Review - The Origin of Satan by Elain Pagels
-
Elaine Pagels has been criticised on the grounds of scholarship by several people. Her great virtue is that she forces people to think outside the established boxes. And I get the sense that she has at least peeked through the doors of the Sanctuary.
I don't think Crowley was trying to make perpetually definitive statements about Satan, which would be pointless anyway in a Qabalistic context. I see his guidance and commentary being there for meditation and inner development, not offered as a series of ex-cathedra pronouncements.Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"Elaine Pagels has been criticised on the grounds of scholarship by several people. Her great virtue is that she forces people to think outside the established boxes. And I get the sense that she has at least peeked through the doors of the Sanctuary."
I get that same sense and, as when I read Crowley, I can't help but notice she has an agenda with certain lines of thought. It may be her great virtue that she forces people to think outside the established boxes, or she just may be deceptive, perhaps not entirely intentionally, but dishonest with her self and her own motives. For example, she prefaces The Origin of Satan by discussing the loss of a loved one (perhaps she is blaming God for her misery?) and, after a thorough trashing of the scriptures, she actually ends the book by claiming she's inconclusive about what it all means. Yeah, right. She'd have to be a moron, which she clearly isn't.
-
From a, perhaps defensive, historian...
@Edward Mason said
"Elaine Pagels has been criticised on the grounds of scholarship by several people."
Non-historians can sometimes take this sort of challenge or disagreement as an indictment of the scholar's work. But, we shouldn't. Disagreement and debate work in history similarly to how it works in sociology or physics. So, Fezz, don't just dismiss her work. Every work of history has some explicit errors. Some of these just enter into the book or article out of inevitable accident because of the massive organizational effort required to bring together the enormous amount of information and analysis necessary to produce the book. And any good or interesting work of history will provoke disagreement and debate, because it will provide sufficient evidence within the text to enable others to analyze it, to some extent, for themselves and come up with their own conclusions.
Regardless of any errors or problems with her particular interpretation, the book has a particular value: It challenges our common sense notions of evil and Satan, showing, regarldess of the details, the historical contingency out of which the concepts of evil and Satan emerged and demonstrating that we can't take these categories as natural or universal. Humans created the concept of evil in a particular historical and cultural context.
-
I haven't dismissed her work any more than I have dismissed Crowley's. They are both saying something of value, but I am trying to find the "missing link" that joins the two lines of thought. I am also trying to distinguish sh*t from shinola, as they say. There may be some things about Pagels' book I am suspicious about, but for the most part, it was so straightforward and interesting, it has made me want to go back and read all the books of the Bible she cites and witness the scribes' manipulation firsthand.
I am not Christian and I am not anti-Christian. As a matter of fact, rather like Crowley, I generally disagree with Christianity, but agree with "Christ" the man, for the most part. Well, actually, I guess Crowley didn't really agree with Christ the man, either, but he did go out of his way to point out he didn't hate Jesus Christ, but that he just hated Christianity. And, actually, I guess I don't really agree with Christ the man, either, if I take the Bible literally.
-
It would take me years to answer the above in anything resembling point-by-point.
Redd, I read your main post above twice, and at the end of the second read I realized what had my mind reeling: I can't fathom for a moment why it matters to you whether Satan is "real."
And, for that matter, I don't know what "real" means in this sense.
And yet, that issue is the crux of your post - so I can't begin to think of how to answer it.
Even the fact that I've met someone has little to do with whether or not they are real. With several varying yet commonplace definitions of "real," I can assure you on my utmost honor that I interact with many people on a daily basis who, if real, aren't entirely so. This despite medical records that firmly and sincerely attest to their existence.
I work in the entertainment field, and before that 14 years in law.
Was Barney Fife real? I have sat on a bench and chatted with him. Junior Miles doesn't even exist, but he coauthored a No. 1 song, is CEO of the company for which I work, and responded to an email I sent him a few weeks ago.
Is Madonna real? Like the Holy Guardian Angel, she is at once both completely real and totally fictional (and, in both cases, is an amazingly useful projection). In any case, she makes my employer a ton of money, so they assure me she is extremely real. (And, based on this assessment, her duet with Gorillaz at the Grammy Awards opener was hillarious!)
