|
Post by matt on Sept 19, 2011 1:42:55 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 More ad hominem. Im beginning to see a pattern brother. When you are incapable of making a solid argument, you've reduced them to name-calling and saying that's not what most people think so it's not true. Please stop calling me an anti-mason because you disagree with my interpretation.
|
|
|
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 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 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 fractal3rd on Sept 19, 2011 6:21:56 GMT
Hello all I was the original poster of this topic and this is was really erks me about Free masonry (even tho I joined). The original installers of the craft must have had one ultimate meaning for what they depicted kinaesthetically by plays and ritual - surely it could not be left to the imagination of the 1 year old - as the initiate is just 1 degree higher than being a cowan and knows very little. How can he make of free masonry what he will? And if he does 33 degrees later thats supposition becomes authority?
Now if Baphomet is indeed perceived as evil by the masses hence we will not adopt it or acknowledge it in free Masonic teachings, then how can we adopt and substantiate Lucifer in our teachings since the vast majority including Muslims and Hindus believe him or know him to be the devil? There are some facts that freemasonry needs to cast in stone so such topics are not allowed to be conceived and blown up in the mind of those who read heaps of books and find connections in everything - there must be some things that free masonry indeed does not mean to imply and never did, but are being interpreted by many of its proponents falsely. And to that end it should not be called FREE masonry but masonry - it is my opinion that our founding fathers whoever they were, meant specific interpretations and I guess they would be disgusted to see where masonry has ended up, having initiated Alistair Crowley into the highest levels of the craft knowing him to be a Satanist of note and the most evil man of the century.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 19, 2011 6:57:54 GMT
Well you asked for information and you got some. I can assure you that all my 1 year olds were quite capable of making what they will of all things, my 4 Children [now adults] and my 13 grandkids. The nature of us all is to question and argue. You an initaite are asking questions, so you kinda shot down your own argument. You started by reference to the Codex giags and the drawing in it, Illustration of the devil, Folio 290 recto. Legend has it the codex was created by a monk who sold his soul to the devil. Throughout history we see many who will hang onto the coatails of great men. The mid to late 19th centiry was awash with such fame seekers. Levi published 'Dogmas and Rituals of High Magic' in which he drew the Baphomet and "The Sabbatic Goat". It was here and the Knight Templar references that connect the figure as being a representation of the Devil. The term Lucifer has often been argued about and some scholars insist it refers to The king of Babylon - Bible Isaiah 14 3-14 12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” 15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit.
Which is what is usually referenced by the Devil = Satan camp. However lets look at how the passage begins
How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended! 5 The LORD has broken the rod of the wicked, the scepter of the rulers, 6 which in anger struck down peoples with unceasing blows, and in fury subdued nations with relentless aggression. 7 All the lands are at rest and at peace; they break into singing.
Pike created a kind of myth by mistake I suspect. He wrote:- “Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!”
Hence the opportunity for Taxil to create a fame catcher arrives. Hence he includes the baphomet by Levi. Hence a myth is perpetuated.
Read the Taxil confession, he owned up to his hoax eventually.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 19, 2011 7:03:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fractal3rd on Sept 19, 2011 11:15:04 GMT
Hello again good conversation don't be worried, I don't usually accept everything I hear, infact the MPCG of our lodge must be quote exhausted at my questions. But let me concede I am just an initiate into Masonry, and know very little of its true and sacred meanings (in spite of reading as much as I do – I have read all of Moral and Dogma), however, of the Bible (especially), Quran, Kabala and Vedas I know a great deal. I am familiar with the translation issues surrounding Lucifer in the Bible... My point is still that people view Lucifer as the devil all be it fallaciously, it is still fact in their minds as maybe the case with Baphomet - all I am saying is that there ought to be some major belief facts of Masonry that are fixed and not open to interpretation - therein is where all manner confusion and controversy (viz. Baphomet) come in. I had a conversation with one of the members of our lodge before joining asking about the interpretation of things and the fact that I will hear everyone’s interpretation of the ritual but I want to ultimately, hear Masonry’s interpretation. There must have been one true meaning to things at the beginning. You know, this is how religion kept evolving cos people kept adding and taking away from the original. If true, pure meanings were kept then interpretations would be passed down from Master to initiate without people adding in bits about Baphomet and Satan and Lucifer and stuff... You must understand these questions come from a place within me that worries that the higher levels do have Baphomet etc.… as an instrument of worship – It put me as ease when you said this was not so, then I felt uneasy at the progression of the thread knowing that some masons do pull in all sorts of imagery into their Masonic beliefs… Since we are tolerant of all, then this will always be the case, but where does one draw the line and say – well Baphomet can’t be part of Masonic belief because…, At least on this, you must agree there is fine line?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 19, 2011 13:10:03 GMT
fractal3rd said:
Then you are creating doctrine, doctrine is the foundation of religion. Religion excludes those who do not follow doctrine ? Am I making my point. You can not have it both ways, the Freedom to choose and a pre formatted path can not exist together.
There is no one voice that speaks for Freemasonry.
The line is already drawn the baphomet has no place in Freemasonry at any level. There is no fine line no link, nothing under any circumstance. if you can find a direct link , please show me.
Back to Pike for a second, he was totally self taught, he like many of his contemporaries, shall we say adopted stuff from other writers.
But remember what Pike wrote in the preface.
|
|
|
Post by fractal3rd on Sept 19, 2011 13:44:03 GMT
Okay, doctrine was created by religion (or vice versa) which mainly has evolved away from the true "Doctrine" (one must believe that there was a true doctrine), whether that is God created the heavens and earth and said let there be light or it was produced out of the naval of a deity... the point is something happened to create stuff (as an example)... someone or two at the beginig of time knew what this was and somehow it became different doctrine to different people - I am saying, surely Masonry had a pure "doctrine" for want of a better word (I understand doctrines like the world being flat etc. these were theories that needed to be debated). I understand your saying that Baphomet has no place in Masonry but you cannot guarantee that other lodges and indeed people who hold views similar to Matt, don't influence the teachings of a lodge a certain way. Or place such arguments in people’s minds as a matter of opinion. Perhaps this is a silly example but let us the use the pentacle and/or hexagram, Masonry has a specific use of it - and to pagans there is still a different use, and to Satanists still even a different use. Here Masonry explains its use, thus this is Masonic Doctrine - I don't think you can escape the fact that most things do become doctrine when they are understood and believed - I am saying let us understand one meaning of the major craft belief system and symbols - yes make that doctrine - but not everything there is still heaps to interpret differently and have opinions over. 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! Whichever way you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 19, 2011 14:33:36 GMT
To a lot of people, symbols are used as a means of concentrating the mind and introducing to it certain concrete thoughts, calling up certain associated ideas and stimulate certain feelings. The initiate of the mysteries, however, uses symbols in a different way. He uses it much like a student of algebra, through which he will read the secrets of unknown potencies. He uses a symbol to guide thought out into the unseen and incomprehensible. He uses symbols as a starting place to explore the mysteries, not simply as an end unto itself.
Approached in this way, the symbols no longer form any sort of doctrine, nor is any doctrine even needed or wanted. It's been said that Masonry both reveals and conceals. Behind whatever meaning we assign to a symbol, there is a deeper meaning, and when you discover that deeper meaning, there is still a deeper one, ad infinitum...
Perhaps a paradigm shift is in order. Instead of only concerning our self with "what did the founders mean", we could benefit more to approach symbols as "what can this mean to me?"
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 19, 2011 14:41:50 GMT
Hi Matt, yes symbolism is just that, the prompter of thought.
"A picture is worth a thousand words" does not make the picture itself powerful, it is just a conduit.
Ans yes fractal3rd I will defend Matts right to his opinion whatever the cost. May not agree with him, but that is not important.
Exactly where does this happen ? the inclusion of the Baphomet in a Lodge meeting. I have never heard of it ?
|
|
|
Post by fractal3rd on Sept 19, 2011 15:21:20 GMT
Hello again, Completely understand symbols having the ability to allow us to creat new insights of the world around us. that is great! Like I said there are still heaps to allow free thinking about. I am a Mathamatician/Statistican hence algebra would be you talking my language - while you are correct and it does allow for deeper insights and new theorems; the base and symbols in aglebra are fixed, there are docrines/rules which always hold true - (NO dividsion by zero this is undefined you can do it but its non-sensical) Whilst I believe all are entiled to eachs opinion, what I am saying is there should be a base that is fixed like in algebra and calculus (a base that was created and given meaning but is understood to be the same by all and not open to various interpretation - x squared has only one derivative and only one intergal although x itself can be whatever we like, within the bounds of the numberline we are using). Again there are fucntional rules/doctrine that govern all intergartion and all differntiation in Calculus. This is what I am saying of Masonry - there should be functional rules - if Baphomet is not part of Masonic tradition then don't even try to tie up the circle within a circle to it. Make it doctrine that the God of Free Masonry is not Satan! Don't leave such things up to the readers mind. Define what Satan is and show that masonry isn't this in no uncertain terms. Btw I did not say Baphomet is mentioned in lodge it was a bad example I am saying there should a rule to say that this sort of thing has nothing to do with true masonry especially since it came well after masory anyways. Well gents it has been a blast chatting I do enjoy learning new things thats why I joined this forum and my lodge. Please, know that I do value such chats and learn alot during them. Heads up I do enjoy playing devils advocate sometimes. . Have a great day/night where ever you are. AND GO BOKKE!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 19, 2011 16:28:51 GMT
The base you are referring to does exist in Masonry. It is the ritual, and the moral meaning that the ritual assigns to the symbol. That's the known factor that we use as a spring board. There's no real need for more dogma than already exists. In fact, that would be a huge detriment in my opinion. Because as has been mentioned, masonry is for each individual to carve out his or her own path. It's not a system that gives you all the answers. It asks questions and propels the initiate off into the mysteries of universe, of which there are no absolutes. It's a mystery.
I used to think that Masonry's biggest flaw was that it dangles a carrot in front of the initiate, letting them think the "true meaning" of these symbols comes in a later degree. Now I think that's part of the beauty. There is no "true meaning" beyond what the initiate is capable of assigning for himself based upon the ritual, which is painted with a very broad brush. It creates the backdrop and the "true meaning", the detail, is created by each individual mason. That's indeed one of it's greatest beauties.
Yet to those of us who are used to having answers given to us through reading books, or accepting the ideas of "scholars" or clergy the above idea might seem ludicrous. It's actually quite radical to the systems of education that society is used to. That's what sets it apart. It truly is a mystery school. It empowers the individual and fans the spark inside of them. It helps to make it's initiates creators of their own world.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 19, 2011 21:41:34 GMT
There are 28 pupils in a classroom, the teacher gives the same information to all 28 in the same manner.
20 end up taking a 'University degree' and 8 end up on 'Americas got talent'. There is nothing wrong with either. Just different. it is not the destination that is important it is the journey.
|
|
frater209
Member
per mediam noctis ad solem
Posts: 19
|
Post by frater209 on Sept 22, 2011 5:38:44 GMT
" I did not think very many peopel had heard of the Codex Gigas." I'm glad you brought this up because I, too, have been intrigued by the Codex Gigas. (I'm still waiting for the trade paperback ). Now I have studied it very little. I have read of it on Wiki, I have watched the NatGeo TV special, and I have read limited information from various websites like The World Digital Library. What none of the scholarship I've found does is to equate the picture in the Codex with Baphomet. Its always Lucifer, or Satan. 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. "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 ) "Also as a new initiate it makes me feel alot better that Baphomet doe not find its way into Masonic belief". 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.... for then those preconceptions may be all we find in any case. Whether it was Lightfoot or not I do agree and I try to encourage such open-mindedness. Bill re-iterated this thought quite succinctly: "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. 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." 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): "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." 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. I am here to learn and make freinds, so I feel bad being new to this forum and getting into a conversation as intense as this, but before I even get to inject my own minor and possibly worthless opinions there are other fallacies and plain falsehoods I feel need ironing out. 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. The "recognised" avatar of which you speak is a goat's head within and inverted pentagram (kinda like the one the OES uses.) It has no body or anything else associated with it. Levi's Baphomet is not a goat, has a veritable grimoire of alchemical symbols within and around it, and is associated EXPLICITLY with an upright and NOT an inverted pentagram. The Satanic symbols are not baphomet, period. "indeed positively not recognised (by the overwhelming majority) as representing anything except satan." The overwhelming majority are not Masons, much less esotericists. Speaking of which that is where this thread belongs--- under esoteric freemasonry, not general freemasonry. Looks to an outsider like me that this thread frowns on esoteric ideas. "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. 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. "I disregard any interpretation as false which is clearly contrary to the principles and intentions of the ritua" 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. I'm saying lets be open minded here guys, none of us are ascended masters. (Although my uncle recently invited me to see him in the Himalayas ;D ) "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." One of my first and favorite philosophy professors taught me a great lesson which has helped me ever since. I was critiquing some argument or other and although I didn't say 'half-assed' I said something to the tune of the idea in question being ridiculous and not well thought out. I think we were talking about Swinburne. Anyways prof said to me, you have to realize you are young. this philosopher has struggled with these ideas twice as long as you've been alive or longer. Though you may not agree with him realize that they are very well thought out and certainly not ridiculous. Sometimes when we think someone has done something half assed its because we have only given half ass effort to understand them. Maybe explore them more ourselves. "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. "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. "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." 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. "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. "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. Because the dogmatists hold to the stone as if a rock were the Logos itself. The Logos (or lost word) is alive, not dead in stone, and as such is ever changing and evolving, and adapting itself to the needs of all seekers. And since the Logos is alive and all that imples, so it is written upon the face of nature, not inert stone, but ever expanding life itself with all its splendour. "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). The debate is whether or not its an alchemical symbol with relevence to our craft. 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. "I want to ultimately, hear Masonry’s interpretation. There must have been one true meaning to things at the beginning. You know, this is how religion kept evolving cos people kept adding and taking away from the original. If true, pure meanings were kept then interpretations would be passed down from Master to initiate without people adding in bits" Masonry is not a religion and has no official interpretation. In fact it forbids official interpretations. 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. If you seek dogma and rules and regulations Masonry isn't for you. "these questions come from a place within me that worries that the higher levels do have Baphomet etc.… as an instrument of worship – It put me as ease when you said this was not so, then I felt uneasy at the progression of the thread knowing that some masons do pull in all sorts of imagery into their Masonic beliefs" Contemplating symbols and worshipping them are two very different things. No one wants you to worship Baphomet. 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. DO NO MISTAKE SYMBOLS FOR THE THINGS THEY REPRESENT. 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. The good lodges are composed of the most eclectic freethinking open minded and accepting men I've ever met. Think of one of our core Masonic myths. Solomon and the building of his temple. He enlisted the aid of demonic beings to do so! Could this myth be saying that maybe sometimes there are benefits of contemplating darkness? Think of the serpent in Eden. Yeah, we're not gonna worship him (unless we want to!), but even without worshipping him isnt there something about the nature of creation/being/humanity/sin etc by contemplating him? Fear is failure and the forerunner of failure. It was Jung who said, "Enlightenment is not imagining figures of light, but making the darkness conscious." "well Baphomet can’t be part of Masonic belief because…, At least on this, you must agree there is fine line?" We haven't even discussed the true meaning of Baphomet, only what the ignorant masses think of him. More on the meaning later. "The line is already drawn the baphomet has no place in Freemasonry at any level. There is no fine line no link, nothing under any circumstance. if you can find a direct link , please show me. " You are mistaken Brother, and I will, just gimme time. "but as Freemasonry teaches, it is you who decides what resides in you, no one else." Where does Freemasonry teach this? "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. The fact that Baphomet is an alchemical glyph can't possible be false.... after all solve et coagula is written on his arms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I wanted to reply to all the points in this thread which I felt warranted it, so I could join the conversation from there, being caught up with everyone. I look forward to further discussion on this and many topics. And BTW--- this belongs in Esoteric Freemasonry forum.... not the "general" side. But whether you move it or not please do allow it to continue as I feel there are fruits still to be won from the dialogue. --Fr. 209
|
|
frater209
Member
per mediam noctis ad solem
Posts: 19
|
Post by frater209 on Sept 22, 2011 5:52:16 GMT
Anubis, "What, exactly, is the "Pagan/Gentile" religion. I must say I've never heard of such a thing." Off the top of my head I'm thinking he was referring to non-jews, the gentiles, who were pagans. He's referring to pre-judaic religion dating from as far back as Sumer? I think. --Fr. 209
|
|
frater209
Member
per mediam noctis ad solem
Posts: 19
|
Post by frater209 on Sept 22, 2011 6:22:43 GMT
I would like to post a meditation from Paul Foster Case on Atu XV.
