Service to Self, Service to Others
-
@Redd Fezz said
"If the Jews came up with Satan quite on their own, did they invent Satan, thus causing his existence in reality? Like an egregore or a golem or something? Or did they discover him and give him a name?"
Satan - Adversary - didn't originally refer to a single being and certainly not to something evil. A Satan could come in many forms. Early on, they usually served God by testing an individual or a community. Satan didn't become a more individual being until around 0 BC (or AD) and did so in the context of fringe Jewish sects, at least according to both the curator of the Dead Sea Scrolls Museum (gave a lecture here) and Elain Pagels in The Origin of Satan. I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the early history of Christianity or in the history of the concept of evil.
-
@sasha said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"If the Jews came up with Satan quite on their own, did they invent Satan, thus causing his existence in reality? Like an egregore or a golem or something? Or did they discover him and give him a name?"Satan - Adversary - didn't originally refer to a single being and certainly not to something evil. A Satan could come in many forms. Early on, they usually served God by testing an individual or a community. Satan didn't become a more individual being until around 0 BC (or AD) and did so in the context of fringe Jewish sects, at least according to both the curator of the Dead Sea Scrolls Museum (gave a lecture here) and Elain Pagels in The Origin of Satan. I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the early history of Christianity or in the history of the concept of evil."
Thanks. So what is "it" now, this Satan? A being or beings or just an idea?
There's a passage in "Secret Teachings of All Ages" that describes Adam, after a long and difficult life, finds himself back at the gates of paradise begging to be let back in. There he meets The Adversary (can't remember if it was Satan or the Devil or just The Adversary, but he calls himself the Adversary, anyway) who tells Adam, "I was against you from the start. I am the one who tempted you. I am the one who accused you. I wanted you to fail, to die..," etc. etc. and then -- poof! -- the Adversary transforms into an angel or God (can't remember which) and welcomes Adam back into the Garden of Eden.
-
-
@Redd Fezz said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""This was why I was surprised to find Crowley stating plainly that Aiwass was without doubt an external intelligence and the God/Devil of Sumer. That's Set, the twin of Horus, right?"
No - on two counts. First, they're Egyptian, not Sumerian. Second, they weren't twins (nor did they even have a parent in common)."
So, I guess Crowley meant that Aiwaz was Enki?"
Crowley "meant" this where, exactly? You appear to be quoting something - I'm not clear what you've been reading, or whether these are your own conclusions - again, there is no provenance - i.e., no tracing of where an idea came from, of where information appeared, and any response to it requires context before I would have the least idea what something meant.
Aiwaz is a standard Middle Eastern name. Crowley eventually met a man with this name, who pointed out a couple of useful things to him, including providing the literal spelling of the name and allowing the discovery that it enumerated to 93. In his New Comment on Liber Legis, Cap. I, v. 1, in introducing the names Nu and Had, Crowley wrote:
"...I must here mention that the Brother mentioned in connexion with the Wizard Amalantrah (Shmuel bar Aiwaz) identifies them with ANU and ADAD the supreme Mother and Father deities of the Sumerians. Taken in connexion with the AIWAZ identification, this is very striking indeed."
He does go on to discuss a bit of research by Fabre d'Olivet concerning etymological (or at least sound) similarities of differing deities from different cultures who had similar natures. From the same source:
"It is also to be considered that Nu is connected with North, while Had is Sad, Set, Satan, Sat (equals 'Being' in Sanskrit), South. He is then the Sun, one point concentrating Space, as also is any other star... Nu is also reflected in Naus, Ship, etc., and that whole symbolism of Hollow Space which is familiar to all. There is also a question of identifying Nu with On, Noah, Oannes, Johan, John, Dianus, Diana, and so on. But these identifications are all partial only, different facets of the Diamond Truth."
There is a lot that can be learned from cross-cultural comparison of deities. All of the N-deities, related to the North, express some similar ideas - and all the S-D-T deities, related to the South, express some other ideas. But this doesn't mean they are interchangeable. I think the equation of them is risky. Osiris isn't Christ - just ask any Christian fundamentalist! <g> However, they are both expressions of a "slain god" idea. Christ's acceptance of agony at Calvary is archetypally almost indistinguishable from Prometheus' accepting the punishment in the Caucasus - but, while there are striking similarities, and intersections of their myths, we can't say at all that they are the same thing. And we're way of the mark if we then say that Osiris is Prometheus onaccounta they both are Christ.
See?
So, no, Aiwaz isn't anyone but Aiwaz. And he's a Secret Chief. And he's the vehicle of the experience of the Yechidah by the personality Aleister Crowley. And his name is the encoding of 93 and 418 which gave Crowley the keys to his own nature and to the formula that was his to uniquely enact. Etc.
"If the Jews came up with Satan quite on their own, did they invent Satan, thus causing his existence in reality? Like an egregore or a golem or something? Or did they discover him and give him a name? (And how does anyone know these are not all the same entity?) "
I suggest that you read Elaine Pagel's book on the origins of Satan. If I can find the file quickly, I'll post here my review from Black Pearl.
"Or are you not being literal when you say "you've met 'him'"?"
I'm being literal that I met him on a magical plane, not a physical plane. He's a Briatic being.
"When you say you've met Satan and he's a nicely groomed fellow, I think of two possibilities: (1) you mean you've met the entity, which somehow the Jews are credited for inventing or discovering or naming, or (2) you're making a joke about yourself being a nicely groomed fellow and Satan being part of your soul/self."
More the former than the latter, plus a simultaneous telling you the truth and pulling your leg.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Thanks. So what is "it" now, this Satan? A being or beings or just an idea? "
What are you? A being or beings or just an idea?
I'm trying not to be obscure - I'm trying to unveil, not veil, something very basic to our understanding of ourselves and these other beings.
Aleister Crowley is often misquoted as saying that the H.G.A. is a separate, objective being. In fact, his full statement was that the H.G.A. is a separate being in EXACTLY the same way that you and I are separate beings. - This raises the question: In what way are you and I separate beings?
I usually circumvent addressing this sort of thing, because different ways of framing and modelling this will serve people at different stages of their progress. For example - based on my own experience and the reports of everybody whose deep reports I've ever read or heard - a core characteristic of the experience of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel includes union with Other. Therefore, if anything I said led you to think that the H.G.A. is anything other than Other, I would not have served you well.
Part of the joke in all of this is that, at the time that it most matters, the question either changes or doesn't any longer exist. Separation and multiplicity in the way you are discussing them are phenomena only characteristic of Assiah and Yetzirah. The nuptials with the H.G.A. occur in Briah where there may still be differentiation, but there is no separation.
So, what are you? A being or beings or just an idea? Or what?
"There's a passage in "Secret Teachings of All Ages" that describes Adam, after a long and difficult life, finds himself back at the gates of paradise begging to be let back in. There he meets The Adversary (can't remember if it was Satan or the Devil or just The Adversary, but he calls himself the Adversary, anyway) who tells Adam, "I was against you from the start. I am the one who tempted you. I am the one who accused you. I wanted you to fail, to die..," etc. etc. and then -- poof! -- the Adversary transforms into an angel or God (can't remember which) and welcomes Adam back into the Garden of Eden."
Yes. The usual story
Remember that A'ayin is one of the three paths that opens from the lower Sephiroth in to Tiphereth.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""This was why I was surprised to find Crowley stating plainly that Aiwass was without doubt an external intelligence and the God/Devil of Sumer. That's Set, the twin of Horus, right?"
No - on two counts. First, they're Egyptian, not Sumerian. Second, they weren't twins (nor did they even have a parent in common)."
So, I guess Crowley meant that Aiwaz was Enki?"
Crowley "meant" this where, exactly? You appear to be quoting something "
Equinox of The Gods Chapter 7
www.hermetic.com/crowley/eoftg/eqotg7.html
Under VII, Section 5. "The Actual Writing," last paragraph. -
@Redd Fezz said
"Equinox of The Gods Chapter 7
www.hermetic.com/crowley/eoftg/eqotg7.html
Under VII, Section 5. "The Actual Writing," last paragraph."Excellent! Thanks. The full quote:
"I am now incline (sic) to believe that Aiwass is not only the God or Demon or Devil once held holy in Sumer, and mine own Guardian Angel, but also a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magical link with Mankind, whom He loves, and that He is thus an Ipsissimus, the Head of the A.'.A.'. Even I can do, in a much feebler way, this Work of being a God and a Beast, &c., &c., all at the same time, with equal fullness of life."
To this is attached a footnote:
"I do not necessarily jmen that he is a member of humabn society in quite the normal way. He might rather be able to form for Himself a human body as circumstances indicate, from the appropriate Elements, and dissolve it when the occasion for its use is past. I say this because I have been permitted to see Him in recent years in a variety of physical appearances, all equally "material" in the sense in which my own body is so."