On my desk at work sits a framed platinum record award presented to Madonna by RIAA for one of her albums (currently my personal property) and she has autographed it. It came to me through the president of Rhino records. Some people who come to my desk wonder if it's real, and I assure them that - even better - it's authentic!
This question also touches precisely on the similar question of whether the HGA is an "actual other person." The answer is yes, no, both, neither, huh?, ha!, and "Objection, Your Honor, for lack of foundation!"
Pagels' book was recommended as a darn good read in its own right, and because it would help kick the rudders out from under just about any opinion of Satan and its opposite. Besides, Elaine Pagels is very real.
We're talking about magick! And, on top of that, you're talking about a Briatic being.
Literally and actually, at the Briatic level I am, myself, exactly as real as a myth.
And when you bring in Biblical existence, it gets crazier still. (I started on a paragraph on Hiram Abiff vs. Freemasonry, and wouldn't begin to have time to write the main points this month.)
Is a myth real? You bet your patootie! As you've shown eloquently, on their own plane myths can even collide and have impact, so they have substance and texture. In Briah, a myth is as concretely real as is anything on which you bang your shin in Assiah.
At the moment, I'm not sure whether the author of this present post is real - only that he really has to get going and already will be late for work. (By the way, do you have any actual evidence of my existence? If so, then of what nature is that evidence? And, in the final analysis, what implications, if any, does it have for you whether I exist or not?)
Repeat: We're talking about magick! And, on top of that, you're talking about a Briatic being.
-
I was trying to figure out how to boil down my post to the simplest of questions and, after 5 or 6 edits to the darn thing, I think I know it well enough backwards and forward to come a conclusion!
What I'm really asking is not whether Satan is "real" or not, although that is part of it. What I am asking is how the term "Satan" comes to be defined by all these terms and associations of yours/Crowley's... and yet NOT by the standard terms and associations.
That's pretty funny, don't you think? It must be, because you find the standard concepts of Satan and the Devil laughable, so here would be a good chance to explain why that is so.
For instance, I see no indication from the Old Testament or New Testament that Satan simply represents a solar dynamic. What about the entire last half of the Bible from which the name "Satan" comes in the first place? I see many indications that Satan is synonymous with The Devil, rebellion, evil, deception, etc. Even esoterically, I can associate Saturn with Satan, Lord of the world/matter and the illusion of maya, denying the Unity underneath it all.
But all of these unpleasant aspects or associations of Satan are simply disregarded for reasons never explained. In favor of what? Vague allusions to contradictory ideas using Qabalistic numbers as the only explanation for the relationship? It seems there is a desire to turn "Satan" into a lofty concept, yet there doesn't seem to be ample evidence to support such an idea.
And so I am left not wondering if Satan is real or not, but why Satan is so important (especially if he is NOT real) to the occultists that take the idea so far beyond the standard conceptions suggested by the scholarly evidence as to practically ignore them completely. I am not 'accusing' you of this, Jim, as I think you'd probably say that the concept of Satan is not all that important to you. But, it was to Crowley. And it is to so many other occultists, who typically ignore all Satan's "bad press" in favor of some philosophy of their own making.
-
It seems to me that your main question is :
Why is Satan depicted as evil and dangerous in most history, popular culture and religion while we tend to teach something of the contrary?Does that sum it up Redd? It's actually a good question but I think it was answered at one point. Here is my opinion:
Having been involved in martial arts for about 25 years I will use it as an example- I studied some common "sport" martial arts of the kind you are probably most familiar. I have also studied very ancient, combat arts that are small and selective and have a history away from the mainstream. They teach things on a much higher level than is inteded for the common mainstream person. Why? Because most people can't understand it or may not want to put in the time to understand it. So the mainstream gets a watered down "fastfood" understanding of what martial arts are. They are in fact impressed with the incredible skill of these artists while the small "esoteric" martial artist knows that what mainstream martial artist has nothing to do with the real art. It is superficial and all show, while the "esoteric" martial artist may not look impressive but understands the principals that would really work in the world and not rely on fleeting ability such as speed or strength.
