|
Post by huw on Sept 27, 2011 15:27:19 GMT
Hi All.
I'll return to this topic, but I'm travelling overseas for the next few days, so I probably won't have time to respond until I'm back home.
H.G.W.,
Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 27, 2011 15:12:29 GMT
Hi whistler. Is there an official list of what was a defined formal Religion No. In order to retain flexibility of decision for cases which haven't previously arisen, we have always avoided laying down any published list. H.G.W., Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 26, 2011 5:12:32 GMT
Hi whistler.
Of course this is one of the many things upon which different organisations have different views.
So far as I can tell, your view seems to be quite widespread these days. However, that sort of belief is what the original Constitutions meant by "irreligious libertine", which was deemed incompatible with freemasonry - the meaning of the words has drifted somewhat in the course of three centuries, but when Anderson wrote it, the phrase meant someone who didn't adhere to a defined formal religion.
Obviously that's okay in your Eastern Order, and I know it's also okay in various other organisations, but it's no secret that UGLE (and I) are rather traditionalist about sticking to our original plan. "You pays yer money and you makes yer choice."
H.G.W.,
Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 26, 2011 4:25:18 GMT
Hi 209. Quite simply they aren't the same and while it is true that this tarot card was inspired by Levi's Baphomet, it remains but a bastardization of that symbol, and irrelevent to our current conversation, IMO. I agree, they're not identical images. But the central figure is pretty similar, and I'm sure that's what most people would see rather than the fine detail ... and me too, although my own impression is not the main point. ... I will show for each symbolic concept at least one place in blue lodge degrees where the same "Baphometic" concept (as I have envisioned it) appears. Well, with some effort it's possible to contrive an interpretative chain which force-fits almost any pre-determined meaning to almost any symbol. A demonstration that you can devise some interpretation of the Baphomet image (or details thereof) which overlaps with some masonic concepts wouldn't actually be proving anything, nor showing the image to be a masonic symbol. All it would achieve would be to hand free ammunition to our opponents. Gee, thanks. All I suggested was the possibility that baphomet (meaning the initiatory symbols represented by this figure) may well appear in masonic rites in another guise.Anything can represent anything else if you twist the natural meaning enough. If you can do it for the Baphomet, I'm sure you can also (for example) do it for Bill's tarot (above) of the Devil. And whose interest would that serve? (Clue: not ours.) But the mysteries of initiatic death and resurrection, and therefore at least a part of the Osirian mysteries, are represented in blue lodge. Just as Osiris in this way has significance to Freemasonry ... Dangerous anti-masonic nonsense! In numerous ancient religious rituals, probably including the Osirian mysteries amongst others, there was a re-enactment of a resurrection myth which was a core belief of that religion. In freemasonry, however, there is no resurrection myth. Our legend deals only with someone who dies and stays dead, so the meaning of what we are doing is completely different. Thus suggesting that Osiris has "significance to freemasonry" is gravely misunderstanding what freemasonry is about. This isn't even a "matter of opinion" issue, since it's perfectly clear from our rituals, and (because of misunderstandings by some churches) is reinforced by explicit statements from various GLs that our legend is definitely not an alternative resurrection myth and should not be misinterpreted in that way. If there were a resurrection myth in freemasonry, then indeed the accusation by many of the anti-masons that we're some sort of "religious cult" would be much better-founded, and most masons holding fairly ordinary religious beliefs (i.e. most of the membership, specifically including the Christians) would have to resign from the Craft because it'd be incompatible with their religion. That would destroy the Craft pretty instantly, so thank goodness it's completely false. H.G.W., Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 25, 2011 16:17:01 GMT
Hi whistler. Having said that if somebodies supreme is a Coke Bottle, or a thousand winged angel - that is fine by me. I know I'm pickier on the religious qualification than some others, but I reckon lots of us would have considerable difficulty about the Coke bottle. I'm sure it's part of the point that we should all know that one another is sincere in professing some sort of belief, whatever the details of that belief might be. If a Candidate professed belief in a Coke bottle, there'd surely be widespread suspicion that this was some sort of joke, not a genuine statement - and therefore, yes, I'd ask for explanation, in a way that wouldn't be necessary if someone asserted belief in some well-known religion. ... my personal favourite ( Which we don't have ) is a book of blank pages. I know some organisations do allow or even encourage that. In UGLE, however, the use of a blank book has been explicitly ruled unacceptable. Our Candidates come from many faiths, but we do expect them to be able to name their faith and point to the Book which encapsulates it; a blank book is too vague, in my opinion, and my GL seems to agree with me about that. H.G.W., Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 23, 2011 14:43:43 GMT
Hi Bill. I was going to post but Huw has taken up all the server space. Oops, sorry. I was writing a long post, but I didn't realise the server would clog just from one post, even a long one. All yours now. T & F, Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 23, 2011 14:40:23 GMT
Hi Matt. This is where we differ brother. I'm not trying to make a person think one way or another. Well I obviously can't force anyone to think anything. However, if you think someone else's opinion is positively wrong, then presenting an argument in the hope of being persuasive is a wholly legitimate activity. I offer suggestions, both my own and examples from others, but by all means, think what you will. I want you to. And I want you to let me think as I do. Indeed, if I can help a brother find new ways to explore the mysteries great, but ultimately my goal is for everyone to think for themselves, and to allow everyone else to do the same. Of course, by all means think as you will. Long may it remain the case that no-one could stop you even if they wanted to. However, people don't generally want to think in hermit-like isolation. A few enjoy that, but most prefer some interchange of ideas, some discussion and cross-fertilisation. Often that gets people to their conclusion faster and more confidently, which is probably why they prefer to discuss, but also it often involves someone else pointing out what's wrong with one's own current argument. That's basically how discussion works, no? And we'll let the owners of the forum determine what is proper to be discussed. Ultimately, of course the management can decide coercively if they so desire. However, I see no reason why I shouldn't have my own opinions on what is or isn't proper, nor any reason why I shouldn't include such opinions in discussion if it seems appropriate. "What is masonically proper?" is surely a perfectly fair question to debate in a masonic forum. T & F, Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 23, 2011 14:12:01 GMT
Hi Matt. Actually, I kinda like that. I think it fits the situation quite nicely. ;D Glad you like it. I thought it was quite funny, too. Consider that your first lesson in notariqon. I don't need another, thanks, it's a silly waste of time - see below. Im afraid this thread would be diverted too much from the topic at hand to go in to a whole lot more depth about kaballah but it could be a fruitful study. Indeed, let's not go there in this thread. I'm sometimes willing to debate kaballah, but not right now. The deal is, making connections is a good thing. Even if those connections mean nothing to anyone but yourself. Ultimately everything is connected, so the practice of finding connections is always good. I disagree, and I'll try to explain exactly why. What is good is making correct connections, ones which add meaningful information to your mental map of the world outside your head. In other words, they're only useful if they model real-world relationships between the concepts being connected. Adding spurious connections is tantamount to random doodling on your mental map of reality. It's just noise which you then have to filter out when trying to search the mental map for data and apply reasoning to the data. Of course one inevitably takes in a lot of meaningless noise by accident in the course of life, but deliberately adding to it is silly. It's impossible for such noise to add value, because even if you very occasionally make a correct connection by noise you can't identify that it's correct. Therefore it can only add to the blur of confusion and lead to missing truths (such as real connections) which you might otherwise have figured out. The suggestions i'm making are merely ways one could look at these symbols. I'm not trying to convince anyone, however, that they should interpret these symbols in any way. I find that trying to force an opinion on someone doesn't respect their ability to think for themselves. In principle I'm with you on all of this paragraph. My objection is not to the process you propose, it is to your choice of a symbol-to-explore which has side-effects and consequences external to the intended process, because it already has a widespread and powerful negative connotation which is bound to hugely outweigh any possible benefit of connecting it to masonic symbolism. Therefore it's a bad thing to try to do. T & F, Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 23, 2011 12:53:50 GMT
Greetings, 209. It has been made clear (in my mind) by reading this thread that some Masonic scholars are to be respected above some others, regardless of the actual erudition of the scholars themselves. Agreed, erudition isn't the same as sanity. Those who are erudite and also argue rationally will be accorded far more respect. I find it particularly peculiar, my Brothers, that you are willing to utilize Pike's contributions in forwarding your points, while vehemently denying the validity of Ambelain's interpretations. I find this peculiar because it is Pike and not Ambelain who has most often been "cited" (read misrepresented) by anti Masons. How odd. You proclaim yourself opposed to argumentum ad populum, which you thought you could see in my earlier contribution, yet now you think it relevant that Pike is more often misrepresented, as if that meant he was somehow more vulnerable to refutation. So, I return the favour: this is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. But no, Pike is more often misrepresented because he is very well known and led a very large masonic organisation, whereas Ambelain is so obscure that discrediting him would mean nothing. Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of Pike because he wrote some dubious nonsense too, but he did also produce quite a lot of good work. There are two points on which Huw refutes Ambelain's contributions. One is that he is a "nut." This of course is an opinion with no bearing on actual fact. But what you meant by this is that, in your opinion, he knows nothing about esoteric freemasonry. Rubbish. You accused our friend Bill of the straw man fallacy, and yet here you are doing the very same yourself: you're trying to put replacement meaning into my mouth, in order that you can then "refute" something which isn't quite what I said. That's precisely what the straw man fallacy is. I don't think I really need to re-define what I meant by him being a nut. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the term. But okay, if you wish, I'll say he suffered from persistent and elaborate delusions which led him permanently into a fantasy world. The only way you could claim this logically is to prove that you know everything he knows about esoteric freemasonry, and then some. This is the fallacy of non sequitur. What you propose wouldn't prove that he knew nothing, it'd merely prove that I knew more. My attack on Ambelain's credentials is more fundamental. I assert that freemasonry is inherently experiential; if you haven't done it, you can't understand it. This isn't entirely provable, but substantial empirical testimony is available from freemasons that they have found it so, and it's the defence almost invariably advanced by freemasons explaining why published exposures of ritual cannot destroy the Craft as exposure-writers persistently hope. So far as I'm aware, Ambelain was never any sort of freemason until he set up his own micro-organisation and asserted out of thin air that he was the head of a "masonic" order, although I concede that I'm not certain of this and will defer to better information. But proceeding on that supposition, pretty much any freemason is likely to testify that self-appointment cannot convey the essential experience of being a freemason. Therefore Ambelain wasn't in a position to understand freemasonry, esoteric or otherwise. You don't strike me as someone who habitually communicates illogically so what I think you were getting at is that Ambelain's opinions/findings/revelations/gnosis/sayings, etc etc ... have no validity because of his Masonic "irregularity." Irregularity has gradations, varying in their impact on the credibility of an author's testimony about freemasonry. See above and below. ... by your own rationale, Co-Masons, including the male and female ones, "have never been real freemasons," for they most certainly have been deemed irregular by the same "authorities" who you whole heartedly embrace in deeming Ambelain irregular. Not so, and that was my point, it wasn't just the "same 'authorities'". Ambelain was deemed beyond the pale by considerably more authorities than those which reject the co-masons. In particular, the grouping to which the main co-masonic organisation (LDH) is affiliated, i.e. the GOdF family, itself rejected Ambelain as bogus. Basically every "authority" everywhere agreed, and it's pretty darn unusual seeing such unanimity. It's the most extreme form of irregularity when no-one anywhere believes that you're a mason. And this hurts my feelings, for as you can see in my intro, part of the reason I joined this forum was because I thought it embraced Co-Masonry. I hope its not the entire forum who views co-masons as "having never been real freemasons." You have some cheek to whine about your own hurt feelings when you care nothing about hurting the feelings of others with your offensive views. As it happens, however, your feelings are hurt over nothing, since I haven't expressed such a view about the co-masons as you suggest (or any other view about co-masons). On the question of Ambelain I'm on the same side as the co-masons, i.e. we agree he wasn't a mason. For your reassurance, no, it's certainly not the entire forum which views co-masons as not being "real freemasons". On the contrary, numerous members here are themselves co-masons, and I've not personally noticed anyone else accuse them of not being "real freemasons". The likelihood is that some hold that view privately, but are politely keeping their opinion to themselves in the interest of harmony - just as I reckon you ought to be keeping your views on the present subject to yourself in the interest of harmony. By your own reasoning you are saying that anything a Co-Mason has to add is: "load of rubbish" Nonsense. Already dealt with above - Ambelain was a different case. So how does one reasonably, and with source material, address the audience of a forum which so readily contradicts and disregards its own supposed premises and standards? I'm not aware of saying anything contradictory to the standards here. If I have, no doubt the mods will inform me. Saying what I think of your opinions and methods of argument doesn't seem to me to be a breach of standards ... and since my ally in this thread (Bill) is one of the mods, I assume I'm on safe ground. I see that the Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry is advertised here, and I therefore assume it to be considered reliable by even the novices. Broadly, but not invariably. It publishes many good papers, but is also capable of publishing nonsense, like any other magazine. Now that we are finally back on topic, knowing as we do that this very alchemical axiom, SOLVE ET COAGULA, is one of the bases of the Baphomet Oh for Heaven's sake! I could take some image which even you agree is satanic, and scribble an alchemical slogan along his horns ... would that suddenly make it an "alchemical symbol", would that suddenly render it harmless and unobjectionable, would that make it just the ticket for happy association with the Craft, would that persuade the howling mob with burning torches to go home quietly to their cottages? I will begin further discussion on these symbols and their relevance to Masonic ritual. Well, you'll do what you feel you must, although I utterly fail to understand why you want to do such a vicious thing. But when you care nothing for other people's feelings, remember not to whine if other people are rude right back. I of course understand that the double headed eagle isnt part of Craft Masonry, yet I assure the attentive reader that after some preliminary remarks I will show that that these "Baphometic" symbols are prevalent in Blue Lodge as well. Obviously the double-headed eagle is a well-known masonic symbol, albeit not a Craft one. The Pietre-Stones article speculating about alchemical symbolism in the eagle is of course within the bounds of acceptable activity, even if some of us might not think it a particularly useful one. But the eagle looks nothing like a Baphomet, nor anything else widely taken as a satanic avatar ... and if by some extraordinary circumstance it suddenly did look like a satanic avatar, I'm sure the world's Supreme Councils would drop it pronto in spite of its long usage, because that wouldn't be an acceptable connection. H.G.W., Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 23, 2011 10:20:16 GMT
Hi Matt. The way I prefer to discuss interpretation with my brothers is to allow each to offer their interpretations freely and without ridicule. If someone has an interpretation I disagree with I generaly just acknowledge their interpretation as their own and carry on, either continuing to contribute my reflections, or remaining silent. It's a discussion board, so we discuss. If we disagree strongly, should we pretend otherwise? If we think it's ridiculous, should we sit dumb? If one just wants to display one's opinion, one can use a blog instead of a discussion board. I much prefer a free exchange of ideas than to try and shut a brother up. On the whole, I entirely agree. It'd be quite an exceptional circumstance where I'd advocate shutting a brother up. However, when I reckon that some particularly bizarre ideas are widely offensive to others and potentially harmful to the Craft as a whole, then that's the sort of exceptional circumstance where I'll consider arguing that someone shouldn't express his ideas at all. And this is such a case. T & F, Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 23, 2011 10:05:53 GMT
Hi Matt. Well, okay, I'll start by saying that I don't think you're the worst offender on here. But ... In the above excerpt from Ambelain, he is using reverse notariqon from Baphomet, tem o p a b: templi ominum hominum paces abbas, which means "The Father of the Temple, the universal peace of Man." Oh, puh-lease, this is the purest rubbish. Look, by precisely the same technique (except not bothering with going into and out of Latin), I can assert that your own username means " Ye hearers, this is Matt Smithey talking twaddle about mysticism". Now, do you suddenly believe that you're talking twaddle merely because I can do that with your username? (No, I thought not.) But my point is that you can make up anything you like that way, and it has nil significance. If baphomet is evil at all, it wouldnt be the evil as most of us think of it today. To the gnostics, to whom this symbol belongs, evil was not crime, cruelty, hate, blasphemy or any of the other associations we might call evil. To them, evil was generation. The actual created world. This veil of sorrow we all walk through. It's the dense matter, or tomb of the spirit. To some gnostics this world is where pure spirit is imprisoned. To some, not all, creation itself is evil. Hmmm, a very bogomil sort of view. Not necessarily characteristic of all gnosticism, but I see where you're coming from. Why do you allege that this symbol "belongs" to the bogomils, or their theological heritors? Eliphas Levi drew the classic version, but I don't recall him regarding material creation to be evil - "the world, with its errors and vices, is to him God's hospital". So if not through Levi, where do you trace this "ownership"? Baphomet is a symbol of you and me. <Shudder> I hope not of me, thank you very much. Really, I'd rather not of you either. Demonstrating our animal nature with the divine spark inside. I don't think that's very hard to connect to masonic ideas, lessons, and symbols. Well, if the preceding interpretation is credible, then you might be able to make something of it. But twisting the sabbatic goat into a symbol of "our animal nature with the divine spark (sic!) inside" is really reaching. You're going to have a really, really tough time convincing people that an emblem incorporating the Horned Goat is meant to mean anything about "the divine" when it's universally taken to mean the other side. Over the next few days I'll try to point out more specific connections to masonic symbols, that I have found to share similar meanings with the symbolism of Baphomet. I don't think that sort of thing is a desirable exercise, not even in jest or for the sake of debate. T & F, Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 23, 2011 9:11:30 GMT
Greetings, 209. But Baphomet and Lucifer/Satan are two (or 3, strictly speaking) very different things, and the image in the Codex Gigas is not Baphomet. I feel it is imperative to keep that in mind when discussing this. I don't. The distinction isn't clear to the wider watching public, and it's the public effect I'm mainly concerned about because of the harm it does to the Craft. Out of brotherly feeling I might also feel some degree of concern about the harm you might do to yourself with delusional nonsense, but I assume you're a free adult. "So it is established that Baphomet is never mentioned in a masonic ritual?" No it has not been established that Baphomet is never mentioned in a Masonic ritual. I'm not saying Baphomet is mentioned nor that I want it to be. I'm saying its a matter of debate, and that a rose by any other name is still a rose. (Thats original BTW ) This is pretty checkable, unlike so much of the all-in-your-own-head interpretation in this thread. Either the word "Baphomet" appears in a masonic ritual or it does not. Of course I've not read every masonic ritual ever written, but I've read quite a lot of them, and that word appears in none of them. I also reckon I've got a reasonable feel for what sort of thing does appear in masonic rituals, based on what fits in masonry and what doesn't. I'm pretty confident that there's never been any masonic ritual anywhere which contained that word (save possibly that some old KT ritual might conceivably describe the false confessions extracted uder torture, which could include that word but not in a positive way), and I'm also pretty confident that any ritual which does present a Baphomet symbology cannot reasonably be described as "masonic" (regardless of what might be claimed on the cover - for example, Crowley and his mates wrote some pretty wacky stuff under pseudo-masonic titles, like the OTO rituals, but that can't seriously be called masonic). So I say it doesn't appear at all. If you think it does, then show me an example. If you can't offer an example, I suggest we take it as read that it doesn't, and move on. I could be wrong here, haven't read it in a bit, but I think it was Lightfoot introducing his monitor with the ideas that we gain far more from Masonic symbols by receptively allowing them to speak to our souls rather than projecting our preconceived desires onto them ... Well, that's one approach. He may even be right, for most people. However, I think it unwise for editors of monitors to offer such guidance (tempting though it is), because deliberately blanking the mind is also a preconceived approach. "Masonic belief is and will be what you make of it". Bill you also admit with the above statement that any connections "you make of it" can and will be part of your Masonic belief. In a strictly personal way, yes. But if Bill develops some wacky idea (as any of us might occasionally) which would be damaging to publicise, then I'd thank Bill to keep it to himself. So you're kind of having the cake and eating it when you told Matt: "no matter what language you use or leap of imagination or reaching you make there is no connection." Well obviously there's no telling what sort of thing might go on inside someone else's head, especially inside the head of someone who's soaked his brain in weirdo stuff for a long time. However, Bill can say (and I agree) that there's no connection which a reasonable person could justify, and no connection which anyone who has the welfare of the fraternity at heart would want to advocate. Back to the Gigas. The Lucifer in the Gigas has no genetalia visible, no female breasts, both of his arms are upward (as opposed to the as above so below suggested by Baphomet), there is no flame on or above his head and there is no pentagram (of which Baphomet's was upright, FWIW). So we have shown that the creature in the Gigas isnt Baphomet in name OR in image.... NONE of the symbols are there. That makes the following attack you made utterly illogical and hypocritical (you recall the snide remark about making connections where there are none) ... No. There are many representations of Lucifer around, with different details. Similarly, Levi's illustration is the classic Baphomet but that's only his own interpretation, and is different from other depictions (e.g. the "three-sided head" version). The difference of details is in the eye of the artist. The illustration in the Gigas may be Lucifer, but you can't know that it isn't someone else's idea of Baphomet instead. And although you make a distinction between Lucifer and Baphomet and think that distinction is important, others are not obliged to do so. I reckon the general public don't make the distinction either, and wouldn't regard the distinction as important even if it was explained to them, so in terms of what the public would make of this imagery the distinction doesn't matter. huw said: "That would be an utterly unacceptable interpretation." Its true it would be an odd interpretation but now we know it was never offered as one. Good, I'm glad we at least agree that it's odd. Whether it was ever offered as an interpretation has been left ambiguous, depending upon the (unclear) difference between "being part of the symbolism" and "being connected to the symbolism". Matt is being atttacked somtimes illogically. For instance: "Levi's illustration of Baphomet is now the classic satanic avatar, recognised the world over as such" This statement is simply and patently false. You say. I disagree. I think it is at the very least one of the classic avatars. I'll accept that there are other symbols which would be widely recognised as satanic avatars, but I don't believe any are more widely and instantly recognised as such than Levi's Baphomet, or even as widely. Again, what I'm concerned with is not what you (or Matt) think it means, or with what distinctions you make between who or what different images represent. I'm talking about what it instantly means to people at large, not devoted occultists like you. Most people out there (even most Brethren) haven't even heard of Baphomet, they'll just think "Lucifer" and that's as far as they'll go. The overwhelming majority are not Masons, much less esotericists. Agreed, obviously. And that's important, it affects what symbols mean to them, and I'm concerned with their opinion even if you're not. "Baphomet is immovably entrenched in the public mind as a symbol of absolute evil. Go out on any public street anywhere with a big poster of Levi's Baphomet image, and ask the passers-by what they think it means. Some places, you'd get run out of town just for asking!" I don't have the dictionary of philosophy beside me and I was a lazy undergrad so I don't recall the name, but here is the fallacy being committed above: No amount of peoples beliefs on any subject have any bearing on its actual meaning. I was paying attention in class, and the fallacy you're trying to accuse me of is called "argumentum ad populum" or "appeal to the popular". However, you're wrong. I wasn't trying to establish truth by popularity, I was trying to establish the popularity of the view regardless of whether it's true. I'm arguing about how people will react, not whether they're "right". People were wrong in the old days to believe in burning "witches", but lots of harmless little old ladies still got burnt. Even if I were trying to establish truth, there's a case for the fallacy of "appeal to the popular" not being applicable in symbolism, just as it isn't a fallacy in communications. All communication depends upon the speaker and listener having a common understanding of what the words mean, else valid communication doesn't occur. Similarly in symbolism, there may be a plausible case for saying that a symbol's meaning truly is defined by what most people think it means, and tough luck to minority opinions ... although I agree that isn't the only approach. But we needn't get side-tracked by that debate here. Secondly, nothing is ever immovably entrenched in peoples minds or else there would still be slavery in the US south, where minds used to be "entrenched" that it was there biblically supported and god given right to own people. Well okay, yes, given a major effort over prolonged time, these things can change ... in the slavery case, it took a bloody war and then a century of relentless indoctrination afterwards to change minds. But no-one is going to go to that much trouble to develop a good PR image for Baphomet, so the evil connotation is immovably entrenched in practical terms. "I disregard any interpretation as false which is clearly contrary to the principles and intentions of the ritual" Yes, but I am not an authority, or so highly initiated to determine undoubtedly which are the deeper and more esoterically initiatory of the principles and intentions. You're starting from the contentious assumption that such "deeper and more esoterically initiatory" principles and intentions actually exist at all. You shouldn't need to be "highly initiated" to consider this, everything masonic is bounded by the principles of the Three Degrees, as every regular jurisdiction teaches (although I'm aware that some irregulars disagree). No "higher" degree has licence to contradict the Three Degrees, it ceases to be masonic if it does that. That's the sense in which I was saying that I reject certain interpretations as false. I'm saying lets be open minded here guys, none of us are ascended masters. I admit I'm only a Master of Wisdom, but who's to say I might not yet Ascend? How do you know that someone else here hasn't already Ascended? One of my first and favorite philosophy professors taught me a great lesson which has helped me ever since ... Sometimes when we think someone has done something half assed its because we have only given half ass effort to understand them. Agreed. Now let me put on my own philosophy professor hat for a moment. Life isn't remotely long enough to study everything in detail, constantly re-inventing the wheel. Therefore judgment is necessary, including most of the time judging that something isn't worth devoting a major part of our time. In this sense, most of us end up with half-assed opinions on most things most of the time. The first step to wisdom is correctly judging when (and when not) to be half-assed yourself. The second step to wisdom is knowing when someone else is being half-assed. "the Craft needs to exist in the cultures in which we live and to be acceptable to the people around us." This is far from a necessary truth. Well, sitting there comfortably under no immediate threat, you might think that. But in my father's day, a hundred thousand masons were murdered only a day's drive from where I'm sitting, because they weren't acceptable to the rulers of their society. Even now, there are numerous countries in the world where freemasonry is a crime, some places a very serious crime. There are people in every other country with similar views, who want to make us illegal. If you think "it can't happen here" ... then bear in mind that's also what the European masons thought, until the men in jackboots started rounding them up. The future is not ours to know. "Using a symbolism which screams evil to the host culture, regardless of whether that's what you mean by it, is the fastest way to destroy the Craft." Or strengthen it by separating the wheat from the chaff. See above. We're not strengthened if we're banned. Nasty stuff happens. Consider the Morgan Affair in the US: American masonry was lucky to survive that at all, not strengthened. So even if the mob is incorrect AND murderous, mob rule should win the day? The Masons who helped found the US would think differently. It's not a matter of "should". Mob rule often does win the day, regardless of whether the mob happens to be right or wrong. Even when justice and order eventually prevails, the lynch-mob's victims are still swinging from a tree. And I don't see why Washington and Franklin and co would disagree with that statement ... especially Franklin, who knew a lot about mobs from his French experience. "And if he does 33 degrees later thats supposition becomes authority?" In point of fact a 33rd degree Mason has no more interpretive authority, esoteric or otherwise, than any Master Mason. There are in truth, it is taught, that there are only 3 degrees. All higher degrees are elaborations on the Craft. Here you've switched from quoting me to quoting fractal. Bear in mind that what you're saying is true in your jurisdiction and mine, but isn't the teaching in fractal's (LDH) jurisdiction, where they believe in 33 degrees of an integrated path, or "Initiatic Continuity" as they call it, not 3 degrees plus optional extras which are merely a further exploration of the first 3 as we teach. "There are some facts that freemasonry needs to cast in stone" This would go against everything that freemasonry has ever stood for. When things are cast in stone, evolution, growth, advancement, all such positive things cease. Not so. In the regular jurisdictions, we hold that Landmarks are cast in stone, and in practice we also regard many things which are set out in the ritual as cast in stone. If everything were set in stone, I agree that it would be stifling. But it's perfectly possible to set some things in stone (and we do), whilst allowing free interpretation of the rest. "therein is where all manner confusion and controversy (viz. Baphomet)" There is no confusion as to whether Baphomet is an alchemical symbol (at least among student's of alchemy, or should I say esoteric Freemasons). No, you should say alchemists. There are plenty of students of alchemy, including an acquaintance of mine who is a professional alchemist (and there aren't many of those left!), who regard freemasonry as irrelevant to alchemy ... hmmm, I must remember to ask him, next time I see him, what he thinks about the Baphomet. And on the other hand, an esoteric freemason doesn't necessarily have to follow an alchemical path. The idea that there's any connection between alchemy and freemasonry is merely an interpretation, an opinion, in spite of the dogmatic enthusiasm of some individuals who try to dictate their interpretations to the rest. The debate is whether or not its an alchemical symbol with relevence to our craft. I see little to debate, since the answer is obviously that it's not in any way at all relevant to what the Craft means to the overwhelming majority of us, whilst on the other hand it might be privately relevant to those who choose to see it so. I think the real debate is whether it's acceptable for those who choose an interpretation which includes some place for this symbol ought to be talking about it and trying to persuade anyone else to adopt that position. I say they shouldn't, they should keep their opinions to themselves instead of offending the rest of the Brethren and the surrounding culture. We enjoin ourselves to refrain from free speech to one another about politics and religion, for the sake of harmony, and I reckon the same reasoning applies here. Once we are through breaking down fallacious thinking and defining our terms, and of course examing the inner meanings of Baphomet's symbolism I think we may see those same gnostic ideas expressed in Masonic degrees. You, personally, alone in your own head, may of course do what the heck you like, including convincing yourself of the validity of gnosticism and the relevance of the Baphomet. However, I reckon proselytising here (or anywhere) for gnostic religion and a symbol which means "evil" to most of your audience, is clearly unmasonic conduct in itself and anti-masonic in its public effect. "I want to ultimately, hear Masonry’s interpretation ..." Masonry is not a religion and has no official interpretation. In fact it forbids official interpretations. Well, you exaggerate, some interpretations are in the rituals and lectures and are official. But beyond that, yes, official interpretation is avoided. This is why you are never to write its secrets and to only communicate them when necessary from mouth to ear. So NO DOGMA CAN FORM. I don't follow the reasoning here. Not writing the Scts, or even writing them if we were allowed to do so, isn't likely to affect the formation (or absence of formation) of a dogma. The risk of dogma arises when someone insists on an interpretation, especially if someone else finds it convincing. If you seek dogma and rules and regulations Masonry isn't for you. Surely you jest, sir? Masonry has a long rulebook. Especially in the US, where it has truly immense rulebooks, far more than any other association I can think of. Some Masons are open minded and intelligent enough to consider and examine any symbols for the very sake of gleaning from them what, if any, knowledge there may be concealed therein. By all means do so. But merely because you choose to contemplate a symbol, and merely because you who are contemplating happen to be a mason, doesn't make it a masonic symbol. Masonic symbols are the ones in our lodge rooms and in our rituals. These are things upon which we can broadly agree because they're part of our shared experience, at least within the same degree and the same jurisdiction, and in many cases globally. We can elaborate endlessly by compounding the elementary symbols, but the elementary symbols we're working with form a verifiable finite set - it's a large set because there are lots of degrees and sundry variations between jurisdictions, and it changes from time to time because practices change, but it's not infinite. We don't have to agree very much about the interpretations, but there's not a whole deal of room for argument on what the symbols actually are. Is a Square a masonic symbol? Yes, and we all know that one right from Initiation. Is a golden Circle a masonic symbol? Yes, and quite a lot of Brethren would know where to find one. Is a Pyramid a masonic symbol? Yes, although not so many Brethren would know where to find that. Is a Baphomet a masonic symbol? No. And again, if you cant handle befriending and learning from people who use "all sorts of imagery" to learn how to better themselves, even imagery you aren't used to, Masonry isn't for you. Quit beating on the poor EA! I assume fractal probably can cope with that perfectly well, but inability to cope with this would merely mean that she should stay away from people who do things that way, such as you. (Although actually, I do get the impression that way is quite popular in her jurisdiction, more so than in your jurisdiction or mine.) Your injunction here would actually exclude most of the membership of most of the regular jurisdictions, who don't do this and don't want to ... maybe you want to get rid of most of our members, but I don't. The good lodges are composed of the most eclectic freethinking open minded and accepting men I've ever met. That may be your idea of a good Lodge. It may even have something in common with my own preferences. But it isn't everybody's ideal. Really, I think you're being remarkably narrow-minded for someone who praises open-mindedness. Could this myth be saying that maybe sometimes there are benefits of contemplating darkness? Probably not. More likely it's a stern warning that even the most exalted can fall back into grievous sin. Which is the traditional wisdom, although you're not obliged to care about the centuries of analysis and debate which compose traditional wisdom. Fear is failure and the forerunner of failure. "Yeth, Herr Doktor Frankenthtein, YETH! You mutht make the monthter LIVE, mathter!" Meanwhile, the howling mob of villagers come marching up the castle track with