Service to Self, Service to Others
-
@Redd Fezz said
"LaVeyan Satanism is the idea that Satan isn't a real entity at all. Crowley said Aiwaz definitely was something other than a product of his mind-- a definite external entity-- and he identified it with Set, which probably makes a lot of sense, right? Unless I misinterpreted something. I did note that the Aiwass group put horns on a red, goateed Aiwass when they put on the 3-day book of the Law play here in Manhattan, giving him the typical "devil-look.""
While the understanding of the name Aiwass was especially Crowley's job to accomplish - a piece of the deciphering of his own soul - there is a simple way for getting at least an outward (Yetziratic) understanding.
Lay out the Tarot cards corresponding to the Hebrew letters A'ayin, Yod, Vav, and Zayin - The Devil, The Hermit, The Hierophant, and The Lovers. Meditate on these individually and in series, over one-to-three days. Wait a couple of days and, if you wish, share with us the fruits of your understanding of the inherent value of the name-formula.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
Lay out the Tarot cards corresponding to the Hebrew letters A'ayin, Yod, Vav, and Zayin - The Devil, The Hermit, The Hierophant, and The Lovers. Meditate on these individually and in series, over one-to-three days. Wait a couple of days and, if you wish, share with us the fruits of your understanding of the inherent value of the name-formula."I'm getting the feeling this method works for anything?! If so, thanks because I haven't learned this in BOTA yet. (Slow going... I just painted Key 9 corresponding with Tarot Fundamentals. A total noob.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
Lay out the Tarot cards corresponding to the Hebrew letters A'ayin, Yod, Vav, and Zayin - The Devil, The Hermit, The Hierophant, and The Lovers."Woops, I just did Aleph, Yod, Vav and Zayin. You can imagine the smile this put on my face. Now, I will consider A'ayin. But why not Aleph? It's not the "A" sound?
For the SaTaN key correspondence— even though I only briefly looked at the cards, it seems to already be indicating what I had gleaned from Levi's "The Great Secret": there is no Satan; only the laws of cause and effect in the world and you will reap what you sow. This has been my belief regarding Satan for quite some time, anyway: that he does not exist as a literal being attempting to thwart your every move. It is an idea based upon the illusion of matter (Saturn/Satan) and separateness combined with the cause-effect reality of Unity and the Universe.
This was why I was surprised to find Crowley stating plainly that Aiwass was without doubt an external intelligence and the God/Devil of Sumer. That's Set, the twin of Horus, right? The template for the idea of Satan? The story goes that Set was punished for killing Osiris and Horus avenged his father's death. So, the whole Aeons thing is a bit strangely confusing if Liber AL was dictated by a literal external intelligence of Set about the coming of Horus after the death of the Aeon of Osiris. Are Set and Horus buddies now? Is Horus glad Osiris is dead? The conflict in my mind relevant to this discussion is the difference of attitude between Set and Horus: Set kills dad (jealous, service to self), Horus avenges dad (justice, service to others). They fought a long battle. Horus lost an eye. Now they get together and anticipate the death of dad again? After Isis went to all that trouble to bring him back? What does Thoth think of all this?
Just my initial thoughts. I'm sure I'm being too literal, but the myths represent the basic energies/ideas, right? Will be meditating on both Aiwaz and Satan more in the upcoming days with the Keys.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
Lay out the Tarot cards corresponding to the Hebrew letters A'ayin, Yod, Vav, and Zayin - The Devil, The Hermit, The Hierophant, and The Lovers."Woops, I just did Aleph, Yod, Vav and Zayin. You can imagine the smile this put on my face. Now, I will consider A'ayin. But why not Aleph? It's not the "A" sound?"
"Aiwaz" is an actual Middle Eastern name. This is the actual spelling of it. (And it also enumerates to 93.)
"For the SaTaN key correspondence— even though I only briefly looked at the cards, it seems to already be indicating what I had gleaned from Levi's "The Great Secret": there is no Satan;"
Gosh, but I've met him. He's such a nicely groomed fellow.
"This has been my belief regarding Satan for quite some time, anyway: that he does not exist as a literal being attempting to thwart your every move."
Well, I'll definitely agree with that!
"It is an idea based upon the illusion of matter (Saturn/Satan) and separateness combined with the cause-effect reality of Unity and the Universe."
