What is a Scarlet Woman?
-
Prakriti.
-
This question seems to arise from a sociological trend in some Thelemic sub-cultures - the idea that a particular woman can become "a Scarlet Woman."
I don't accept the premise of the question. It needs a definite article, not an indefinite one.
There is only one Scarlet Woman - She is a Briatic archetype of the nature of Binah, complement to the Briatic Chokmah archetype called The Beast.
Now, one or more incarnate women may (big "may" there) be avatars of Her, but the magnitude of that spiritual incarnation will be quite significant - someone on the scope of being an avatar of Christ or of Kali. (It takes more than "liking it a little rough" to be an avatar of Kali.
) -
me being a male i hate to really speak on this issue, but this is my opinion of what the scarlet woman is, or more the aspect that are found in a scarlet woman.
- i think she should be full of fire unto the great work, someone who is on the path, and doing the work.
2.she should be strong in mind, and independant. - comfortable in herself, to know she is a goddess, and she should not worry about anyone ever judging her for what she does or doesnt do and as often as she will. this last has to do with sex, but of course not only sex, this is also that she is comfortable in her own body.
but what i have just said is the good traits of not just female thelemites but also male thelemites.
therefore i would say the scarlet woman is one who is in touch with the babalon power, which is of binah, and i think the 3 things i spoke of are traits someone of binah 8=3 would have, especially #3
AGAPE
Fr.418
- i think she should be full of fire unto the great work, someone who is on the path, and doing the work.
-
Shakti.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
Also Binah is Kali, Black, wild, trampling on the body of her dead husband Shiva. In one hand she holds a sword in the other shiva's head. With one hand she gives benefits, with the other she takes them away.
http://www.hranajanto.com/goddessgallery/pgfx/kali-400.jpg
Well. No head with this one, but still not bad
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"This question seems to arise from a sociological trend in some Thelemic sub-cultures - the idea that a particular woman can become "a Scarlet Woman.""
My impression is that more Thelemites than not fall into this trend -- is it still a sub-culture?
Heck, some people even believe that a British alpinist named Aleister Crowley is The Beast.
-
@zeph said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"This question seems to arise from a sociological trend in some Thelemic sub-cultures - the idea that a particular woman can become "a Scarlet Woman.""My impression is that more Thelemites than not fall into this trend -- is it still a sub-culture?
Heck, some people even believe that a British alpinist named Aleister Crowley is The Beast."
Avatar of the Beast, yeah.
Sub-culture = subset.
Somewhere in the great encyclopedic content of In the Continuum - probably in the later stages of Jane's story - Phyllis published some stuff on Germer - IIRC it was a mix of letters from him and other surrounding data - basically boiling down to the fact that he understood 667 probably better than anyone alive in the Thelemic movements of the last century. From my reading of his remarks, I have to agree entirely. There's just too much silliness in float about it, and I tired many decades ago of hearing "Would you be my Scarlet Woman?" used as a pick-up line by people who have no clue.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@zeph said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"This question seems to arise from a sociological trend in some Thelemic sub-cultures - the idea that a particular woman can become "a Scarlet Woman.""My impression is that more Thelemites than not fall into this trend -- is it still a sub-culture?
Heck, some people even believe that a British alpinist named Aleister Crowley is The Beast."
Avatar of the Beast, yeah.
"A statement often taken on faith, so let's ponder.
An Avatar, per OED, is among other things "The descent of a deity to the earth in an incarnate form." My impression is that The Beast and The Scarlet Woman (hereinafter "BS") are a psychosophical fact of every person's existence, rather than a pair of gods. There is value in praising these aspects as if they are external deities, but when you rub away the mumbo-jumbo you don't have a god, you have an aspect of human consciousness. As such, I don't think Crowley or anybody can qualify as an Avatar of the Beast by this definition.
