Thelema and temple of set
-
"how about the modern Temple at Damanhur? "
Well I wonder if their leder is named Petrus
I gues if is the you want to go. I remember when I was a member in SOL there would be some SOL guys in greece who lived in a closed community or like a monastery.
-
The entire philosophy and practice of TOS is that of the Black Brothers in that they choose not to pour into Babalon after crossing the abyss, but they try to maintain a separate existence. Their philosophy is also very dualistic in that they emphasize they are not part of "God" but separate from it, shown in their jewel symbol where the pentagram is inside the circle but not touching it, thus not dependent upon it. You can get the exact symbolism from their book, the Crystal Tablet. I am going off memory only, so if you have the quote, please include it.
-
" You can get the exact symbolism from their book, the Crystal Tablet. I am going off memory only, so if you have the quote, please include it"
I have read a lot what I could find on the net. The CoS paper is interesting in a historical way.
But as you say their wiev is a dualistic one and I gues this is the reason in them choose the old Horus rather then the Horus in connection with the Osiris mytos since the recemblance whit christian myth.
They call Crowley a Magus but to be abel to do that but still keeping the left side view they change focus.Does this sound reasonable???
-
Another thing they do, which I believe is very dangerous, is that in Magick they do not believe in any "protections" or banishing. They do not use circles, or other such devices before doing invocation/evocation. They believe they are part of these forces so why banish them.
But magick, IMHO, is like art...you need to start with a clean piece of paper before starting, thus banishings! You could grab an old newspaper and start drawing on that, but you'd probably end up with an incoherent mess.
-
and yes, I agree the CoS paper is very detailed and very interesting reading in a historical sense.
-
@DavidH said
"Another thing they do, which I believe is very dangerous, is that in Magick they do not believe in any "protections" or banishing. They do not use circles, or other such devices before doing invocation/evocation. They believe they are part of these forces so why banish them."
Look into Ritner's Mechanics of Egyptian Magic sometime for an alternate interpretation of this sort of thing. The basic sense of it is that within the context of Egyptian Magic the notion of needing to create a temporary sacred space via ritual actions, something common to most Indo-European cultures and retained in the Golden Dawn system, was simply absent from their practice. The Temple of Set didn't set out to mimc this element in their practice but came to it in a more naturalistic fashion.
"But magick, IMHO, is like art...you need to start with a clean piece of paper before starting, thus banishings! You could grab an old newspaper and start drawing on that, but you'd probably end up with an incoherent mess."
I think you may be mistaking the abscence of GD style Banishing rituals for a lack of any ritual framing method. While hardly as elaborate as the GD system most Setian Workings follow or re-interpret a particular rubric as the opening and closing of their activities.
-
@DavidH said
"The entire philosophy and practice of TOS is that of the Black Brothers in that they choose not to pour into Babalon after crossing the abyss, but they try to maintain a separate existence. "
Not really.
See Don Webb's Aleister Crowley: The Fire and the Force for what the Temple of Set is actually up to and how this course of ation does not in fact fit the "Black Brother" model that Crowley attempted to establish.
The Setian sets out to maintain their own Isolate Intellegence but this does not include shutting down from self-transformation to protect what is already established nor avoiding reciplocal maintance with the rest of reality as one would find in the Crowleyian Black Brothers.
"Their philosophy is also very dualistic in that they emphasize they are not part of "God" but separate from it, shown in their jewel symbol where the pentagram is inside the circle but not touching it, thus not dependent upon it. You can get the exact symbolism from their book, the Crystal Tablet. I am going off memory only, so if you have the quote, please include it."
The best way to think of how Setian view this sort of thing is through the image of light passing through a glass of water. The light (Isolate Intellegence) isn't the water (Objective Universe) nor can it be somehow transformed into it. Similarly the water, which is perfect in its own fashion, isn't light nor would much be gained by pretending that it was. Through their interaction however a number of novel things can take place which reveal more about the qualities of light and water and as such a need for this interaction, even if it's ultimate purpose (telos) may be mysterious at this time, exists.
