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

Re: [t93] Goetia, Magic & The Necronomicon

Expand Messages
  • Sandi Peterson
    ... Well, I don t really know the difference between goetia and The Goetia of Solomon . I d like to. Personally I think the Necronomi- is a brilliant
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 1, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      "Sandi Peterson" wrote:

      >
      > What do you see as the difference between
      > it and the goetia?... besides drawings and
      > elaborate descriptions of the demons?
      >

      "Jake" wrote:

      >

      >> Assuming you mean the 'Simon'
      >> 'Necronomi-Con, firstly it is important
      >> to appreciate that there is a difference
      >> between 'goetia' and 'The Goetia of
      >> Solomon', the 'Necronomicon'
      >> resembles the latter, but not the
      >> former.
      >

      Well, I don't really know the difference
      between 'goetia' and 'The Goetia of
      Solomon'. I'd like to. Personally
      I think the Necronomi- is a brilliant
      "Con", but my question has to do with
      the descriptions of demons - their
      individual "powers"... are they similar?

      >> Oh, and the Fifty Names of Marduk
      >> aren't demons anyway, or even Chthonic,
      >> Marduk was a sky god.
      >

      But what about the others?... Ancient
      Sumerian Gods, Ninurta, Nergal, Ereskigal,
      Zababa, Enlil, Enki, Sin, Shamash, Adad...
      Ningirsu, Eannatum, Inanna, Ninharsag, etc.

      Weren't these gods precursor's of the Hebrew
      Tradition, and often demonic, or dual in
      Nature?

      93






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • tom chaudoin
      Thelema,    ... but somehow their followers misconstrued the Image of the Prince of Peace, and His Message of Divine Love, into a reason to judge others
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 2, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Thelema,
          
        "Sandi Peterson" wrote:

        >

        > Why would anyone consider Liber AL,
        > a form of Christian theurgy or gnosis?

        "Jake" wrote:

        >> coz of the qabalistic exegesis referenced earlier.
        >> Exegesis can reveal meanings contradicting the
        >> surface meaning (or our knee jerk responses
        >> to it).


        >Well, no doubt the revealings depend on individual
        >methods of exegesis, and not ALWays "knee jerk". 



        >> okay, so AL doesn't go for Christ crucified or for
        >> Mary as a Virgin.



        >Seems more likely AL doesn't like the way Jesus'
        >"Vision" has been so horribly twisted and distorted,
        >"veiled", in Christian dogma.



        >> That may be very specific rather than complete
        >> rejection of *all* forms of Jesus and Mary - in
        >> other words Christ triumphant and Mary Mother
        >> of God may be perfectly acceptable, and it is
        >> Christian dogma about the two forms
        >> mentioned that is being criticised."



        >Jesus and Mary were magnificently triumphant,
        but somehow their followers misconstrued the
        "Image" of the Prince of Peace, and His Message
        of Divine Love, into a reason to judge others
        and murder.

        >In any event, there are forms of revealing.  To me,
        this is what the "Beast" is all about... "tearing down
        that lying spectre of the centuries".  I seriously
        doubt you'll ever see Ra-Hoor-Khuit hanging on
        a cross.


        93's,

        I think that from my additions to this thread that the context may have been muddled a bit. Therefore I think I need to clarify my position about what we are colloquially referring to as "Christian Thelema". In this process I hope to not violate the 'quoted text' rule for the group, and
        the moderator will indulge this tangent.

        Exegesis, especially when applied in a 'heterodoxic' fashion such as we are here, may not reveal or support ideals which are consistent with the original systems from which the exegetical material is extracted. When one refers to "Christian exegesis" of Thelema, the 'kneejerk tendency' is that one which expects the material to fit in with a classical model. It is likely that such exegesis could contradict one system or both on the surface level.

        There is an alchemical doctrine which is based upon the notion of 'stone, water and wine', this refers to 'three levels or grades' of interpretation of 'scripture'. Each level of exegesis is deeper and more refined and can be likened to fermentation, thus the wine metaphor.

        Liber Al makes an elaborate comment in Chapter Three about passing through
        "four ordeals" which are like silver, gold, "stones of precious water", and "ultimate sparks of the intimate fire" respectively.

        God gets angry with Moses for 'bringing water from a stone' and Jesus of course 'turns water into wine'.

        One of the major documents which serves an exegetical ancillary function to Liber 220 is Liber 418: The Vision and the Voice. This is the only other 'Holy Book' which comments on Liber AL directly and actually purports to further reveal a singular interpretation of portions of Liber AL.

