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