THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.thelema,alt.magick.order,alt.pagan.magick
From: 333 
Subject: Re: GD Perspective on OS Thelemic Switch?
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:27:52 GMT

50021210 VII

Hail to the Guardians of the Watchtower of the West!

333:
>>>>> while reflecting on http://www.osogd.org/
>>>>> some 'Open Source GD' material from "Fr. A.o.C." 
>>>>> in usenet stuck out to me and I'd enjoy conjecture on its implication:
>>>>>
>>>>> # Once something is "abrogate", it is open to be replaced with anything.
>>>>> # So we declare the old GD system abrogate, then proceed to put *most* of it
>>>>> # back in place, changing only those things that don't fit the formulae of
>>>>> # the new Aeon. To give but one example, our Hierophant in the East is
>>>>> # Horus, replacing Osiris. Horus in the West is replaced with Set.
>>>>>
>>>>> what is the likely repercussion to the ceremonialist in making this
>>>>> change, from a *GD perspective*? i.e. what is the spin this puts on
>>>>> a candidate as defined within GD symbolism? if you have any ideas,
>>>>> ritual analysis with respect to Freemasonry and Golden Dawnism, etc.,
>>>>> I'd love to hear them. thanks.

Re O'Stat:
>>> The system of the GD is one particular system. The system of the OSGD 
>>> is another system....

there is a point to be made that a different configuration of people and
any slight or major tweaks will result in a different system. the value
of 'Open Source' in this particular instance is quite apparent -- it
allowed those familiar with the general symbolism of GD rituals, such as 
yourself, to analyze some problems which those expecting the GD might 
find out by accident or after long years of association otherwise.

the fact that they are different systems or that the names may be subject
to abuse is really not too surprising. after all, look at what the Golden
Dawn did to the Rosicrucians and what Crowley did to both of them in his AA
(made them, as many of them tried to do with Freemasonry, prerequisites).
what is surprising is that they are willing to lay bare their system for
those outside it to analyze in public and announce to the interested what
may be some characteristic experiential differences to be expected (as we
are doing here).

>>> ...the OSGD is not the GD (they are focused more to Thelema) 

prepending two initials usually presupposes difference. your claim seems
to be that these two initials are insufficient to clearly distinguish
on account that it isn't just the fact that it is Open Source that has
been the major differences, and given what I've heard so far I'm inclined
to agree, though I'm still trying to learn what people think the GD 
system is and how it differs from the OSGD. that's another benefit, too
from the *OS*GD, is that its apparent condition makes it a possible topic
of conversation without secrecy-shroudings (i.e. it may be used as a
diving board from which to more completely understand the GD system, 
if through its difference rather than its commonality).

>>> ...A great deal of the GD material is obsolete or a soporific. It 
>>> should be changed and updated (IMHO). 

really? what should be changed and still have it be the GD (or would
you call that changed thing something else too?)?

>>> But that does NOT mean shifting to the Thelemic paradigm. 

so as you see it the two are not coincident recontextualized as they
are within a different deity-symbolism, even though their gods are
both Egyptian in derivation and form a similar role in rites. the
god is sufficiently important to the entirety's symbolism that it
changes the entire nature of the work.

>>> That does not mean putting Horus on the throne of the East.
>>> that does not mean putting Set on the throne of the West.

it might for a 'Thelemic Revision of GD', tho.
 
>>> What are the repercussions? That's easy. If a person is beginning
>>> his/her training with the OSGD, my guess is they will get some good
>>> training. Of course, since they are working a new system which is not GD
>>> and not Thelemic, they will have to work on developing a new egregore,
>>> which may take some time. 

how are egregores developed? do they require food and a cage or something?

>>> If a person has been working a Thelemic or GD path, they will have 
>>> to make a sudden and major shift in spiritual and magical direction. 

rather than remain in their previous formulae.
 
Re O'Stat :
>Crowley's def. of magick includes that it is an science AND art.
>On that artistic side, each person is different.

of course, but that doesn't make broad generalization impossible.

>...While certain practices (the science part) will be the same, 
>the results (inwardly and outwardly) will be different from 
>person to person.

this is part of what could go into supporting the 'different group
yields different system' thingee I mentioned above, natch.