        At least a half dozen direct Biblical references exist in 418. Let's begin by looking at the 20th Aeythyr:

        "The figures on the wheel are darker than the wheel itself; in fact, they are stains upon the purity of the wheel, and for that reason, and because of the whirling of the wheel, I cannot see them. But at the top seems to be the Lamb and Flag, such as one sees on some Christian medals, and one of the lower things is a wolf, and the other a raven. The Lamb and Flag symbol is much brighter than the other two. It keeps on growing brighter, until now it is brighter than the wheel itself, and occupies more space than it did.

        It speaks: I am the greatest of the deceivers, for my purity and innocence shall seduce the pure and innocent, who but for me should come to the centre of the wheel. The wolf betrayeth only the greedy and the treacherous; the raven betrayeth only the melancholy and the dishonest 12. But I am he of whom it is written: He shall deceive the very elect."

        This obviously is a reference to Christianity, complete with a ominous reference to Revelations and to a 'demonic' or evil form of Jesus as "The Lamb", its vague, but the allegory seems to stick. There's more, and it is part of a connected thread:
        
        http://hermetic.com/crowley/l418/aetyr20.html

        The "Beast" and "Scarlet Woman" of course are Revelations cues as well.
        This is expounded upon further in Aeythyr 12:

        "The charioteer speaks in a low, solemn voice, awe-inspiring, like a large and very distant bell: Let him look upon the cup whose blood is mingled therein, for the wine of the cup is the blood of the saints. Glory unto the Scarlet Woman, Babalon the Mother of Abominations, that rideth upon the Beast, for she hath spilt their blood in every corner of the earth and lo! she hath mingled it in the cup of her whoredom."

        Many are familiar with these passages, perhaps their import within the context of Thelemic Dogma are not well considered by all, however, it seems difficult to me to dismiss these passages, they seem to be underpinnings of Crowley's entire cosmology.

        Finally the Angel concludes:

        "And this is the meaning of the Supper of the Passover, the spilling of the blood of the Lamb being a ritual of the Dark Brothers, for they have sealed up the Pylon with blood, lest the Angel of Death should enter therein. Thus do they shut themselves off from the company of the saints. Thus do they keep themselves from compassion and from understanding. Accurs d are they, for they shut up their blood in their heart."

        An inversion of Judeo-Christian thought is still decidedly Judeo-Christian,
        no matter who says what about 'crapulous creeds'. Anyway, these concepts did not originate with Crowley, they are heavily influenced by Basildean Gnosticism, which arguably predates anything we know as "Christianity" today.

        Liber 418 continues with this Old Testament thread into the vision of the 6th Aethyr, sidewise referencing Noah, The Flood, and then later sticking
        Jesus in amongst other great religion founders in attempt to contextualize him as a "Magus":

        "And a voice cries: Cursed be he that shall uncover the nakedness of the Most High, for he is drunken upon the wine that is the blood of the adepts. And BABALON hath lulled him to sleep upon her breast, and she hath fled away, and left him naked, and she hath called her children together, saying: Come up with me, and let us make a mock of the nakedness of the Most High."

        <skip>

        "And this is the horror18  that was shown by the lake that was nigh unto the City of the Seven Hills19, and this is the Mystery of the great prophets that have come unto mankind. Moses, and Buddha, and Lao Tan, and Krishna, and Jesus20, and Osiris, and Mohammed; for all these attained unto the grade of Magus, and therefore were they bound with the curse of Thoth."

        Finally, all of this fire and brimstone builds to a climax in the 3rd Aeythyr where the Angel declares an open interpretation of a Liber Al passage:

        "O thou that hast beheld the City of the Pyramids, how shouldst thou behold the House of the Juggler10? For he is wisdom, and by wisdom hath he made the Worlds, and from that wisdom issue judgements 70 by 4, that are the 4 eyes of the double-headed one; that are the 4 devils, Satan, Lucifer, Leviathan, Belial, that are the great princes of the evil of the world11."

        We are then told that each of these 'Four Heads" has compromised four major religions of the world.

        "And Satan is worshipped by men under the name of Jesus; and Lucifer is worshipped by men under the name of Brahma; and Leviathan is worshipped by men under the name of Allah; and Belial is worshipped by men under the name of Buddha."

        Finally an amazing parenthetical:

        (This is the meaning of the passage in Liber Legis, Chap. III.)

        Aren't we to presume that the Angel is referring to the invective against Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism and Hinduism in Chap. 3?, If so, then from a  doctrinal perspective, does Thelema actually oppose the "true" currents of these four religions? How are we to reconcile these concepts with "all words are sacred and all prophets true...", etc.

        More to come on this thread.

        T.






