The Scolex School

Cara Soror,

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

You actually want to know how to distinguish gold from copper pyrites—"fool's gold" they called it in '49 California—no! I wasn't there—or "absolute" alcohol and—Liqueur Whisky from "alki" (commercial alcohol—see Jack London's The Princess, a magnificent story—don't miss it!) and Wartime Scotch as sold in most British pubs in 1944, era vulgari.

One pretty good plan is to take a masterpiece, pick out a page at random, translate it into French or German or whatever language you like best, walk around your chair three times (so as to forget the English) and then translate It back again.

You will gather a useful impression of the value of the masterpiece by noticing the kind of difficulty that arises in the work of translation; more, by observing the effect produced on you by reading over the result; and finally, by estimating the re-translation: has the effect of the original been enhanced by the work done on it? Has it become more lucid? Has it actually given you the information which it purported to do?

(I am giving you credit for very unusual ability; this test is not easy to make; and, obviously, you may have spoilt the whole composition, especially where its value depends on its form rather than on its substance. But we are not considering poetry, or poetic prose; all we want is intelligible meaning.)

It does not follow that a passage is nonsensical because you fail to understand it; it may simply be too hard for you. When Bertrand Russell writes "We say that a function R is 'ultimately Q—convergent a' if there is a member y of the converse domain of R and the field of Q such that the value of the function for the argument y and for any argument to which y has the relation Q is a member of a." Do we?

But you do not doubt that if you were to learn the meaning of all these unfamiliar terms, you would be able to follow his thought.

Now take a paragraph from an "occult teacher."

What's more, I'll give you wheat, not tares; it seems terrifyingly easy for sound instruction to degenerate into a 'pi-jaw'. Here goes!

To don Nirmanakaya's humble robe is to forego eternal bliss for self, to help on man's salvation. To reach Nirvana's bliss but to renounce it, is the supreme, the final step-the highest on Renunciation's Path.

Follows a common-sense comment by Frater O.M.

All this about Gautama Buddha having renounced Nirvana is apparently all a pure invention of Mme. Blavatsky, and has no authority in the Buddhist canon. The Buddha is referred to, again and again, as having "'passed away by that kind of passing away which leaves nothing whatever behind." The account of his doing this is given in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta; and it was the contention of the Theosophists that this "great, sublime Nibbana story" was something peculiar to Gautama Buddha. They began to talk about Parinibbana, super-Nibbana, as if there were some way of subtracting one from one which would leave a higher, superior kind of a nothing, or as if there were some way of blowing out a candle which would leave Moses in a much more Egyptian darkness than we ever supposed when we were children.

This is not science. This is not business. This is American Sunday journalism. The Hindu and the American are very much alike in this innocence, this "naivete" which demands fairy stories with ever bigger giants. They cannot bear the idea of anything being complete and done with. So, they are always talking in superlatives, and are hard put to it when the facts catch up with them, and they have to invent new superlatives. Instead of saying that there care bricks of various sizes, and specifying those sizes, they have a brick and a super-brick, and "one" brick, and "some" brick; and when they have got to the end they chase through the dictionary for some other epithet to brick, which shall excite the seme of wonder at the magnificent progress and super-progress—I present the American public with this word—which is supposed to have been made. Probably the whole thing is a bluff without a single fact behind it. Almost the whole of the Hindu psychology is an example of this kind of journalism, They are not content with the supreme God The other man wishes to show off by having a supremer God than that, and when a third man comes along and finds them disputing, it is up to him to invent a supremest super-God.

It is simply ridiculous to try to add to the definition of Nibbana by this invention of Parinibbana, and only talkers busy themselves with these fantastic speculations. The serious student minds his own business, which is the business in hand. The President of a Corporation does not pay his book-keeper to make a statement of the countless billions of profit to be made in some future year. It requires no great ability to string a row of zeros after the significant figure until the ink runs out. What is wanted is the actual balance of the week:

The reader is most strongly urged not to permit himself to indulge in fantastic flights of thought, which are the poison of the mind, because they represent an attempt to run away from reality, a dispersion of energy and a corruption of moral strength. His business is, firstly, to know himself; secondly, to order and control himself; thirdly, to develop himself on sound organic lines little by little. The rest is only leather and prunella.

There is, however, a sense in which the service of humanity is necessary to the completeness of the Adept. He is not to fly away too far.

