|
Post by fractal3rd on Sept 5, 2011 7:03:31 GMT
I was wondering what the baphomet has to do with freemasonry (if anything at all) – and what its significance is. I recall watching a documentary some time ago – on the Codex Gigas which mentioned the baphomet – the origins of this book are quite strange. I tried to understand when the first mention of this figure came to light its very difficult to get accurate info - Iknow some say the knights templars had a connection to it...?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 5, 2011 8:52:42 GMT
This web site will give a good explanation of the introduction to the public and being connected to Freemasonry. blog.templarhistory.com/2010/04/the-baphomet-and-the-freemasons/Leo Taxil, born Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pages, was a freethinker who made his living writing pornographic stories in serial form. Freethinker was a term given to those who opposed the authority and dogma of society, especially when that authority was religious in nature. In addition to his anti-Masonic writings, Taxil also was known for his works opposing Catholicism. Taxil upon petitioning admission to the Masonic lodge met with opposition of its members, largely due to his reputation as an anti-Catholic writer. Objections aside, Taxil was made a member for a short time after which he was expelled from the order. Perhaps this expulsion prompted him to write his Anti-Masonic works or perhaps it was his purpose for joining in the first place. In any case Taxil would go on to perpetrate a hoax that has lasted decades. ................. The purpose of Taxil’s hoax was to reveal a highly secret Masonic order called the Palladium, which only existed in Taxil’s imagination. Palladium, Taxil claimed, practiced Devil worship, murder and other brutalities of an erotic nature. His works published in 1885 and 1886 were very popular with a public eager to read the horrors of Freemasonry. In his book “Les Mysteries Franc Maconnerie” (cover shown above) Taxil utilized Levi’s Baphomet.
|
|
|
Post by fractal3rd on Sept 6, 2011 9:19:15 GMT
thanks for this I have read Morals and Dogma (Yes I did - even when I wasn't a mason) I did not remeber these quotes in the link although it was a big book - I googled the M&D and searched for these phrases and you're right they are not there. Interesting. However, Pike does mention the whole Lucifer thing tho. I thnk he was a misunderstood guy. So it is established that Baphomet is never mentioned in a masonic ritual? Is that right?
But Still Baphomet makes its appearance for the first time - I understand - when the Codex Gigas was found in the Czech Rep. This was a copy of the Bible separated by a picture of Baphomet then a number of spells and incantations, herbal remedies etc...
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 6, 2011 19:48:09 GMT
The Codex Gigas or the Devils Bible has a representation of the devil which looks something like the Baphomet. Check out the Wiki reference en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BaphometElias Levi who was the illustrator for Taxil instigated the now known image of the Baphomet. The name Baphomet appears in July 1098 in a letter by the crusader Anselm of Ribemont: explanation in the above link. The codex gigas did not arrive until the 13th century.
|
|
|
Post by fractal3rd on Sept 8, 2011 6:02:16 GMT
Thanks for this was very infromative - I did not think very many peopel had heard of the Codex Gigas. Also as a new initiate it makes me feel alot better that Baphomet doe not find its way into Masonic belief.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 8, 2011 6:11:43 GMT
Masonic belief is and will be what you make of it.
You are the master of your own destiny.
Whenever I doubt myself i read Kiplings 'IF'. The shortest explanation of being a mason ever written.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 17, 2011 2:44:47 GMT
Viewing baphomet as a hoax is one way of looking at it. But it could be that there are great mysteries surrounding that alchemical image, connected with various other symbols that are hermaphrodites. Sun and Moon, Yin and Yang, Lingam and Yoni. As for its connection to freemasonry, many adepts can see at least a vague connection in the symbolism. I'd not be so quick to throw it out as complete hogwash. There is mythos surrounding the templars and assassins that includes Salah'uh Din passing on the mysteries of Baphomet to them. Yet, even if the symbol has no direct connection with most rites, what it means to the initiated, and the various formulas it represents, are paralleled even in the first degree of Masonry. The point within a Circle comes immediately to mind.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 17, 2011 9:29:22 GMT
I dont remember the point within a circle being part of the first degree.
But why let facts get in the way of a good story.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, however if you wish to argue against facts you should come up with a few facts.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 17, 2011 20:37:48 GMT
I dont remember the point within a circle being part of the first degree. It's in our Explanation of the First Tracing Board.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 17, 2011 21:06:00 GMT
Yes, but not in common use in the UK. Of course it may be in other countries and Provicnes. I have never heard the explanation of the first tracing board.
The 'point within the Circle' is quite clearly an integral part of the third degree.
I suppose I could re phrase and say it is not part of the teaching of the Iniate degree , the First degree.
matt was reaching to make a connection by saying
I am saying , no matter what language you use or leap of imagination or reaching you make there is no connection.