My point is that usually, the mainstream gets the information that is most easy for the common person to accept and understand. Usually with quantity you lose quality. Show me a restaurant that has high quality and I almost guarantee it is not a chain, but a small private one.
Another reason is that (like another person has posted) the energy involved with Satan may be dangerous to the uninitiated, thus it is demonized. Many are at a level of a child in these matters (including myself). What does a mother do to protect her child from the hot stove? She says " NO! BAD! Fire BAD!" Once the child grows up they realize that fire is in fact good or at least can be used for good, but at the time, the label of BAD protected them from harm.
-
@DavidH said
"It seems to me that your main question is :
Why is Satan depicted as evil and dangerous in most history, popular culture and religion while we tend to teach something of the contrary?Does that sum it up Redd? It's actually a good question but I think it was answered at one point. "
Somewhat, but the other part of the question is where do these teachings come from? I know where the "bad dude" Satan comes from. Now, the other? It seems to be traced from several unrelated sources, "fitting" certain ideas together, such as Lucifer, Kundalini, etc.
I do understand that the Bible is, arguably, just a bunch of "fitted" ideas together to suit the particular slant of the scribes and the political powers of the times. I also do understand the concept of "esoteric" vs. "exoteric" teaching. However, I am just wondering how we can definitively ignore all the "bad dude" Satan stuff in favor of the "savior" Satan stuff? Surely, there must be some point of agreement which "solves the puzzle," so to speak? The "Rosetta Stone" that ties the 2 opposing views together? How does Crowley get "solar quality" from ha-satan, an agent of God meant to oppose or from "Satan," the cosmic enemy of God and embodiment of evil?
In fact, the passage in Isiah that was translated as "Lucifer" seems to flat out mock the Babylonian religion, as it shows that a king who aspired to great heights, perhaps sailing in the bark of Osiris across the skies, is dead as a dog, his dreams crushed. It does not appear that the Biblical writers were writing the "opposite" of what they really meant to keep the truth safe from the profane, especially if you follow Pagels' logic in this book. She argues that the writers consistently used Satan to define the enemy and to preserve their own culture, certainly not to conceal an "opposite message."
-
Quick answer on the fly on "where do these other ideas come from."
They were always encoded in the name, in the formula to which I first directed you for meditation. To a Qabalist, the name is the reality. "Satan" is Shin Teth Nun - Cosmic Fire, the solar-lion-serpent force, and the death-transformation energy which, at root, is the fundamental sexual force. That's what composes the Name, and that's what composes the entity bearing that name.
One has to get it on the right plane - interpreting this in Yetzirah (where people have their emotional reactions to the idea) would be really different from interpreting it it in Briah (where the Actuality exists).
Quick answer to why I take so much of this as a joke: Skipping the easy and somewhat misdirecting answer - that to the letter A'ayin is attributed, in Sepher Yetzirah, the idea of mirth - the simple answer is that I don't take the idea of an objective Evil seriously. Not in the slightest. There is no such thing. Everything in my experience of life, my rational assessment, my subconscious perception, and whatever illuminated understanding of things I have been allowed confirms this. There is nothing any more Objectively Evil than electricity or fire is objectively evil. Instead, there are forces and other realities to be understood for what they inherently are.
-
David H.,
That was a most excellent question and answer. Yes, you voiced what Redd's concerns are, I think. Redd, if I am wrong, I just know you'll set me right. How can something ,that everyone views as evil , be good? There's a reason certain things are wrong. Then, there is Crowley talking about stuffing babies with sausages-not generally considered a good thing.
There is a huge dissonance between talking about being a new God and beng a new God that eats babies.
The reason I think that Redd is battering this, is because he FEELS things intensely. And the talk and behavior of Crowley still doesn't feel right, even though there is magic, enchantment and power in what he has written and espoused.
We want to be on the side of angels (talking just about me, I guess), and we see demons. You can say that demons are the same as angels, but somehow in this world of dualism, we just don't see that.
The issue of Satan and whether he is real or not is on the back burner for me, but that's because I am not dealing with anything horrific in my American plush and safe life. The closest it comes to me, is when I see that small children are routinely stolen and harmed in this country as well as others. Also, when I see children do, what I consider, evil things.
Thank you. Your addition to the discussion and to Redd, in particular, was very helpful to me.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
@Jim Eshelman said
"To a Qabalist, the name is the reality. "Satan" is Shin Teth Nun - Cosmic Fire, the solar-lion-serpent force, and the death-transformation energy which, at root, is the fundamental sexual force."
So, does that mean the authors of the Old Testament and New Testament Qabalists?
Or, regardless, the Qabalah provides the answers?
Or, STN, really isn't a Qabalah thing so much as a Hebrew language thing?
I did meditate on those keys as you suggested, Jim, and I think all of this is part of the process of me trying to cut through some of the ideas. I've been having dreams about Satan quite consistently and they are not frightening in the least; more like revelatory. I sometimes awake thinking "I get it" only to have the substance of my dreams evaporate from my memory before I can get the notebook.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"To a Qabalist, the name is the reality. "Satan" is Shin Teth Nun - Cosmic Fire, the solar-lion-serpent force, and the death-transformation energy which, at root, is the fundamental sexual force."So, does that mean the authors of the Old Testament and New Testament Qabalists?"
Yes. Of course. They were the earliest known, and set the pattern of everything else.
"Or, regardless, the Qabalah provides the answers?"
I suppose that depends on the question, eh?
"Or, STN, really isn't a Qabalah thing so much as a Hebrew language thing?"
There isn't any difference. Before the 19th Century, Hebrew was never spoken as a conversational language. It existed only for scriptural purposes. Every key word (certainly every name) in the Hebrew scriptures is a contrived formula.
-
That's what I had thought, but someone on the forums earlier stated that they didn't believe the scribes were Qabalists. And, of course, "proof" of the Qabalah only goes back so far.
I wonder how this language understanding was lost.
I have seriously got to become a good Qabalist and get me a Hebrew OT.
It seems that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not Qabalists. Or else, they were just liars with an strange agenda.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"That's what I had thought, but someone on the forums earlier stated that they didn't believe the scribes were Qabalists. And, of course, "proof" of the Qabalah only goes back so far."
Yes, only to Genesis I where the Creation story identifies 22 distinctive Divine Ideas grouped in exactly the structure of the Hebrew alphabet and, in most cases, giving the same attributions and characteristics to them that we give to the 22 Hebrew letters in the same structure...
...and all composed while, uh, writing in Hebrew.
"I wonder how this language understanding was lost."
It wasn't intended to be generally known. And, it wasn't lost.
"I have seriously got to become a good Qabalist and get me a Hebrew OT."
Not sure how you can look into this stuff without one
Get the freeware e-Sword from www.e-sword.ne - download all the Bibles you want, being sure to get at least the KJV, the KLJV with Strongs integrated, the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT.
"It seems that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not Qabalists. Or else, they were just liars with an strange agenda."
Of course they were Qabalists. And of course they had agendas. Whether strange or liars I don't really have an opinion on at the moment.
But the important thing to understand is that the esoteric side of religion is never intended to be known to the general public. It is preserved for the initiated few (who are usually the only ones who can understand it anyway) and a VERY different spin on the same content is intentionally provided to the general masses. Partly this has been a political power-grab at times, partly it has been to keep the priests from getting lynched, and mostly it's because the exoteric version is all that the masses would understand anyway. Truth is at odds with mass-mind - at least, that's been the way through most of history and it probably would be arrogant or simply deluded to think things had changed all that much since.
-
Redd, 93,
" It seems that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not Qabalists. Or else, they were just liars with an strange agenda. "
I'd say they were Qabalists - John, at least. But what's a 'strange agenda' ? To me, that sounds like 'ideas I don't like.'
Qabalah has no fixed orthodoxy beyond a set of agreed-on general principles (the basic Tree of Life being the most consistent..?) , and people are constantly coming out with off-centre notions, like that set of seven Trees you found. Such things are very useful to some people, and not at all to others.
Christianity, in its various major forms, took (I believe) a set of Qabalistic teachings, and from them formed orthodoxies, including doctrines on the literal existence of Satan, the Crucifixion, Judgement Day, Hell, et al. Qabalists are always tracing the truths that underlie or interpenetrate such orthodoxies. Qabalistic descriptions vary a lot, as a result, and that's what forces each of us to find our own understanding - which is a quite different process to determining our own dogmas.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Redd Fezz said
"That's what I had thought, but someone on the forums earlier stated that they didn't believe the scribes were Qabalists. And, of course, "proof" of the Qabalah only goes back so far."
I said that.
@sasha said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"I want to understand the Qabalist interpretation of the Bible."With great uncertainty...
I thought The Bible, both Old and New Testaments - but at least the Old, came out well before Qabalah.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by Qabalah. The classic Qabalistic, excuse me... Kabbalistic texts didn't appear until at least 1000 AD.
I can easily see that the writers of the Bible used gematria deliberately in their writing. According to Gershom Scholem's book on the history of Kabbalah, Jews probably learned Gematria from Babylonians during the captivity. But it seems that this use of gematria long predates Qabalah, perhaps by 1500 years."
-
@Edward Mason said
"Redd, 93,
" It seems that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not Qabalists. Or else, they were just liars with an strange agenda. "
I'd say they were Qabalists - John, at least. But what's a 'strange agenda' ? To me, that sounds like 'ideas I don't like.' "
No, if they were Qabalists and knew the true understanding of Satan, then these dolts were the ones who turned it around to mean something evil by accusing everyone NOT like them to be Satanic. True, I 'don't like' the ideas behind this strange agenda, but that does not mean it isn't strange to finger a group of people based on facts you know to be false.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"That's what I had thought, but someone on the forums earlier stated that they didn't believe the scribes were Qabalists. And, of course, "proof" of the Qabalah only goes back so far."Yes, only to Genesis I"
Well, that's pretty far! I had "proof" in quotes because I thought it was supposedly traced back only to the Sephir Yetzirah or something, but not being an expert Qabalist never took this as fact. (Or is SY older than Genesis, anyway?)
-
RF, 93,
" No, if they were Qabalists and knew the true understanding of Satan, then these dolts were the ones who turned it around to mean something evil by accusing everyone NOT like them to be Satanic. True, I 'don't like' the ideas behind this strange agenda, but that does not mean it isn't strange to finger a group of people based on facts you know to be false."
You seem upset over this topic. The nature and function of Satan appears very important to you - okay, that's acknowledged. But I have the impression you are going to remain frustrated until someone defines the 'true' Satan for you.
That's your job, though. Satan to me is not significant. I think it's a huge psychological misunderstanding, though properly understood it would point to the Redemer principle. Light comes down into the realm of mind, and the mind freaks out and throws out paranoia and confusion in response to all that incoming energy. We then spend a few lifetimes correcting that mistake, realise what we thought was 'evil' is just us over-reacting to Light, and on we go.
A key aspect of Satan in religion is that he/it is projected onto everyone in sight, and the versions of the gospels we now have include that notion. But that doesn't, in my mind, rule out an intended Qabalistic approach. For just one example, Matthew 1, 17 observes:
"
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."Now go to Revelations - you'll find references to 42 (3x14) all through it. The number was esoterically important to Matthew, whoever he or they really was/were. Exempt Adept Qabalists? Maybe they weren't, but they were aspirants to Qabalistic truth, like you and like me.
"if they were Qabalists and knew the true understanding of Satan"
Here's where you and I differ. I think a practicing Qabalist is constantly UN-knowing things he/she knew yesterday. We can definitively, finally, scholastically, empirically, Qabalistically, theologically and superlatively get to the 'truth' about Satan two or three posts from now. But if we really are Qabalists, our 'truth' won't hold up next year, or the year after that. Da'ath (knowledge) has a dodgy reputation for a good reason.
Religion is very Da'ath-ish. It's there because there's a need for it, and the Qabalists keep on doing their thing, too.93 93/93,
Edward
-
Thanks, Edward. I'm not upset, but I can see how I might be coming across that way. Look at my signature. Does that seem "upset"?
Your last post was very insightful. This thread has cleared up my confusion considerably, as I'd hoped it would. I have enought material now to work through Satan on my own time.