Some remarks on this course are given in the note to the next verse.

The student is also advised to take note of the conditions of membership of the A :. A :..

We come down to the average popular "teacher," the mere humbug. Read this:

One day quite soon an entirely different kind of electricity will be discovered which will bring as many profound changes into human living as the first type did. This new electricity will move in a finer ether than does our familiar kind, and thus will be nearer in vibration to the fifth dimension, to the innermost source of things, that realm of "withinness" wherein all is held poised by a colossal force, that same force which is packed within the atom. Electricity number two will be unthinkably more powerful than our present electricity number one.

Exhausted; I must restring my bow.

Love is the law, love under will

Woolly Pomposities of the Pious "Teacher"

Caxa Soror,

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

I do not think that it was any new kind of electricity. I think it was the passage itself that has given me neuralgia. It disgusts me beyond words.

To put the matter in a nutshell, tersely, concisely, succinctly, the world is being corrupted by all this—

Asthmatic Thinking Torpid Thinking

Nauseous Thinking

Bovine T.

Uncertain T.

Old-maidish T.

Chawbacon T.

Venomous T.

Purgative T.

Diffuse T.

Whelp T.

Querulous T.

Excretory T.

Yahoo T.

Rat-riddled T.

Fog-bound T.

Zig-zag T.

Superficial T.

Gossiping T.

Ambivalent T.

Tinsel T.

Higgledy-piggledy T.

Broken T.

Unbalanced T.

Ill-mannered T.

Corked T.

Viscous T.

Jibbing T.

Disjointed T.

Windy T.

Kneeling T.

Eight-anna T.

Yapping T.

Leaden T.

Flibberty-gibbet T.

Zymotic T.

Moulting T.

Glum T.

Addled T.

Neurotic T.

High-falutin' T.

Blear-eyed T.

Orphan T.

Invertebrate T.

Capsized T.

Peccable T.

Jazzy T.

Down-at-heel T.

Queasy T.

Knavish T.

Evasive T.

Rococo T.

Leucorrhoeic T.

Formless T.

Slavish T.

Motheaten T.

Guilty T.

Hypocritical T.

Unsystematic T.

Lachrymose T.

Ignorant T.

Void T.

Maudlin T.

Jerry-built T.

Waggly T.

Neighing T.

Knock-kneed T.

Atrophied T.

Odious T.

LazyT.

Bloated T.

Pedestrian T.

Messy T.

Cancerous T.

Quavering T.

Nasty T.

Dull T.

Ragbag T.

Oleaginous T.

Eurasian T.

Sappy T.

Purulent T.

Futile T.

Tuberculous T.

Slattern T.

Immature T.

Veneered T.

Unkempt T.

Beige T.

Woolly T.

Over-civilized T.

Emaciated T.

Flat T.

Gluey T.

Dislocated T.

Emetic T.

Crippled T.

Slushy T.

Insanitary T.

Foggy T.

Teaparty T.

Gloomy T.

Wordy T.

Negroid T.

Jaundiced T.

Opportunish T.

Babbling T.

Pedantic T.

Muddy T.

Onanistic T.

Flatulent T.

Unclean T.

Hybrid T.

Sluttish T.

Flabby T.

Nebulous T.

Stale T.

Unsorted T.

Hurried T.

Mangy T.

Prim T.

Empty T.

Portentous T.

Theatrical T.

VainT.

Loose T.

Vaporous T.

Loose T.

Wooden T.

Myopic T.

Bloodless T.

Soapy T.

Flimsy T.

Ersatz T.

Gabbling T.

Unfinished T.

Pontifical T.

Wishful T.

Mongrel T.

Unripe T.

Frock-coated T.

Irrelevant T.

Glossy T.

Fashionable T.

Hidebound T.

Officious T.

Unmanly T.

Snobbish T.

Misleading T.

Slippery T.1

as we find in Brunton, Besant, Clymer, Max Heindel, Ouspensky, and in the catchpenny frauds of the

1. [Note by editor: In the original Manuscript the list of adjectives contains about 1,000 words; a small selection only has been used.]

secret-peddlers, the U.B., the O.H.M., the A.M.O.R.C., and all the other gangs of self-styled Rosicracians; they should be hissed off the stage.