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Sandi Peterson
        ... Why would anyone think Liber AL is more Christian Thelemic, than Jewish Thelemic? Jews have it half right, the Book says, well, at least about nothing.
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 2, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          tom chaudoin wrote:
          >
          >
          > Therefore I think I need to clarify my
          > position about what we are colloquially
          > referring to as "Christian Thelema".

          Why would anyone think Liber AL is
          more "Christian" Thelemic, than Jewish
          Thelemic? Jews have it half right, the
          Book says, well, at least about nothing.


          > Aren't we to presume that the Angel
          > is referring to the invective against
          > Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism and
          > Hinduism in Chap. 3?

          Seems obvious to me, but didn't you
          forget the jews? - there are 5 religions
          the Hawk rages about.


          > If so, then from a doctrinal perspective,
          > does Thelema actually oppose the "true"
          > currents of these four religions? How are
          > we to reconcile these concepts with "all
          > words are sacred".

          Why does anyone think that Liber AL
          needs to be verified through any other
          religious source or doctrinal perspective?
          I don't see anywhere written in Liber
          AL that opposes the "true" current of
          any religion, on the contrary, if one
          but look close into the word "true".

          Isn't the basis of all religion... Love?
          I don't see many folks of any religion,
          practicing that Law, including Thelemites.


          > Exegesis, especially when applied in a
          > 'heterodoxic' fashion such as we are here,
          > may not reveal or support ideals which are
          > consistent with the original systems from
          > which the exegetical material is extracted.

          And so, what good is it? Am I the only
          one here who thinks Liber AL is a closed
          system, a Kaabal in ItSelf?


          > When one refers to "Christian exegesis" of
          > Thelema, the 'kneejerk tendency' is that
          > one which expects the material to fit in
          > with a classical model. It is likely that
          > such exegesis could contradict one
          > system or both on the surface level.
          > and all prophets true...", etc.

          ... "save only they understand little"... I guess.

          s

          [MODERATOR clarified the insertion of new text. please
          examine how easy it is to read the above in comparison
          to what you submitted. thank you.]
        • colette
          Hi Sandy Peterson, ... colette: EXACTLY SIMILAR, according to the mind-only and/or Yogacara schools of Buddhism theya re exactly the same until you get into
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 2, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Sandy Peterson,


            > Well, I don't really know the difference
            > between 'goetia' and 'The Goetia of
            > Solomon'. I'd like to. Personally
            > I think the Necronomi- is a brilliant
            > "Con", but my question has to do with
            > the descriptions of demons - their
            > individual "powers"... are they similar?

            colette: EXACTLY SIMILAR, according to the "mind-only" and/or
            Yogacara schools of Buddhism theya re exactly the same until you get
            into the Abhidhamma analysis or the "nippariyayadhammadesana".

            Look at the seperations:

            The Lesser Key of Solomon was written when? ...was written by whom?

            The necronomicon was written when? ... was written by whom?

            Which became the seed for the other?
            ---------------------------------
            >
            > But what about the others?... Ancient
            > Sumerian Gods, Ninurta, Nergal, Ereskigal,
            > Zababa, Enlil, Enki, Sin, Shamash, Adad...
            > Ningirsu, Eannatum, Inanna, Ninharsag, etc.
            >
            > Weren't these gods precursor's of the Hebrew
            > Tradition, and often demonic, or dual in
            > Nature?

            colette: zoiks, do you go off! I guess it mimicks one of my
            characteristics that I show to the world. Yea, of course, the Jews
            (as I can laugh from an EOGD discussion back in 2004, "hebrew is a
            language and Jeduaism is the belief").

            Why not try placing yourself in the position of an uneducated belief
            structure that chose subscribe to gang behavior or group behavior
            theories? Sorry, this techinques is the same as the therapuetic
            benefits of holistic therapy where a sauna or a whirlpool must
            be "abided in" or "dwelled in" before any effects can take place.
            It's kindof like the theory of Adam Kadmon where the universe is
            within us and we are within the universe and we find traces of
            universal particles within us from all those comets & asteroids
            giving their appreciation to the moon and the earth a few million
            years ago.

            What about "cosmic inflation" where things, rupa for you buddhist
            afficienados out there, existed a few hundred thousands of years
            before the occurance of light, WHAT WERE THOSE THINGS DOING? WHO WAS
            CONTROLING THOSE INFANTILE THINGS? CHILDREN ARE SUCH PROBLEMS WHEN
            THEY ARE NOT CONTROLLED AND THEY ARE NOT UNDER THE ORDINATION OF SOME
            DRUG DEPENDENT LIKE THE BUSH FAMILY.

            toodles,
            colette

            [MODERATOR removed unnecessary quoted text. please see our MMM.]
          • tom chaudoin
            ... # ... # position about what we are colloquially ... more Christian Thelemic, than Jewish Thelemic? Jews have it half right, the Book says, well, at
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 3, 2008
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              tom chaudoin wrote:

              >

              >
              #
              > Therefore I think I need to clarify my

              #> position about what we are colloquially

              > referring to as "Christian Thelema".

              >

              Sandi wrote:



              >Why would anyone think Liber AL is

              more "Christian" Thelemic, than Jewish

              Thelemic? Jews have it half right, the

              Book says, well, at least about nothing.


              "Why would anyone think" is a jackass rhetorical device that you are overusing lady, and I'm sorry but it bugs me. I never said that it was "any more" Christian "any more" than I said it was Islamic, Vodoun, Astrological Bhuddist or fucking tapioca pudding, please devise some other invective which is posed as a question if you don't mind.


              > Aren't we to presume that the Angel

              > is referring to the invective against

              > Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism and

              > Hinduism in Chap. 3?



              >#Seems obvious to me, but didn't you

              forget the jews? - there are 5 religions

              the Hawk rages about.


              You are absolutely wrong, there is no anti-jewish invective in Liber Al of any type and I defy you to quote it. There are five major religions yes, but Liber AL only rants about four. The "Jewish mysteries" it refers to are
              mentioned benignly in Liber AL (sixty-one the Jews call it). In Liber 418 Old Testament symbolism is dealt with in a unique yet reverential fashion.

              Its only four, synonymous with the Vision of the Third Aeythyr.


              > If so, then from a doctrinal perspective,

              > does Thelema actually oppose the "true"

              > currents of these four religions? How are

              > we to reconcile these concepts with "all

              > words are sacred".



              #Why does anyone think that Liber AL

              #needs to be verified through any other

              #religious source or doctrinal perspective?


              "Why does anyone think" again...its bloody neurotic. At any rate I THINK that the phrase itself "all words are sacred and all prophets true, is a bloody good indication that epistemology and comparitive religions is something that Thelema AND the fucking Book of the Law could be subjected to in a rational context.


              > Exegesis, especially when applied in a
              > 'heterodoxic' fashion such as we are here,
              > may not reveal or support ideals which are
              > consistent with the original systems from
              > which the exegetical material is extracted.


              #And so, what good is it? Am I the only
              #one here who thinks Liber AL is a closed
              #system, a Kaabal in ItSelf?


              Maybe to you it is a closed system which floats in vacuum and is not related to other systems, to others it may be a holistic template upon which multiple cosmologies, belief systems and frameworks can be laid.
              What good is it? Well, none to you obviously. But, why would anyone look outside of their pre-conceived notions of what things are? >:-D


              > When one refers to "Christian exegesis" of
              > Thelema, the 'kneejerk tendency' is that
              > one which expects the material to fit in
              > with a classical model. It is likely that
              > such exegesis could contradict one
              > system or both on the surface level.
              > and all prophets true...", etc.


              #... "save only they understand little"... I guess.


              I guess not.

              T.
            • Sandi Peterson
              Sandi Peterson wrote: Thelema tom, ... # but didn t you forget the jews? - there # are 5 religions the Hawk rages about. ... # You are absolutely wrong,
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 8, 2008
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                "Sandi Peterson" wrote:


                Thelema tom,



                Sandi wrote:

                >

                #> but didn't you forget the jews? - there

                #> are 5 religions the Hawk rages about.

                >

                >
                tom chaudoin wrote:
                >>
                >>
                #>> You are absolutely wrong, there is no
                #>> anti-jewish invective in Liber Al of

                #>> any type and I defy you to quote it.

                #>> There are five major religions yes,

                #>> but Liber AL only rants about four.

                >>

                >>

                >>

                AL III.53: With my claws I tear out the

                flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist,

                Mongol and Din.



                From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:



                Din' does not mean 'religion, faith' in
                Hebrew. It means 'Law' ... Words from
                scholars what they mean by din and
                "complete code of life. ...

                93

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • tom chaudoin
                ... # but didn t you forget the jews? - there # are 5 religions the Hawk rages about. ... # You are absolutely wrong, there is no # anti-jewish invective
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 8, 2008
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Sandi Peterson" wrote:



                  >Thelema tom,

                  >

                  >Sandi wrote:



                  >



                  #> but didn't you forget the jews? - there



                  #> are 5 religions the Hawk rages about.



                  >



                  >

                  tom chaudoin wrote:

                  >>

                  >>

                  #>> You are absolutely wrong, there is no

                  #>> anti-jewish invective in Liber Al of



                  #>> any type and I defy you to quote it.



                  #>> There are five major religions yes,



                  #>> but Liber AL only rants about four.



                  >>


                  >AL III.53: With my claws I tear out the



                  >flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist,



                  >Mongol and Din.



                  >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:



                  >Din' does not mean 'religion, faith' in

                  >Hebrew. It means 'Law' ... Words from

                  >scholars what they mean by din and

                  >"complete code of life. ...

                  Eek,

                  Yes, and "Din" is an Arabic word meaning "way or religon", it is NOT a Hebrew word and it has nothing to do with Judaism, and there still ain't any anti-jewish rhetoric in Liber AL.

                  Also, as a I pointed out earlier, Liber 418, the Third Aeythyr, is an exegetical commentary upon Chapter Three of the Book of the Law, according to the Prophet himself. Literally, the Angel explains that it is not the central mysteries of these religions that Al raves against. In actuality, its invective is focused on the corrupt institutions spawned over the aeons by these four major relgions. Moreover, the Angel personifies them under "4 names of the Christian Devil", another inescapable reference.

                  http://hermetic.com/crowley/l418/aetyr3.html

                  Also, Jakes rings true when the Gnostic mystery theatre of Thelema has very little to do with the Virgin Mary or the Crucified Christ. Rather, it has a whole hell of a lot to do with Mary Magdalene and the "Resurrected" Jesus attaining their alchemical union via the Sex Magick theurgy practiced by many Thelemites. Specifically, even the OTO rituals have to do with a certain Prophet named Hosea and his involvement with "loose women", I'll be polite and not mention the degree, but those who know will know.

                  Certainly the "Jesus mystery" of Thelema is synonymous with Ra Hoor Khuit, and the "Avenging Jesus" of the Apocalypse. Also when absorbed in its fullness, one can look at larger context of the "Class A"documents, and find a radical spin on Christian cosmology via its Gnostic polytheistic viewpoint. Its almost a "Christian Paganism" in that context which seeks to weave the Osirian Alchemy with more ancient fertility cult-spheres.

                  So, its hard to pigeonhole EQists as fundamentalist, given that this spin on things isnt too far from he 'classical view' of Liber AL really. However, there aint supposed to be a 'classical view' of Al now is there?

                  Heh, it occurs to me that the intitials "T.C" can also stand for "Typhonian Christian".

                  Bwahaha,

                  T.C.
                • Sandi Peterson
                  Thelema tom, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... # but didn t you forget the jews? - there # are 5 religions the Hawk rages about. ... #
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 8, 2008
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thelema tom,

                    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

                    "tom chaudoin" wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    #> but didn't you forget the jews? - there
                    #> are 5 religions the Hawk rages about.
                    >>

                    #>> You are absolutely wrong, there is no
                    #>> anti-jewish invective in Liber Al of
                    #>> any type and I defy you to quote it.
                    #>> There are five major religions yes,
                    #>> but Liber AL only rants about four.
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>> AL III.53: With my claws I tear out the
                    >>> flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist,
                    >>> Mongol and Din.
                    >>
                    >>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
                    >>> Din' does not mean 'religion, faith' in
                    >>> Hebrew. It means 'Law' ... Words from
                    >>> scholars what they mean by din and
                    >>> "complete code of life. ...
                    >>
                    >>
                    #>>> Eek,
                    >>
                    >>
                    ... :)
                    >
                    >>>
                    #>>> Yes, and "Din" is an Arabic word meaning
                    #>>> "way or religon", it is NOT a Hebrew word
                    #>>> and it has nothing to do with Judaism, and
                    #>>> there still ain't any anti-jewish rhetoric in
                    #>>> Liber AL.
                    >>>
                    >>
                    >
                    Wikipedia says that Din means "Law" in "Hebrew",
                    "complete code of life", so if you think they are wrong,
                    and that the word Din has nothing to do with Judaism,
                    you should take it up with them.

                    Love is the law, love under will.

                    Sandi

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • tom chaudoin
                    ... Well, in actuality that quote is from a footnote to that wiki site, it is not a scholarly reference. However it is true that Deen in Hebrew means
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 8, 2008
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

                      >Wikipedia says that Din means "Law" in "Hebrew",

                      >"complete code of life", so if you think they are wrong,

                      >and that the word Din has nothing to do with Judaism,

                      >you should take it up with them.



                      Well, in actuality that quote is from a footnote to that wiki site, it is not a scholarly reference. However it is true that "Deen" in Hebrew means essentially the same as it does in Arabic, ands is in fact borrowed from the Aramaic "dina". However, its usage as a proper name or title is not commonly used in Hebrew, but is a common feature of Arabic names. When one uses "Din" in the context of Liber AL, it is using it in the Islamic manner denoting someone who is "Mongol, Bhuddist and Din", which is essentially a Muslim.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deen_%28Arabic_term%29

                      "The Arabic word is almost certainly a loan from the Aramaic dīnā, so does the Hebrew dīn which have an identical meaning within the Jewish tradition. The Hebrew word is in turn a 6th century BC loan from the Old Persian dēn- which meant the system of ritual practices of the (Zoroastrian) state religion."

                      T.C.
                    • Sandi Peterson
                      ... tom wrote: # # # The Arabic word is almost certainly a loan # from the Aramaic dīnā, so does the Hebrew # dīn which have an identical meaning
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 8, 2008
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "Sandi" wrote:
                        >
                        > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
                        > Wikipedia says that Din means "Law" in
                        > "Hebrew", "complete code of life", so if you
                        > think they are wrong, and that the word
                        > Din has nothing to do with Judaism,
                        > you should take it up with them.
                        >
                        >
                        "tom" wrote:
                        #>
                        #>
                        #> The Arabic word is almost certainly a loan
                        #> from the Aramaic dīnā, so does the Hebrew
                        #> dīn which have an identical meaning within
                        #> the Jewish tradition. The Hebrew word is in
                        #> turn a 6th century BC loan from the Old
                        #> Persian dēn- which meant the system of
                        #> ritual practices of the (Zoroastrian)
                        #> state religion."
                        #>
                        #> Well, in actuality that quote is from a foot
                        #> note to that wiki site, it is not a scholarly
                        #> reference.
                        >
                        >
                        So you're saying it is an unscholarly reference?
                        >
                        >
                        #> However it is true that "Deen" in Hebres
                        #> means essentially the same as it does in
                        #> Aramaic is in fact borrowed from the Aramaic
                        #> "dina". However, in Arabic, and its usage as a
                        #> proper name or title is not commonly used in
                        #> Hebrew, but is a common feature of Arabic
                        #> names.
                        #>
                        #> When one uses "Din" in the context of Liber
                        #> AL, it is using it in the Islamic manner denoting
                        #> someone who is "Mongol, Bhuddist and Din",
                        #> which is essentially a Muslim.
                        #>
                        >
                        How do you know "in the context of Liber AL",
                        that the word "Din" - "is used in the Islamic
                        manner", and "is essentially Muslim"?

                        You don't, you can't know that, unless you
                        hear it directly from the Hawk's mouth, er,
                        Beak? No one can really know unless they
                        hear it first hand, er, claw, from the Old Hoor
                        Himself.

                        All else is only personal interpretation - trying
                        to hold on to "an Universe", fearing "nought
                        remains" of your crapulous creeds.

                        In the context of Liber AL, Ra-Hoor-Hawk-
                        Claws, tears out the "flesh" of Din... "flesh",
                        is this not the "body" of Din law? - and
                        "complete code of life"?

                        From what you've written, not only does AL spit
                        on Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists,
                        Jews and crapulous creeds, and Curses them,
                        now the list includes Zoroastrians too! Makes
                        me wonder, where does it end and begin?

                        The word "Din", then holds "within it", the
                        degree or character of AL-inclusive meaning,
                        but I still can't figure out who Bahlasti is?

                        Have you any idea?

                        93

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • tom chaudoin
                        ... tom wrote: # # # The Arabic word is almost certainly a loan # from the Aramaic dīnā, so does the Hebrew # dīn which have an identical meaning
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jul 9, 2008
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "Sandi" wrote:

                          > think they are wrong, and that the word

                          > Din has nothing to do with Judaism,

                          > you should take it up with them.


                          "tom" wrote:

                          #>

                          #>

                          #> The Arabic word is almost certainly a loan

                          #> from the Aramaic dīnā, so does the Hebrew

                          #> dīn which have an identical meaning within

                          #> the Jewish tradition. The Hebrew word is in

                          #> turn a 6th century BC loan from the Old

                          #> Persian dēn- which meant the system of

                          #> ritual practices of the (Zoroastrian)

                          #> state religion."

                          #>

                          #> Well, in actuality that quote is from a foot

                          #> note to that wiki site, it is not a scholarly

                          #> reference.

                          >

                          >

                          >So you're saying it is an unscholarly reference?

                          Yes if you look at the quote direct6y you will see that it is a comment added by a user not content from the actual article on the wiki site.

                          >

                          >

                          #> However it is true that "Deen" in Hebres

                          #> means essentially the same as it does in

                          #> Aramaic is in fact borrowed from the Aramaic

                          #> "dina". However, in Arabic, and its usage as a

                          #> proper name or title is not commonly used in

                          #> Hebrew, but is a common feature of Arabic

                          #> names.

