RHK as the Tree of Life
-
I've read the interpretation of Ra Hoor Khuit as the "intersection" of Nuit and Hadit, hence being the entire Tree of Life (=universal existence?).
But in the previous aeon, was Osiris the "intersection" of these two, as, presumably, Maat would be in the next?
I gather the idea is that the ruling force, personified as an Egyptian god, is imminent throughout the Tree.
However, I get the impression from Thelemic scholarship that RHK has a special relationship with Nuit and Hadit, beyond just being their current "intersection."
-
Consider the position of Tiphareth (the Son) on the Tree of Life, its function as the conduit through which the light reaches us and the fact that it 'partakes of all these natures' (Gematria, Equinox 1:5).
The idea that the manifestation of the marriage of Nuit and Hadit varies through the Γ¦ons is pertinent for me; that Ra-Hoor-Khuit is in fact 'Horus enthroned in the seat of Ra' sheds further light on this."The other images group around me to support me: let all be worshipped, for they shall cluster to exalt me. I am the visible object of worship; the others are secret; for the Beast & his Bride are they..." - Liber Legis 3:22
A worthy topic for meditation.
-
@Escarabaj said
"I've read the interpretation of Ra Hoor Khuit as the "intersection" of Nuit and Hadit, hence being the entire Tree of Life (=universal existence?).
But in the previous aeon, was Osiris the "intersection" of these two, as, presumably, Maat would be in the next?
I gather the idea is that the ruling force, personified as an Egyptian god, is imminent throughout the Tree. "
Its one way of interpreting the Aeons...
In Liber Aleph, AC calls the Tree of Life the Anatomy (i.e. map of the body) of Ra Hoor Khuit
"However, I get the impression from Thelemic scholarship that RHK has a special relationship with Nuit and Hadit, beyond just being their current "intersection.""
What is 'Thelemic scholarship'? Understanding doesnt come from scholars it comes from direct experience of the Mysteries involved... scholars, perhaps, might be better & clearer in communicating these truths once understood but I think you get what I mean...
IAO131
-
@Escarabaj said
"But in the previous aeon, was Osiris the "intersection" of these two, as, presumably, Maat would be in the next?"
I'm not aware of it ever being articulated that way.
The closest equivalent I can think of for this "use" of RHK would be Adam Qadmon.
"I gather the idea is that the ruling force, personified as an Egyptian god, is imminent throughout the Tree."
No, I don't think that's where anyone's going.
Remember that Ra-Hoor has Khu appended to His name. He's not just solar and martial (or solar-phallic), but He's the solar-phallic Khu, or example of the exact inner form that a human being assumes en route to incarnation. This, alone, equates him to any "inner map of the constitution of a person," of which the Tree of Life is an exceedingly important one.
"However, I get the impression from Thelemic scholarship that RHK has a special relationship with Nuit and Hadit, beyond just being their current "intersection.""
Nuit is the Infinite Circumference, the All. Hadit is the Infinitessimal Point, of which infinite space (or, actually, space of any size at all) has an infinite number - so, from the point of view of a particular individual, Hadit is a particular non-dimensional point within infinite space and, therefore, mathematically its center. This is a precise definition of Kether.
And, from that nice early 20th century medical model image of a single seed implanted deep in an infinite womb - from that exact father-point - a child emerges, and emerges in a way that assumes the Khu-form of an involving human being.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"He's the solar-phallic Khu, or example of the exact inner form that a human being assumes en route to incarnation...
...a single seed implanted deep in an infinite womb - from that exact father-point - a child emerges, and emerges in a way that assumes the Khu-form of an involving human being."Is the idea that this Khu changes its basic nature with the progression of the Aeons (i.e. it used to be Isis, then Osiris, and will later be Maat), or is this particular Aeon just specifically the Aeon wherein the solar-phallic Khu (having always been RHK), is calling the shots?
Another question which has confused me: Is RHK not associated with Khabs? if RHK is essentially Khu and "I am the visible object of worship", what about "Worship then the khabs..."? I have generally assumed that the Khabs (imageless) wears a garment, and that garment/image (khu) is Ra-Hoor-Khuit. Accurate?
-
@Bryan said
"Is the idea that this Khu changes its basic nature with the progression of the Aeons (i.e. it used to be Isis, then Osiris, and will later be Maat), or is this particular Aeon just specifically the Aeon wherein the solar-phallic Khu (having always been RHK), is calling the shots?"
You speaking of "the Khu" as if it were a central characteristic of each prior aeon. I know of nothing to particular affirm or deny that premise. RHK is the only god in that series to be specifically named a Khu.
"Another question which has confused me: Is RHK not associated with Khabs? if RHK is essentially Khu and "I am the visible object of worship", what about "Worship then the khabs..."? I have generally assumed that the Khabs (imageless) wears a garment, and that garment/image (khu) is Ra-Hoor-Khuit. Accurate?"
These are flexible associations. You're trying to pin them down like you're a census taker and one of your neighbors is being uncooperative on the questionnaire.
To stick with the line we've been discussing, focus on the word "visible." RHK is "god like all the ordinary folks can relate to Him," with the expectation that most folks will be able to understand the concept (and not be able to really grasp the ideas of Nuit and Hadit that are, to coin a term, "reserved").
Yes, the Khabs wears the Khu as its veil, just as Hadit occupies Khabs as his "house." I would not say that "that garment/image (khu)" is RHK. Your khu is your khu, it bears the (for the moment) persistent imprint or image of your reincarnating soul. RHK is a god manifest as incarnated into a Khu (in contrast to Christ who was represented as incarnated into flesh).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"RHK is "god like all the ordinary folks can relate to Him," with the expectation that most folks will be able to understand the concept (and not be able to really grasp the ideas of Nuit and Hadit that are, to coin a term, "reserved")."
Isn't there a problem here? I've noticed that a lot of people who become interested in Thelema are usually drawn in by one thing. Nuit.
RHK is the one that most "ordinary folks" have a hard time dealing with. In fact I've noticed that RHK usually gets side-lined in favour of exclusive focus on Nuit. -
@Her said
"Isn't there a problem here? I've noticed that a lot of people who become interested in Thelema are usually drawn in by one thing. Nuit.
RHK is the one that most "ordinary folks" have a hard time dealing with. In fact I've noticed that RHK usually gets side-lined in favour of exclusive focus on Nuit."I see that point, and was thinking about something similar when I wrote my answer above. I should also say that I'm presenting a formal doctrinal p.o.v. because that seems to be the angle of the original question.
So, who are these "lot of people"? Are you talking about self-identified Thelemites, or "general public." If the former, then I would disagree. Among the majority (hardly the entirety! but easily the majority) of self-identified Thelemites I see an emphasis on the Hadit and Horus ideas and a serious under-serving of the Nuit point of view. The "we are all in this together, we are all part of an indivisible whole," fails before, "I am an individual! And it's my fucking WILL, baby!" So, for this group, I find myself introducing Nuit perspectives about 10 (OK, 11) times as often as the others simply for balance.
But, for the general public approaching Liber Legis, I agree that some aspect of Nuit is far easier to grasp than some of the other concepts.
I put it that way because the part that is easiest to grasp is more commonly a way scaled-back version of Her. It's a form of generic Supernal Mother Goddess. What is understood is Binah at best, not the Zero idea that, on the Tree of Life, is at least three steps higher than Binah.
So perhaps this is what is being said when RHK is said to be the visible object of worship, and "the others" are for Adepts: RHK is positioned to be the Up-and-front Dude of the Aeon. He's our Jesus: Need an HGA stand-in, somebody we can build a popular religion around and say He Is God, etc., then Horus is your guy.
-
"What is understood is Binah at best, not the Zero idea that, on the Tree of Life, is at least three steps higher than Binah. "
OHHHHHhhhh.... Yeah, that makes more sense.... lol
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"So, who are these "lot of people"? Are you talking about self-identified Thelemites, or "general public.""
People who come to Thelema via Wicca and other new age philosophies that promote a species of feminine monotheism.
On the surface Thelema looks like any other new age goddess cult. And it stays that way as long as RHK is marginalised or ignored. In certain cirlces mentioning RHK can leave you feeling like you've just farted at a funeral.
In fact I have been told by one ex-OTO member to forget about RHK and simply focus on Nuit because the third chapter of Liber Legis is just the bad stuff (direful judgements) that happen if you don't get with the programme laid out in chapter 1.
@Jim Eshelman said
"If the former, then I would disagree. Among the majority (hardly the entirety! but easily the majority) of self-identified Thelemites I see an emphasis on the Hadit and Horus ideas and a serious under-serving of the Nuit point of view."
I always thought that was due to the high number of teenage males interested in Thelema.
I was one once, so I understand the fascination with that point of view. Like attracts like.
@Jim Eshelman said
"The "we are all in this together, we are all part of an indivisible whole," fails before, "I am an individual! And it's my {shagging} WILL, baby!" So, for this group, I find myself introducing Nuit perspectives about 10 (OK, 11) times as often as the others simply for balance."
Ah, this is where it gets a bit sticky. Or at least I come un-stuck at this point.
If the Nuit perspective is collectivist and the Hadit perspective is individualist, you would expect RHK to be somewhere in between. But he's not. And that's where I usually end up with egg on my face trying to argue the 3 in 1 trinity angle.
@Jim Eshelman said
"So perhaps this is what is being said when RHK is said to be the visible object of worship, and "the others" are for Adepts: RHK is positioned to be the Up-and-front Dude of the Aeon. He's our Jesus: Need an HGA stand-in, somebody we can build a popular religion around and say He Is God, etc., then Horus is your guy."
But can you see the difficulty of promoting a god that seems like Jehovah under another name to someone who wants to worship a goddess who is nothing like RHK?
Unless you're suggesting that the "visible object of worship" can be any object. But if that's the case it's going to be very difficult to build up a popular religion without a common icon for all.
-
@Her said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"So, who are these "lot of people"? Are you talking about self-identified Thelemites, or "general public.""People who come to Thelema via Wicca and other new age philosophies that promote a species of feminine monotheism."
Well sure, duh, those - Stack the deck, why doncha.
"On the surface Thelema looks like any other new age goddess cult. And it stays that way as long as RHK is marginalised or ignored. In certain cirlces mentioning RHK can leave you feeling like you've just farted at a funeral.
"
Yeah but, of course, mentioning any of this in some other circles has the same effect. Try walking a street corner with a Christian revival and people putting fliers in your hands and saying, "Jesus loves you." Smiling and responding, "Horus bless you" can easily produce deer in the headlights looks.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"The "we are all in this together, we are all part of an indivisible whole," fails before, "I am an individual! And it's my {shagging} WILL, baby!" So, for this group, I find myself introducing Nuit perspectives about 10 (OK, 11) times as often as the others simply for balance."If the Nuit perspective is collectivist and the Hadit perspective is individualist, you would expect RHK to be somewhere in between. But he's not. And that's where I usually end up with egg on my face trying to argue the 3 in 1 trinity angle."
I disagree, though this is easier to understand after attaining the K&C of the HGA. Try this (condensing words, but you'll get it): Nuit = perception of the totality, the whole. Hadit = perspective of the indivisible, individual point. RHK = the coexistence of these two awarenesses, the perception of oneself as a distinctive point-center within (and inseparably connected to) the entirety, and only understanding itself in the context of the entirety.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"So perhaps this is what is being said when RHK is said to be the visible object of worship, and "the others" are for Adepts: RHK is positioned to be the Up-and-front Dude of the Aeon. He's our Jesus: Need an HGA stand-in, somebody we can build a popular religion around and say He Is God, etc., then Horus is your guy."But can you see the difficulty of promoting a god that seems like Jehovah under another name to someone who wants to worship a goddess who is nothing like RHK?"
So give them that choice. One of the cool things about Liber L. is that it gives three different, interconnected points of view. People can grab hold of one or the other (or the other) and run with it. However, none of them is complete without all three; but one can grow into this over time. I'd just as soon treat it as pantheistic, let each person find the aspect that suits them the best, and, if they stick around long and want to move past the level of pop religion, encourage them eventually to understand the other perspectives as well.
"Unless you're suggesting that the "visible object of worship" can be any object. But if that's the case it's going to be very difficult to build up a popular religion without a common icon for all."
As I said before, I was talking more from doctrine than anything else. But the Yahwah/Adonai that a Jew might worship isn't the same as the Qabalistic Y.H.V.H., and the first impression, outer idea of Nuit isn't the deep understanding of Nuit. Nor, for that matter, are transitional pagans representative of the world in general (they're already fringe people like the rest of us, and not a particularly good example of what Main Public Face might best serve Thelema).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Nuit = perception of the totality, the whole. Hadit = perspective of the indivisible, individual point. RHK = the coexistence of these two awarenesses, the perception of oneself as a distinctive point-center within (and inseparably connected to) the entirety, and only understanding itself in the context of the entirety."
Looking at the text of Liber Leigis I can find individual verses in the first and second chapters that clearly resonate with these distinctive characteristics of Nuit and Hadit. But I can't do the same with RHK/chapter 3. Any suggestions?
Also there's a weird paradox here that I just can't wrap my head around. If RHK is the Thelemic deity most suitable for the unwashed masses (myself included
), how come his chapter in Liber Legis requires the greatest level of insight to understand? The symbolism in chapter 3 practically sucks you into literal interpretations in a way that the other chapters don't. Well chapter 2 does a bit, but chapter 1 certainly doesn't.
-
@Her said
"Looking at the text of Liber Leigis I can find individual verses in the first and second chapters that clearly resonate with these distinctive characteristics of Nuit and Hadit. But I can't do the same with RHK/chapter 3. Any suggestions?"
I doubt you'll find it there. (You'll fare better in the Commentaries.) It essentially arises out of the idea that He is Their child - and therefore partakes in equal measure of their characteristics. The explanation also traces through understanding of related ideas, including the nature of Will etc.; but, especially, it is a central characteristic of the experience of the K&C of the HGA, and RHK is the primary iconic stand-in for the HGA.
"Also there's a weird paradox here that I just can't wrap my head around. If RHK is the Thelemic deity most suitable for the unwashed masses (myself included
), how come his chapter in Liber Legis requires the greatest level of insight to understand? The symbolism in chapter 3 practically sucks you into literal interpretations in a way that the other chapters don't. Well chapter 2 does a bit, but chapter 1 certainly doesn't."
I dunno. Ask Aiwass.
But one piece of it likely is that it is intended to be something entirely new, and not to be understood off the bat.
Phyllis would routinely say that this has at least a couple of thousand years to work out, so there's no reason we should expect to understand it this early. - I vary from that only a little. I think deep understanding of Chapter 3 requires an HGA connection at least close to the K&C level. After that point, the whole thing becomes pretty transparent.
I also don't think that Liber Legis was intended for popular religion. Even though this Law is for all, the Book itself still speaks of continuing with other religions in their own right, while understanding that the idea we REALLY mean by Horus is the central truth behind them all. And if he is the most visible... what invisibility the other two must have (as if we didn't already know). And I certainly don't think that the Book is intended to be understood by the untrained, casual reader.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I dunno. Ask Aiwass."
I'd probably have more luck asking the tea leaves.
My angel doesn't talk to me, so I won't even bother with Aiwass.
@Jim Eshelman said
"And I certainly don't think that the Book is intended to be understood by the untrained, casual reader."
Message understood.