-
93!
Thank you for clarifying the views of TOS. I assume you are a member and have an insiders knowledge. Thanks, and sorry if I didn't present things accurately.
-
Can you explain what is meant by the LEFT HAND PATH? I always thought of it as the path of the black brothers, and I know TOS refer to themselves as those of the Left Hand path. Can anyone explain the term?
-
"Can you explain what is meant by the LEFT HAND PATH? "
An easy way to explain this is that a right hand path person strive to union with the source while a lef hand person tries to break the band. He belive in duality and to make the self a "god". wich you can se in the tos pentagram wich does not touch the cirkel.
-
@noctivagus said
"
"Can you explain what is meant by the LEFT HAND PATH? "An easy way to explain this is that a right hand path person strive to union with the source while a lef hand person tries to break the band. He belive in duality and to make the self a "god". wich you can se in the tos pentagram wich does not touch the cirkel."
I thought the left hand path was a viable method. What you're describing seems to me to be precisely the downfall of a black brother.
??
-
@DavidH said
"Can you explain what is meant by the LEFT HAND PATH? I always thought of it as the path of the black brothers, and I know TOS refer to themselves as those of the Left Hand path. Can anyone explain the term?"
This is a rather condensed version, so some of the nuance will be lost.
Essentially the handedness metaphor, which appears in number of cultures but seems somewhat regular in Indo-european cultures, deals with the idea of there being things which are considred culturally correct and proper and those things that are considered improper, dangerous and to be avoided. "Right" tends to fit the former while "Left" the later.
The Left-Hand Path in this context is a means of spiritual transformation which involved the active engagement of those things considered improper, dangerous and to be avoided by one's host culture, not mearly for the kick of doing "dirty" things, but in order to shake one's self loose from the fetters such unexamined notions have.
Once one has freed themselves from these fetters the unleashed energies are then directed towards the unfolding of the Self-complex towards greater levels of personal and transpersonal integration, consciousness and capacity for action.
To extend the metaphor form earlier, it is the goal of the Left-hand Path to refine that light passing through the water, to remove any delusion that it is in fact one with the water and to learn more about what its true natuer and capacities are, on its own and in interaction with those things other then itself.
In a nutshell the Left-hand Path as understood and expressed within the Temple of Set is not the same as how that term was used by Aleister Crowley within the A.'.A.'. system nor is it meant to be. Crowley's use of the term is very specific to his own system and Understanding and also reflecting usages of the term among European magicians of the 19th and early 20th Century.
Make any sense?
-
@BlackSun9 said
"
In a nutshell the Left-hand Path as understood and expressed within the Temple of Set is not the same as how that term was used by Aleister Crowley within the A.'.A.'. system nor is it meant to be. Crowley's use of the term is very specific to his own system and Understanding and also reflecting usages of the term among European magicians of the 19th and early 20th Century.Make any sense?"
Thanks, yes it does at least show that TOS does not define it the same way. Do they believe that there are Black Brothers but just use a different definition of the Left Hand Path? Am I wrong in that the object of the TOS is to develop the self to be self sufficient so as not to be "absorbed" in a return to the "source" and lose their individual identity? If this is true, how does it differ from the black brothers and the crossing of the abyss?
-
@DavidH said
"Do they believe that there are Black Brothers but just use a different definition of the Left Hand Path?"
While you'd probably get a number of different answers if you spoke with multiple Setians, in general the phenomena of the "Black Brother" as Crowley defined it, namely someone attmpeting to remain purely static without concern for personal or cosmic maintance certainly exists. Setian simply do not use the terminology for that condition.
" Am I wrong in that the object of the TOS is to develop the self to be self sufficient so as not to be "absorbed" in a return to the "source" and lose their individual identity?"
You are correct, but you may be framing things in a different manner.
