond contradiction; where any given contradiction is a set in itself, encompassed by a larger set where both sets provide answers to one another. Evolution in language by the use of theoretical definitions make for extensive understandings but challenges in communication. Similarly, the use of stipulative definitions requires elaboration in meaning, either in context or directly. Even lexicon definitions face the threat of being misunderstood if two people of different fields of study have a conversation using the same terms. Occultists often argue due to a difference in the usage of terms and not necessarily of meaning.
It is the analysis and assimilation of meanings (and of nonsense), underneath the fabric of language which interest me and influence my perception, practice, and life. I recognize that communication is a challenge all on its own to overcome. I sympathize with my acquaintances who have spent years of dedication into specific intellectual fields, but also with the friends I have made over the years that are still searching for the words to express the wisdom of their life experience. The inability or even the intentional use of ambiguity in one’s writing does not mean that person is lacking in knowledge. Similarly, the use of jargon does not mean that person is highly intelligent. We have a duty to seek understanding from others and train ourselves to share our own understandings too.
One of the greatest things I’ve ever felt grateful for, were the times I felt myself struggling to communicate a thought, and the person who listens, not only hears my incoherent phrases and mismatched words, but the frustration that stems from the depths of the mind attempting to fit itself into a small mold in order to be beheld by another – and then gives me more time to explain, with whatever ridiculous examples I find, all without judgement.
“Mitochondria of electric creation of cosmogenesis as it was in megalomaniac gethsemanias of crucifixions of which crucificional definitives is a composition of elements of a rainbow connection of what Creationism was definitely defined with definition … is to a design of architectural tabernacularism made creation in all its concept of creation … e.g. regeneration omni-presences of an ingredient electric re-creating spirit  … and thereby, all this creation is to Tabernacle of what a womb of metempsychoses is to an element in all its purest morphology and that of which is of thou silent transparency of vibrancy is of a name of a nameless purity … God is to Tetragrammaton …”
Hector Paul Navasero



Due to to the explicit nature of this post, I have no choice but to label this with a giant TRIGGER WARNING, state that I do NOT condone BREAKING THE LAW in any way, shape or form or bringing HARM TO ANY NON-CONSENTING PERSONS OR ANIMALS. Nor am I promoting ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE USE, RECKLESS or SELF-INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR.


NOTHING WRITTEN BELOW IS MEANT IN ANY WAY TO ACCUSE AND/OR SHAME INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS as this is for reference and any similarity to persons living or dead, including the compiler of this list, the present reader, and Big Brother ARE PURELY COINCIDENTAL.

Read and/or use at your own risk, but please do not read if you just want to rage post about how triggering this was.
The paraphilias listed correspond to the ego qualities of each shell, not good nor bad in and of themselves. Ego wants stem from ego fears, and ego fears stem from ego wants. As I’ve referenced before in other posts, the shells need nourishment to protect the spheres, but when they are over nourished, they become fortresses characterized by ego fears. Most of the time we know what we need to do to reset this balance. But there is a belief rampant among mystics in Thelema that preach egolessness, causing confusion as to whether all nourishment of the ego is negative. When the ego is under or overnourished, the individual begins acquiring negative karma.

“Feeling at peace, however fragily, made it easy to slip into the visionary end of the dark-sight. The rose shadows said that they loved the sun, but that they also loved the dark, where their roots grew through the lightless mystery of the earth. The roses said, ‘You do not have to choose.”

Now that you have read this full disclaimer and intro here is the actual PDF: Trigger Warning




Pentagrams of Spirit

The structure of the pentagram attributes two corresponding elements to make up the element in any given point. The point of Spirit is held upright by Earth and Fire, Air is the result of Fire and Water, Water is the combination of Air and Earth, and Earth is formed by Spirit and Water. Not only are these triangles a representation of the element’s components, they also outline the process in which it manifests, is maintained, and what its properties are in each World, which affect different parts of the Soul. The elements transition down each World shifting its attributions from abstract ideas to the concrete and tangible; for this reason, they are shift in our concepts of the four directions and four sub-directions in rituals.

The Greater Hexagram Ritual is associated with planetary and zodiacal forces, the Lesser with zodiacal and elemental forces. The Greater Pentagram Ritual is the incorporation of Spirit with elemental forces, and its Lesser with only the elemental forces. The elements, even in their densest state, relate to the planets in their highest essence.

No element represented by the pentagram is without Spirit. The active form of Spirit relates to Air and Fire, while the passive form of Spirit relates to Water and Earth. The combination (marriage) of Fire/Tejas and Water/Apas give birth to Energy/Prana, and Space/Akasha is the dissipation of Earth/Prithivi in unity with Air/Vayu. This ‘child’ and ‘mother’ is symbolized in the Star Ruby Ritual as Therion who is bellowed in the East, and Babalon who is whispered in the West. In my opinion, this ritual is aimed at balancing these elemental forces within the Neshamah in Yetzirah, whereas the LBRP is used for the Ruach in Yetzirah or Assiah. Any ritual can be used in any World, but it is perhaps most efficient in the World that it was constructed for; similarly, it’s best if the part of the Soul is aligned with whichever World one is working in (and from). The beauty of a well written ritual is that it can work in all Worlds for all parts of the Soul. Keeping in mind that there may be deeper associations to the Star Ruby (especially in alignment with the Star Sapphire) there is a very simple synchronicity between the two rituals (the Star Ruby and LBRP) in their elemental directions for the Ruach; East which has the Kerub of Man, Air, Therion (beast); North containing the Bull, Earth, Nuit (puella/daughter); West containing the Eagle/Serpent, Water, Babalon (mulier/mother); and South containing the Lion, Fire, Hadit (puer/son).