Now that we are agreed upon the conditions to be satisfied if we are to allow that a given proposition contains a Thought at all, it is proper to turn our attention to the relative value of different kinds of thought. This question is of the very first importance: the whole theory of Education depends upon a correct standard. There are facts and facts: one would not necessarily be much the wiser if one got the Encyclopaedia Britannica by heart, or the Tables of Logarithms. The one aim of Mathematics, in fact—Whitehead points this out in his little Shilling Arithmetic-is to make one fact do the work of thousands.

What we are looking for is a working Hierarchy of Facts.

That takes us back at once to our original "addition and subtraction" remark in my letter on Mind. Classification, the first step, proceeds by putting similar things together, and dissimilar things apart.

One asset in the Audit of a fact is the amount of knowledge which it covers. (2 + 5)2 = 49; (3 + 4)2 = 49; (6 + 2)2 = 64; (7 + l)2 = 64; (9 + 4)2 = 169 are isolated facts, no more; worse, the coincidences of 49 and 64 might start the wildest phantasies in your head—"something mysterious about this." But if you write: the sum of the squares of any two numbers is the sum of the square of each plus twice their multiple—(a + b)2 = a2 + 2ab + b2 —you have got a fact which covers every possible case, and exhibits one aspect of the nature of numbers themselves. The importance of a word increases as its rank, from the particular and concrete to the general and abstract. (It is curious that the highest values of all, the "Laws of Nature," are never exactly 'true' for any two persons, for one person can never observe the identical phenomena sensible to another, since two people cannot be in exactly the same place at exactly the same time: yet it is just these facts that are equally true for all men.)

Observe, I pray, the paramount importance of memory.

From one point of view (bless your heart!) you are nothing at all but a bundle of memories. When you say "this is happening now," you are a falsifier of God's sacred truth! When I say "I see a horse," the truth is that "I record in those terms my private hieroglyphic interpretation of the unknown and unknowable phenomenon (or 'point-event') which has more or less recently taken place at the other end of my system of receiving impressions."

Well, then! You realize, of course, how many millions or billions of memories there must be to compose any average well-trained mind. Those strings of adjectives all sprang spontaneously; I did not look them up in books of reference; so imagine the extent of my full vocabulary! And words are but the half-baked bricks with which one constructs.

See to it, then, that you accept no worthless material; that you select, and select again, always in proper order and proportion; organize, structuralize your thought, always with the one aim in view of accomplishing the Great Work.

Well, now, before going further into this, I must behave like an utter cad, and disgrace my family tree, and blot my 'scutcheon and my copybook by confusing you about "realism." Excuse: not my muddle; it was made centuries ago by a gang of cursed monks, headed by one Duns Scot us—so-called because he was Irish—or if not by somebody else equally objectionable. They held to the Platonic dogma of archetypes. They maintained that there was an original (divine) idea such as "greenness" or a "pig," and that a green pig, as observed in nature, was just one example of these two ideal essences. They were opposed by the "nominalists," who said, to the contrary, that "greenness" or "a pig" were nothing in themselves; they were mere names (nominalism from Lat. nomen, a name) invented for convenience of grouping. This doctrine is plain commonsense, and I shall waste no time in demolishing the realists.

All a priori thinking, the worst kind of thinking, goes with "realism" in this sense.

And now you look shocked and surprised! And no wonder! What (you exclaim) is the whole Qabalistic doctrine but the very apotheosis of this "realism"? (It was also called "idealism," apparently to cheer and comfort the student on his rough and rugged road!) Is not Atziluth the "archetypal world"? Is not...

Oh, all right, all right I Keep your blouse on! I didn't go for to do it. You're quite right: the Tree of Life is like that, in appearance. But that is the wrong way to look at it. We get our number two, for example, as "that which is common to a bird's legs, a man's ears, twins, the cube root of eight, the greater luminaries, the spikes of a pitchfork," etc., but having got it, we must not go on to argue that the number two being possessed of this and that property, therefore there must be two of something or other which for one reason or another we cannot count on our fingers.

The trouble is that sometimes we can do so; we are very often obliged to do so, and it comes out correct. But we must not trust any such theorem; it is little more than a hint to help us in our guesses. Example: an angel appears and tells us that his name is MALIEL (MLIAL) which adds to 111, the third of the numbers of the Sun. Do we conclude that his nature is solar? In this case, yes, perhaps, because, (on the theory) he took that name for the very reason that it chimed with his nature. But a man may reside at 81 Silver Street without being a lunatic, or be born at five o'clock on the 5th of May, 1905, and make a very poor soldier.