-
Regarding Elaine Pagel- I've compared her work a few times in Barnes & Nobles with other books that competed for my attention, such as Stephen A. Hoeller's "Jung & The Lost Gospels" and "The Nag Hammadi Library." Each time, I put Pagel's books back in favor of the other. I borrowed and read "The Gnostic Gospels" from a friend and, I have to be honest, I just don't like her style. Regarding her "Origin of Satan," there are a lot of other Origin of Satan type books I've been looking to get. Are you who suggest Pagel's work suggesting it is the most accurate or best? I have read portions of this in the store as well and agreed with the one Amazon reviewer who complained there just wasn't enough Satan in it and too much of her own meandering thoughts:
"When I purchased this book I simply assumed the title was accurate and I would be treated to an historical study of the germination, growth, and evolution of the figure of Satan in world religions. Instead, the book is limited to a study of Satan as a literary and political device in the Gospels and in Christian church history, a much more limited study than the title implies."
AND it's a thin book!
As an aside, has anyone read "Jehovah Unmasked?"
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"To this is attached a footnote:
"I do not necessarily jmen that he is a member of humabn society in quite the normal way. He might rather be able to form for Himself a human body as circumstances indicate, from the appropriate Elements, and dissolve it when the occasion for its use is past. I say this because I have been permitted to see Him in recent years in a variety of physical appearances, all equally "material" in the sense in which my own body is so."
"Hmm. But, he does say it is an external entity (also analyzes this in Appendix III in Magick In Theory & Practice and concludes Aiwaz is definitely an external entity) and he does identify it with the god / devil of Sumer... I guess it's back to the key meditations you recommended. I'm not quite getting it. Oh yeah! But, is the god/devil of Sumer Enki or what?
-
@Redd Fezz said
"But, is the god/devil of Sumer Enki or what?"
No. It's Aiwaz. He's referring to an entity named Aiwaz.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"Regarding Elaine Pagel- I've compared her work a few times in Barnes & Nobles with other books that competed for my attention, such as Stephen A. Hoeller's "Jung & The Lost Gospels" and "The Nag Hammadi Library." Each time, I put Pagel's books back in favor of the other."
Pagels focuses on the early Gnosticism. Hoeller focuses on contemporary and recent reconstructed Gnosticism.
@Redd Fezz said
"I borrowed and read "The Gnostic Gospels" from a friend and, I have to be honest, I just don't like her style."
Forget style. Perhaps you don't really need to read Pagels, but don't let style hold you back from studying magic. I don't care much for Crowley's style, but I read the hell out of him. Magic requires hard work and intensive study. You can't just pick your reading based on how much you enjoy it.
@Redd Fezz said
"Regarding her "Origin of Satan," there are a lot of other Origin of Satan type books I've been looking to get. Are you who suggest Pagel's work suggesting it is the most accurate or best? I have read portions of this in the store as well and agreed with the one Amazon reviewer who complained there just wasn't enough Satan in it and too much of her own meandering thoughts:"
Meandering? I read it as a clear and highly contextualized history of the political, cultural, and religous context in which the modern Satan emerged. Granted, much of it does focus on the political interests and relationships of the Gospel authors and does seem, at time, somewhat separate from the issue of Satan. However, that discussion enables us to understand the context in and purpose for which the modern Satan took form at each step. Perhaps both of you looked for contemporary myths about Satan and his supposed relationship to or equation with other Satan-like deities. But, based on her work and the work of another, those meanings and relationships do not appear to have existed at that point amongst Jewish peoples.
@Redd Fezz said
""Instead, the book is limited to a study of Satan as a literary and political device in the Gospels and in Christian church history, a much more limited study than the title implies.""
Perhaps this provides one answer for what Satan is.
@Redd Fezz said
"AND it's a thin book!"
All the better.
-
All right, I will check out the book. What I meant about her style was that she tends to present her opinions and deductions in a neat little picture rather than letting the reader make up his own mind. Thin little books are great... but when dealing with historicity, moreso when they are a "Liber" in a much larger collection of "Libers", with exhaustive footnotes and as few details and contrary opinions left out as possible. In other words, I prefer a big friggin' book with no stone left unturned on subjects such as this.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I didn't realize there was a Sumerian God named Aiwaz. >shrug<"
I've never heard of it either - except that Crowley keeps referring to Aiwaz as the name of a Sumerian god. There isn't any reason I can think of to assume that he meant some other Sumerian god.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"All right, I will check out the book. What I meant about her style was that she tends to present her opinions and deductions in a neat little picture rather than letting the reader make up his own mind."