However, further elaborating on the elemental (sub)directions of the Star Ruby; so far we have Fire (hot & dry) in the N.E., Water (wet & cold) in the S.E., Air (wet & hot) in the S.W., and Earth (cold & dry) in the N.W. These attributions are consistent with those of the Star Sapphire, its complimentary hexagram ritual. Fire/Yod/The Father in the N.E., Water/Heh/The Mother in the S.E., Air/Vav/The Son in the S.W., and Earth/Heh/The Daughter in the N.W. Therion is in the East, (the child of the elements of the N.E + S.E.) furthermore representing the qualities of ‘coldness’ – the drawing of energy inside – Babalon in the West, representing the qualities of ‘hotness’ – the drawing of energy out- Hadit in the South, representing ‘wetness’ – energy condensed and trapped within – and Nuit in the North, representing ‘dryness’ – energy released and dispersed without. These ‘quality-nesses’ of the elements have little to do with their usual associations to the elements themselves. They are rather, a reflection of what happens to a living being subjected to these qualities. Neither are the qualities of the elements synonymous with the elements themselves.

The three mother letters of the Hebrew alphabet function as qualities/properties of all elements, and also of all their abstract and higher meanings. The Vedic Tattvas do this also by  incorporating the planets into their five elements; Prithivi-Mercury, Vayu-Saturn, Apas-Venus, Tejas-Mars, and Akasha-Jupiter.


The Caduceus

The invokation of active Spirit begins from Fire to Air; Shin to Aleph. Shin, being the Divine Flame and root of all Will, is transmitted through Aleph, or Air, which serves as the motion and current by which all processes can occur. The achemical process that occurs here ties the subtle form of Earth and Water (oil) in the Fire which burns to create aethyrial smoke; air which is saturated with purpose, distinct qualities (fragrance), and the source of divinatory inspirations – allusions to its nature and of the nature of the universe from which it operates. The invokation of passive Spirit begins from Tav to Mem; the Dissolving of the gross by submersion in fluid so that the elements are well-prepared for Separation. From Mem, up to (or to the left towards, in the pentagram) Aleph – after purification Coagulates back and invokes the Divine Flame of Spirit.

The banishing of active Spirit starts from Air to Fire, the reversal of the first process outlined above. The invokatory transmission of Shin from Aleph is contained back within Shin, therefore preventing further division/multiplication. Banishing passive Spirit begins from Mem to Tav; in other words, the manifestation of Spirit within the tangible and concrete. It is important not to view banishing elements, especially of Spirit as a negative practice. In all things there must be balance, and nothing is ever lost, just transmuted into a different form. Hence, the banishing of Spirit is the invokation of all four tangible elements, and the manifestation of the universe as we can perceive it. The invokation of Spirit, similarly, is the banishing of all four gross elements in order to receive and reconnect with one’s source of Divinity. Banishing all elements, including the active and passive forms of Spirit, is the most holy and equilibrating act that one can do to purify the Temple.

The Sigillum Dei Aemeth is a well-known Enochian diagram used for planetary magick, but also has a direct relation to the Elemental Watchtowers –
“Also the word Aemeth is compounded of the 1st letter of the Alphabet and the last letter, and of a middle one, as though we affirm that Truth is to be found by the reconciliation of the extremes through the knowledge of the means. Forget not that Aleph is the Spiritual and Etherial, and Tav is the Universe, and Mem is the Sacrificial Man, placed between them so as to affirm the Reconciliation of the Natural to the Spiritual through self-sacrifice. And lastly, that when Shin is added, there is an affirmation of the judgment set and the Book of Life opened which is in YHVH and that they Keys answering unto these four letters are:

Aleph – the Spirit of the Aether
Mem – the Spirit of the Mighty Waters
Tav – the Great One of the Night of Time
Shin – Spirit of the Primal Fire”



“The Beetle rolls up a ball of dung, thus constructing the Sun from the excrement of putrefaction. ‘It is from the excrement of Choronzon that one takes the material for the creation of a God.'”

Does the Jackal not feed on excrement?

Holy! Holy! Holy!
[Aleph] [Mem] [Shin] + I A O
MShYCh = NChSh

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.


Post-coital. The Perfected Tree bears pomegranates; blood red seeds, trapped in white shells and skin which clings to these seeds. Torn apart, resembling sinewy spider webs, flesh-like. Bone structures. Hard exterior of the fruit. Impossible to bite. Reds, fushia, greens and yellows. Browns of the earth reflected in their shadows. Space and sky as background; they seem to touch the tree and the fruit.