I think you already understand the main point: you must structuralise your thinking. You must learn how to differentiate and how to integrate your thoughts. Nothing exists in isolation; It is always conditioned by its relations with other things; indeed, in one sense, a thing is no more than the sum of these relations. (For the only "reality," in the long run, is, as we have seen, a Point of View.)

Now, this task of organising the mind, of erecting a coherent and intelligible structure, is enormously facilitated by the Qabalah.

When, in one of those curious fits of indisposition of which you periodically complain, and of which the cause appears to you so obscure, you see pink leopards on the staircase, "Ah! the colour of the King Scale of Tiphareth—Oh! the form of Leo, probably in the Queen Scale" and thereby increase your vocabulary by these two items. Then, perhaps, someone suggests that indiscretion in the worship of Dionysus is responsible for the observed phenomena—well, there's Tiphareth again at once; the Priest, moreover, wears a leopard-skin, and the spots suggest the Sun. Also, Sol is Lord of Leo: so there you are! pink leopards are exactly what you have a right to expect!

Until you have practiced this method, all day and every day, for quite a long while, you cannot tell how amazingly your mnemonic power increases by virtue thereof. But be careful always to range the new ideas as they come along in their right order of importance.

It is not unlike the system of keys used in big establishments, such as hotels. First, a set of keys, each of which opens one door, and one door only. Then, a set which opens all the doors on one floor only. And so on, until the one responsible who has one unique key which opens every lock in the building.

There is another point about this whole System of the Qabalah. It does more than merely increase the mnemonic faculty by 10,000 percent or so; the habit of throwing your thoughts about, manipulating them, giving them a wash and brush-up, packing them away into their proper places in your "Crystal Cabinet," gives you immensely increased power over them.

In particular, it helps you to rid them of the emotional dirt which normally clogs them;2 you become perfectly indifferent to any implication but their value in respect of the whole system; and this is of incalculable help in the

2. I hope there is no need to repeat that whether any given thought is pleasant, or undesirable, or otherwise soiled by Vedana, is totally irrelevant.

acquisition of new ideas. It is the difference between a man trying to pick a smut out of his wife's eye with clumsy greasy fingers coarsened by digging drains, and an oculist furnished with a speculum and all the instruments exactly suited to the task.

Yet another point. Besides getting rid of the emotions and sensations which cloud the thought, the fact that you are constantly asking yourself "Now, in which drawer of which cabinet does this thought go?" automatically induces you to regard the system as the important factor in the operation, if only because it is common to every one of them.

So not only have you freed Sanna (perception) from the taint of Vedana (sensation) but raised it (or demolished it, if you prefer to look at it in that light!) to be merely a member of the Sankhara (tendency) class, thus boosting you vigorously to the fourth stage, the last before the last! of the practice of Mahasatipathana.

Just one more word about the element of Vedana. The Intellect is a purely mechanical contrivance, as accurate and as careless of what it turns out as a Cash Register. It receives impressions, calculates, states the result: that is A double L, ALL!

Try never to qualify a thought in any way, to see it as it is in itself in relation to those other elements which are necessary to make it what it is.

Above all, do not "mix the planes." A dagger may be sharp or blunt, straight or crooked; it is not "wicked-looking," or even "trusty," except in so far as the quality of its steel makes it so. A cliff is not "frowning" or "menacing." A snow-covered glacier is not "treacherous": to say so means only that Alpine Clubmen and other persons ignorant of mountain craft are unable to detect the position of covered crevasses.

All such points you must decide for yourself; the important thing is that you should challenge any such ideas.

Above all, do not avoid, or slur, unwelcome trains of thought or distressing problems. Don't say "he passed on" when you mean "he died," and don't call a spade a bloody shovel!

I shall break off this brief note at this point, so that you may have time to tell me if what I have so far said covers the whole ground of your enquiry.

Love is the law, love under will.

Fundamentals of Magick

Fundamentals of Magick

Magick is the art and practice of moving natural energies to effect needed or wanted change. Magick is natural, there is absolutely nothing supernatural about it. What is taught here are various techniques of magick for beginners. Magick is natural and simple and the techniques to develop abilities should be simple and natural as well. What is taught on this site is not only the basics of magick, but the basics of many things.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment