Thelemic Pantheon
-
@zeph said
"I thought Atziluth, rather than Briah, was the Archetypal World. Have I got that wrong, or are you employing a different meaning?"
Atziluth is called the "archetypal world" by Qabalists - all of whom are pre-Jung or copying those that are pre-Jung.
But "archetype," as it has come to be used over the last seven decades or so as a consequence of Jung, doesn't refer to an Atziluthic level but, rather, to a Briatic one.
-
Coming back to this general topic: am I the only person around who has had trouble accepting Ra Hoor Khuit?<p>
He emerges from the most difficult of the Book of the Law's three chapters, and then proceeds to tell us a whole load of apparently nasty stuff. Yes, I appreciate this Chapter has levels of meaning, and some of those have gradually become clearer to me with time. But his role as Master of Revolutionary Upheaval makes him not exactly .... cuddly. If I'm confused or unsure what to do, he might help me see through the confusion, but there is nothing (that I see) that addresses the initial state of fear around (or perhaps causing) my confusion.<p>
Realigning (or un-crushing) an Universe is worthy work, but it seems to call for a complete commitment before we can get any real understanding of what we've committed to.Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"He emerges from the most difficult of the Book of the Law's three chapters,"
I used to think so... but, on close reading, Chapter II seems much nastier to me. That's the "kick the homeless in the teeth when they ask for spare change" chapter, for example
"But his role as Master of Revolutionary Upheaval makes him not exactly .... cuddly."
Hoor-paar-kraat fills that role much better, I think. The two halves of Heru-Ra-Ha do serve different roles.
-
JAE, 93,
I see your point about the Second Chapter - it can seem cold and disdainful - though it doesn't embrace the warlike symbolism the way Chapter III does.
Hoor-Paar-Kraat... cuddly...? Well, I admit I've never tried snuggling up to him...
But then, I've never really seen him in this role. He seems more a dark, silent embrace than a hug - a place of temporary safety, perhaps?
I think what I'm trying to say here is that I've always felt that Thelema shuts us out when we feel tired, weak, dispirited or just unsure. It's only 'there' for us when we are energised, confident, or alert. I personally can't be like that all the time.
I'm not disparaging confidence energy, etc. If so, Chapter II ('pity not the fallen') would tell me I'm out of the game anyway. But at times it seems as if we have to become Thelemites <i>despite</i> what the Book says: that it offers us minimal help in reaching the threshold of what it reveals.93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"Hoor-Paar-Kraat... cuddly...? Well, I admit I've never tried snuggling up to him...
But then, I've never really seen him in this role. He seems more a dark, silent embrace than a hug - a place of temporary safety, perhaps?"I credit him with every aspect of the Child archetype. He's the golden solar child with a broad smile and open arms, and He's the the Christ child and infant Gautama and every other high-calibre Divine Child idea there is.
He's the Child whose aeon this is
-
JAE, 93,
Maybe I'm hung up on the "Ra Hoor Khuit is the active part, Hoor Paar Kraat is the passive part" idea. Passive aspects don't hug you, in my own view of things. They just sorta look at you.
I'm trying to relate the idea of Silence, which is a very real idea for me, with childlike behaviour. Silence isn't cold or hostile for me - I find it welcoming, and I welcome it. But I've never really seen or imagined it as a form of 'hugging,' except in a rather distant or 'metaphysical' (non-physical, unemotional) way.93 93/93,
Edward
-
Nuit is the experience of not being separate from anything else which
is basically Monism, i.e. Agape.Hadit is the experience of being separate from everything else with
Unique purpose, i.e. Thelema.Ra Hoor Khuit, their Child, is the Consiousness of being Itself and Nuit
and Hadit at the very same time which opens up a whole new Universe
of Expression that was never before possible.Nuit --- Hadit --- Ra Hoor Khuit!
Agape=Thelema=93=418.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Hoor-paar-kraat fills that role much better, I think. The two halves of Heru-Ra-Ha do serve different roles."
I've never been completely clear on this dual aspect of Heru-Ra-Ha beyond the active/passive nature. I seem to remember Jim saying that Hoor-paar-kraat is the feminine side of Heru-Ra-Ha. But how can that be if Hoor-paar-kraat is Hadit?
Where does HPK fit in the IHVH formula? Yod or Heh final? Or is it an aspect of Vau?
-
@Her said
"I've never been completely clear on this dual aspect of Heru-Ra-Ha beyond the active/passive nature. I seem to remember Jim saying that Hoor-paar-kraat is the feminine side of Heru-Ra-Ha. But how can that be if Hoor-paar-kraat is Hadit?"
Hadit is quoted as saying, "Who worshipped Heru-pa-kraath have worshipped me..." Is this the same as saying Hadit is HPK? I've never been sure that it is.
To me it says something more like, "Who has worshipped * Silence has known me [Hadit]." (Or, in another sense, acknowledging that, in different ways, they can each serve as a symbol of Kether.)
"Where does HPK fit in the IHVH formula? Yod or Heh final? Or is it an aspect of Vau?"
Several ways to look at it, including the second half of Vav - but as the negative phase of the child, if you are busy populating YHVH, then the suitable attribution would be Heh-final.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Hadit is quoted as saying, "Who worshipped Heru-pa-kraath have worshipped me..." Is this the same as saying Hadit is HPK? I've never been sure that it is."