Not a bad description of The Devil trump - but you won't find those ideas in the letters forming the name "Satan." (The Devil card, as traditionally drawn, is a much better picture of Beelzebub, btw.) - Again, I think you are inappropriately confusing Satan with religions ideas of "the devil."
"This was why I was surprised to find Crowley stating plainly that Aiwass was without doubt an external intelligence and the God/Devil of Sumer. That's Set, the twin of Horus, right?"
No - on two counts. First, they're Egyptian, not Sumerian. Second, they weren't twins (nor did they even have a parent in common).
"The template for the idea of Satan?"
I wouldn't say that's the case - the Jews came up with Satan quite on their own - though there is a sound-similarity, that might be an etymological relatedness, between Set and Satan, as between many other similarly-named deities.
-
First off, I am sorry that we are off-topic. Should I start a new thread about Aiwaz and Satan (or two threads?)
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"This was why I was surprised to find Crowley stating plainly that Aiwass was without doubt an external intelligence and the God/Devil of Sumer. That's Set, the twin of Horus, right?"
No - on two counts. First, they're Egyptian, not Sumerian. Second, they weren't twins (nor did they even have a parent in common)."
So, I guess Crowley meant that Aiwaz was Enki?
I'd read that Enlil and Enki correspond with Set and Horus. I guess that doesn't make them the same Gods, but I thought it was like the phone game where the essential nature of the Gods gets passed on from generation to generation, culture to culture and names get changed around.
Knowing that the Egyptian myths change quite a bit, I thought it was safe to say Set and Horus "were" "twin brothers" based on the fact that this was one of the earliest myths regarding Set and Horus and the myths changed as time went on, even if I don't believe the myths literally at all (which I don't).
For instance: "In ancient Egyptian mythology, Horus was one of five offspring of the original pair of Egyptian gods, Ra and Rhea. Horus' siblings were Osiris, Set, Isis, and Nephthys. Osiris succeeded Ra as king of Egypt and married Isis, his sister. Their brother, Set, slew Osiris, who descended to preside over the land of the dead. The widow, Isis, called upon her brother, Horus, to destroy Set, which he did after many battles. Eventually, Osiris was resurrected." First result Googling "Set Horus twins" which is basically exactly what I was referring to (though I was simply recalling from memory).
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"The template for the idea of Satan?"I wouldn't say that's the case - the Jews came up with Satan quite on their own - though there is a sound-similarity, that might be an etymological relatedness, between Set and Satan, as between many other similarly-named deities."
If the Jews came up with Satan quite on their own, did they invent Satan, thus causing his existence in reality? Like an egregore or a golem or something? Or did they discover him and give him a name? (And how does anyone know these are not all the same entity?)
Or are you not being literal when you say "you've met 'him'"? When you say you've met Satan and he's a nicely groomed fellow, I think of two possibilities: (1) you mean you've met the entity, which somehow the Jews are credited for inventing or discovering or naming, or (2) you're making a joke about yourself being a nicely groomed fellow and Satan being part of your soul/self.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"If the Jews came up with Satan quite on their own, did they invent Satan, thus causing his existence in reality? Like an egregore or a golem or something? Or did they discover him and give him a name?"
Satan - Adversary - didn't originally refer to a single being and certainly not to something evil. A Satan could come in many forms. Early on, they usually served God by testing an individual or a community. Satan didn't become a more individual being until around 0 BC (or AD) and did so in the context of fringe Jewish sects, at least according to both the curator of the Dead Sea Scrolls Museum (gave a lecture here) and Elain Pagels in The Origin of Satan. I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the early history of Christianity or in the history of the concept of evil.
-
@sasha said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"If the Jews came up with Satan quite on their own, did they invent Satan, thus causing his existence in reality? Like an egregore or a golem or something? Or did they discover him and give him a name?"Satan - Adversary - didn't originally refer to a single being and certainly not to something evil. A Satan could come in many forms. Early on, they usually served God by testing an individual or a community. Satan didn't become a more individual being until around 0 BC (or AD) and did so in the context of fringe Jewish sects, at least according to both the curator of the Dead Sea Scrolls Museum (gave a lecture here) and Elain Pagels in The Origin of Satan. I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the early history of Christianity or in the history of the concept of evil."
