1 February - (Heru-Ra-Ha) Liber L., 3:55-56
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"**(v. 200) 55. Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!
(v. 201) 56. Also for beauty's sake and love's!**"
Wo. Umm, Jim -- could you expound on this a little? Thanks.
Donna
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"**(v. 200) 55. Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!"
The bit that gets me is "for her sake." Like, "I'm doing this for your own good!?"
Is being "torn upon wheels" a standard medieval torture technique?
Steve
-
I see these verses as a rebuke against old aeon conceptions of spiritual womanhood. The single biggest archetype, the Virgin Mary, is seen as pure, untouched, and stainless. But in a way this is quite harmful. What does it say about real women who aren't virgins and have sex?
Does the fact that a woman isn't a virgin make her any less pure? Of course not. But setting the Virgin Mary up on a pedestal and idolising her as the ideal perfection of womanhood means that every woman on this planet falls short. What complete rubbish!
-
Heru, 93.
@Her said
"I see these verses as a rebuke against old aeon conceptions of spiritual womanhood. ...
But setting the Virgin Mary up on a pedestal and idolising her as the ideal perfection of womanhood means that every woman on this planet falls short. What complete rubbish!"
Thank you. That's a very good point and it reminds me to see this as aeonic first of all. You're right, this has nothing to do with most of the women on earth, nor could it possibly.
93 93/93,
Donna -
Whatever soothing interpretation we can find for this and other apparently horrific passages in this book, we can't avoid the fact that the surface meaning is quite gruesome. If the true meaning of chapter III has to do with each person awakening to his or her divinity, why did the gods in charge of the spiritual development of humanity find images of war, vengeance, rape, torture, callous brutatlity, etc., to be the best symbolic vehicle for presenting these truths to us?
I don't have an answer to this question (or rather, I have several that I don't find entirely convincing), but I think it's one of the most important issues to address in understanding Liber AL (or L if you like).
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"Is being "torn upon wheels" a standard medieval torture technique?"
By the way, yes. The "breaking wheel" a.k.a. "Catherine wheel" was a medieval torture device. There is a picture of one along with a succinct description of its use here: my.mmoabc.com:80/article/Nik88/1990.html?login=no
-
93,
I have long assumed these verses in Chapter III are primarily aimed at destroying restrictive imagery held in the mind. The intent is the elimination of false ideas, not to excite sadomasochistic expectations.
Since this is not going to occur as a result of a quick, conscious decision, the old image needs to be annihilated progressively, and from the coldly detached standpoint of a torturer. But the intent is obviously not to harm any actual woman.
However, the person who holds such an image of chaste virtue in his/her mind may well find the process of abandoning it, along with all the associated ideas it anchors within the individual mind, and in society, to be painful. We don't truly give up on deep-rooted beliefs at all easily, because they are intertwined with so much of the psyche's foundations.
"for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!
Also for beauty's sake and love's!"I take this - "for her sake" - being intended as a liberating idea. That is, the image of the divine feminine should be freed of notions of bourgeois propriety. Thus is the core archetype of woman released from the idea that her lust and her sexuality generally are somehow impure.
The purport to these verses, as I view them, is simply another way of stating or implying, "Rock on, Mama."
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Edward Mason said
"I take this - "for her sake" - being intended as a liberating idea. That is, the image of the divine feminine should be freed of notions of bourgeois propriety."
Let me point out (by way of being a devil's advocate) that the verse does not say "despise the chastity of women" but rather "despise chaste women". The verse plainly tells us to despise certain people. To claim that the verse is about liberating the feminine ideal is to claim that it doesn't mean what it says. But if the Book of the Law doesn't mean what it says, who are we, then, to say what it means?
-
Gmugmble, 93,
That might depend on what "chaste women" actually means. This is dicey because it gets into realms of special pleading based on referring to social norms of a hundred years ago. But there are women who reserve their sexuality for one partner, current or future, of who because of a lifestyle choice or for (say) reasons of redirecting kundalini don't express it at all through conventional physical means.
Then there are those for whom it's a synonym for uptightness held up as a virtue. I've always assumed it was this latter group that was intended here.
Maybe someone else has a different interpretation?
93 93/93,
EM
-
93, Brother Edward!
It's not so much a matter of what group of women is referred to here -- I'm sure "those for whom [chastity is] a synonym for uptightness held up as a virtue" is basically correct. I'm curious about the fact that we are told to despise people, rather than the shackles that bind them, and the fact that we are being taught with images, of course symbolic, of extreme cruelty.
The issue of liberating the feminine is one I feel strongly about. When I see a woman who is not allowed, or does not allow herself, to flourish (like *, who is a Mormon and has voluntarily bought into the whole scenario of patient submission to an autocratic husband), I see a thing of beauty defaced. When I see a woman strong and self-sufficient (like this same woman's sister, who once built a communications satellite with her own hands that still orbits the earth today), I seem to see the beauty of the very Queen of Heaven. I feel the same way about men too -- I thrill when I see a King and am sad to see a slave; but a man has every advantage, while a woman must overcome the cultural prejudice of millennia.
So look at it this way: If I were giving a speech before an audience, encouraging women to do their will, and exhorting men to support them in this, I would not rise to a rhetorical climax by exclaiming, "Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels! Let all chaste women be utterly despised!" It just doesn't set the right tone, you know? Yet this is precisely what the gods whose goal is to bring the glory of the stars into the hearts of every man and every woman have done in what should be the spiritual guide to all humanity for the next umpteen centuries.
Don't you think that's puzzling?
-
@gmugmble said
"Let me point out (by way of being a devil's advocate) that the verse does not say "despise the chastity of women" but rather "despise chaste women". The verse plainly tells us to despise certain people. To claim that the verse is about liberating the feminine ideal is to claim that it doesn't mean what it says. But if the Book of the Law doesn't mean what it says, who are we, then, to say what it means?"
Continuing the engagement or debate as a form...
Why should we not hold people embodying an idea accountable for that idea? For example, I can't agree with (or even fully understand) the idea of supporting our troops in Iraq while being against the war in Iraq. Fuck that. We have an all-volunteer army. I hold every U.S. soldier in Iraq as accountable for the continuation of the unjust and immoral war and, therefore, regard them all as enemies of the United States.
If there are people who embody a principle that is (to the viewer) unholy and immoral, why should they not be held accountable for that and looked upon with contempt or scorn?
-
@gmugmble said
"
Whatever soothing interpretation we can find for this and other apparently horrific passages in this book, we can't avoid the fact that the surface meaning is quite gruesome
"I have always felt that, the message within the Book of the Law never really changes from the first chapter. Instead, the message is channeled further and further 'down' the tree. The further we go, the more things get muddled , the 'differences' adding up until it appears as if it actually is different.
Though, the question (idea) which the line...
"
(v. 200) 55. Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!
"... brings to the forefront of my mind : What is so great about being chaste?
In Christianity, there is the idea of the immaculate birth of Jesus. Of how Mary was a virgin yet gave birth, making Jesus the son of God. Yet, is not every child the son of God? Is there not divinity apparent in the conception and birth of every child?
Going further, how is sex to be considered immoral or irreligious? Sex is just sex. It is the participants that give it the intent. So I see "despising chaste women" an act of denying a 'holier than thou' attitude on the part of the 'chaste woman' - whom is believed to somehow be more pure or better than an 'unchaste' woman.
-
@gmugmble said
"Whatever soothing interpretation we can find for this and other apparently horrific passages in this book, we can't avoid the fact that the surface meaning is quite gruesome. If the true meaning of chapter III has to do with each person awakening to his or her divinity, why did the gods in charge of the spiritual development of humanity find images of war, vengeance, rape, torture, callous brutatlity, etc., to be the best symbolic vehicle for presenting these truths to us?
"This is not different than the so called Wrathful Deities from Tibetan Buddhism. Images of the wrathful deities are kept in the homes and temples of Tibetan Buddhists to protect them against evil influences and remind them to destroy passion and evil in themselves. In Sanskrit, the wrathful deities are known as dharmapalas, which means "defender of the dharma." In Tibetan, they are drag-gshed, meaning "cruel, wrathful hangman."
So, they are benevolent gods in a wrathful form. No different from the "active" aspect of Heruraha... Ra Hoor Khuit, who is "powerful to protect his servants" and asked to be worshiped with fire & blood; and with swords & with spears. -
@Metzareph said
"This is not different than the so called Wrathful Deities from Tibetan Buddhism."
With respect, I think it is different. This is more like those passages of the Bible that command the slaughter of children, or condone rape. If you are going to claim that the Bible or Liber Legis is a divinely inspired text, then you are liable for an answer to the unbeliever who asks, "Why does the god you worship license acts of brutality?"
-
@gmugmble said
"93, Brother Edward!
So look at it this way: If I were giving a speech before an audience, encouraging women to do their will, and exhorting men to support them in this, I would not rise to a rhetorical climax by exclaiming, "Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels! Let all chaste women be utterly despised!" It just doesn't set the right tone, you know? Yet this is precisely what the gods whose goal is to bring the glory of the stars into the hearts of every man and every woman have done in what should be the spiritual guide to all humanity for the next umpteen centuries."
I would personally love to attend a speech like that. I would love to see the shock on the faces of the attendees...
But seriously, two words that are triggering some emotional responses are chaste and despised, right?