                          #>

                          #> When one uses "Din" in the context of Liber

                          #> AL, it is using it in the Islamic manner denoting

                          #> someone who is "Mongol, Bhuddist and Din",

                          #> which is essentially a Muslim.

                          #>

                          >

                          #How do you know "in the context of Liber AL",

                          #that the word "Din" - "is used in the Islamic

                          #manner", and "is essentially Muslim"?


                          Well, I can glean this from the fact that the term in the sentence is prefaced by two other proper names: "Bhuddist and Mongol" which denotes two types of persons. "Din" here by reduction is most likely to refer to a "Din" being a person who adheres to a Muslim code. Look at the amount of Arab men who use the word "Din" in their names. I don't think that Jews call themselves "Din" much.

                          Also, direct your question back at yourself...how do YOU know that the term exclusively applies to Judaism, aren't you just as guilty of 'interpretation' via the Comment?



                          >You don't, you can't know that, unless you

                          >hear it directly from the Hawk's mouth, er,

                          >Beak? No one can really know unless they

                          >hear it first hand, er, claw, from the Old Hoor

                          >Himself.


                          Did you hear the old hawk say it was a Jewish term, don't the 'rules' you are applying to me also apply to you as well? Or are you in league with Scriven and Breeze, who are above such reproach? LOL

                          Does Ra Hoor speak to you on regular basis? Does he come over for afternoon tea?

                          >All else is only personal interpretation - trying

                          >to hold on to "an Universe", fearing "nought

                          >remains" of your crapulous creeds.

                          "My Crapulous Creeds", sounds like a romance novel. Also personal interpretation of sacred text is one of the most sacrosanct items of dogma in Thelema as I understand it. The only anathema is to evangelize a single interpretation of AL that all must accept. EQists and GAC and QBLH and NOT membership aren't evengelists. We share our data as 'interesting facts' and nothing more.

                          Conversely I find OTO members and other brands of fringe fanatics like yourself spewing concrete interpretations of AL as gospel. The real gut reaction here is not by EQ people sharing their data, but by those dogmatists who cannot handle their narrow, fanatical religious view of Thelema, Liber AL, and Crowley exploded and deconstructed.

                          >In the context of Liber AL, Ra-Hoor-Hawk-

                          >Claws, tears out the "flesh" of Din... "flesh",

                          >is this not the "body" of Din law? - and

                          >"complete code of life"?


                          Ok, so you may interpret Liber Al as you see fit and spew it as you see fit, then phrase it in the form of a disingenuine question. Yet, we (JSK, RLG, JL myself and others) may not kindly share our observations using our magical system as a foundation, which arguably issues from AL itself ? Lady, you're a hypocrite, and a foul one at that. You interpret AL, read in whatever you think it means, and then all must agree? Not bloody likely.

                          >From what you've written, not only does AL spit

                          >on Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists,

                          >Jews and crapulous creeds, and Curses them,

                          >now the list includes Zoroastrians too! Makes

                          >me wonder, where does it end and begin?

                          Well, again I stick to the commentary on Liber AL which is in Liber 418.
                          The 3rd Aetyhr claims in its own text that it is an exegetical commentary on the end of Chapter three of the Book of the Law. Since your responses have not included commentary on this, I will paste it here again for effect:

                          "O thou that hast beheld the City of the Pyramids, how shouldst thou behold the House of the Juggler10? For he is wisdom, and by wisdom hath he made the Worlds, and from that wisdom issue judgements 70 by 4, that are the 4 eyes of the double-headed one; that are the 4 devils, Satan, Lucifer, Leviathan, Belial, that are the great princes of the evil of the world11.

                          And Satan is worshipped by men under the name of Jesus; and Lucifer is worshipped by men under the name of Brahma; and Leviathan is worshipped by men under the name of Allah; and Belial is worshipped by men under the name of Buddha.

                          "(This is the meaning of the passage in Liber Legis, Chap. III.)"

                          Remember that this passage is "Class A" also, thus from a liturgical perspective, it holds 'equal footing' with any doctrinal process within Liber AL.

                          So by this comment, it is interpretable that the 'four religions' mentioned in AL are in fact the '4 devils" mentioned here in the 3rd Aire. Then as such, it is not "Christians and Muslims" etc. which are the target of this invective, but in fact it is the '4 devils' who have COMPROMISED and INSTITUTIONALIZED these 4 religions into 'crapulous creeds'.

                          To rant against the religions themselves and their manyfold devotees would seem to contravene the fact that "all words are sacred and all prophets true" these would include biblical, bhuddist, and islamic prohphets too.


                          >The word "Din", then holds "within it", the

                          >degree or character of AL-inclusive meaning,

                          >but I still can't figure out who Bahlasti is?