How about 2:49 were Hadit clearly identifies himself as "a babe in an egg." In his commentary on this verse Crowley states that this symbolism is classic HPK. It's quite clear that an common identity between the two gods is being pointed at, but to what end? In many respects Hadit and HPK seem to be identical. Both are concealed and hidden. Both are unknown and unmanifest? Why the double duty?
Is HPK a lower analogue of Hadit?
-
Yup, classic HPK. And yes, identity, but perhaps not identity in the same sense as in Assiah; e.g., in the sense that Nuit and Hadit also share identity. The common terms show similarity of characteristics.
But you can't reduce that to mathematical formulae in the same way that you can people in Assiah. E.g., the syllogism would fail (however logical) to argue Hadit = HPK, HPK is half of Heru-Ra-Ha, therefore Hadit is half of Heru-Ra-Ha.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I disagree that the Babalon archetype discriminates at all - Her essential nature is to receive all"
Yes, she receives all, but discriminates a lot about the devotion asked in return.
Babalon is the supreme, the more woman of all women; and, for any woman, there are only three types of persons: the one who gives her money to be received by her (trick, or john), the one she receives to have fun and with whom she spends money (gigolo), the one she receives because she's in love with him and to whom she gives money (pimp).
The spiritual analogy with the general "attitude of Life" towards the vulgar, the aristocrat and the initiate, or with the tasks of men of earth, lovers and hermits, is quite evident... -
Merlin the Sorcerer wrote:
"for any woman, there are only three types of persons: the one who gives her money to be received by her (trick, or john), the one she receives to have fun and with whom she spends money (gigolo), the one she receives because she's in love with him and to whom she gives money (pimp)."
May we take it then that the only ways you yourself ever relate to women are (1) when you pay for sex; (2) when you agree to split the costs but not offer to pay everything yourself, and (3) when you take money off women?
Edward
-
Not really : as you know, what you are writing is the qlipothic degenerescence (the excrement) of what I was trying to explain, but it's fun.
In fact, I was only using the general "whore" imagery. Just an analogy; but, of course, had I known that raw womanhood was making you nervous, I would have taken salt, water and bread; or salt, mercury and sulphur; or Mem, Aleph and Shin; or Nephesh, Ruach and Supernals; or Animal, Human and Divine; or Black, Red and White; or Niflheim, Mitgard, Asgard; etc, etc, etc.
Nevertheless, ifever you have ever been to a restaurant with a girl friend, you know that there are only three ways to have the bill paid. -
There's also the possibility of washing the dishes and sweeping the floors. Breaking the deal, you can also skip out on the bill (which is quite fun if you get away with it), or receiving a bloody nose.
-
Merlin,
"Nevertheless, ifever you have ever been to a restaurant with a girl friend, you know that there are only three ways to have the bill paid."
Yes, restaurant bills. But your reference was to prostitution and pimping, which carry slightly different connotations
EM
-
@Merlin the Sorcerer said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I disagree that the Babalon archetype discriminates at all - Her essential nature is to receive all"Yes, she receives all, but discriminates a lot about the devotion asked in return.
Babalon is the supreme, the more woman of all women; and, for any woman, there are only three types of persons: the one who gives her money to be received by her (trick, or john), the one she receives to have fun and with whom she spends money (gigolo), the one she receives because she's in love with him and to whom she gives money (pimp)."
I persist in saying: Babalon receives without discrimination.
I took an hour or so to think about what my reaction was to your post. I wanted to be sure I was answering what you were saying rather than how you were saying it (since how you were saying it is pretty much an insult to everyone, whether female or male).
In thinking past the form to your content I realized that yes, there is a difference - but not in Her. The difference is in the man. It is at least as accurate to say that Babalon devours all, unconditionally, as that she receives all, unconditionally. I think, therefore - using your style of imagery - that we can say that there are some men who delight in being devoured completely, some who can take it or leave it, and some who are terrified at the prospect. Perhaps your analogy to the three Grades might be found therein?
She, meanwhile, persists unchanged, omniverous and omniform.
-
Anne-Marie, 93,
I'm 57, and my virginity was lost long ago...
Perhaps there's a cultural divide here between North American and European perceptions, but there has been a major debate on this continent in the past couple of decades over this whole issue. You might be comfortable with the self-description of a whore, and may all joy be unto you for that. Other women of my acquaintance are uncomfortable with how that restricts the way they are seen, and thus with how they are able to function in the world.
I don't mean women who are afraid of expressing their sexuality, with me or others. Shaking off the psychological projection of "You have a vagina = you are inferior to men" continues to be a problem for most women I know, including the Thelemites. It's an even bigger concern for women in non-European cultures with whom I talk.
This thread is largely about Babalon, and the point being made is that She is not simply about fucking our brains out. She operates on more than one level, and insisting that she is solely expressed through a physical vagina and uterine contractions in bodily orgasm - important as those are - is to miss the point.
93 93/93,
EM
-
One other point:
The word 'whore,' in English, usually refers to a woman who has sex with multiple partners. That can <i>include</i> prostitutes, but is by no means restricted to them. I know women who prefer this lifestyle, and feel fulfilled by it.
A 'prostitute' is someone who is selling his or her body to another who wants to use it for some kind of sexual act. I have known several women who have worked in the sex-trade, and a couple of men. They found it interesting, but also self-destructive: that is, not a valid expression of their True Wills, except perhaps as an educational experience.
Share your body with someone else, and you retain control. Sell it, even temporarily, and you have lost that control. You might literally have to fight to regain it, from what I've been told.
A whore can be free, a prostitute always risks slavery.
Edward