To me it is so very inspiring because he starts with a consideration of a lower manifestation of being, like Baphomet of whom we've spoken, but the meditation ends with an exaltation of the highest godhead. Its from his classic "Book of tokens."
----------------------------------
1 THUS saith He who formulateth in darkness: I am Lord, not of light alone. But of darkness also, For I the One am all-pervading. This is a hard saying and a stumbling block to many, Yet must ye consider it well And ponder it in your hearts.
2 Is it not written in Exodus That the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, And again, in Isaiah, "I create both the evil and the good"? Have ye not also read, "The EYE of the Lord is in every place" ? And David saith, " If I descend into Sheol, thou art there."
3 AYIN is that EYE, And it is in every place in very truth, Because place there is not, save in the manifested, And wherever place is There also are light and darkness, side by side. From the mixture of light and darkness Do all things proceed, And I am Prince of Darkness As well as King of Light. Shall there be anything Wherein I, the Lord of all, have no dominion?
4 They see crookedly who know this not, And in their deluded minds They divide my nature, Setting the Kingdom of Light Over against the Realm of Darkness, And thus making two gods. But the darkness is the fountain of existence, Whence the universe floweth forth, And thick darkness, Which is my habitation, Is the substance of all outward appearance.
5 Five-score and thirty is the EYE Which is the wellspring of outward appearance. That EYE is the ONE, Multiplied through the Sephiroth. It is the Sun of Life and Light, Shining through the twelve tribes of heaven, And spreading their power through the Tree of Life, To make all things new. Yet does every beam of that Sun Cast a shadow also, For in all creation Are light and darkness mixed, And, their equilibrium Is the mystery of mystery. One, and not two, Is the beginning and end of all; But two are the aspects it presenteth to mankind, Because men are subject to the illusion of duality.
6 I, the Lord, destroy with darkness, But with darkness do I also create. The wise discern this. Fools, deluded by outward appearance, Create a demon out of the web of their folly. In the last day shall the demon be cast into a lake of fire; But to each man there is appointed a last day, And none knoweth the time Save He who hath appointed it.
7 The lake of fire Is that divine understanding Which cometh to a man Who succeedeth in contemplation. As did our father Abraham, And the last day Is the time of that achievement. Then shall all things pass away for that man. And he shall behold all things anew. And the Prince of Darkness Shall be cast into the lake of fire. For then shall that enlightened one see That the demon is but the shadow Of the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 22, 2011 18:44:33 GMT
Some claim the Baphomet is a french corruption of Mahomet, or Mohammed.
It could also come from the hebrew: Maphtah Bet Yahweh = The Key to the House of God.
There are also the greek Baphe Metros or Baphe Metios = the Baptism or Tincture of Wisdom or the Baptism of the Mother. Baphe Metis = the Baptism of Wisdom
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."
Or if we use atbash temurah: tmwpb (Baphomet) = )ypw# (Sophia).
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. So the animal nature of man, within which is imprisoned the divine spark, symbolized by the torch coming out of his head, and the pentagram on his head. The point up representing the quintessense, the spirit, rising above the 4 points of nature: fire, water, air, and earth.
Baphomet is a symbol of you and me. 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 22, 2011 21:45:00 GMT
Entomology The English word howitzer originates ultimately from the Czech word houfnice. Czech houfnice is derived, through the addition of the suffix -nice, from the word houf, "crowd", suggesting the cannon's use against massed enemies,and houf is in turn a borrowing from the Middle High German word Hūfe or Houfe (modern German Haufen), meaning "heap". Haufen, sometimes in the compound Gewalthaufen, also designated a pike square formation in German.
In reality we all know its a big cannon that blows people to bits.
|
|