Probably part of what I like about her. I get pretty tired of authors that aren't opinionated and authoritative. If they aren't going to take themselves that seriously, why should I?
Dogmatize at me! (Not that I think she does.) Take a stand! Represent a singular point of view and develop the hell out of it. I can then agree or disagree. But at least it's not just a jumble of mumbling facts.
"Thin little books are great... but when dealing with historicity, moreso when they are a "Liber" in a much larger collection of "Libers", with exhaustive footnotes and as few details and contrary opinions left out as possible. In other words, I prefer a big friggin' book with no stone left unturned on subjects such as this."
I hate those.
I collect them, but rarely read them.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"I didn't realize there was a Sumerian God named Aiwaz. >shrug<"I've never heard of it either - except that Crowley keeps referring to Aiwaz as the name of a Sumerian god. There isn't any reason I can think of to assume that he meant some other Sumerian god."
Good point, he doesn't come out and specifically name any other Sumerian God, does he?
Aquino and Grant did conclude this. I'm not even sure if this quote is why they concluded this or if they based it on other simillarities. But, they are not Crowley, are they?
For me, I read that he believed it was "that God / Devil of Sumer" and immediately thought, "Hmmm. He must be referring to history: 'The Gods of one generation become the Devils of the next.' So, what was the God of Sumer that became the Devil of the next?" I concluded he must mean Aiwaz was Set, since we are talking about an Egyptian pantheon Aeon-wise and Set is mythically the twin of Horus, who has certain obvious similarities to Enki of Sumer. Both Set and Enki were worshipped as Gods and feared as Devils, or basic personification of "evil," but with enough "good" aspects to aquire their worshippers. And there is enough similarity other than the etymology of the names Set and Shaitan to link these Gods to Satan, who is similarly considered "an agent of God" and a "devil" and also the basic personification of "evil." Not everyone agrees, of course.
BUT, in the context of "service to self" or "service to others," the nature of any one of these entities being somehow related to The Book of The Law is enough to warrant serious consideration. I am not suggesting it invalidates it by any means. I am saying it is important.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
Dogmatize at me! (Not that I think she does.) Take a stand! Represent a singular point of view and develop the hell out of it. I can then agree or disagree. But at least it's not just a jumble of mumbling facts."To agree or disagree with someone, even Elaine Pagels, you need to know as much about a subject as possible, right? That's the problem with our president, for example. He "follows his instincts and prays he's right," as Senator Joseph Biden said recently.
In context, it was quite hilarious.@Jim Eshelman said
"I collect them, but rarely read them."
It's important when formulating opinions to have a complete picture as possible. That was Crowley's whole point, wasn't it? The method of Science, the aim of Religion. Otherwise, you're just following your instincts or being led, possibly duped, even. So, you must read those big books you hate at least once, right?
Sure, Pagels is an authority in her field. I would like to trust her. Brian Green is an authority in his field, too. That did not stop me from highlighting multiple non-scientific passages from his "Elegant Universe" book.Are there any big books about Satan you've read that you could recommend as well? I've been comparing for quite a while, wanting to make sure whatever I buy and spend time considering is as unbiased as possible.
-
Hi JAE,
Redd said to JAE, "Thanks for all the info. I do appreciate the time and effort you've all taken to explain that could have be spent doing a zillion other more enjoyable things."
My thanks to you, also. Your conversations with Redd are so clear,patient and helpful. Redd is asking excellent questions.
In appreciation,
chrys333 -
Hi Guys,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
As per one of the initial subjects of this thread (service to self, service to others and Crowley's imperfections as well as the imperfections of so-called 'masters') I would suggest reading the letter/chapter entitled, I believe (I'm away from my library), 'How could a Magus be worried?' in 'Magic Without Tears'.
This thread has been quite interesting for several personal reasons (not the least of which is that I'm probably the nicest asshole you'll ever meet) and my thanks goes out to everyone involved.
Love is the law, love under will.
Y.S.
-
Here are the books I plan to pick up tomorrow:
Elaine Pagels - Origin of Satan
Mark S. Smith - The Early History of God (this looks really good!)I would love to get Mark S. Smith's other huge academic book on the subject, but it's $60+ and probably dry as hell. I trust he has distilled the essentials into a somewhat more "popular"-styled book under the name "The Early History of God."
I'm still considering "Jehovah Unmasked," but the fact that it is self-published through Lulu.com is a little off-putting.