their burning torches ... We haven't even discussed the true meaning of Baphomet, only what the ignorant masses think of him. More on the meaning later. Oh, here we go, the same tired old hubris we always get from gnostics, century after century. "No, no, why can't any of you understand, I have SEEN! All of you are fools!" Meanwhile, chuckling softly at his latest fine deception, Satan spreads his wings ... "... if you can find a direct link , please show me." You are mistaken Brother, and I will, just gimme time. I'd really rather you didn't bother. And although I'm not authorised to speak for others, I reckon it's probable that almost all of us would rather you didn't bother. In the improbable event that you managed to find the link you seek between Baphomet and masonry, then we'd have to go to all the trouble of identifying those responsible for that outrage and launching tedious disciplinary proceedings for their expulsion, and so on. "So make it doctrine not to reference Baphomet in a lodge meeting, exactly the way Jesus' name is dis-allowed in a lodge, so as not to offend - that IS doctrine!" The glaring difference is one is an hermetic/alchemical symbol meant for contemplation and expansion of consciousness, while the other was by some possibly false accounts god, meant for following to avoid damnation. Expressing a negative opinion of Jesus is even more religiously offensive than expressing your positive opinion of (what most other people see as) a satanic avatar. You may hold what opinions you like - obviously we each have our own religious opinions - but we don't say it. It appears that you just don't get it. Offending another Brother's religion is forbidden territory in masonry, you're required to stay off the subject in order not to risk such offence. It doesn't matter a jot what Baphomet means to you, if the others see it as satanic imagery (and they will), then you're bound to be causing offence. Therefore it is already forbidden to mention the subject. I look forward to further discussion on this and many topics. <Sigh> I don't. But wearily I shall persist with my duty, as I perceive it, to help defend real masonry against offensive twaddle. H.G.W., Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 23, 2011 1:08:29 GMT
There's a long history of many different oath-bound societies in China, over many centuries. Anyone who's read anything at all about Chinese history is well aware of this.
Various such societies have served various purposes, and still do. Practically anything you can imagine an oath-bound society being about, there's been an example of such a society sometime in China. There have been benevolent clubs, philosophical societies, religious sects, professional associations, trade unions, insurance mutuals, investment companies, revolutionary political parties, counter-revolutionary political parties, organised crime gangs, and so on ... all structured as oath-bound societies. Some of these groups have served multiple roles simultaneously. At some points in Chinese history, an oath-bound society has even been the government of the country. It's a deeply-engrained feature of Chinese culture to have oath-bound societies, operating with varying degrees of secrecy according to the nature of their purposes.
When Chinese culture meets Anglo-Saxon culture, and a Chinese chap is looking for an English word to describe an oath-bound society, someone is inevitably going to say "oh, you mean like the freemasons?" So of course, some of these organisations use the word "freemasons" in the English-language version of their door-sign, and this has been true for at least a couple of centuries, so it's now well-established usage.
Some of the current Chinese cultural organisations using the description "freemasons" may indeed have some coincidental resemblance to Western freemasonry. Others might be something very different or even quite opposite to what westerners understand as freemasonry. I suppose the most antithetical types of oath-bound society (e.g. criminal gangs) wouldn't be so likely to put a sign on the door, but don't rely on that: the On Leong and Hip Sing tongs (referred to in Chinese by user xgx above) both ran public offices as well as violent street gangs and drug operations ... and both are still around.
I suspect that a stranger asking nosey questions by way of "research" would generally not be made welcome. Maybe if you can read Chinese and speak at least one version of it fluently, then you might get a polite reception. If not, I'd recommend minding your own business.
H.G.W.,
Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 20, 2011 1:52:02 GMT
Hi fractal. Huw - I just understood masonry to only accept men who belive in a God whatever He be. If that has changed then I feel that the principals on which the craft was founded are being slwoly eroded. Ah, well, there you touch on an issue which is highly controversial in some quarters. I don't particularly want to get into a long argument about it, because that too often ends in a flame-war in masonic fora. However, you're asking so I'll try to answer in a neutral manner. Different organisations have different official views, and of course some members in every organisation dissent from that organisation's official view. Here in UGLE, we stand by the principle you describe. We regard it as fundamental to the definition of freemasonry, and therefore we cannot recognise as freemasons those who reject this principle. However, there are of course other bodies which disagree. As I understand the position (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), your own LDH takes the view at an international level that this principle is wrong and should not be enforced, but nevertheless allows each national federation to adopt a requirement for belief in God if it wishes ... so some do and some don't. As to whether this disagreement represents an erosion of founding principles ... well, I'd go further and say that it represents outright denial of founding principles, but you'll certainly find others who vehemently disagree. And I hope this post is acceptable to everyone as a balanced summary rather than a cause for flaming. H.G.W., Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 19, 2011 3:32:59 GMT
Greetings, Matt. You posted this before I'd finished writing my following post, which acknowledged that this one could be seen as ad hominem. However, ad hominem is not a fallacy when it is addressing the credibility of someone previously cited as being some sort of "expert" or "authority", as in this case. Please stop calling me an anti-mason because you disagree with my interpretation. It's not because I disagree with your interpretation. It's true that I disagree with it, but of course that doesn't, in itself, cause me to think it's anti-masonic. I also find your view quite shocking because I share the usual interpretation (which you describe as ignorant and superstitious) that the Baphomet is a symbol of evil ... but I accept that that's just my personal opinion, just as your opinion is yours. What worries me much more is the act of publicising and advocating a personal view which could easily be used against us. Whom does this serve? This is a fairly public forum, which anyone (including the anti-masons) might be reading. Obviously you can hold whatever view you like, but I feel obliged, for the good of the Craft, to stress (to whoever is watching) that your view is definitely unrepresentative. However, I think we've pretty much agreed that you're not interested in other people's opinions and aren't trying to represent any general tendency, so I'm happy to leave it at that. H.G.W., Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 19, 2011 2:51:36 GMT
Greetings, Matt. Correct. I find his works to be valuable, as did Pike, who quoted him often, if not stole it verbatim and put it in Morals and Dogma. Pike's writings weren't always very helpful to the good name of the Craft either, but in his case I do accept that he mostly meant well. At least he filtered out some of the more egregious nuttiness in Levi. What the ignorant masses think a symbol means has very little value to me. I agree that it needn't affect what you think inside your own head. However, the Craft needs to exist in the cultures in which we live and to be acceptable to the people around us. Using a symbolism which screams evil to the host culture, regardless of whether that's what you mean by it, is the fastest way to destroy the Craft. If anything, it is an indicator that i might look into what it is the unedecuated hate so much and why. By all means, look into it. But if you then conclude that what the host culture (including most of our own membership) thinks is evil is actually good, then it'd be far more brotherly to keep your speculations to yourself rather than damage the rest of us by association with you, when the howling mob of villagers comes after you with their burning torches. You are using a logical fallacy caled "Appeal to belief" which says that because everyone else thinks it's true, it must be. That does not hold any water logically. No I'm not. I'm asserting that evil is what most people believe this symbol means, and I reckon that's an easily verifiable fact. It doesn't much matter whether their belief is true, it's the fact that they believe it so which is what brings the harm down upon the Craft. In the case of a symbol, however, meaning is assigned by convention, that's the point of symbols, and you won't be able to change what people believe this symbol means. As for it being a symbol of satan, that's based on ignorance and superstition. Perhaps, but that's irrelevant. A symbol is just a symbol, its entire power lies in what people believe it means, regardless of why they think so. This particular fallacy is called ad hominem. No, it was merely a factual statement of my opinion between the choices previously suggested, based on the evidence so far. Again, this is an appeal to belief and an appeal to emotion. No, it was a practical suggestion for how to conduct an empirical proof that the vast majority of people would react very negatively to the Baphomet symbol, and therefore that any supposed connection of that symbol with the Craft would be harmful to the Craft. It doesn't assume or require that people are correct in such attitudes, merely that they have such attitudes. Well, I'm afraid we weren't there to really know what the founders intended. Nor anything else in history. Rational men judge by the evidence available, meaning mainly their written works left to us. Either way, you are again insinuating that I'm arguing that baphomet is a masonic symbol. I'm not. Good. But you keep asserting that there's some "connection" with this symbol, which amounts to almost the same thing, certainly in terms of potential public reaction. You are begging the question and using circular logic again. No I'm not. You appear to be just randomly accusing me of whatever fallacy you can think of a name for. Again, that's irrelevant. I agree that public reaction need not be relevant to the validity, to yourself, of your personal interpretation. But public reaction is highly relevant to the good of the Craft. Well brother, those judgments are in your head and there's nothing I can do about that. You're the one who has to live with them. I would encourage you, however, to think on your own instead of allowing what the majority thinks to guide you. Oh, I do think on my own, a lot. Sometimes I disagree sharply with a majority opinion. But when the issue is one of public acceptability, or of acceptability within the Craft, then what the majority thinks is critically important. You don't have to agree with the majority, but you'd be a fool to ignore the consequences of majority hostility. The Craft exists within society by the consent of the popular majority. Each Brother exists within the Craft by the consent of the other Brethren. If you hold a view which would offend everyone, then you risk all by shouting about it. Yes, there are times when it's quite right to stand up and make the sacrifice for principles if you sincerely believe the majority is misguided ... but if you brought the howling mob down on the rest of the Craft over something which the rest of us didn't even agree with, then you couldn't expect the Brethren to thank you. H.G.W., Huw [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 19, 2011 1:58:50 GMT
Greetings, Matt. I wouldn't want to be accused of merely attacking the source and not the argument, so I'll take the trouble to address the actual content of the Ambelain quotation. ... And then an inevitable conclusion presents itself to the mind. Adam (the Jack-of-all-Trades of the elohim), Atem, or Atoum (the Egyptian Demiurge), Helios (the Greek demiurge, driver of the World, the "Protector of Initiates" according to the Orphics), Hiram, (The Master of the Works of the Celestial Temple), in a word the Grand Architect of the Universe, and the metaphysical entity, the enduring principle of intelectual Knowledge and of Ocult Light, is but one and the same person... Well I don't know what came before "... And then", so I've no idea what bizarre logic leads him to assume this equivalence. But it already seems clear that this doesn't look like the writing of any sort of "Christian", esoteric or otherwise. Thus the ultimate identity of Lucifer as conceived by Catholicism and of Adam Kadmon of the Hebrew Kabbalah are one! This point has moreover already been regularly put forward by the Kabbalist Occultists. The "dark side" occultists, the Left-Hand Path, yes, they've said this before. But among those on the side of Good, I'm not sure whether this alleged identification would be more offensive to the Catholics or to the Kabbalists. The Singular importance of this conclusion will be all the more particularly appreciated if one studies certain chapters of the Zohar, and various Kabbalistic authors, who describe the breaking of the "vessels", the kings of Edom, etc... and in general, on the origins of Evil and its repercussions on the Natura Naturanda. Well it'd certainly be a conclusion of "Singular importance" if it were true. As it is, this nonsense is an excellent illustration of why people should be cautious about amateurish dabbling in occultism. Ambelain is not the first to have been led down the wrong path, damaged and eventually deranged, by ill-informed half-assed explorations. We would be incomplete if we omitted to mention the common character of the representations of Baphomet, known as the regular hermetic Androgyne (male bearded face, horned, female chest, erect phalus) and XVth Major Arcana of the Tarot of Marseilles, called "The Devil", which presents us with an equivalent image. Even by Ambelain's standards, this is a non sequitur. There's nothing in what he says earlier in this quote to support this assertion of the relevance of the Baphomet image. On the subject of Baphomet, Eliphas Levi gave us this french meaning of the same name, Kabbalised in Latin: "The Father of the Temple, Universal Peace for Men"... (Templi Omnium, etc.) Yeah, right. That seems an awfully long meaning for a three-syllable word, doesn't it? Perhaps I'd have to go look up Levi to see how such a meaning is derived from the name Baphomet in "French ... Kabbalised in Latin" (whatever the heck that means). Some wacky numerological gobbledegook, I suppose? Gematria always was the weakest link in Kabbalism. The Father of the Temple can equally be called Hiram, Adam Kadmon, the Demiurge, etc... It is unavoidably the Grand Architect!" I might accept that in various senses, the above might all be called "Father of the Temple". However, merely having an attribute in common does not at all mean that they're identical, that's absurd. H.G.W., Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 19, 2011 1:19:28 GMT
Greetings, Matt. Here's an excerpt from a book written by Grand Master Robert Ambelain, an esoteric christian... Ambelain? An irregular "Grand Master" of a tiny irregular order which he created out of thin air himself, "supported" by wholly bogus historical claims? A man so way-out that even the notoriously all-inclusive Grand Orient of France rejected him as irregular? That Ambelain? The man was a nut, as indeed I'd say is well-illustrated by the nutty quote you give us. What a load of rubbish. No wonder no-one with an ounce of seriousness has ever regarded him as any sort of freemason. Thank goodness. Having never been a real freemason, he knew nothing about the subject, and his wacky occult ramblings are nothing to do with us. H.G.W., Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 19, 2011 0:57:17 GMT
