Therion?
-
Is Therion a Thelemic deity? Is Therion the same as the Beast 666? But Crowley called himself the Great Therion, right? So what did he mean by that?
Is this wiki article accurate?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therion_(ThelemaThank you
-
@Selene said
"Is Therion a Thelemic deity? Is Therion the same as the Beast 666?"
To Mega Therion, which means "The Great Beast," enumerates to 666. When used in some sense other than as one of AC's mottos, etc.: Yes, Therion ("The Beast") is a Thelemic deity or demi-god or something or other in that category.
"But Crowley called himself the Great Therion, right? So what did he mean by that?"
What does someone mean when they take any magical motto that is a god's name? (Or, for that matter, when a Mexican mother names her son Jesus?)
It means he identified with it. And, I think we can reasonably conclude that he was an avatar of the archetype of The Beast, an embodiment of it.
-
One way of interpreting what "the Great Beast" means:
If humans are the intermediate stage between Beast (Nephesh, Malkuth) and God (Neschamah/Chiah, Uppermost Triad), the Great Beast is someone who has raised their Nephesh into that triad.
In some of Crowley's texts, the Beast also stands for the human body or organism, or for the male practitioner of Tantra, the Shiva to her Shakti (or Scarlet Woman or Kundalini).
Sum total, the force used to transform the physical organism into a higher stage of evolution or existence or what have you.
At least that's my take on it.
-
Some points that I think it worth remembering:
Therion means any beast whatsoever except humans. It is a word that feeds the animals vs. humans distinction.
But the particular phrase to mega therion, "the GREAT beast," enumerating to 666, is specifically stated to be "the number of anthropos ("humanity"). It's the major punch line of the passage in Revelations.
Therefore, I think the point is that TMT is not "any beast soever except humanity," but specifically uses the beasty word to describe humanity as the GREAT beast (in contrast to just any beast).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"But the particular phrase to mega therion, "the GREAT beast," enumerating to 666, is specifically stated to be "the number of anthropos ("humanity")."
Do you know if the most original texts that are known say "number of a man" or "number of mankind"?
The latter would be quite intriguing.
-
Rev. 13:18
"arithmos gar anthropou estin"
"number, for, of-man it-is"
The articles aren't there in the original Greek of even the manuscripts that the current Bible is translated from. You can argue the translation either way though.
Personally, I do read it as, "For it is (the) number of man(kind)." It's an entirely legitimate translation.
But so is "For it is (the) number of (a) man."
Edited.
-
@Simon Iff said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"But the particular phrase to mega therion, "the GREAT beast," enumerating to 666, is specifically stated to be "the number of anthropos ("humanity")."Do you know if the most original texts that are known say "number of a man" or "number of mankind"?
The latter would be quite intriguing."
The "a" is gratuitous. Greek has no indefinite article. The absence of a definite article means that the "a" is put in or not as translation requires.
But here's the key thing: It isn't "man" (male gender person") but "mankind." So, no, there should be no article despite the common English translation. Rev. 13:18, in the original Greek, reads: arithmos gar anthropou estin, "number, therefore, of humanity it is."
-
I was looking at the wrong column. Info corrected above.
Well, to be clear, the lack of an indefinite article in Greek means that there is no way of knowing whether the author intended "of man," "of a man," or even both, as the Greek allows. English demands that specificity, not Greek. The English interpreters had to make a choice, and they chose based on the bias that the number was given to help identify the one literal man who was the Beast.
But the verse does start with "Here is wisdom," so... you know, "get ready to ponder this next bit in your wisdomous state of mind..."
-
@Bereshith said
"The English interpreters had to make a choice, and they chose based on the bias that the number was given to help identify the one literal person who was the Beast. "
Yeah. Whereas, in fact, it was saying, "Here is the key to understanding humanity as it is arising." (IMO a forecast of the Ruach-maturation of the Osiris Aeon.)
"But the verse does start with "Here is wisdom," so... you know, "get ready to ponder this next bit.""
And, of course, in the Greek it is sophia.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Bereshith said
"The English interpreters had to make a choice, and they chose based on the bias that the number was given to help identify the one literal person who was the Beast. "Yeah. Whereas, in fact, it was saying, "Here is the key to understanding humanity as it is arising." (IMO a forecast of the Ruach-maturation of the Osiris Aeon.)
"But the verse does start with "Here is wisdom," so... you know, "get ready to ponder this next bit.""
And, of course, in the Greek it is sophia."
I both completely agree with that interpretation and, yet, I still have that wonder within me whether or not humanity will externalize in world events the internal conflict it may refuse to resolve - as well as whether or not it also did so during the Osirian Aeon with the ambiguously historical man called Jesus.
I'm one of them "It could've happened/It could happen (again?)" people. But I don't know, and I don't need anybody else to agree, so... I just throw it out there for those wisdomous states of mind people. And I wonder...