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

Tubal Cain versus Qayin

Expand Messages
  • Jake Stratton-Kent
    On 18 June 2013 15:29, Jake Stratton-Kent ... it will not escape careful readers that *Tubal Cain* - the first artificer in metals - rather than Qayin/Cain -
    Message 1 of 57 , Jun 18, 2013
      On 18 June 2013 15:29, Jake Stratton-Kent
      <jakestrattonkent@...> wrote:
      >> "A solitary practitioner of traditional witchcraft in
      >> its various guises and a devotee of Hekate and Qayin,

      it will not escape careful readers that *Tubal Cain* - the first
      artificer in metals - rather than Qayin/Cain - the first murderer - is
      a more natural patron of goetia and witchcraft. Naturally he also has
      historical connections with the region of Asia Minor where Hecate's
      cult was sprung. It is significant discrepancies such as this that
      research brings to the attention of those re-evaluating modern cults
      in the light of their genuine roots.

      Tubal Cain has an etymological connection with Vulcan, aka Hephaestus,
      all are mirrored by a significant name in Jewish angelology, namely
      Azazel. All teach men the working of metals with fire, and parallel
      each other in overlapping mythologies in back of our magical
      traditions.

      A 'gnosis' based on an authentic tradition and mythology is to be
      preferred, in my honest and informed opinion, to any essentially
      spurious modern notion. A strand of Sun & Fire theology runs straight
      through Western magic; a mythical murderer, while 'antinomian' enough,
      has little to recommend it as a central symbol or deity.

      Jake

      http://www.underworldapothecary.com/
    • Serpentis Satori
        Majick is an Art, and Living One, like music, theatre, dance and poetry its siblings?   ... Because that is what magick is. Magick is not something an
      Message 57 of 57 , Jul 2, 2013
         
        Majick is an Art, and Living One, like music, theatre, dance and poetry its siblings?

         
        --- In solomonic@yahoogroups.com, Oluwatoyin Adepoju <tvadepoju@...> wrote:
        >
        > Jake : A magical system should be the expression of a process that has
        > been refined by time among populations.
        >
        > Toyin : Why?

        Because that is what magick is. Magick is not something an individual "makes up" for his or own self-edification. Magick is a cultrual expression, the manner in which a given people interface with the spirit world *and* the manner in which that culture's spirits interface with them.

        For a good example, take a look at Enochian magick. Dee and Kelley did not "invent" that system out of whole cloth. They used the system(s) of magick that were already prevalent in their culture to make contact with angels who were well established in their culture. From there, they received unique material directly from those angels - NOT something they made up because it "sounded cool" or suited them as individuals.

        Even still, that unique material could have vanished into history without having any effect on Western occultim. But somehow the material survived, others picked it up and incorporated into their own work, and it has since become an established part of our traditional Western Mystery Tradition.

        Most of the self-made "insta-traditions" that are being created today will fade directly into the dust-bin of history and, in a very short time, no one will even know they existed.

        > Jake : A magical system should be able to justify its claims to a tradition.
        >
        > Toyin : Why?

        ?? Really? So if someone tells you they are presenting you an ancient tradition, you don't mind if they are in fact lying to you and presenting something they made up themselves?

        You can argue for the merits of self-made magickal systems all you want. But if you tell me your tradition is older than you are, you better damn well be telling me the truth, if you want me to take you the least bit seriously.

        > Are magical systems not akin to religions, most of which are based largely
        > on imaginative constructions?

        Relgiions are not based largely on imaginative constructions. They are not created by single individuals. (And, no, Jesus did not create Christianity, Muhhamed did not create Islam, etc.) Relgions evolve within given cultures, over hundreds if not thousands of years, by priests and prophets interacting directly with their patron Gods.

        When a religion is "made up" entirely by a single individual, it is called a cult. Like Scientology. That's not a religion, it's a money making enterprise.

        LVX
        Aaron




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.