Chaste, in this context, primarily implies a refraining from acts, thoughts or desires that are not virginal or not sanctioned by marriage vows. It is the "shutting down" that is being condemned here. If this worked in the past Aeon, it is now "despised." One meaning of "despised" is to regard as worthless. If the Virgin Mary was a role model in the past Aeon with her "non-existent" sexuality, it is now when we are encouraged to awaken the kundalini serpent. -
@gmugmble said
"
@Metzareph said
"This is not different than the so called Wrathful Deities from Tibetan Buddhism."With respect, I think it is different. This is more like those passages of the Bible that command the slaughter of children, or condone rape. If you are going to claim that the Bible or Liber Legis is a divinely inspired text, then you are liable for an answer to the unbeliever who asks, "Why does the god you worship license acts of brutality?""
This question has been asked over and over again. Why is there evil in the world? Why is there famine? Why people die? Why is there war? so on and so forth.
Every single event in the world is a sacrament to God... All Creation is Good. There is no evil. Evil is an illusion, created by our own limitation. You can say that sadly "evil" is necessary for us to learn, and has its place in creation. It depends on us if we can awake from the illusion.
Also, with much respect, I noticed that you seem to be taking things literal. Sacred texts are 93% of the time allegories. They are a way to communicate what cannot be communicated, but understood.
But in any case, this is just my opinion... -
@Metzareph said
"All Creation is Good. There is no evil. Evil is an illusion, created by our own limitation."
It's easy to say that till you sit on a tack.
"Also, with much respect, I noticed that you seem to be taking things literal."
Yes, I've been accused (justly) of that before.
First, I agree that the allegorical meaning is more important than the literal. In fact, I'd go farther and say that the allegory is in turn a veil for something "beyond speech and beyond sight." The best way to appreciate Liber Legis is to read it aloud as an invocation and let its magic wash over you and within you. At the same time, though, I don't think the literal meaning can just be dismissed. I mean, there it is. It's the first thing you encounter when you read the book. If the book doesn't mean what it says, then why does it say it?
Second, the question I'm really trying to ask, but haven't succeeded in conveying quite right, is this: much of the text of L.L., especially chapter III, is shocking and offensive. Therefore, its author must have intended to shock and offend its readers. Why (I can't help but wonder) is this?
It's as if you went to a cathedral expecting to celebrate the Mass, and instead found them showing The Texas Chain Saw Massacre on a wide-screen TV.
-
@gmugmble said
"Second, the question I'm really trying to ask, but haven't succeeded in conveying quite right, is this: much of the text of L.L., especially chapter III, is shocking and offensive. Therefore, its author must have intended to shock and offend its readers. Why (I can't help but wonder) is this?"
I have always thought that the intention was to shake things up in a big way - and nothing shakes things up so much as shock and offense. (There's also a borderline area - things that currently shock because of established mass-mind patterns, but that really shouldn't shock - so desensitization would be part of the purpose.)
I hold to the job duty of a minister or priest (or other religious leader) as being, "To bring comfort to the discomfitted, and discomfort to the comfortable."
-
@gmugmble said
"Whatever soothing interpretation we can find for this and other apparently horrific passages in this book, we can't avoid the fact that the surface meaning is quite gruesome. If the true meaning of chapter III has to do with each person awakening to his or her divinity, why did the gods in charge of the spiritual development of humanity find images of war, vengeance, rape, torture, callous brutatlity, etc., to be the best symbolic vehicle for presenting these truths to us?
I don't have an answer to this question (or rather, I have several that I don't find entirely convincing), but I think it's one of the most important issues to address in understanding Liber AL (or L if you like)."
Perhaps because people are most averse to these things and Thelema is all about accepting all facets of the Universe, the martial aspects especially (Aeon of HORUS, my friend... look at the 20th century in terms of war and technology). If you are still averse to these words, you have not cleaned out your closet completely.
IAO131
-
@gmugmble said
"
@Metzareph said
"All Creation is Good. There is no evil. Evil is an illusion, created by our own limitation."It's easy to say that till you sit on a tack.
"But we all have to sit on our own tack eventually. That's why we are here and that's why we incarnated! This is how we learn, by feeling the discomfort of that poke in the ass!! If nothing, we would be sitting around and wasting time.
@gmugmble said
"
Second, the question I'm really trying to ask, but haven't succeeded in conveying quite right, is this: much of the text of L.L., especially chapter III, is shocking and offensive. Therefore, its author must have intended to shock and offend its readers. Why (I can't help but wonder) is this?It's as if you went to a cathedral expecting to celebrate the Mass, and instead found them showing The Texas Chain Saw Massacre on a wide-screen TV."
That's right, 3rd Chapter can be your worst nightmare or the sweetest dream depending on you. I feel like I'm trying to convert you to "accept" the Book of the Law, and I'm felling kind of ridiculous, since I'm not trying to do that. I think every person has to decide if this book speaks to them or not. If there is an unconscious rejection to the text, maybe it is good, or maybe not...