Moderator: Moderators - Public
Ash wrote:Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
Seriously, though; where can one go to learn about these 4 aspects/deities in a Thelemic context? I see the names popping up in various places and they frequently have things co-attributed to them; for instance, I've heard both RHK and HPK described as "stand ins for the HGA," presumably as two different aspects of the HGA (although what specifically separates them, aside from HPK being the Silence, is beyond me).
[*] These are both positively and negatively charged, the polarities correspond to the Sephiroth and Qlippoth; Gods and Demons.
[*] Overseeing the Gods and Demons is Hoor-Paar-Kraat, the child, Tiphareth, who is learning and growing as he acts and reacts to the world outside and within based on the influence of his ministers, the Gods and Demons below Tiphareth
[*] At some point Hoor-Paar-Kraat aspires to Ra-Hoor-Khuit, the HGA in its idealized form or higher self. When HPK attains to RHK by balancing the polarity of the four Sephiroth, he becomes Heru-Ra-Ha.
mark0987 wrote:This idea is confusing me, The Qlipphoth are below the tree of life (or at least I thought/read), or at least not on the 'same tree' as the tree of life, some have adopted the name tree of death....but I don't like to use that name.
mark0987 wrote:I'm confused here, before you corresponded Hoor-Paar-Kraat to Tiphareth and now you're corresponding RHK. Although at the same time I believe they represent two sides to one coin which is why I like the correspondence of Heru-ra-ha to Tiphareth.
Ash wrote:I've heard both RHK and HPK described as "stand ins for the HGA," presumably as two different aspects of the HGA (although what specifically separates them, aside from HPK being the Silence, is beyond me).
kasper81 wrote:Mark what did you make of Los's response? Imo It was a down to earth and common sense statement ie it took the unnecessary, neurotic mystical crap out of the equation.
Los wrote:"Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they aren't even shallow."
--Nietzsche
Crowley wrote:We see and hear [angels], usually (in my own experience) as the result of specific invocation. Less frequently we know them through the sense of touch as well; sometimes their presence is associated with a particular perfume. (This, by the way, is very striking, since it has to overcome that of the incense.) I must very strongly insist, at this point, on the difference between "gods" and "angels." Gods are macrocosmic, as we microcosmic: an incarnated (materialised) God is just as much a person, an individual animal, as we are; as such, he appeals to all our senses exactly as if he were "material."
Legis wrote:"Materialist explanations of mystical phenomena only satisfy those who fear the existence of metaphysical realities."
Frater 639 wrote:Legis wrote:"Materialist explanations of mystical phenomena only satisfy those who fear the existence of metaphysical realities."
"The ordeals I write not: the rituals will be half known and half concealed: the Law is for all."
Legis wrote:I'm not the one invoking "True Thelema" against mystics and mysticism. You may save your sermons for the Inquisitor.
kasper81 wrote: God-forms are just maps
Av wrote:Declaring the nature of reality is just a metaphor, whether from a materialist or any other single point of view.
kasper81 wrote:by the way, to me, it's got nothing to do with materialism if someone wants to take out the strange Egyptological mythological names out of the functionality of transcendental awareness i.e. awareness
some people seem to want religion. They rejected their school teachers' religious spoonfeeding and presumably,their parents religion, but they still want to find it, and in Thelema
kasper81 wrote:Materialism: The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
Los wrote:kasper81 wrote:Materialism: The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
Materialism isn't a "doctrine." It's the lack of belief in any worlds other than the material one.
I've never met a single person who believes, as a matter of doctrine or dogma, that the material world is all there is. I've met scores and scores of people who are unconvinced that any other worlds exist and who therefore currently lack a belief in any worlds besides the material.
I'm afraid that trying to define materialism as a "doctrine" or a "belief" is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to make all positions whatsoever look like religions and, by implication, to suggest that "ahh, everybody's got equally unjustified beliefs in something, so it's all a wash...."
You could see why someone would try that, but it's not going to work on people who are at least partway paying attention.
Legis wrote:I mean... my freakin' god! You're actually trying to act like materialist don't have questionable presuppositions.
Legis wrote:A "lack of belief" based on some principle logically demands belief in that principle.
Los wrote:What "questionable presupposition" do you think that I hold, and what makes you think that it is questionable? Depending on exactly what you mean, I might even agree with you.
Los wrote:I didn't say that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest