Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Prof. Pasztory/Quoi?

Expand Messages
  • gaelman58
    Going through Clarke s Mesoamerican historical writings...read the bit from Prof. Pasztory about the culture of pre-Columbian Americans...she referred to their
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 30, 2004
      Going through Clarke's Mesoamerican historical writings...read the
      bit from Prof. Pasztory about the culture of pre-Columbian
      Americans...she referred to their "using a revolutionary ideology"
      for such and such.
      Ideology?...what could she mean?....those people had an "ideology"?
      My understanding is that the ancients didn't have minds like
      ours...they were what we call, "religious" and lived far more
      closely with natural phenomena.
      Their ideas would correspond with spiritual and natural perceptions.
      Ideology is mental content (not thoughts, not ideas) that correspond
      with no perceptions. Right?
    • Stephen Clarke
      ... I do not know what your departure point is for your question, or the extent of your familiarity with the subject, but ideology seems to me to be a decent
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 31, 2004
        Hello G.:

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
        <gaelman58@y...> wrote:
        >
        > Going through Clarke's Mesoamerican historical writings...read the
        > bit from Prof. Pasztory about the culture of pre-Columbian
        > Americans...she referred to their "using a revolutionary ideology"
        > for such and such.
        > Ideology?...what could she mean?....those people had an "ideology"?
        > My understanding is that the ancients didn't have minds like
        > ours...they were what we call, "religious" and lived far more
        > closely with natural phenomena.
        > Their ideas would correspond with spiritual and natural perceptions.
        > Ideology is mental content (not thoughts, not ideas) that correspond
        > with no perceptions. Right?

        I do not know what your departure point is for your question, or the
        extent of your familiarity with the subject, but "ideology" seems to
        me to be a decent word in the context.... Although ancient people did
        not think exactly like we do, it is not true that they did not think
        at all, in fact there is a lot of evidence that although their
        thinking was not as abstractified as is ours, it may have been deeper.
        We have paid a heavy price for our freedom. But they were just as
        susceptible to being caught up in enthusiams, agendas, and dreams of
        millenarian utopias as are we, if not more so.

        Some of them may even have been real, as I think Teotihuacan may have
        been for much of its life.

        Thanks for reading my piece!

        Stephen
      • gaelman58
        ... the ... ideology ... an ideology ? ... perceptions. ... correspond ... the ... to ... did ... think ... deeper. ... of ... have ... Stephen C. I give
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 31, 2004
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Clarke"
          <mozartg@y...> wrote:
          >
          > Hello G.:
          >
          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
          > <gaelman58@y...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Going through Clarke's Mesoamerican historical writings...read
          the
          > > bit from Prof. Pasztory about the culture of pre-Columbian
          > > Americans...she referred to their "using a revolutionary
          ideology"
          > > for such and such.
          > > Ideology?...what could she mean?....those people had
          an "ideology"?
          > > My understanding is that the ancients didn't have minds like
          > > ours...they were what we call, "religious" and lived far more
          > > closely with natural phenomena.
          > > Their ideas would correspond with spiritual and natural
          perceptions.
          > > Ideology is mental content (not thoughts, not ideas) that
          correspond
          > > with no perceptions. Right?
          >
          > I do not know what your departure point is for your question, or
          the
          > extent of your familiarity with the subject, but "ideology" seems
          to
          > me to be a decent word in the context.... Although ancient people
          did
          > not think exactly like we do, it is not true that they did not
          think
          > at all, in fact there is a lot of evidence that although their
          > thinking was not as abstractified as is ours, it may have been
          deeper.
          > We have paid a heavy price for our freedom. But they were just as
          > susceptible to being caught up in enthusiams, agendas, and dreams
          of
          > millenarian utopias as are we, if not more so.
          >
          > Some of them may even have been real, as I think Teotihuacan may
          have
          > been for much of its life.
          >
          > Thanks for reading my piece!
          >
          > Stephen

          Stephen C.

          I give thought to "ideology" now and again and I get the impression
          that it means different things to different people...I have a
          recurrent "memory" that Steiner said somewhere that it was the maya
          of the 20th century...perhaps I'm wrong about that....dunno.
          I think you're on to something...perhaps something rather large...in
          any event something terribly interesting...I seem to have something
          bubbling up now and again having to do with the boys from
          Extremadura...the "making short shrift" again and the Guadalupe
          connection...no clarity though.