If you support the theorum you are saying that the Devils Bible represents the symbolism of the Baphomet which is included in the first degree of Freemasonry. At which point we meet on the field of intellectual battle. I will not stand by and see this theory put forward without challenge.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 18, 2011 6:10:09 GMT
Brother Bill,
Are you suggesting that there are no connections in freemasonry to alchemy? That there are no mysteries in masonry involving the interaction of male and female principles, of duality or polarity, no mysteries of the pentagram, no talk of the sun and moon, no teachings that suggest that the soul is connected to but elevated above matter, no allusions to the connection of creation and destruction, or no teachings on harmony or equilibrium? These are some of the concepts embodied in the glyph of Baphomet.
My experience shows that everything is connected to everything. Yet that connection is often very subtle.
|
|
|
Post by huw on Sept 18, 2011 18:01:54 GMT
Hi Bill et al. The 'point within the Circle' is quite clearly an integral part of the third degree. That's true, Bill, but other posters are correct that it is first met in the First Degree as part of the Lectures (Sixth Section of the Lecture in the First Degree) and in the explanation of the First Tracing Board (which is a concatenation of extracts from our Lectures). It is then met again in the Third. For the benefit of readers from other jurisdictions, note that in UGLE rituals, the Third Degree references to the point within the circle are part of the compulsory work which every member sees, whereas the First Degree references are in optional work which many members rarely (or maybe never) see in use, although it's in the book. If you support the theorum you are saying that the Devils Bible represents the symbolism of the Baphomet which is included in the first degree of Freemasonry. At which point we meet on the field of intellectual battle. I will not stand by and see this theory put forward without challenge. I'm with you on this one, Bill. That would be an utterly unacceptable interpretation. T & F, 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
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 18, 2011 21:05:31 GMT
Brother Bill, Are you suggesting that there are no connections in freemasonry to alchemy? That there are no mysteries in masonry involving the interaction of male and female principles, of duality or polarity, no mysteries of the pentalpha, no talk of the sun and moon, no teachings that suggest that the soul is connected to but elevated above matter, no allusions to the connection of creation and destruction, or no teachings on harmony or equilibrium? These are some of the concepts embodied in the glyph of Baphomet. My experience shows that everything is connected to everything. Yet that connection is often very subtle. Brother Matt No, not at all I just can not stay silent when there is an attempt to connect Freemasonry to evil. Albert Pike quote: The Onion was sacred to the Egyptians, because its different layers were a symbol of the concentric heavenly spheres. Of course the popular religion could not satisfy the deeper longings and thoughts, the loftier aspirations of the Spirit, or the logic of reason. The first, therefore, was taught to the initiated in the Mysteries. There, also, it was taught by symbols. The vagueness of symbolism, capable of many interpretations, reached what the palpable and conventional creed could not. Its indefiniteness acknowledged the abstruseness of the subject: it treated that mysterious subject mystically: it endeavored to illustrate what it could not explain; to excite an appropriate feeling, if it could not develop an adequate idea; and to make the image a mere subordinate conveyance for the conception, which itself never became obvious or familiar. Morals & Dogma ------------- Freemasonry has many layers, I just insist that none are evil. You and everyone must choose those that you find comfortable.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 18, 2011 22:58:26 GMT
Brother huw,
Thank you for your opinion.
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. 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, from Dogme et Rituel. It was not originally a satanic avatar, but an alchemical and kabalistic one. Granted, various satanic organizations have adopted the symbol, but who cares?
Again, I'm not trying to argue that baphomet is a masonic symbol, merely that it is connected.
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. While I think everyone shares in various levels of confusion both in the fraternity and more specifically this thread, the other two options are certainly untrue. 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. The original poster asked if it had any significations and i'm trying to point out some that many people over the ages have found. It's a symbol of the archetypal Man, like other androgynous symbols and much like the actual masonic lodge is. Yes, you can point out that is simply my interpretation.
Anyone with much background in alchemy can see quite plainly that the transformation art of freemasonry that we practice today is a system thereof.
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. 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.
To simply disregard any interpretation as false because the ritual didn't spell it out is, well, for the fundamentalist. 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?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 18, 2011 23:00:33 GMT
Brother Bill,
I agree that there are many layers and that none of them are evil.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 19, 2011 0:12:37 GMT
Here's an excerpt from a book written by Grand Master Robert Ambelain, an esoteric christian. From Le Martinisme, Occult and Mystical Freemasonry (1643-1943), from page 110:
"... 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...
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 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.
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.
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.)
The Father of the Temple can equally be called Hiram, Adam Kadmon, the Demiurge, etc... It is unavoidably the Grand Architect!"
|
|
|
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 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 matt on Sept 19, 2011 1:40:46 GMT
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.
What the ignorant masses think a symbol means has very little value to me. If anything, it is an indicator that i might look into what it is the unedecuated hate so much and why. 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. As for it being a symbol of satan, that's based on ignorance and superstition.
This particular fallacy is called ad hominem.
Again, this is an appeal to belief and an appeal to emotion.
Well, I'm afraid we weren't there to really know what the founders intended. Either way, you are again insinuating that I'm arguing that baphomet is a masonic symbol. I'm not. You are begging the question and using circular logic again.
Again, that's irrelevant.
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.
|
|