|
Post by mysterygirl on Aug 11, 2007 5:14:13 GMT
I'm going to apologize in advance for the boldness of my approach on this topic, as I have been able to pick up on the fact that there is an air of mystery around the way Masons talk about Tubal Cain. The truth is, I have done quite a bit of research regarding Tubal Cain myself, but information is very limited. VERY limited. There are Traditional Witchcraft groups that work with him as a God of the forge, but most of them guard their knowledge and understanding of him very covetously. I'm wondering if you will share with me what you understand and know of Tubal Cain. I'm not looking for specific references to initiations or anything of the like, just info about Tubal Cain as he is seen by the Masons.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 11, 2007 6:55:36 GMT
mysterygirl
In Masonry TC is not explained in much detail in the ritual and the relevance of TC needs to be deduced from a number of other elements such as a reference to metals and valuables. Even then the information is fragmentary possibly as a result of improper editing of ritual
Fairly obviously the name Tubal Cain is related to Vulcan the roman god of volcanoes and fire. So there may be some value in asking whether Tubal Cain was fully human. For example:
"Anu: One of the highest of Babylonian deities, “King of Angels and Spirits, Lord of the city of Erech”. He is the Ruler and God of Heaven and Earth. His symbol is a star and a kind of Maltese cross—emblems of divinity and sovereignty. ........ Anu was the earliest god of the city of Erech. One of his sons was Bil or Vil-Kan, the god of fire, of various metals, and of weapons."
In various native legends around the world it is common to recount that working with metals and making weapons was taught by the gods to men (often for nefarious purposes).
Hence one might ask whether TC was one of the gods - and thereby trained elsewhere to be the first artificer in metals.
However Masonry makes no overt statements about the gods of the ancient Mysteries - the teachings of Masonry being veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.
So there is not much told about TC in Masonry but there might be more to discover
And having discovered more about TC, there is still the question of whether it is useful to associate with him
Cheers
Russell
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 11, 2007 8:08:31 GMT
Boldness is one of the characteristics that opens doors, in my view, and is an important attribute to develop appropriately! I'm not sure what aspect of Tubal-Cain you wish to consider, and from what perspective, but will suggest that apart from the statement that he was an artificer in metals, there is little else on which Freemasons are likely to agree. In some lectures on Freemasonry Rudolf Steiner gave in 1904, he specifically discusses Tubal-Cain in his own peculiar manner, aspects of which may be acceptable to Freemasons with particular orientations to a view of the spiritual realms we may share with him. Extracts from those lectures are available online here, or in fuller form in his Temple Legend.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 11, 2007 8:15:55 GMT
Mystery girl,Please bear in mind that much of what Bro. Russell has said is derived not from a Masonic source but from the writings of Zecharia Sitchin, whose works are listed on Amazon.com under the category of "Science Fiction / Fantasy." Likewise, what I have to contribute is not from a Masonic source but from a rather tendentious and speculative book, The First Sex, by Elizabeth Gould Davis (1971, pp. 43/4 & 49): The Old Testament ascribes the invention of civilised arts to Tubal-Cain. But who is Tubal-Cain? Cain himself, as we shall see in a later chapter, is but a symbol of the old matriarchal city states that were overthrown by the pastoral nomads—the Abels. Tubal-Cain postdates him, yet he is oddly credited with inventing civilized arts that had predated Cain. The mystery's solution lies in the name itself—Tubal. The Interpeter's Dictionary of the Bible, under 'Tubal,' says that Tubal (in Hebrew Tub-Hal) means 'one who brings forth'—a female—thus giving the name Tubal-Cain a doubly feminine connotation. The Mythology of All Races tells us that the original of Tubal was Tibar; and in the same volume we find that Tibar, or Tibirra, was another name of the Sumerian Great Goddess, Tiamat. The Sumerian epic of Tagtug [Tibir] and Dilmun speaks of an early time 'when Tibir had not yet laid a foundation,' a reference that corroborates the belief that women laid the first foundations, that is, of walls and cities, and were thus the first fashioners of civilised society—the Tubal-Cains of actuality. Just as the story of Noah and the Ark is borrowed from the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh, and the creation story from the Babylonian epic of Enuma Elish, so the Cain—Tubal-Cain cycle in Genesis is borrowed from the epic of Tagtug and Dilmunand—Tagtug, or Tibir is Tubal-Cain. Davis goes on to say it was the creator goddess Tiamat who, ...taught men the arts of life: to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and, in short, instructed them in all things that tend to soften manners and humanize their lives," as Berosus of Babylon reported in the fourth century B.C. "From that time, so universal were [her] instructions, that nothing material has been added,", says Polyhistor. You may also be interested in the story of The Iron Worker and King Solomon.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 11, 2007 8:28:55 GMT
>Please bear in mind that much of what Bro. Russell has said is derived not from a Masonic source but from the writings of Zecharia Sitchin,
Philip
Following your reminder I had a look at several Sitchin books but he has few mentions of Tubal Cain and they seem to be purely biblical. So my comments must be from elsewhere
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 11, 2007 8:48:52 GMT
Bro. Russell,Must have been a quick check (only 13 minutes between our posts). Even so, I noticed you hadn't much to say under the specific name of "Tubal Cain." Rather, your asking whether he was "fully human" appears to derive from your interest in Sitchin and his ilk. What was your source? (I am pretty sure it was not Masonic, in any case). You were quoting, so presumably you either have a first rate memory or you had the source in hand (attribution is good form). I have found a possible source, where we read:
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Aug 11, 2007 10:07:24 GMT
Actually I though they were talking about sugar cane - must be that hearing aid playing up again.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 11, 2007 11:05:13 GMT
Apart from being told that T.C. was "The First Artificer in Metals" there is not a lot said about him in conventional Freemasonic Rituals.
Certainly there would be a tie in with Vulcan and Haephestos in ancient mythology.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 11, 2007 12:04:26 GMT
>groups that work with him as a God of the forge,
Mysterygirl
Perhaps you might like to share with us some of the results achieved with TC
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by thewidowsson on Aug 11, 2007 15:00:09 GMT
hi brethren, sometimes i feel that we give out to much information on this forum to non masons, the simple answer to mystery girls question, would be, he was a blacksmith, this should be quite sufficient. thewidowsson.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Aug 11, 2007 18:40:43 GMT
You are correct, all members of this forum are reminded to show due regard to their obligations, for the avoidance of doubt, the secrets of freemasonry, the signs, tokens and words are not to be revealed. Its also considered bad form to reveal elements of the degree's or spoilers without, at the least, adding a warning for those who want to maintain there obligation not to access a superior degree improperly. Altho that info is on the web for those that want it, we should be circumspect and sensitive to our brothers in freemasonry - especially the EA's and FC's amongst us. The relevant post has been removed. Sorry to interupt the discussion in such a authorative manner, please continue!
|
|
Tony Grimwood
Member
Asst. Steward, Lodge Howick No. 314
Posts: 190
|
Post by Tony Grimwood on Aug 11, 2007 21:34:36 GMT
You are correct, all members of this forum are reminded to show due regard to their obligations, for the avoidance of doubt, the secrets of freemasonry, the signs, tokens and words are not to be revealed. Its also considered bad form to reveal elements of the degree's or spoilers without, at the least, adding a warning for those who want to maintain there obligation not to access a superior degree improperly. Altho that info is on the web for those that want it, we should be circumspect and sensitive to our brothers in freemasonry - especially the EA's and FC's amongst us. The relevant post has been removed. Sorry to interupt the discussion in such a authorative manner, please continue! Many thanks, Bro. Penfold, for this reminder, and for your thoughtful attitude and action in this matter. I believe I can safely speak for most of the "little people" on the forum in saying that we appreciate it greatly. Tony
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Aug 11, 2007 22:16:33 GMT
Yes - I was worried about where this might lead and I think Penfolds' was timely.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Aug 11, 2007 23:53:08 GMT
In answering the question, I do not think that anyone has broken ANY obligations... unless we remain ignorant of the text of Genesis 4:22.
|
|
|
Post by calvin on Aug 12, 2007 5:12:30 GMT
In answering the question, I do not think that anyone has broken ANY obligations... unless we remain ignorant of the text of Genesis 4:22. It would seem you missed the post that has since been removed (with good cause), Brother. Cal
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 12, 2007 9:26:06 GMT
On a general point arising from this thread it appears to me from this and other Fora that North American Freemasons have a far more encompassing prohibition on what may be freely discussed about Rituals etc. Over here in the UK it has always been only the Means of Recognition, that is the Signs, Tokens (Grips) and Words that we have Sworn on Oath not to disclose. Nothing else. Those I consider myself Obligated not to disclose to those not entitled to receive them. Anything else regarding Masonic Rituals etc I feel quite free to discuss and do. In contrast to that I understand that in the USA especially far more matters are proscribed from open discussion . I have to say that US Freemasonry, from what I have read of it, would not have suited me for many reasons, this being one.
Now would any US Brother or perhaps a UK Mason with personal experience of US Freemasonry, care to expand upon this.
For my own part , the S,T ,and Ws excepted, I will quite happily discuss anything else Masonic with genuine enquirers be they Mason or not and do not breach my Obligation thereby.
Finally I have never subscribed to the old chestnut of "It will spoil it for the candidate". That surely depends on the individual in question and I was very glad that I had done my research before I was Initiated. I have had dealings both types of Candidate , one who didn't want to know anything about the Ceremony and I respected their wishes, and another who was very nervous indeed and was only too pleased and relieved when I gave them a word picture without of course the Signs, Tokens and Words.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 12, 2007 10:24:51 GMT
>I will quite happily discuss anything else Masonic with genuine enquirers be they Mason or not and do not breach my Obligation thereby.
There is a theory that the secrecy in Masonry while unnecessary in terms of many exposures, is actually to develop the practice of that habit in case a brother discovers any of the true secrets
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Aug 12, 2007 22:08:31 GMT
...we have Sworn on Oath not to disclose ...
I'm not sure to which jurisdiction you quote but as far as I'm aware I have never sworn an Oath - an Obligation, Yes. There is a distinct difference.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 12, 2007 22:30:13 GMT
If I call upon God to be my witness and do so with my hand upon a book which I consider to be Holy (although I do not take it to be literally true) then that to me is an Oath, every bit as much as if I Swore to tell the Truth in a Court of Law using the same Holy Book. Otherwise I may as well just "Solemnly and Sincerely Affirm"
|
|
|
Post by tws on Aug 13, 2007 2:03:59 GMT
If I call upon God to be my witness and do so with my hand upon a book which I consider to be Holy (although I do not take it to be literally true) then that to me is an Oath, every bit as much as if I Swore to tell the Truth in a Court of Law using the same Holy Book. Otherwise I may as well just "Solemnly and Sincerely Affirm"I agree. It states in our ritual in my jurisdiction "...my solemn oath or obligation." That seem pretty straight-forward to me
|
|