          I enjoy your writing...you've done alot of work!
        • Stephen Clarke
          Hello G.: ... Thanks. I ve been giving some thought to our short exchange about ideology. The use of the word by Pasztory was, I believe, meant to convey the
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 31, 2004
            Hello G.:

            You wrote:

            > I give thought to "ideology" now and again and I get the impression
            > that it means different things to different people...I have a
            > recurrent "memory" that Steiner said somewhere that it was the maya
            > of the 20th century...perhaps I'm wrong about that....dunno.
            > I think you're on to something...perhaps something rather large...in
            > any event something terribly interesting...I seem to have something
            > bubbling up now and again having to do with the boys from
            > Extremadura...the "making short shrift" again and the Guadalupe
            > connection...no clarity though.
            >
            > I enjoy your writing...you've done alot of work!

            Thanks. I've been giving some thought to our short exchange about
            "ideology." The use of the word by Pasztory was, I believe, meant to
            convey the impression that in the 1st. C. AD in Teotihuacan a huge,
            idealistic, pervasive, and consistent social impulse arose like a
            phenomenon analogous to various other mass enthusiasms which we are
            familiar with from the 20th C. Something like a tsunami or other
            natural event which changes the landscape, not necessarily negative or
            catastrophic.
            In the space enclosed by our own cultural memory, ideologies usually
            are the motor for such shifts; the meme is potent, they catch on, and
            away it goes.
            It is a good question to ask; whether the process that we are familiar
            with would be the same for those living two millenia ago. Probably
            not. But could one realistically imagine that potent similarities or
            resonant patterns are at work? Probably. The thing is to see where
            such ideas lead - to fruitful further questions and discoveries of
            supporting data or Imaginations, or not.

            Whether "ideology" is a good word or not would also depend on whether
            the actual events in formative Teotihuacan did or did not correspond
            to out modern ideas of "ideology", and if so, how closely but in what
            ways were the conditions exceptional. One problem here that cause
            immense frustration for all involved in thinking about this is that
            the amount of data available and necessary to ground our speculations
            is woefully inadequate. What is indisputable is that in that locale
            and in that time, a huge vortex of forces cooperated to change that
            face of the age and all future civilizations in that entire cultural
            region - on of the five or so independantly evolving civilizations
            known to historians. (I think they were located in China, India,
            Egypt, Mesoamerica, and Peru. Some would add a couple of others.)

            Many questions like these simply have to rest until more appropriate
            conditions for their pursuance develop. Or until new methods of
            investigation are produced.

            You know that the Guadalupe cult was brought from Extramadura to the
            New World at which point it morphed somewhat into what we have
            nowadays since 1531 (is that the date; I've suddenly gone blank on it...).

            Oh well, over....,

            Stephen
          • gaelman58
            ... impression ... maya ... large...in ... something ... to ... negative or ... usually ... and ... familiar ... or ... Excellent point, I think....so where to
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 1, 2005
              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Clarke"
              <mozartg@y...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello G.:
              >
              > You wrote:
              >
              > > I give thought to "ideology" now and again and I get the
              impression
              > > that it means different things to different people...I have a
              > > recurrent "memory" that Steiner said somewhere that it was the
              maya
              > > of the 20th century...perhaps I'm wrong about that....dunno.
              > > I think you're on to something...perhaps something rather
              large...in
              > > any event something terribly interesting...I seem to have
              something
              > > bubbling up now and again having to do with the boys from
              > > Extremadura...the "making short shrift" again and the Guadalupe
              > > connection...no clarity though.
              > >
              > > I enjoy your writing...you've done alot of work!
              >
              > Thanks. I've been giving some thought to our short exchange about
              > "ideology." The use of the word by Pasztory was, I believe, meant
              to
              > convey the impression that in the 1st. C. AD in Teotihuacan a huge,
              > idealistic, pervasive, and consistent social impulse arose like a
              > phenomenon analogous to various other mass enthusiasms which we are
              > familiar with from the 20th C. Something like a tsunami or other
              > natural event which changes the landscape, not necessarily
              negative or
              > catastrophic.
              > In the space enclosed by our own cultural memory, ideologies
              usually
              > are the motor for such shifts; the meme is potent, they catch on,
              and
              > away it goes.
              > It is a good question to ask; whether the process that we are
              familiar
              > with would be the same for those living two millenia ago. Probably
              > not. But could one realistically imagine that potent similarities
              or
              > resonant patterns are at work?