A second definition of Avatar is "Manifestation in human form; incarnation", but particularly with reference to the manifestation of a particular attribute. As such, Napolean was referred to as "A third avatar of this of this singular emanation of the Evil Principle," and McClellan was referred to as "the very god of war, in his latest avatar." Given my impression of The Beast as a reference to the energies of Thelema at its highest level -- as a perfect mirror of the One -- and given my impression by The Alpinist of his solid adherence to his Dharma, I would concur by this definition that he is an Avatar of the Beast.
A third definition of Avatar is "Manifestation or presentation to the world as a ruling power or object of worship." No comment.
@Jim Eshelman said
"There's just too much silliness in float about it, and I tired many decades ago of hearing "Would you be my Scarlet Woman?" used as a pick-up line by people who have no clue."
ROFLMAO!
-
But aren't true gods also just psychosophical realities?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"But aren't true gods also just psychosophical realities?"
Without doubt. I just left out the comment that by the first definition, I don't believe there's ever been an Avatar; else we are all Avatars.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Since this has become such a popular thread
I'll go ahead and post the following. It's an excerpt from my diary notes on CCXX 1:15 (from the mid-'90s and updated a little over the years), viewable more fully at: aumha.org/arcane/ccxx11.htm#v15"It defines the two governing officers of the Temple at this time, i.e. of the Great Order. The Beast and the Scarlet Woman are the Chokmah and Binah archetypes… These are archetypes, not individuals. Germer understood this better than almost anyone. Even AC was not the Beast; but he was the avatar, and the closest to its center of Light in his lifetime - and perhaps beyond. These are tremendous archetypal powers that people scarcely begin to appreciate. I suppose the easiest way to represent them is that the Beast is a solar-phallic representation of Chokmah, and the Scarlet Woman is a lunar-yonic representation of Binah, both phrases taken at a very high level, surely Briatic. The "chosen priest & apostle of infinite space" is the priestly consciousness of Chokmah, the sphere of starfields….
I believe that this Book is primarily to be taken on an archetypal level of interpretation. Only on occasion are the instructions pragmatic in the physical sense; and when its prophesies take on the quality of predictions, they are merely the precipitation of archetype into the World of Action. The practical implication of this is that the inner "Beast" and "Scarlet Woman" - the Chiah and Neshamah of each of us - are the real agencies meant in most such passages through the Book. In the present verse (especially in conjunction with the last phrase of the prior verse) is a kind of ordination, it seems - of AC and Rose C - but there is also a deeper idea than this.
"Infinite space," we are explicitly told in v. 22, is Nuit. This is the "chosen priest & apostle of Nuit." 666 is called a "prince-priest,” a traditional designation of royalty in Egypt and elsewhere. 667 is purely Shakti, even as 666 is cognate with Shiva. (Note 667 is Hebrew for the phrase "Secret of All Spiritual Activities,” related to Teth.) The last sentence of the verse… refers, ultimately I believe, to the direct work of these archetypes operative in humanity during this Aeon.
Crowley’s New Comment (N.C.) gives his own definition of this role for himself - a "job description." He also says 666 and 667 are "avatars of Tao and Téh, Shiva and Shakti." In the level I am considering them, I would rather say that they are "variations on a theme" of Shiva and Shakti, highly specialized; and that they then have incarnate avatars. I am not so ready to say that the Beast is only one person, the man AC - although this was undeniably true in his lifetime."
-
-
@Marc Free said
"Avatar? hmm yeah that would convenient, and AC in his folly might have believed it to be, but then again I don't think so.... see AL I:17
IMHO "the Beast" (note definite article) is best conceived of as the archetypal metaphor for the aspect of pure unmitigated beingness most conducive to the transmission of unadulterated creative force and unfailing wisdom of the primal will to good. This level of consciousness exceeds the limits of the de facto human personality mechanism (and cognitive morality constructs), as such faulty interpretations arise as to the "nature of the Beast.""
Under definition 1 of Avatar, I agree. Under definition 2, I think it can be allowed that the aspect of consciousness which on one plane operates as the personality Crowley can also operate simultaneously as The Beast on another plane. In fact, I think this is what constantly occurs, the variable being how aware the personality is of The Beast -- as you noted with regard to embracing awakenings. I believe this is what JAE also suggested in his diary excerpt, noting that Crowley was the "avatar" because he was "the closest to [The Beast's] center of Light in his lifetime", and allowing that there can be multiple avatars existent at any one time.