Thanks. So what is "it" now, this Satan? A being or beings or just an idea?
There's a passage in "Secret Teachings of All Ages" that describes Adam, after a long and difficult life, finds himself back at the gates of paradise begging to be let back in. There he meets The Adversary (can't remember if it was Satan or the Devil or just The Adversary, but he calls himself the Adversary, anyway) who tells Adam, "I was against you from the start. I am the one who tempted you. I am the one who accused you. I wanted you to fail, to die..," etc. etc. and then -- poof! -- the Adversary transforms into an angel or God (can't remember which) and welcomes Adam back into the Garden of Eden.
-
-
@Redd Fezz said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""This was why I was surprised to find Crowley stating plainly that Aiwass was without doubt an external intelligence and the God/Devil of Sumer. That's Set, the twin of Horus, right?"
No - on two counts. First, they're Egyptian, not Sumerian. Second, they weren't twins (nor did they even have a parent in common)."
So, I guess Crowley meant that Aiwaz was Enki?"
Crowley "meant" this where, exactly? You appear to be quoting something - I'm not clear what you've been reading, or whether these are your own conclusions - again, there is no provenance - i.e., no tracing of where an idea came from, of where information appeared, and any response to it requires context before I would have the least idea what something meant.
Aiwaz is a standard Middle Eastern name. Crowley eventually met a man with this name, who pointed out a couple of useful things to him, including providing the literal spelling of the name and allowing the discovery that it enumerated to 93. In his New Comment on Liber Legis, Cap. I, v. 1, in introducing the names Nu and Had, Crowley wrote:
"...I must here mention that the Brother mentioned in connexion with the Wizard Amalantrah (Shmuel bar Aiwaz) identifies them with ANU and ADAD the supreme Mother and Father deities of the Sumerians. Taken in connexion with the AIWAZ identification, this is very striking indeed."
He does go on to discuss a bit of research by Fabre d'Olivet concerning etymological (or at least sound) similarities of differing deities from different cultures who had similar natures. From the same source:
"It is also to be considered that Nu is connected with North, while Had is Sad, Set, Satan, Sat (equals 'Being' in Sanskrit), South. He is then the Sun, one point concentrating Space, as also is any other star... Nu is also reflected in Naus, Ship, etc., and that whole symbolism of Hollow Space which is familiar to all. There is also a question of identifying Nu with On, Noah, Oannes, Johan, John, Dianus, Diana, and so on. But these identifications are all partial only, different facets of the Diamond Truth."
There is a lot that can be learned from cross-cultural comparison of deities. All of the N-deities, related to the North, express some similar ideas - and all the S-D-T deities, related to the South, express some other ideas. But this doesn't mean they are interchangeable. I think the equation of them is risky. Osiris isn't Christ - just ask any Christian fundamentalist! <g> However, they are both expressions of a "slain god" idea. Christ's acceptance of agony at Calvary is archetypally almost indistinguishable from Prometheus' accepting the punishment in the Caucasus - but, while there are striking similarities, and intersections of their myths, we can't say at all that they are the same thing. And we're way of the mark if we then say that Osiris is Prometheus onaccounta they both are Christ.
See?
So, no, Aiwaz isn't anyone but Aiwaz. And he's a Secret Chief. And he's the vehicle of the experience of the Yechidah by the personality Aleister Crowley. And his name is the encoding of 93 and 418 which gave Crowley the keys to his own nature and to the formula that was his to uniquely enact. Etc.
"If the Jews came up with Satan quite on their own, did they invent Satan, thus causing his existence in reality? Like an egregore or a golem or something? Or did they discover him and give him a name? (And how does anyone know these are not all the same entity?) "
I suggest that you read Elaine Pagel's book on the origins of Satan. If I can find the file quickly, I'll post here my review from Black Pearl.
"Or are you not being literal when you say "you've met 'him'"?"
I'm being literal that I met him on a magical plane, not a physical plane. He's a Briatic being.
"When you say you've met Satan and he's a nicely groomed fellow, I think of two possibilities: (1) you mean you've met the entity, which somehow the Jews are credited for inventing or discovering or naming, or (2) you're making a joke about yourself being a nicely groomed fellow and Satan being part of your soul/self."
