&"Woman has no soul&"?
-
@Her said
"I always thought that Crowley was saying the same thing as Jung did with the concept of the Anima/Animus.
Woman has no soul because she is soul."
...I dont think thats what Jung was saying. Or Crowley.
Im guessing it has to do with Liber NU & HAD where woman is the image of the boundless or something. Or perhaps the symbolism of Woman as one who has crossed the abyss c.f. Book of Lies chapter 3 or so
IAO131
-
@RifRaf said
"Remember that "Every Man and Every Woman is a Star.""
Right. But since "female star" built "from the circumference inwards", it is totally opposite to a "male star", and BECAUSE OF THIS, "has no soul", maybe like a collapsed black hole, which has no emission, devouring everything, even her own light. Please, don't think about me that I'm a kind of sexist, misogynist, male supremacist etc. I just need to understand, what he meant in this particular passage.@Persephone said
" I hope Crowley was joking."
In those words there is no shade of joking. Crowley explains a doctrine. And he's serious.@Her said
"Woman has no soul because she is soul."
I love your explanation. However, I'm still in doubt: if Nuit is Prakriti, primal motive force for a man, and space, and matter, the union with her leads to a dissolution of individual Self, a void of being and ceasing of existence. She is an end of any soul. And any woman is her incarnation and, therefore, a void, circumference, emptiness, soulless space, where any man dies. At least it is easy to make such conclusion from the cited words... -
@Metaxas said
"
@RifRaf said
"Remember that "Every Man and Every Woman is a Star.""
Right. But since "female star" built "from the circumference inwards", it is totally opposite to a "male star", and BECAUSE OF THIS, "has no soul", maybe like a collapsed black hole, which has no emission, devouring everything, even her own light. Please, don't think about me that I'm a kind of sexist, misogynist, male supremacist etc. I just need to understand, what he meant in this particular passage.@Persephone said
" I hope Crowley was joking."
In those words there is no shade of joking. Crowley explains a doctrine. And he's serious.@Her said
"Woman has no soul because she is soul."
I love your explanation. However, I'm still in doubt: if Nuit is Prakriti, primal motive force for a man, and space, and matter, the union with her leads to a dissolution of individual Self, a void of being and ceasing of existence. She is an end of any soul. And any woman is her incarnation and, therefore, a void, circumference, emptiness, soulless space, where any man dies. At least it is easy to make such conclusion from the cited words..."Man is image of Hadit (inwards -> outwards; Soul), Woman is image of Nuit (Outwards -> inwards; World). Each person is a Star.
What is a "soul"? Is it awareness (i.e. 'psyche')? No. Is it the ability to reincarnate? I don't think so. Is it the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the possibility of becoming aware of and uniting with the True Self? I think so, and I know both men and women are capable of this.
IAO131
IAO131
-
Well, I'm no expert on Crowley.
I have found in my experience with reading gnostico-mystico-qabalistic master types, that there do tend to be some really strange things said about females in relationship to males.
My rule of thumb is this: If it sounds like complete misogynistic rubbish coming out of the mouth of someone who is in a position to know better, then maybe we're dealing with a carefully and thoughtfully positioned "stumbling-block" statement. I'm not sure why these kinds of authors make them, but there is a very similar one listed as the very last saying in the Gospel of Thomas:
"Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Thomas 114)["
And here is a link to a worthy collection of commentaries on the concept as it applies there:
Gospel of Thomas, Logion 114 Commentaries
I think though, that perhaps as male and female intellectual/spiritual stereotypes collapse as the collective idea of womanhood in the West continues to be transitioned to a more self-directing and active "spirit," these strange expressions will fall further and further out of sensible usage - even though "masculine" and "feminine" will still be used to symbolize the active and passive/ projective and receptive.
-
@Aum418 said
"
What is a "soul"? Is it awareness (i.e. 'psyche')? No. Is it the ability to reincarnate? I don't think so. Is it the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the possibility of becoming aware of and uniting with the True Self? I think so, and I know both men and women are capable of this.