Greetings, Matt. Let me start by saying that nowhere have I said that Baphomet is a masonic symbol. The argument I made is that it can be connected esoterically with the teachings of masonry in many ways. As I pointed out before, pretty much anything can be "connected" if you try hard enough. Not only does that prove nothing, but some connections are highly damaging. To dream up a connection between freemasonry and the Baphomet is the action of an anti-mason, and indeed various anti-masons do exactly that, because it serves their cause. The interpretations of the symbol that I offered aren't just some that I dreamed up as you suggest, but are a few of the interpretations of Eliphas Levi I realised that, but are you offering us Levi as an example of a sane, well-intentioned individual with something useful to contribute? Not as an example of a sinister lunatic whose interpretations shouldn't be touched with a barge-pole? It was not originally a satanic avatar, but an alchemical and kabalistic one. Granted, various satanic organizations have adopted the symbol, but who cares? We could argue the origin, but that's probably not now the point. Levi's illustration of Baphomet is now the classic satanic avatar, recognised the world over as such, and indeed positively not recognised (by the overwhelming majority) as representing anything except satan. To associate ourselves with this, to suggest any possible connection, to defend the idea that there could be any connection ... is unmistakeably anti-masonic. No-one would do such a thing unless intending major harm to freemasonry. I'm a little disappointed that the only logical choices you were able to come up with after reading my posts were that i must either be a satanist or an anti-masonic infiltrator or very confused. I'm leaning towards assuming the anti-mason hypothesis. My purpose for entering this discussion is to possibly open the eyes to someone who is interested in delving deeper and finding connections, and to point out that Baphomet is not an evil symbol. Ludicrous. Whatever interpretation you (or Levi) personally might choose to put upon it, Baphomet is immovably entrenched in the public mind as a symbol of absolute evil. Go out on any public street anywhere with a big poster of Levi's Baphomet image, and ask the passers-by what they think it means. Some places, you'd get run out of town just for asking! Anyone with much background in alchemy can see quite plainly that the transformation art of freemasonry that we practice today is a system thereof. You can draw an alchemical analogy, yes, but you can also draw many other analogies. Alchemy is not the only transformational tradition, as most religions can also point out. Freemasonry is not any of those other things, it is itself. I do agree that as far as 'official interpretation' of masonic symbols we have only the ritual as an authority, with the lecture materials a distant quasi-authority. Okay, we agree on that. But that does not mean that the masonic symbols don't predate the masonry that most people know into antiquity where there is much more, so much more, connected to them. Certainly it is true that masonry adopted numerous symbols from pre-existing traditions. Systems of symbolical teaching were more widely used in illiterate societies, and the Church as the main educator in medieval Europe was a particularly heavy user of symbolism, some of which we borrowed. However, we can be wholly certain that any "connection" with satanic symbolism is not only definitely unintended but indeed the opposite of what was intended by those who founded our Craft. And the goat/man symbol, even before its classic rendition by Levi, has been a universally-recognised satanic symbol for many centuries, so our founders would have known this well and would quite specifically not have intended any such "connection". We don't need to debate whether the origin of the goat/man was intended to demonise Pan or Cernunnos, nor whether this was a Church ploy or an image authentically used by ancient pagans. The point is that the Church thoroughly succeeded in establishing that this is a symbol of evil incarnate, and that's the cultural assumption of the societies in which we now live. To simply disregard any interpretation as false because the ritual didn't spell it out is, well, for the fundamentalist. I'll admit to having some tendencies which you might regard as fundamentalist. I disregard any interpretation as false which is clearly contrary to the principles and intentions of the ritual, and that includes any connection to the Baphomet. In my neck of the woods masonry is pretty explicit in teaching that there is much more beyond the ritual that we have to seek out for ourselves. So when brothers do that and report back with their findings, do we really want to imply to them that they have no business in the fraternity or accuse them of being satanists and anti-masons? Sure, thinking for yourself about the interpretation of freemasonry is pretty much universal teaching in the Craft. However, what we think of a Brother when he reports back depends on what he comes back with. Most Brethren come back with something pretty normal. If a Brother comes back with a satanic symbol, then a large majority will join me in thinking "there's definitely something not right about this guy". And a satanic symbol is certainly what most people are going to see if you show them a Baphomet, even if you don't think they should. H. G. W., Huw
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 18, 2011 18:40:57 GMT
Hi Matt. My experience shows that everything is connected to everything. Yet that connection is often very subtle. In that sense, you can assert that absolutely anything whatever is "part of masonic symbolism" merely because you can dream up some spurious chain of connection. What we can say with certainty is that the Baphomet is no part of the intended symbolism of freemasonry. Centuries ago it was "linked" to the Knights Templar in concocted allegations by their enemies, who wanted to accuse them falsely of satanism. It has never been associated with freemasonry except by those who both believe that freemasonry is somehow connected to the medieval Templars and wish to harm freemasonry by making the same false accusation as was made against the Templars. Whatever you choose to adopt as a personal interpretation is, of course, your own business. But anyone who chooses to propagate or support a personal interpretation which includes the Baphomet, is likely to be identified by everyone else as an anti-masonic infiltrator. Are you suggesting that there are no connections in freemasonry to alchemy? There is no necessary or official connection, correct. You may choose to develop such a connection in your own mind as a personal interpretation. That there are no mysteries in masonry involving the interaction of male and female principles, of duality or polarity, no mysteries of the pentalpha Likewise: none of this is necessary or official interpretation. If you choose to think any of this is anything to do with freemasonry, then that's a matter of personal interpretation. no talk of the sun and moon Yes, that's officially included in our symbolism. The sun and moon are explicitly mentioned in the rituals and further explained in the Lectures. no teachings that suggest that the soul is connected to but elevated above matter There is a teaching that "even in this perishable frame resides a vital and immortal principle". I think most of us will see this as implying approximately what you suggest. no allusions to the connection of creation and destruction What allusions you see are up to you. In UGLE we have a fairly explicit reference to this in Royal Arch, but I don't recall anything explicit in Craft. no teachings on harmony or equilibrium? Obviously there are teachings on harmony, in particular amongst ourselves. We don't necessarily or officially equate that to equilibrium, and personally I'd reject such an equation. If you choose to think otherwise, that's your personal choice. These are some of the concepts embodied in the glyph of Baphomet. Says who? Well, says you, presumably, since you just said it. That's a perverse and bizarre interpretation of Baphomet, originally introduced as a satanic avatar. If this statement truly represents what you believe, then I reckon you're either a satanist who doesn't belong in freemasonry at all, or you're an anti-mason who has come here to cause malicious mischief, or you're very seriously confused. H. G. W., Huw
|
|