EAST
>Osiris, in the 0=0, is the form held by the Hierophant, the leader of 

>the temple. So who is Osiris? 

dying god. the god of the Old Aeon, according to these Crowleyites.

and quoting a website to educate poor hy and I on the subject (thanks!):
>"...the oldest religious texts known to us refer to him as the great god 
>of the dead, and throughout them it is tacitly assumed that the reader 
>will understand that he once possessed human form and lived upon earth, 
>and that by means of some unusual power or powers he was able to bestow 
>upon himself after the death a new life which he lived in a region over 
>which he ruled as king, and into which he was believed to be willing to 
>admit all such as had lived a good and correct life upon earth, and had 
>been buried with the appropriate ceremonies under the protection of 
>certain amulets, and with proper recital of certain "divine words" and 
>words of power. "
>( from http://www.touregypt.net/osiris.htm )
>Now ... let's look at Horus:
>"The falcon-god Horus is one of the most important gods of Ancient 
>Egypt. He is the divine personification of the kingship and the god of 
>the heavens at the same time.
>From the Early-Dynastic Period on, Horus is associated with the (divine) 
>kingship of Egypt. The king is a Horus, the bodily representation of the 
>last real god to have ruled Egypt. This is reflected in the oldest title 
>of the Egyptian kings, the Horus-name, where the king is called "Horus 
>NN". The representations of Horus wearing the double crown confirm his 
>relationship with the Egyptian monarchy."
> [from this site ( http://www.ancient-egypt.org/religion/gods/horus.html ) 
>
>So what is the difference and how does tha apply to a GD student?

that's the first step. the second step, in my mind, would be to also try
to explain how the GD were attempting to improve on Freemasonic rituals,
with their Masters in three of the directions. after that, we may be able
to see why someone might, for example, re-orient the systems to another 
direction (West, for example, or North), replace the gods (Kali and Siva
for West and East, respectively, for example), replace the secrets, etc.

>The entire focus of spiritual development in the GD is the concept 
>that death and resurrection are spiritual in nature. The "death" is a 
>non-initiate[d] blindness to the spiritual realities which underlie the 
>world....

of course they are spiritual, and they are also bodily. since the spirit
(as well as the mind, personality, etc.) is dependent upon the body for 
its existence, literal death and resurrection is not possible, and the
stories of its occurrence are INTERIOR patterns of experience which may
be had prior to bodily disintegration and spiritual extinction (what I
tend to call 'revelation' or just 'initiation').

in this schema, 'death' is merely a discontinuity, rather than the end
of subjective experience that it truly is. in part this is one of the 
problems of the Old Aeon way of seeing things: there are too many ready 
traps for the gullible to fall into and dogmatize falsity to the herd.

>Indeed, by the time a GD initiate has finished the 5=6 ritual, he 
>or she has been crucified (literally) and shown rebirth. This is only 
>hinted at in the "quit the night and seek the day" speech in the 0=0.

apparently this is done in rituals, symbolically. false things may be
'shown' in ritual too. that doesn't make them any more true, even if
their symbolism is valuable.

>Osiris is perfect to oversee the entire development of the initiate 
>as He is a deity of death and resurrection; death to the darkness 
>of (spiritual) night and rebirth into the brightness of the new 
>(spiritual) day.

doesn't someone else initiate him? the usual story I hear is that Set
tricks him and tears him apart, losing his prick. the fact that his 
penis is missing makes him a kind of UNFORTUNATE god to have as one's 
central Initiator of Magic, doesn't it? artiphallic! I suggest that
the Crowned and Conquering Child King may be more rational.

>Horus, on the other hand, is about being the king. Period. It is about 
>ruling. Spiritually, this can be seen to be ruling yourself. It is about 
>power. Who better than the king of earth and the heavens to hold the 
>line against those who might attack? No wonder the G.D. puts this 
>king into West, as the Hierus, to hold back the forces of darkness!

makes sense if the dark forces are your adversaries, agreed, and then
when your hero (Horus) 'goes down', you get your initiation from the
Set guy who's striving to close in on Osiris from the West and make 
him into a Jesus.

>But in the self-titled OSGD, Horus now oversees the ritual. Death and 
>Resurrection? From darkness into light? Fugedaboutit!

hmm? Egyptian stories locked into Approved and Not Really? there wasn't
ever some cycle about Horus and Set in a constant struggle too? if not,
maybe this is just the Prophane Prophane rites taking place over in
Horustown, closer to the Evil Setian Invader's House (i.e. OSGD is like
playtime in the temple's anteroom).

>Instead, take your kingship. Take control. You're the freakin' king. 

right, which is the position Osiris is in if Set doesn't come and tear
him apart and throw his penis away. isn't that a better contextual god
to administer initiation, rather than to undergo it (you can have Osiris
all over the floor of the temple room in pieces if you want him there)?