"
AAMOF, the consciousness of the continuity of existence IS the ability to reincarnate, or what is a reincarnation as not a link with the previous lives? But whatever it is, if a woman has no soul, she doesn't have that consciousness of the continuity of existence at all and cannot have it, or we are in a trouble with formal logic. And if the differences between men and women are so dramatic, what they are doing with us in our temples and lodges, making the same practices with us, if they are able to be only a kind of tool for our Work? -
this question of the sexes is a very curious one that has perturbed me on many occasions, this has direct bearing to my thread "Time" where I stated that Masculinity/Active principle is a rarity in the universe and I used the analogy of genes; to be female is to have chromosomes XX, while to be male is to have XY, so apparently on the genetic level at least all males have a type of bi-sexuality, whereas females do not, and hence an increase in population is inevitably a disproportionate increase in the X chromosome hence Time is inimical to the Y chromosome and by extrapolation the masculine principle at least as far as humanity/the microcosm is concerned. Also you have the case of pregnancy which is exclusive to women, a temporary merging of orbits or some type of super-position of points; or alternatively considering that only one soul can occupy any one position at a time, the theory of "Woman" being a void also holds up, whereby only in the case of a male child does the combined entity "pregnant mother" then have a soul, this way generally you have only one soul at any one point except in the rare case of male(often identical)twins. Although this does neither define soul, nor resolve the issue, but i thought it was just another take on things. I think the interplay is key to a greater understanding of the Universe/Multiverse. This is a topic increasingly hard to talk about objectively in this politically correct era. there are some questions for me about this apparent imbalance in nature, this may relate to the new paradigm of a chaotic universe. The rarity of the masculine principle is also corroborated by some Shamanic lore.
-
@Scapegoa said
"the theory of "Woman" being a void also holds up"
Maybe. But my question not about someone's theories, but about the opinion of the Thelemic authorities, Crowley at first, about Thelema teaching itself. It has totally practical meaning related with the neighbor theme on this forum: heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?t=2593 What should I tell a woman, who was astonished by the words form the comment to Liber AL? Is Thelema teaching about women the same as beliefs of Muslims and early Christians? -
Tell her it is merely a Crowleyian technical terminology defined differently than in everyday usage, which he believed key to his extrapolation of "Magick"
-
I have been having some apparent revelations still relating to chromosomes, which i see as a good analogy for what Crowley was trying to explain IMHO; The "Y" chromosome may be equated to Crowley's "Soul" this way, a woman would only be offended, if the same woman would also be offended to discover she had no "Y chromosome", however a "pregnant mother with a male child" arguably is neither "Mother" nor "Child" this is corroborated physically by a woman's unusual moods and cravings while pregnant. If this is assumed "true" then the genetic configuration of the "combined entity" in this case is "XXXY" such that XX tends to be a more chaotic state becoming either XXXX or XXXY at different, apparently "random"points; post birth the identity of XX is now altered such that she has an invisible "Y" and accordingly entitled "mother of a son" the link between mother and son is obviously unique and permanent though constantly changing. It would seem then that the "Y" chromosome cleaves disproportionately to "X" and this may also be at the heart of the other problem aforementioned, the overwhelming promiscuity of males.
-
@Scapegoa said
"The "Y" chromosome may be equated to Crowley's "Soul" this way"
Y is just a part of X, and, by the same way, from the biological point of view, XY is a home edition of the full professional XX. Body of a woman, especially reproductive part, and her nervous system, CNS, as well as PNS, are more sophisticated, than of a man. For example, female brain is more efficient, because it works with full capacity of a dual core system with larger bass bottleneck in the corpus callosum. The male testicles are just underdeveloped ovaries, vas deference is a short model of fallopian tubes, and prostata is exactly that could be an uterus, if the set of genes in the last chromosome would be complete. The only thing, in which a man has a real supremacy against a woman, is the enlarged (because of the huge amount of testosterone) clitoris... I mean, penis - is this tool a real place where my soul live? In general, spermatozoa differs from ova only by its smaller size (because of the less amount of genetic content) and its ability to move, especially in acid environment of the vagina for which all the staff designed. And how all of those material things are related to the soul, which is not material? The incarnation happens at the moment of conception, when the lucky guy (one out of millions released at the moment of the ejaculation!) enters the ovum. If it's not so, every man would have in his scrotum not only one, but billions of souls.The teaching of 666 is deep and hard to comprehend, while people make a parody out of it. I believe this is one of the main reasons, why "the study of this Book is forbidden" and "all questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal" to the Beast's own writings. Through the years passed from my conversion and Initiation a met so many stupid explanations of the Thelemic principles, that started to appreciate more and more the wise words of Ankh-f-n-khonsu at the end of his book...
-
@Metaxas said
"
@Aum418 said
"
What is a "soul"? Is it awareness (i.e. 'psyche')? No. Is it the ability to reincarnate? I don't think so. Is it the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the possibility of becoming aware of and uniting with the True Self? I think so, and I know both men and women are capable of this.