To take a metaphor from Don Webb's *Uncle Setnakt's Essential Guide to the Left Hand Path * the acorn looking to become an oak in its own right must seek to become self-sufficient and not simply find itself rotting and re-absorbed as fertilizer for the established Oak that spawned it. In much the same way the Setian seeks to unfold and enfold the totality of their being as independent entities without a desire to be reabsorbed within the Source of Being itself. To do so would deminish the scope, manifestation and potential for Being within the Cosmos.
Much of this will make considerably more sense if you assume from the get go that the Temple of Set is a non-Crowleyian/Non-A.'.A.'. school and as such does not conform, nor seek to conform, to the Crowleyian Understandings or nomenclature. It is a thing unto itself.
-
@BlackSun9 said
"[
Much of this will make considerably more sense if you assume from the get go that the Temple of Set is a non-Crowleyian/Non-A.'.A.'. school and as such does not conform, nor seek to conform, to the Crowleyian Understandings or nomenclature. It is a thing unto itself."But I can't completely think this because they often use "Do what thou wilt..." in their letters, have a document which claims to explain Liber L, and the head of the Order claims to be the spiritual heir of Crowley.
Isn't the Oak tree as a separate entity really just illusion? It will always NEED things not of itself to survive: Carbon Dioxide, water, the earth, etc., so it really is just part of the whole. no? We can say the earth ecosystem is ONE and the oak is a part of it, but then the earth is dependent on the sun, etc. etc.
-
"have a document which claims to explain Liber L"
Like I say, they change The younger horus to the older. Making Liber L his word and the comming forth by night to Set. Making Horus Light and Set dark in a sence.
But I feel the trying to get away from Osiris mytos more than anything else.
I not sure Frater P would have liked that
I wote for Frater P. -
@DavidH said
"
But I can't completely think this because they often use "Do what thou wilt..." in their letters, have a document which claims to explain Liber L, and the head of the Order claims to be the spiritual heir of Crowley."A few things.
Dr. Michael Aqunio's personal Work does not equal "Temple of Set Doctrine" nor is a fair bit of it, from his experiments with the Enochian System to his Thelemic commentaries, considered foundational to the group. They are the Works, often interesting Works, of one member, held alongside numerous other Works by other members.
Additionally Dr. Aquino, while the founder of the Temple of Set, is not the "head of the Order." His last official possition ran from 2002 to 2004 when he served as High Priest for the last time to help institute a decentralization of the authority of that role before handing it over to another. At present he severs in no official position within the organization although he does act as a non-voting advisor to the group's board of directors.
What individuals Setians use in their writings/greetings/etc. is wholey at their own discression and not subject to any proscription or mandate.
"Isn't the Oak tree as a separate entity really just illusion? It will always NEED things not of itself to survive: Carbon Dioxide, water, the earth, etc., so it really is just part of the whole. no? We can say the earth ecosystem is ONE and the oak is a part of it, but then the earth is dependent on the sun, etc. etc."
Something can be fully whole while also being a part of something else. An atom is still a whole atom, unique unto itself even if it is a part of a larger unit such as a molecule for example.
This is a very interesting line of thought which branches out beyond our initial discussion, enough so that an independent thread might be in order. Before getting too far are you familiar at all with Ken Wilber's so-called Integral Model?
-
@BlackSun9 said
"[
Something can be fully whole while also being a part of something else. An atom is still a whole atom, unique unto itself even if it is a part of a larger unit such as a molecule for example.This is a very interesting line of thought which branches out beyond our initial discussion, enough so that an independent thread might be in order. Before getting too far are you familiar at all with Ken Wilber's so-called Integral Model?"
I agree. It's the same concept as Nuit/Hadit. But, it seems that the TOS is concentrating 100% on Hadit and saying Nuit is not important. It is the UNION of Hadit to Nuit which is important...for Loves sake.
No, please start a new thread and explain about Ken Wilber. Thanks for your interesting discussion.