Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

[Mike]

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).

[Jim Eshelman]

Crowley's commentaries to Liber L. are a good place to start.

[Aum418]

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).

93,

They arent 4 deities. They are 4 names for one thing: Heru/Horus/the Crowned and Conquering Child: Thou that art One, our Lord in the Universe the Sun, our Lord in Ourselves whose name is Mystery of Mystery...

Each name emphasizes a different aspect. Ra Hoor Khuit emphasizes activity, force, and fire, Becoming; Hoor Paar Kraat emphasizes passivity, security, the egg of Spirit, Being. They are understood as the two aspects of Heru-Ra-Ha (a name that equals 418), a specific name for Horus as the Lord of the Two-in-One.

Read the Book of the Law and its commentaries to see much more subtle analyses of these names.

93 93/93

[horustheantichrist]

This is my understanding of the three forms of Horus. How am I doing here?

[*] Below Tiphareth you have the physical body/world (Malkuth), subconscious (Yesod), intellect (form, Hod) and emotions (force, Netsach).
[*] 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]

93,

[*] These are both positively and negatively charged, the polarities correspond to the Sephiroth and Qlippoth; Gods and Demons.

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.

[*] 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

I can see the logic, corresponding the child to tiphareth, but tiphareth is about balance-the balance of Chesed and Geburah- Heru-Ra-Ha is 'Horus sun flesh', I correspond this to Tiphareth as heru-ra-ha is Ra-hoor-khuit and hoor-paar-kraat combined. In other words; Tiphareth (Heru-Ra-Ha) is the balancing of Geburah (Ra-Hoor-Khuit) and Chesed (Hoor-Paar-Kraat).

[*] 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.

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.


(I admit my knowledge of qabalah is in its beginning stages so it is quite likely I'm missing something.)

93, 93/93.

[Frater 639]

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.

The Qlippoth are not "below" the Tree of Life necessarily - especially as it relates to the magician. The Qlippoth are, more closely (in a matter of speaking), atavistic traits that could be considered the "shadow side" of the TOL, as it relates to the Universe "within" and "without"...

See Liber CCXXXI for comparisons. Thankfully, not much has been published about this particular Liber...

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.

You're on the right track. From the Book of Thoth -- Atu XX, "The Aeon" (excerpt):

Around the top of the card is the body of Nuith, the star-goddess, who is the category of unlimited possibility; her mate is Hadit, the ubiquitous point-of-view, the only philosophically tenable conception of Reality. He is represented by a globe of fire, representing eternal energy; winged, to show his power of Going. As a result of the marriage of these two, the child Horus is born. He is, however, known under his special name, Heru-ra-ha. A double god; his extroverted form is Ra-hoor-khuit; and his passive or introverted form Hoor-pa kraat. (See above, the Formula of Tetragrammaton). He is also solar in character, and is therefore shown coming forth in golden light.

The other attributions in 777 or 776 1/2 are VERY helpful when extrapolating further.

[Los]

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).

I realize this is an old post, but since someone bumped it, I'll respond.

The gods of Liber AL aren't actual, conscious entities: they're metaphors, word pictures that represent concepts (Crowley describes them as symbolic ways of talking about philosophical ideas, represented as gods for "literary convenience").

Nuit represents all possibility, and Hadit represents a point-of-view capable of experiencing a possibility. Their interaction produces the child Horus/Heru-Ra-Ha. This Child represents the True Self of each individual (the core of every star, in which Hadit dwells, moving through the body of Nuit).

Heru-Ra-Ha (that is, each person's True Self) has two aspects: Ra-Hoor-Khuit, which is the "active" part of the Self (also known as an individual's authentic inclinations to action or "True Will"), while Hoor-Paar-Kraat is the "passive" part of the Self (also known as the "observer," or the "Silent Self," that which remains when the mind is quieted). There is obviously some overlap between these two ideas.

You can attribute these gods in slightly different ways, too, but arguing over that stuff is the equivalent of arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[mark0987]

93,

Thank you Frater 639 for clearing that up, I haven't read much on the qliphoth and what I have was from a book I didn't like very much....I looked at liber CCXXXI , but I'm going to have to look elsewhere first.

Los your post was very informative also.

93, 93/93.

[Hermitas]

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.

What? You working as a team or something?

Just because someone eternally presents a challenge doesn't mean it's eternally worthy of response.

We've been over it already in great, painstaking, dead-horse-whipping detail.

It's a rigid, closed philosophical position and absolutely nothing more.

It's a lake a mile wide and an inch deep. It looks impressive, but you can't swim in it.

[mark0987]

93,

I don't really know whether your response was in sarcasm or not.....

I don't mind if Los see's them as ideas and only ideas, he still interprets what they represent within the individual and I like the way he did it. By doing this his response is helpful, it was concise and allowed me to place it in my mind for further thought on the matter.

You don't have to use egyptological terms, it isn't necessary, but for this threads original question it was. You could use any set of symbols you wanted....having something to represent an idea makes it easier to comprehend.


93, 93/93.

[Hermitas]

When taken merely as metaphors for the experience of one person, cut off from any sense of real metaphysical connection with other minds and the Mind inherent in all things, the gods of The Book of the Law are known only in their most basic, fundamentally graspable sense.

They aren't "mere" metaphors. They are powerful, functional, interactive metaphors for the most fundamental relationships of Mind writ large, encompassing all things and all people. They are icons on the desktop of a vast ocean of interconnected Mind.

If taking them as "mere" metaphors for personal experience, writ small, is all one currently has the capacity to experience, accept, and understand, then fine. Start there.

But to act like some superficial philosophical interpretation of Reality really can and does appropriately confine them to merely being this and only this draws the finish line ten yards from the starting point. It serves only those without either the capacity or the courage to go further.

[Los]

"Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they aren't even shallow."

--Nietzsche

[Hermitas]

"It's a lake a mile wide and an inch deep. It looks impressive, but you can't swim in it."

--Legis

[Hermitas]

Here's another one you can quote me on:

"Materialist explanations of mystical phenomena only satisfy those who fear the existence of metaphysical realities."

--Legis

[Frater 639]

Happy Venus Day!

"Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they aren't even shallow."

--Nietzsche

Was this before crying in the town square and hugging the horse?

My personal Nietzsche favorite:

"When thou goest to woman, take thy whip."

Now for funsies:

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."

"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."

[Hermitas]

"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."

I'm not the one invoking "True Thelema" against mystics and mysticism.

You may save your sermons for the Inquisitor.

[Avshalom Binyamin]

Declaring the nature of reality is just a metaphor, whether from a materialist or any other single point of view.

[Frater 639]

I'm not the one invoking "True Thelema" against mystics and mysticism. You may save your sermons for the Inquisitor.

I wasn't directing that quote toward any one in particular. I just figured these concepts must be an ordeal for someone, since we keep witnessing pretty vehement and static beliefs on both sides.

God-forms are just maps

They are much more than "just maps," unless you don't want them to be.

Declaring the nature of reality is just a metaphor, whether from a materialist or any other single point of view.

Amen.

[Frater 639]

"We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon.
Our method is science, our aim is religion.”

-- Crowley

[Jim Eshelman]

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

I have no problem with that at all. There are plenty of varieties of language to use for this sort of thing. Nor have I a problem with someone who, for sake of letting people get a handle on something, chooses to express a complex and far-reaching idea in simple (albeit diluted) language.

I have a problem with someone taking something immeasurably greater than anything that could conceivably be called human, or human-accessible, and treating it (seriously) as if those things are only human psychological matters.

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

Exactly. To reject a particular religion (or delivery system of religion) need not be to reject religion per se. Ultimately, that's the whole of what we're about - first and last - bringing people to a deepening spiritual experience of their lives, an increasingly conscious awareness and embracing of their full, immortal scope of which their present human expression is no more than a currently profitable metaphor.

[Los]

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.

[Hermitas]

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.

Anyone with any sort of philosophical education recognizes this as circular nonsense with which materialists self-justify their belief system.

A "lack of belief" based on some principle logically demands belief in that principle. Investigation of that principle reveals the dogma.

Anything else is just double-talking nonsense.

I mean... my freakin' god! You're actually trying to act like materialists don't have questionable presuppositions. Everyone has axiomatic presuppositions! Everyone! And absolutely all - ALL - epistemologies begin with some element of belief!

It makes me crazy how absolutely, condescendingly, and authoritatively you present a dead freaking worldview as if it has any current relevance. It's nonsensically atavistic! I can't believe you take yourself seriously.

I mean, join the freaking modern (actually post-modern) era!

[Los]

I mean... my freakin' god! You're actually trying to act like materialist don't have questionable presuppositions.

I didn't say that. I said that materialists don't have a belief that the material world is all there is. They lack certain kinds of beliefs.

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.

[Frater 639]

A "lack of belief" based on some principle logically demands belief in that principle.

Exactly.

In this context, excruciatingly humorous when a major aspect of magick is "suspension of disbelief." In other words, being able to "believe" X at will.

[Hermitas]

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.

Demonstrate self-awareness and state your presuppositions yourself.

I didn't say that.

Because I'm not playing this game with you again.