It may be convenient, then, to say that Crowley was an Avatar of The Beast, if one believes that his personality was at least at times perfectly expressing and aware of, as you put it, "unadulterated creative force and unfailing wisdom of the primal will." It's not quite accurate, because it confuses the planes, but that's English for you.
Methinks this is leading us toward a discussion of reincarnation.
-
@zeph said
"and allowing that there can be multiple avatars existent at any one time."
That's the only part with which I'd disagree. While the principal is inherent (even if unconscious and undeveloped) in all, the incarnation of it - from everything I've seen and understand - is limited to one human at a time.
The limiting factor is that it is incarnate in one who is the closest - the single closest - expression of it. If that person is not only "the best that could be found in a bad situation," but is also genuinely 9=2, then his or her consciousness will have flowed most upstream to a point "behind" the tributary branchings of the source-stream - i.e., will be aligned with the life-stream and will-stream "behind" the individual paritcularizations of all other life-expressions. The "word" flowing through at that point will be (to give it a math expression) the "lowest common denominator" of all the other branched-off expressions. (The image is very clear in my mind, but I don't know if I've expressed it well or not. It's my central best understanding of the 9=2 Grade.)
"It may be convenient, then, to say that Crowley was an Avatar of The Beast, if one believes that his personality was at least at times perfectly expressing and aware of, as you put it, "unadulterated creative force and unfailing wisdom of the primal will." It's not quite accurate, because it confuses the planes, but that's English for you."
I hold that, rather than just being an avatar of the moment, he was uniquely chosen to assume the new role of Solar Logos = Beast - that during his life, he was singularly its avatar, and that, upon his death, rather than reincarnating in another human form, his Yechidah became incarnate in our physical Sun from which it radiates forth upon this solar system until another replaces it some hundreds-to-thousands of years away.
Can I prove that? Heck no. I can, at best, say that I have perceptions consistent with (and leading to) that interpretation, though of course they might lead to a different interpretation.
-
Separation of potentiality? Of course not.
Separation of actual attainment/expression? Of course! That's the whole nature of the hierarchy of consciousness. What each of us will do in one or another stage of one or another of our incarnations is a separate matter from what one individual, in a particular time-space frame, is selected/suitable/whatever for. Nature is all about exceptions - differentiation of function - In that sense, we're all exceptions, but the particular job we're chosen for is different.
Crowley was incarnated for the particular purpose of incarnating the Solar Logos at this point in human evolution. Does that mean the rest of us won't attain to that someday? Of course not. (In fact, presuming he's doing his job right... probably sooner rather than later, on the cosmic scale of things.)
Reincarnation is just about the one subject I won't debate in a public setting - right up there next to fundamental experience of deity as I most intimately know it ... so I'll let that bit of bait slide by.
-
@Marc Free said
"The kind of separation I was objecting to isn't developmental differentiation or the fundamentally unique a priori solution sets predicated by the application of the postulate of Magick. What I have an issue with is any notion of a separate personal existence away from the transcendental "One Identity" which I felt was implied by the use of the phrase "his Yechidah for example in the post before last."
Language issue, not philosophical division
Duality issues, if not exactly resolved, become fairly irrelevant even lower down the scale than this, so I exercise extreme liberty in picking words that express that one way vs. the other as convenient at the moment.Part of me thinks I should have said: "Shared Yechidah as reached from the particular vector of the individuated expression that appears to be a separate person."
Part of me thinks I should hold to: "There are an infinite number of Sole Only Points - Hadit-units - as there are infinite points with any area of space - each serving a distinctive role within the larger scope of what we call Nuit."
And, of course, both of those sets of words (aside from being hurried and unedited) bears the delicious flaws of language.
"My understanding is that Yechidah means "her indivisible unity""
Literally: "the only one." Yechid means "only, solitary," and Yechidah means "the only thing, onlyness," the same way that Geburah means "the strong thing, strength."
"so isnt his yechidah is the same as yours and my yechidah, No?"
Sure - except that, in the use of language, it comes down not to what is so (since we aren't conveying that anyway) but to what is useful in the moment. People below full adepthood (by which I mean A.'.A.'. 5=6 or old G.D. 8-3 levels) need to be aspiring to (coining a phrase for the occassion) transcendental differentiation (which exists in the context of inseparable connection) - the solar function, the Distinguishing Consciousness of the 6th Path - not to dissolution. That being stablized, growth is toward the its dissolution in the Abyss. In speaking to nearly everybody on nearly everything, I find it more functional to use "separation (i.e., differentiation) language." Keeps things on target. Those who "get it" will know the part that wasn't said, those that don't yet "get it" will be misdirected to stay on track.
"So is your point of view that we have individual ivory towers of personal consciousness or in reality is no man an island?"
Short of the point where extension ends, it is as if we are extremely separate and distinct. Every man and every woman is a star - a distinct and separate unit - which, in turn, is part of infinite space. Every man and every woman is an island - in the midst of an infinite sea.
Of course, that's only while they're men and women.
Ultimately? Ultimate is infinite and inseparable. I have very little occassion to publically discuss "ultimately," though.
On all the rest - Agreed! (Oh, except maybe Aiwass should be a new thread.
) -
@Jim Eshelman said
"Part of me thinks I should have said: "Shared Yechidah as reached from the particular vector of the individuated expression that appears to be a separate person.""
Outstanding definition, which comes off as neither hurried nor unedited. I have been trying to address in my diary of late the notion of Thelema as the line (2) between the individuated expression and its source. This serves. It also paints a nice picture of Abiegnus.
@marc said
"So is your point of view that we have individual ivory towers of personal consciousness or in reality is no man an island
@jim said
"Short of the point where extension ends, it is as if we are extremely separate and distinct. Every man and every woman is a star - a distinct and separate unit - which, in turn, is part of infinite space. Every man and every woman is an island - in the midst of an infinite sea.
Of course, that's only while they're men and women."
"I don't like this analogy. It fails to take into account that our being, at every level including the "man and woman" level, is flooded with that infinite sea; that sea does not crash into the shores, it is the shores.
One occult maxim reads: "Every man and every woman is a star." Another reads: "The Life-Power is concentrated and radiated from all of the stars in the universe." What is unstated in this latter maxim is that a priori all of the stars are receiving the Light radiated from all of the other stars. I say a priori, but it is also capable of becoming empirical. See all those infinite vectors of Light? The Matrix? The brilliance too bright to be seen? In fact, I posit that this is the Vision of Adonai being discussed in another thread.
-
@zeph said
"In fact, I posit that this is the Vision of Adonai being discussed in another thread."
Wow. That sounds a whole lot like part of the "vision" of Adonai I experienced. I saw our HGAs as not nearly as individual and individualistic as I had previously assumed.
-
@zeph said
"
@marc said
"So is your point of view that we have individual ivory towers of personal consciousness or in reality is no man an island@jim said
"Short of the point where extension ends, it is as if we are extremely separate and distinct. Every man and every woman is a star - a distinct and separate unit - which, in turn, is part of infinite space. Every man and every woman is an island - in the midst of an infinite sea.
Of course, that's only while they're men and women."
"I don't like this analogy. It fails to take into account that our being, at every level including the "man and woman" level, is flooded with that infinite sea; that sea does not crash into the shores, it is the shores."
OK. I didn't start the island thing, he did.
I just surfed it up a bit."Choose ye an island" I usually take as meaning to select an isolated and disctinctive p.o.v. or "position" out of the sea and pick it as the ground where you stand &c. &c. - I really don't think it's the best metaphor for what I used it above.
-
@Marc Free said
"
@zeph said
"Methinks this is leading us toward a discussion of reincarnation. "
Ahh, the manatee. Wisest of all the sea dwelling creatures.