The bottom of the pomegranates spread like octopus legs. squids in motion. Their ink creates a varying pressure in the blackness of the ocean. The deep sea, no light. The material manifestation of the sky and of space.

Where is the light, in either of these places?
-All is darkness, before there was the Word.

I take a pomegranate with both hands in one motion and crack it with a stone. I drop the pieces in the primordial waters; discard the hard exterior first. The white shells that cling upon the seeds float as the seeds themselves sink. Automatic separation. I can choose to eat, or to plant. The outcome is the same; thus is Universal Will.

The Left Hand strives to separate the shells with clumsy fingers and consume the seeds. The Right Hand waits for the pomegranate to fall and decompose back into the earth. The outcomes are the same; thus is still Universal Will.

The hand of God touches the soul; it raises itself towards God, the shells retract but they move not on their own. Only the soul moves, and always upward, towards Divinity. But this is a riddle- The Divine is a spark that ignites and moves the soul from within like a wriggling serpent. Only one sense is necessary, and that is Feeling. The hard exterior is only hard in the sense that it is resilient and protects the soul, but it does not cling. And the shells of the soul are synonymous with the hard exterior of the pomegranate.

It is the goal of the seeds to be consumed and recycled. It is the goal of the soul to unite and forever transmute. Are these not one in the same?
-Language consumes itself.

The Perfected Tree casts a shadow once the forbidden fruit is consumed. The Tree of Life now contains Da’at. The World is divided in darkness and in light.
– – – – – – – –
The Serpent in the Garden = Flaming Sword upon the World (Staff of Asclepius)
Lingam and the Yoni = Hadit in Nuit = Chaos in the Womb of Babalon =  Choronzon and the ego shards
– – – – – – – –
There is One Serpent, not two; the only Serpent, the Ouroboros.


The Serpent of Knowledge and Delight, the darkest gift of humanity is the brightest gift of the City of Pyramids. The Serpent that looks down is the attacker of thine own ego, from thy ego that looks up at Him. The vision unto those who fear cannot see far past the jaws of the Serpent, reminding them of the death which is inevitable to them.

He does the Will of God, the Perfect Creation and Perfect Obstacle, by which Motion is able to keep Moving. The Magister knows that he is his HGA which is One with the Will of God, and therefore never fears; both the death and life of his Garden are under Will.

“So we enter the earth, and there is a veiled figure, in absolute darkness. Yet it is perfectly possible to see in it, so that the minutest details do not escape us. And upon the root of one flower he pours acid so that the root writhes as if in torture. And another he cuts, and the shriek is like the shriek of a mandrake, torn up by the roots. And another he chars with fire, and yet another he annoints with oil.” (Cry of the 13th Aethyr, which is called ZIM)

That which he annoints with oil, he has chosen to keep in service of Will. He can call whichever shard in the Abyss he wills to plant as a seed. And he still fears naught, for the growth of ego is reliant upon the amount of exposure to Light from the crown, which is synonymous with his Will.

Lord Choronzon, caretaker of the Garden; the Serpent from Genesis that slithers through Eden, and his darkness is the same darkness of the Naught, NOX, Night of Pan.
In this way, the shells are recycled and all is still.

Thy Serpent is faithful, for he rejoices in his work.

Thy God is faithful, for he rejoices in his creation.


THE MOTION. 44 – Mass of the Phoenix.
THE YONI. Mouth of the serpent.
THE LINGAM. Tail of the serpent.

THE FIRST MOTION was the tail at the entrance of its mouth. THE SECOND MOTION was the mouth opening for the tail. THE THIRD MOTION was that of the reciprocal contraction and release in turns from both the mouth and tail of the serpent, which were ONE. In the void, the EGG came into being; this EGG was SPIRIT and the combined MOTION OF THE SERPENT. In the FOURTH MOTION, the SERPENT was ONE WITH THE EGG;

The entire UNIVERSE summed up in its BEING, COMING-INTO-BEING, AND NON-BEING in both the circular revolution of the SERPENT swallowing its tail, transforming from SERPENT TO DRAGON – all at once and ONE WITH THE EGG.

From whence the tail became the SERPENT, the mouth became the DRAGON. From the UNION, the EGG APPEARED. Only in UNION, does the EGG APPEAR. It was not a linear process – the union did not birth an egg – since the egg also gaveth birth to the SERPENT & THE DRAGON, ALL was always the EGG.

And also the DRAGON IS BIRTHED from the EGG which the SERPENT is wrapped; in this EGG, is the TREE OF LIFE. The two Serpents which revolve around the WAND represent the motion of the SERPENT ITSELF. This further separation being that the Serpent is the FEMALE AND MALE life-force. All eggs hatch by heat, but this Egg hatcheth from the warmth and flame of the HOLY SPIRIT. Above the egg, and below the egg, is the SEVEN-FOLD STAR.

Love is the law, love under will.