More the former than the latter, plus a simultaneous telling you the truth and pulling your leg.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Thanks. So what is "it" now, this Satan? A being or beings or just an idea? "
What are you? A being or beings or just an idea?
I'm trying not to be obscure - I'm trying to unveil, not veil, something very basic to our understanding of ourselves and these other beings.
Aleister Crowley is often misquoted as saying that the H.G.A. is a separate, objective being. In fact, his full statement was that the H.G.A. is a separate being in EXACTLY the same way that you and I are separate beings. - This raises the question: In what way are you and I separate beings?
I usually circumvent addressing this sort of thing, because different ways of framing and modelling this will serve people at different stages of their progress. For example - based on my own experience and the reports of everybody whose deep reports I've ever read or heard - a core characteristic of the experience of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel includes union with Other. Therefore, if anything I said led you to think that the H.G.A. is anything other than Other, I would not have served you well.
Part of the joke in all of this is that, at the time that it most matters, the question either changes or doesn't any longer exist. Separation and multiplicity in the way you are discussing them are phenomena only characteristic of Assiah and Yetzirah. The nuptials with the H.G.A. occur in Briah where there may still be differentiation, but there is no separation.
So, what are you? A being or beings or just an idea? Or what?
"There's a passage in "Secret Teachings of All Ages" that describes Adam, after a long and difficult life, finds himself back at the gates of paradise begging to be let back in. There he meets The Adversary (can't remember if it was Satan or the Devil or just The Adversary, but he calls himself the Adversary, anyway) who tells Adam, "I was against you from the start. I am the one who tempted you. I am the one who accused you. I wanted you to fail, to die..," etc. etc. and then -- poof! -- the Adversary transforms into an angel or God (can't remember which) and welcomes Adam back into the Garden of Eden."
Yes. The usual story
Remember that A'ayin is one of the three paths that opens from the lower Sephiroth in to Tiphereth.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""This was why I was surprised to find Crowley stating plainly that Aiwass was without doubt an external intelligence and the God/Devil of Sumer. That's Set, the twin of Horus, right?"
No - on two counts. First, they're Egyptian, not Sumerian. Second, they weren't twins (nor did they even have a parent in common)."
So, I guess Crowley meant that Aiwaz was Enki?"
Crowley "meant" this where, exactly? You appear to be quoting something "
Equinox of The Gods Chapter 7
www.hermetic.com/crowley/eoftg/eqotg7.html
Under VII, Section 5. "The Actual Writing," last paragraph. -
@Redd Fezz said
"Equinox of The Gods Chapter 7
www.hermetic.com/crowley/eoftg/eqotg7.html
Under VII, Section 5. "The Actual Writing," last paragraph."Excellent! Thanks. The full quote:
"I am now incline (sic) to believe that Aiwass is not only the God or Demon or Devil once held holy in Sumer, and mine own Guardian Angel, but also a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magical link with Mankind, whom He loves, and that He is thus an Ipsissimus, the Head of the A.'.A.'. Even I can do, in a much feebler way, this Work of being a God and a Beast, &c., &c., all at the same time, with equal fullness of life."
To this is attached a footnote:
"I do not necessarily jmen that he is a member of humabn society in quite the normal way. He might rather be able to form for Himself a human body as circumstances indicate, from the appropriate Elements, and dissolve it when the occasion for its use is past. I say this because I have been permitted to see Him in recent years in a variety of physical appearances, all equally "material" in the sense in which my own body is so."
-
Regarding Elaine Pagel- I've compared her work a few times in Barnes & Nobles with other books that competed for my attention, such as Stephen A. Hoeller's "Jung & The Lost Gospels" and "The Nag Hammadi Library." Each time, I put Pagel's books back in favor of the other. I borrowed and read "The Gnostic Gospels" from a friend and, I have to be honest, I just don't like her style. Regarding her "Origin of Satan," there are a lot of other Origin of Satan type books I've been looking to get. Are you who suggest Pagel's work suggesting it is the most accurate or best? I have read portions of this in the store as well and agreed with the one Amazon reviewer who complained there just wasn't enough Satan in it and too much of her own meandering thoughts:
"When I purchased this book I simply assumed the title was accurate and I would be treated to an historical study of the germination, growth, and evolution of the figure of Satan in world religions. Instead, the book is limited to a study of Satan as a literary and political device in the Gospels and in Christian church history, a much more limited study than the title implies."