"
AAMOF, the consciousness of the continuity of existence IS the ability to reincarnate, or what is a reincarnation as not a link with the previous lives? But whatever it is, if a woman has no soul, she doesn't have that consciousness of the continuity of existence at all and cannot have it, or we are in a trouble with formal logic. And if the differences between men and women are so dramatic, what they are doing with us in our temples and lodges, making the same practices with us, if they are able to be only a kind of tool for our Work?"I guess we have different interpretations of that phrase. I dont interpret it as continuous existence as in existence throughout many lives but rather the assertion that existence is continuous like the body of nuit... i.e. if the doors of perception wre cleansed, all things would appear as they are: infinite.
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"I guess we have different interpretations of that phrase"
I have no interpretation at all. Even Masters, like Marcelo Motta didn't interpret Liber AL. In the The Commentaries of AL, the former interprets just the Crowley's words about certain verse of The Book of the Law, but not the Law itself, since nobody can interpret it except the Beast himself or his Magical Son. I just want to understand the words of the Beast, not the words of those praeterhuman beings, whose word even 666 was not able understand exhaustively. However, when the Book was given the Powers used the elements of Crowley's consciousness and meanings of HIS words for communication. That's why his explanation is the key to understanding, not because I worship him like a super-being, but just for simple reason: if you want to understand a text written in Chinese, a Hebrew dictionary will be useless. By the same way, if we need to understand The Book of the Law, we need find out what specific meaning Crowley himself putting in this or that word, or we will be condemned to read our own thoughts in the sacred text, copying the infamous mistakes of Christians (especially Protestants), who produced millions of heresies out of their 'Sola Scriptura'. -
My 93 pence worth - there is male and female in all of us, that which is referred to as "soul" is close enough to Hadit, male, for this to make sense. However, Hadit is nowhere to be found, so perhaps this emphasises the eastern, rather than western, concept, that woman "has" (that is, possesses) the "no-soul" that is Had, who can be seen as the manifestation of Nuit if Al 1.1 is seen as defining Had rather than an announcement to Had.
-
@Metaxas said
"
@Aum418 said
"I guess we have different interpretations of that phrase"
I have no interpretation at all. Even Masters, like Marcelo Motta didn't interpret Liber AL. In the The Commentaries of AL, the former interprets just the Crowley's words about certain verse of The Book of the Law, but not the Law itself, since nobody can interpret it except the Beast himself or his Magical Son. "Keep telling yourself this nonsense. Motta obviously interpreted Liber AL over and over again - your denial is amazing. You also interpret it implicitly many times - I dont see the point in not admitting it.
"I just want to understand the words of the Beast, not the words of those praeterhuman beings, whose word even 666 was not able understand exhaustively. However, when the Book was given the Powers used the elements of Crowley's consciousness and meanings of HIS words for communication. That's why his explanation is the key to understanding, not because I worship him like a super-being, but just for simple reason: if you want to understand a text written in Chinese, a Hebrew dictionary will be useless. By the same way, if we need to understand The Book of the Law, we need find out what specific meaning Crowley himself putting in this or that word, or we will be condemned to read our own thoughts in the sacred text, copying the infamous mistakes of Christians (especially Protestants), who produced millions of heresies out of their 'Sola Scriptura'."
Uh huh...
IAO131
-
@Metaxas said
"
@Scapegoa said
"The "Y" chromosome may be equated to Crowley's "Soul" this way"
Y is just a part of X, and, by the same way, from the biological point of view, XY is a home edition of the full professional XX. Body of a woman, especially reproductive part, and her nervous system, CNS, as well as PNS, are more sophisticated, than of a man. "All the better then, to show that it does not automatically make them inferior.My point being The Y chromosome undoubtedly is what causes "Masculinity" hence the "Outward projection" of males, and therefore metaphorically can be likened to Hadit for whatever that's worth.
-
@Aum418 said
"Keep telling yourself this nonsense. "
Everything that goes from the mind - mine, as well as yours - is nonsense. While the truth is always beyond the words and thoughts. If speaking we don't have a goal to transcend the limitation, every our word will be nonsense forever...
@Aum418 said
"Motta obviously interpreted Liber AL over and over again"
Even if he did, he could, for he's the Master.@Aum418 said
"You also interpret it implicitly many times - I dont see the point in not admitting it."
I am still working. As soon as I mingle my life with the universal life I'll be perfect in my words and my silence.@sethur said
"My 93 pence worth - there is male and female in all of us, that which is referred to as "soul" is close enough to Hadit, male, for this to make sense. However, Hadit is nowhere to be found, so perhaps this emphasises the eastern, rather than western, concept, that woman "has" (that is, possesses) the "no-soul" that is Had, who can be seen as the manifestation of Nuit if Al 1.1 is seen as defining Had rather than an announcement to Had."
Thank you. You answered my question.