              Excellent point, I think....so where to get a purchase?...what
              definite question to ask?



              Probably. The thing is to see where
              > such ideas lead - to fruitful further questions and discoveries of
              > supporting data or Imaginations, or not.
              >
              > Whether "ideology" is a good word or not would also depend on
              whether
              > the actual events in formative Teotihuacan did or did not
              correspond
              > to out modern ideas of "ideology", and if so, how closely but in
              what
              > ways were the conditions exceptional. One problem here that cause
              > immense frustration for all involved in thinking about this is that
              > the amount of data available and necessary to ground our
              speculations
              > is woefully inadequate. What is indisputable is that in that locale
              > and in that time, a huge vortex of forces cooperated to change that
              > face of the age and all future civilizations in that entire
              cultural
              > region

              Daunting task to sort through a "huge vortex of forces"...so, what
              angle of approach have we?


              - on of the five or so independantly evolving civilizations
              > known to historians. (I think they were located in China, India,
              > Egypt, Mesoamerica, and Peru. Some would add a couple of others.)
              >
              > Many questions like these simply have to rest until more
              appropriate
              > conditions for their pursuance develop. Or until new methods of
              > investigation are produced.
              >
              > You know that the Guadalupe cult was brought from Extramadura to
              the
              > New World at which point it morphed somewhat into what we have
              > nowadays since 1531 (is that the date; I've suddenly gone blank on
              it...).
              >
              > Oh well, over....,
              >
              > Stephen

              A suggestion...the Mother is certainly there....an actual "kicking
              ass and taking names" is there...a chaotic(from our point of view)
              vortex of forces is there...for me, the inclination is not
              the "what" of it but rather the "who" of it.
              Who was Huitzilopochtli?...who was he?...then, "what" did he
              represent?...my suscipion from the get-go would be that he was
              representative of Michaelic forces...my inclination would also be to
              view those dark forces from a safe distance...to see "what" they
              were up to without being tempted to "understand" by an intuitive
              process.
              Never did understand the "courage of the humming bird" thing until
              just recently...regards, Gaelman
            • Stephen Clarke
              ... Well, that is the question, isn t it? The Chinese say: Get your question right and you ve alreadygot 90% of the answer. What is indisputable is that in
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 1, 2005
                Dear G:

                > > It is a good question to ask; whether the process that we are
                > familiar
                > > with would be the same for those living two millenia ago. Probably
                > > not. But could one realistically imagine that potent similarities
                > or
                > > resonant patterns are at work?
                >
                > Excellent point, I think....so where to get a purchase?...what
                > definite question to ask?

                Well, that is the question, isn't it? The Chinese say: Get your
                question right and you've alreadygot 90% of the answer.


                What is indisputable is that in that locale
                > > and in that time, a huge vortex of forces cooperated to change that
                > > face of the age and all future civilizations in that entire
                > cultural
                > > region
                >
                > Daunting task to sort through a "huge vortex of forces"...so, what
                > angle of approach have we?

                Assemble data from as wide a variety of sources as possible, use
                reflection and meditation to sense patterns, contact the ancestors who
                were the players involved and interview them, walk around on the land
                and breathe the air, make a nuisance of yourself in being persistent
                with those from whom you might learn something. Be patient and alert
                for when things come together. You know, like that.


                > A suggestion...the Mother is certainly there....an actual "kicking
                > ass and taking names" is there...a chaotic(from our point of view)
                > vortex of forces is there...for me, the inclination is not
                > the "what" of it but rather the "who" of it.
                > Who was Huitzilopochtli?...who was he?...then, "what" did he
                > represent?...my suscipion from the get-go would be that he was
                > representative of Michaelic forces...

                Well, not in the late Aztec period, I would hope....? In his earlier
                aspect a la "Vitzliputzli" I would tend to see him as avatar of Uriel,
                since he was the gate-opener into the Depths. Michael does not rule
                everything, in spite of the Apop tendency to appropriate to him
                everything of value. But we could talk about that if you wished.


                my inclination would also be to
                > view those dark forces from a safe distance...to see "what" they
                > were up to without being tempted to "understand" by an intuitive
                > process.

                Hmmm...I do not think one can understand such things without engaging
                with them to some degree; I don't see how one can separte the "what"
                part of it from the "understanding" of what the "what" is. From a safe
                distance you can't see any detail. Or at least I can't see enough for
                my purposes.


                > Never did understand the "courage of the humming bird" thing until
                > just recently...regards, Gaelman

                Maybe I don't even now. What do you understand by it?

                Gee, we're having a civil discussion on this list. How did this
                happen? I'm shocked.

                Stephen
              • holderlin66
                Stephen Clarke wrote: Well, not in the late Aztec period, I would hope....? In his earlier aspect a la Vitzliputzli I would tend to see him as avatar of
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 1, 2005
                  Stephen Clarke wrote:

                  "Well, not in the late Aztec period, I would hope....? In his earlier
                  aspect a la "Vitzliputzli" I would tend to see him as avatar of
                  Uriel, since he was the gate-opener into the Depths. Michael does
                  not rule everything, in spite of the Apop tendency to appropriate to
                  him everything of value. But we could talk about that if you wished."
                  ***********
                  This is something that sounds wonderful. I mean as far as good
                  research goes. Down into the depths of the crystal, Uriel can see
                  the moral forces down into the stirring changes where even Volcanic
                  cosmic forces, disturbed by the moral forces of humanity arise and
                  come to the surface as destructive energies. It is something strange
                  to measure the say 125,000 deaths from the earthquake generated wave
                  and the nearly 125,000 deaths of Iraqi's via dangerous, lethal lies
                  launched by humanity as well as disturbing deep sea experimentation.

                  But we as well may consider, the transparent Midnight Sun of the
                  Earth. Where Uriel understands the gate keepers and sees through
                  human wills and Earth will into the core of disturbances that
                  humanity cannot connect to.

                  I have always associated the Scorpian Men, from the Gilgamesh Saga,
                  of the interior of the Earth journey to regain the soul of Enkidu.

                  http://www.piney.com/Enki.html

                  The gatekeepers were pretty alive and well and they refer both to
                  the type of inner Earth dwelling world where either Shamballa and
                  Christ dwell, along with Holderlin, withing the interior of the
                  Earth or we have to go through the Dante and Virgil journey which
                  was certainly an act of Initatiion into the inner Earth mysteries.
                  Uriel certainly could see through and into/ as the Midsummer
                  Archangel, through the core of the Earth...In fact humanity is all
                  expanded and inflated out with Midsummer, and Uriel looks clearly
                  down into the depths of the signature humanity has left in the moral
                  core of the Earth.

                  Odysseus comes to the gateway and meets the dead of Troy and of
                  course Mayan and Aztec lore...Aztec lore would be like Faust's
                  journey to the Mothers... it was a downward journey into the layered
                  core of the sheaths of the double and the various ancient mysteries
                  of the sheaths of the Earth. Mayans seemed a lot more sunny and the
                  Aztecs seemed to have a developed inner Earth mystery journey that
                  was plotted out by their Initiates.

                  Now, what can you elaborate or care to elaborate on such themes
                  Stephen?
                • Stephen Clarke
                  Dear Brad: ... Very quickly... Yes, very unnerving. Gives me the creeps. ... He also stands in the sector that leads even further down and past all that
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 1, 2005
                    Dear Brad:

                    "holderlin66" <holderlin66@h...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Stephen Clarke wrote:
                    >
                    > "Well, not in the late Aztec period, I would hope....? In his earlier
                    > aspect a la "Vitzliputzli" I would tend to see him as avatar of
                    > Uriel, since he was the gate-opener into the Depths. Michael does
                    > not rule everything, in spite of the Apop tendency to appropriate to
                    > him everything of value. But we could talk about that if you wished."
                    > ***********
                    > This is something that sounds wonderful. I mean as far as good
                    > research goes. Down into the depths of the crystal, Uriel can see
                    > the moral forces down into the stirring changes where even Volcanic
                    > cosmic forces, disturbed by the moral forces of humanity arise and
                    > come to the surface as destructive energies. It is something strange
                    > to measure the say 125,000 deaths from the earthquake generated wave
                    > and the nearly 125,000 deaths of Iraqi's via dangerous, lethal lies
                    > launched by humanity as well as disturbing deep sea experimentation.

                    Very quickly... Yes, very unnerving. Gives me the creeps.


                    > But we as well may consider, the transparent Midnight Sun of the
                    > Earth. Where Uriel understands the gate keepers and sees through
                    > human wills and Earth will into the core of disturbances that
                    > humanity cannot connect to.

                    He also stands in the sector that leads even further down and past all
                    that turbulence, into the formative realms where Weaver Goddess Spider
                    Woman dwells. Let us not forget that, for connecting with her is what
                    makes dealing with the rest of it possible!


                    > I have always associated the Scorpian Men, from the Gilgamesh Saga,
                    > of the interior of the Earth journey to regain the soul of Enkidu.
                    >
                    > http://www.piney.com/Enki.html

                    Thanx for the url, it helps. I'll check it out.


                    > The gatekeepers were pretty alive and well and they refer both to
                    > the type of inner Earth dwelling world where either Shamballa and
                    > Christ dwell, along with Holderlin, withing the interior of the
                    > Earth or we have to go through the Dante and Virgil journey which
                    > was certainly an act of Initatiion into the inner Earth mysteries.
                    > Uriel certainly could see through and into/ as the Midsummer
                    > Archangel, through the core of the Earth...In fact humanity is all
                    > expanded and inflated out with Midsummer, and Uriel looks clearly
                    > down into the depths of the signature humanity has left in the moral
                    > core of the Earth.

                    The midsummer thing is strange, and has been talked about and around
                    in other groups, to no resolution. All other Western traditions are
                    consistent in locating Uriel in the Quarter of Winter/North. This is
                    congruent with my own experience in practice and I cannot get to what
                    RS is doing with his contrary indication (only one, in The Four
                    Seasons and the Archangels, GA 229, 1923). Not to say RS is wrong,
                    only that he is obviously emphasizing something designed to provoke
                    further questioning.


                    > Odysseus comes to the gateway and meets the dead of Troy and of
                    > course Mayan and Aztec lore...Aztec lore would be like Faust's
                    > journey to the Mothers... it was a downward journey into the layered
                    > core of the sheaths of the double and the various ancient mysteries
                    > of the sheaths of the Earth. Mayans seemed a lot more sunny and the
                    > Aztecs seemed to have a developed inner Earth mystery journey that
                    > was plotted out by their Initiates.


                    Aztecs represented the worst aspects of Mesoamerica magnified, IMHO.
                    One can almost develop a sympathy for the Spanish conquistadors. Kind
                    of like the Nazis betrayed the heritage of Bach and Boehme. No doubt
                    some held on to the true core of their pathway, like some of us here
                    (and many places elsewhere) are trying to hold on to a vision of True
                    America, but.... I think it was the Teotihuacanos some 1500 years
                    prior, those who did not crucify the Christ-impulse but defended it
                    most effectively, who represent(ed) the best of the American
                    Earth-Mysteries. There are still extant, but its down the rabbit-hole
                    and no turning back if you are serious about it; its a path of engagement.

                    My thoughts. I like yours. I'm afraid the best way to get me to
                    respond is to make me object to something! In the meantime, maybe I'm
                    just getting used to your style, but you seem to be in fine form
                    lately. Keep up the good work!

                    S.


                    Uriel References

                    It may be that while Michael stands over the spiritual life of Europe,
                    it is Uriel which guards the Mystery Life in North America. The
                    actuality maybe more complicated than this, but I offer the thought
                    for your consideration.

                    Rudolf Steiner, The Four Seasons and the Archangels. Five lectures,
                    Dornach, Oct. 5-13, 1923, GA 229. This volume has the usual disclaimer
                    from the publisher about possibly faulty translations from
                    stenographic or other types of unreviewed and uncorrected notes, etc.


                    Karl Koenig, The Mystery of John and the Cycle of the Year, Chapter 2,
                    Uriel, Enoch and the St. John Imagination.

                    - notes: Asking what we know of Uriel, he says: "But of Uriel we know
                    only what Rudolf Steiner mentioned in this one lecture" (Oct. 12,
                    1923). He then goes on to cite Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, in which,
                    "although he is cited in connection with "the other three Archangelic
                    beings, little more is said about him." He then spends considerable
                    time quoting from a copy of The Book of Enoch, trans. R. H. Charles,
                    S.P.C.K., London, 1962.
                    Although this is peculiar formulation, in which he makes a decisive
                    statement but then promptly contradicts himself, we may forgive this
                    as an eccentricity of language or style. But perhaps it reflects
                    something else; a reluctance to step outside the framework laid down
                    by Steiner, an "If he didn't mention it, it's not worth mentioning"
                    attitude, or a depreciation of anything that is not from der Doktor's
                    mouth. While this attitude still lingers about and around modern-day
                    anthroposophical discourse, even more so in Steiner's day it was
                    suffused by a strong odour of ethnocentrism, one that was deeply
                    ingrained in a certain long-standing philosophical-cultural
                    presumption of superiority.
                    Goethe, one of Steiner's biggest influences, set the pace: "The
                    antiquities of China, India, or Egypt are curiosities and nothing
                    more; it is well that they should be known to the world, and that in
                    their own surroundings an appreciation of their beauties may be made,
                    but this will never bear more than a very little fruit."
                    - as quoted by Ignacio Bernal, A History of Mexican Archeology, p. 102.


                    Other cultures are simply not considered to have much to offer. And
                    not just "other cultures" (later on we will cite some very "other"
                    ones) but this applied, in Koenig's case, even to closely-related
                    variants of his own, even an esoteric one specifically approved of by
                    Steiner himself, i.e.; the Golden Dawn. Edith Maryon, who worked
                    closely with him on the monumental Representative of Humanity
                    sculpture, the only significant item (?) rescued from the burning
                    Goetheanum, was a member of that circle. When other members expressed
                    their reservations about this affiliation, he replied that they should
                    not be concerned, that it was a valid stream, "although not our own."
                    Thus I shall cite a number of references to Uriel from esotericists,
                    occultists, and adepts who came out of that stream, although none were
                    or are members of either the original organization of Mathers or its
                    successors of that or similar names.


                    William G. Gray, The Ladder of Lights. Samuel Weiser, Inc., 1981 (from
                    1968).

                    - pp. 20-22: for the Quarters, "Auriel in the North, for Earth", and
                    notes concerning the chemical health of the solid states of the elements
                    - p. 66: "Auriel": "Light of Grace" or "Light of God."
                    - pp. 86-90: extensive remarks. Gray lists Hamiel and Phanael as
                    alternate names for Auriel in the world of Briah in the Sephirah of
                    Netzach.


                    - Inner Traditions of Magic. Samuel Weiser, Inc., 1978 (from 1970).

                    - pp. 131-132: four paragraphs, same as for pp. 20-22 above. The
                    energy of Conscience is noted, and the keyword of Law for the station
                    of the North.


                    - The Talking Tree: Companion Volume to Ladder of Lights. Samuel
                    Weiser, Inc., 1977.

                    - pp. 404-408: Auriel and Gabriel, in the Second World, governing the
                    Twenty-Eighth
                    Path on the Tree of Life; that between Sephiroth 7 & 9; Netzach &
                    Yesod; Venus & Moon. Auriel as stabilizing the emotional expression.


                    - Qabalistic Concepts – Living the Tree. Samuel Weiser, Inc., 1997
                    (from 1984).

                    - p. 62: Auriel for the North, the element of Earth, and Winter.
                    Characteristics of
                    deliberation, caution, solemnity, quiet, distance, protectiveness,
                    reliability.
                    - pp. 137-138: Auriel for Netzach in the World of Creation, and is
                    "apparently
                    interchangeable" with Hamiel and Phanael.


                    Gareth Knight, A Practical Guide to Qabalistic Symbolism. Weiser
                    Books, 2001 (from 1965).

                    - p. 101 – 112. In general and speculative terms, GK sees Urielic
                    associations for the
                    Sephiroth Daath, with the Archangels of the Four Quarters each
                    contributing, but "Uriel and Gabriel have particular reference on
                    their more profound less obvious sides."
                    - p. 199: "the Archangel of the Element Earth is Uriel."
                    - p. 260: "North and Uriel to Earth."


                    R. J. Stewart, The Miracle Tree – Demystifying the Qabalah. New Page
                    Books, 2003.

                    - book temporarily unavailable for reference.


                    These citations are clear, useful, and accurate. Much more information
                    could be gleaned from other, less reliable sources, but at much
                    greater cost in winnowing out large portions of useless, garbled, or
                    incorrect material. No doubt there are other good sources, but the
                    ones listed are the ones known to me.
                    I can find no references whatsoever for "Oriphiel", but I know they're
                    there somewhere….

                    Later, I hope to firm up indications that correspond the
                    European-based form and aspect of Uriel to the Western
                    Nahuatl-speakers' Tezcatlipoca.

                    Cheers,

                    Stephen
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.