Service to Self, Service to Others
-
@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.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
What are you? A being or beings or just an idea?
...
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 neglected to answer this before for some reason (accidental). There is a paradox that can't be too emphasized one way or the other, I think. (Like those bolds?
) On the one hand, we are all "vibrations of the One," as a mutual friend of ours once described the situation to me. On the other hand, Maya, the illusion, is a real thing: just as the experience of a mirage in a desert is a real experience. The water may not be real in the mirage and the illusion of Maya may not be the ultimate reality, but both are real. The illusion of separateness is real; in fact it is so real, one can live several lifetimes without ever suspecting there is Unity beyond the separation. There must be a reason for this and that reason seems to me to be related to Crowley's 0=2 theory, as one way of explaining it.My more simple way of thinking about the Big Picture is that all possibilities are permutated to failure; everything balancing out, all concepts taken to the utmost logical extreme. Within these concepts and extremes is a spark of God, but that does not mean the extremes don't exist, nor does it mean that because God is not specifically found SOMEWHERE that God does not exist. In my reasoning, proof that God exists is EVERYWHERE and all manner of variety his face. As much as you or I are separate from each other (and we are, just look at our conversation), we are United (and we are, just look at our conversation). So, Aiwaz being just as separate as you or I, to me, means he is quite separate indeed. I take this to mean he is an entity with incredible power, able to take many forms among men, as he chooses. I suspect he could easily call himself by many names as well.