                          These words, Bahalasti, Ompheda, have eluded definition since Liber AL was published. I'd be happy to hear other data on their meaning.


                          T.C.
                        • Alamantra
                          ... Aleister Crowley, in his commentary, speculated that it had more to do with Judaism than the faith of Islam. AC: Din -- severity or judgment may
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jul 9, 2008
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "Sandi" wrote:

                            > think they are wrong, and that the word

                            > Din has nothing to do with Judaism,

                            > you should take it up with them.

                            Aleister Crowley, in his commentary, speculated that it had more to do with
                            Judaism than the faith of Islam.
                            AC: ""Din" -- 'severity' or 'judgment' may refer to the Jewish Law, rather
                            than to the Faith (ad 'din') of Islam. Assuming this, the six religions
                            whose flesh must be torn out cover the whole globe outside Islam and
                            Christianity.

                            Why assault their flesh rather than their eyes, as in the other cases?
                            Because the metaphysics, or point of view, is correct -- I take Judaism as
                            Qabalistic -- but the practice imperfect."



                            Bliss:
                            Alamantra
                          • Sandi Peterson
                            ... I think it has to do with the difference between Vision & Law . Ra-Hoor pecks at the eyes of Jesus... not His Flesh , not His Law . Jesus Gave only
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jul 9, 2008
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              "Alamantra" wrote:

                              > Why assault their flesh rather than their
                              > eyes, as in the other cases? Because the
                              > metaphysics, or point of view, is correct --
                              > I take Judaism as Qabalistic -- but the
                              > practice imperfect."

                              I think it has to do with the difference
                              between "Vision" & "Law". Ra-Hoor pecks
                              at the "eyes" of Jesus... not His "Flesh",
                              not His "Law".

                              Jesus Gave only One Law - that "We
                              Love one another". Ra-Hoor holds
                              this Law inviolate. Love is the Whole
                              of Ra-Hoor's Law, Love under Will.

                              I think it is the "Vision" of Jesus that
                              pisses Ra-Hoor off so much... the fact
                              that so many have been killed and kill
                              for Jesus's Vision of Peace... mass
                              murder in His Name... SO StuPID!

                              When I think about it, I'd like to give
                              Jesus a peck or two myself, but I
                              of course understand, His Intentions
                              were Above reproach...

                              ... but a nightmare truly happened,
                              a tragedy that's blinded the minds
                              of the masses for hundreds of
                              centuries, blighted and crippled
                              the world.

                              "Tear down that lying specture of the
                              centuries!"

                              Admittedly, prior to His coming and
                              going, someone wrote chapters of a
                              book... proclaimed to be "The Law";
                              "The Laws of Moses", sent directly
                              from God to the "Chosen Ones"...

                              "Divinely Inspired", and accurate
                              account of what (((really))) happened,
                              "in the beginning", the "fall" of man,
                              "the self-slain"... made from dirt, seduced
                              into lust and guilt by an evil garden
                              snake... and everyone believed it.

                              Geeze! Didn't we get the wool pulled
                              over our eyes?

                              Very sinister kind of 'magical myopia',
                              ... I say.

                              Now let the light devour men and eat
                              them up who are blind!

                              AL II.10: O prophet! thou hast ill, will to
                              learn this writing!

                              Jesus tried to show people another God,
                              the God of Love that He Saw through His
                              Eyes, and they nailed Him to a cross for it.

                              One thing for sure can be said about
                              Aleister Crowley... so far, through these
                              years, no one's been killed in His Name.

                              Of course, probably no one thinks Crowley
                              was a Jesus, either, besides me, but maybe
                              Aiwass is the (Nu) Jesus, at least of The
                              Book, and Hoor-paar-kraat is the God,
                              since Jesus was the Minister of God
                              the Father, in the other book...
                              ... just a Thoth.

                              Do you know that according to the EQ...
                              Aiwass=(38)=Joy
                              Hoor-paar-kraat=(117)=Rapture?

                              From this Angel, er, Angle, "Aiwass", the
                              minister of "Hoor-paar-kraat", is "Joy",
                              and "Joy", is the minister of "Rapture".

                              The message is to be Joyful... try to have
                              a good time... Work, Write, Learn... "strive
                              ever to more"...

                              ... "and blessed are the eyes that thou
                              shalt look upon with gladness".

                              ... and "be not animal"... forget growling
                              & complaining.

                              ... and "Lift up thine heart & rejoice! We
                              are one, we are none".

                              How about we can try to treat each other
                              better around here, stop clawing at each
                              other's flesh - for beauty's sake and love's.

                              After AL, it seems to me, each of us, in our
                              own way, has similar vision, or delusion.

                              Sandi

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