AND it's a thin book!
As an aside, has anyone read "Jehovah Unmasked?"
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"To this is attached a footnote:
"I do not necessarily jmen that he is a member of humabn society in quite the normal way. He might rather be able to form for Himself a human body as circumstances indicate, from the appropriate Elements, and dissolve it when the occasion for its use is past. I say this because I have been permitted to see Him in recent years in a variety of physical appearances, all equally "material" in the sense in which my own body is so."
"Hmm. But, he does say it is an external entity (also analyzes this in Appendix III in Magick In Theory & Practice and concludes Aiwaz is definitely an external entity) and he does identify it with the god / devil of Sumer... I guess it's back to the key meditations you recommended. I'm not quite getting it. Oh yeah! But, is the god/devil of Sumer Enki or what?
-
@Redd Fezz said
"But, is the god/devil of Sumer Enki or what?"
No. It's Aiwaz. He's referring to an entity named Aiwaz.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Regarding Elaine Pagel- I've compared her work a few times in Barnes & Nobles with other books that competed for my attention, such as Stephen A. Hoeller's "Jung & The Lost Gospels" and "The Nag Hammadi Library." Each time, I put Pagel's books back in favor of the other."
Pagels focuses on the early Gnosticism. Hoeller focuses on contemporary and recent reconstructed Gnosticism.
@Redd Fezz said
"I borrowed and read "The Gnostic Gospels" from a friend and, I have to be honest, I just don't like her style."
Forget style. Perhaps you don't really need to read Pagels, but don't let style hold you back from studying magic. I don't care much for Crowley's style, but I read the hell out of him. Magic requires hard work and intensive study. You can't just pick your reading based on how much you enjoy it.
@Redd Fezz said
"Regarding her "Origin of Satan," there are a lot of other Origin of Satan type books I've been looking to get. Are you who suggest Pagel's work suggesting it is the most accurate or best? I have read portions of this in the store as well and agreed with the one Amazon reviewer who complained there just wasn't enough Satan in it and too much of her own meandering thoughts:"
Meandering? I read it as a clear and highly contextualized history of the political, cultural, and religous context in which the modern Satan emerged. Granted, much of it does focus on the political interests and relationships of the Gospel authors and does seem, at time, somewhat separate from the issue of Satan. However, that discussion enables us to understand the context in and purpose for which the modern Satan took form at each step. Perhaps both of you looked for contemporary myths about Satan and his supposed relationship to or equation with other Satan-like deities. But, based on her work and the work of another, those meanings and relationships do not appear to have existed at that point amongst Jewish peoples.
@Redd Fezz said
""Instead, the book is limited to a study of Satan as a literary and political device in the Gospels and in Christian church history, a much more limited study than the title implies.""
Perhaps this provides one answer for what Satan is.
@Redd Fezz said
"AND it's a thin book!"
All the better.
-
All right, I will check out the book. What I meant about her style was that she tends to present her opinions and deductions in a neat little picture rather than letting the reader make up his own mind. Thin little books are great... but when dealing with historicity, moreso when they are a "Liber" in a much larger collection of "Libers", with exhaustive footnotes and as few details and contrary opinions left out as possible. In other words, I prefer a big friggin' book with no stone left unturned on subjects such as this.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I didn't realize there was a Sumerian God named Aiwaz. >shrug<"
I've never heard of it either - except that Crowley keeps referring to Aiwaz as the name of a Sumerian god. There isn't any reason I can think of to assume that he meant some other Sumerian god.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"All right, I will check out the book. What I meant about her style was that she tends to present her opinions and deductions in a neat little picture rather than letting the reader make up his own mind."
Probably part of what I like about her. I get pretty tired of authors that aren't opinionated and authoritative. If they aren't going to take themselves that seriously, why should I?
Dogmatize at me! (Not that I think she does.) Take a stand! Represent a singular point of view and develop the hell out of it. I can then agree or disagree. But at least it's not just a jumble of mumbling facts.
"Thin little books are great... but when dealing with historicity, moreso when they are a "Liber" in a much larger collection of "Libers", with exhaustive footnotes and as few details and contrary opinions left out as possible. In other words, I prefer a big friggin' book with no stone left unturned on subjects such as this."
I hate those.
I collect them, but rarely read them.