Bahlasti! Ompehda! Now we can be alone...
In chapter III of Liber AL, after explaining his methods of dealing with various religious traditions (attacking the point of view of Jesus, the exoteric practice of Islam, and the practice of Judaism, Hinduism, and Confucianism) we receive the rather mysterious line:
"Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds."
-AL III:54
I wanted to write about this line in particular, because although it is used elsewhere in Crowley’s work, the meaning here is not immediately clear. When I did a google search and found several online discussions of the subject, no one appeared to have grasped the meaning of these words. This post may well be old news to some of my readers, but its nice to have the case stated clearly somewhere, isn’t it?
Crowley elucidates: “Appears to be a plain instruction in theology and ethics.” in the Old Comment, and “By sound Bahlasti suggests "hurling" or "blasting;" Ompehda is not too phantastically onomatopoetic for 'an explosion.’”
Crapulous is related to the latin word for “inebriation,” and the Greek word for “hangover.” I, frankly, don’t see the connection. An article here notes that these two names are an anagram of “A blasphemi to Had,” which is certainly interesting, but the author’s conclusion that:
“Essentially, this is an attack on the “ontological argument”. The ontological argument defines God as the subject of all predicates that belong to existence; and that since existence is such a predicate, the subject must have the predicate “existence”, and therefore exists.”
doesn’t seem to relate to the ideas expressed in “crapulous,” which are essentially consequences of irresponsible intoxication. Crowley’s note at least suggests that the Wars predicted by Liber AL would be the product of decisions made by men with dull, befogged minds, but that stretches the interpretation rather too far for my comfort. All the same, Crowley employs these names during the Bartzabel working, during which far more precise and accurate predictions of World Wars were made. In this ritual, the names are used during the purification of the medium, after a benediction intended to invoke the protection of Ra-Hoor-Khuit, and before the consecration with the holy oil.
We see the names employed in a similar manner in Liber LXIV. One would assume, since Crowley makes no mention of it in his comment, that the inclusion of Bahlasti and Ompehda was his own innovation, and not part of the ceremony as it appeared under Alan Bennet’s authorship. The names appear directly before the declaration that the magician has “banished the shells,” so they seem to be a declaration of cleanliness and purity.
These names seem to be almost a curse upon the destroyed. A way of “trampling the fallen” which have been exorcized by the magician’s power. After the magician clears the temple for Liber Israfel, he declares “Bahlasti! Ompehda!” After the Chief Magus purifies and protects the Material Basis in the Bartzabel working, he declares “Bahlasti! Ompehda!” And after Aiwass cleanses the religious traditions which have influenced Crowley’s perception by banishing the toxic aspects of their anthropomorphic forms, he declares “Bahlasti! Ompehda!”
Much of the discussion that I came across seemed to interpret the line as “Oh Bahlasti, oh Ompehda, upon your crapulous creeds I do spit!” In actuality, these words seem to be employed by Aiwass to wash the nasty taste of the impurity of the Old Aeon religions, whose intoxication produce inebriation and spiritual hangover, out of his mouth.
Its always amusing to observe a discussion degenerate into masturbatory Kabbalistic analysis, when a little simple research will quickly reveal the answer. We see Crowley begin to do this in the Old Comment, and abandon the approach. The fact is that abstract numbers can reveal multiple meanings which can easily be shifted to suit one’s subjective preconceived notions, while the bookshelf is way... over... there....
"Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds."
-AL III:54
I wanted to write about this line in particular, because although it is used elsewhere in Crowley’s work, the meaning here is not immediately clear. When I did a google search and found several online discussions of the subject, no one appeared to have grasped the meaning of these words. This post may well be old news to some of my readers, but its nice to have the case stated clearly somewhere, isn’t it?
Crowley elucidates: “Appears to be a plain instruction in theology and ethics.” in the Old Comment, and “By sound Bahlasti suggests "hurling" or "blasting;" Ompehda is not too phantastically onomatopoetic for 'an explosion.’”
Crapulous is related to the latin word for “inebriation,” and the Greek word for “hangover.” I, frankly, don’t see the connection. An article here notes that these two names are an anagram of “A blasphemi to Had,” which is certainly interesting, but the author’s conclusion that:
“Essentially, this is an attack on the “ontological argument”. The ontological argument defines God as the subject of all predicates that belong to existence; and that since existence is such a predicate, the subject must have the predicate “existence”, and therefore exists.”
doesn’t seem to relate to the ideas expressed in “crapulous,” which are essentially consequences of irresponsible intoxication. Crowley’s note at least suggests that the Wars predicted by Liber AL would be the product of decisions made by men with dull, befogged minds, but that stretches the interpretation rather too far for my comfort. All the same, Crowley employs these names during the Bartzabel working, during which far more precise and accurate predictions of World Wars were made. In this ritual, the names are used during the purification of the medium, after a benediction intended to invoke the protection of Ra-Hoor-Khuit, and before the consecration with the holy oil.
We see the names employed in a similar manner in Liber LXIV. One would assume, since Crowley makes no mention of it in his comment, that the inclusion of Bahlasti and Ompehda was his own innovation, and not part of the ceremony as it appeared under Alan Bennet’s authorship. The names appear directly before the declaration that the magician has “banished the shells,” so they seem to be a declaration of cleanliness and purity.
These names seem to be almost a curse upon the destroyed. A way of “trampling the fallen” which have been exorcized by the magician’s power. After the magician clears the temple for Liber Israfel, he declares “Bahlasti! Ompehda!” After the Chief Magus purifies and protects the Material Basis in the Bartzabel working, he declares “Bahlasti! Ompehda!” And after Aiwass cleanses the religious traditions which have influenced Crowley’s perception by banishing the toxic aspects of their anthropomorphic forms, he declares “Bahlasti! Ompehda!”
Much of the discussion that I came across seemed to interpret the line as “Oh Bahlasti, oh Ompehda, upon your crapulous creeds I do spit!” In actuality, these words seem to be employed by Aiwass to wash the nasty taste of the impurity of the Old Aeon religions, whose intoxication produce inebriation and spiritual hangover, out of his mouth.
Its always amusing to observe a discussion degenerate into masturbatory Kabbalistic analysis, when a little simple research will quickly reveal the answer. We see Crowley begin to do this in the Old Comment, and abandon the approach. The fact is that abstract numbers can reveal multiple meanings which can easily be shifted to suit one’s subjective preconceived notions, while the bookshelf is way... over... there....