>So what happens to spiritual development in the GD tradition when people 
>make this switch? What do you think would happen? Kings, traditionally, 
>are after power. They take what they want. They have a freakin' "divine 
>right."

we should be able to similarly analyze GD ritual prior to this and compare
it with Freemasonic tradition of Worshipful Masters, what is intended as
their function, how it changes things to regard them as gods or human-
stand-ins-for-gods, etc.

Re rants about OSGD:
>They can call their group anything, including taking the name of other 
>groups. They KNOW they're superior (after all, they're the king).
>They've improved on what went before by abandoning it. They're 
>independent. Secret chiefs? We don' need no steenkeen secret chiefs.

sounds like a reasonable source to learn about things from, rather 
than someone who's all pent up in secret penis-envy.

> ...The GD is about death and rebirth into a more spiritual life 

inducing depth of subjective experience, as I'd interpret that. nice.

> while the latter is about taking control.

magic. got it. ;>

WEST
>But now, let's add Set (or Seth) into the picture. He becomes the 
>Guardian of the West. But who is Set?
quoting the same web site:
>"Egyptian god of chaos who embodied the principle of hostility if not of 
>outright evil. He was associated with foreign lands and was the 
>adversary of the god Osiris...
>"For a time during the third millenium BC, Seth replaced Horus as the 
>tutelary deity of the pharaohs. However, the story of Seth's murder of 
>Osiris and subsequent war with Horus gained currency and Horus was 
>restored to his original status. The war with Horus lasted eighty years, 
>during which Seth tore out the left eye his adversary and Horus tore out 
>Seth's foreleg and testicles. Horus eventually emerged victorious, or 
>was deemed the victor by a council of the gods, and thus became the 
>rightful ruler of the kingdoms of both Upper and Lower Egypt. Seth was 
>forced to return the eye of Horus and was himself either castrated or, 
>in some versions, killed. In some versions Seth then went to live with 
>the sun god Re, where he became the voice of the thunder. In the Book of 
>the Dead Seth was referred to as the "lord of the northern sky" and held 
>responsible for storms and cloudy weather. Seth protected Re during his 
>night voyage through the underworld against the Apophis-snake. On the 
>other hand, Seth was a peril for ordinary Egyptians in the underworld, 
>where he was said seize the souls of the unwary. Among the animals 
>sacred to Seth were the desert oryx, crocodile, boar, and the 
>hippopotamus in its aspect as a destroyer of boats and of planted 
>fields. The pig was a taboo in Seth's cult. The Greeks later equated 
>Seth with their demon-god Typhon. "
>[http://sobek.colorado.edu/LAB/GODS/set.html ]

>Into the ruling middle triad of the 0=0 initiatory ritual, they have not 
>only displaced Osiris, but introduced his murderer!

and Initiator, right? who else initiates Osiris?

>Of course, Horus has been placed on Osiris' throne. 

also not unusual by Egyptian story standards. he's the guy's son.

>So in your nice initiation, you have a conflict between Horus and Set 
>which lasted for 80 years in which they trash each other. Set is ready 
>to "seize" your soul, too.

ok, and we heard how he rips Osiris the whimp apart. what does Set do
to Horus? is Horus more of a match for him?

>So here you are, being initiated, and two of the initiators are 
>fighting each other. What a fine image that is.

could be, standing between two Mammoth Pillars of Light and Darkness.
makes some sense to me, not being partial to any particular system.
it makes quite a bit more sense to me than huddling under the skirts
of a dickless wonder-god and installing his son to keep out the dark.

>Of course, because they are fighting, there is no way that Set is going 
>to guard the West from forces of darkness. 

right, different paradigm. somehow the dark and chaos are welcome.

>In fact, as a god of chaos, what better way could there be to 
>introduce chaos than to let the forces he is supposed to hold 

are you sure that's his function, to hold the forces of darkness back?
what if they are instrumental in the initiation process?

>out come into the ritual?

holy id-dy wid-dies, Ostat-man!

>If a group wants to have a structure based on chaos 

no, if it were *based* on chaos then Set would be sitting in that East
seat or you'd turn the she-bang around and face East toward Horus or
somebody while being directed by the Big Honcho Set-D00d. I wouldn't
be surprised if some Setians and Kaoz Majuz have done this.

>and the egotism of physical (not just spiritual) kingship, fine. 
>More power to them.

uh-oh, the bug-a-boo egotism. that's a real problem with Golden Dawn
and subsequent mystical systems, to the extent that stict discipline
is apparently required in order to get anywhere without exploding!

so you seem to be distinguishing between "spiritual kingship" as you
feel is exemplified or symbolized by Osiris (rather than spiritual
initiation, to which you previously assigned him, a change-oriented,
rather than dominion-wielding function -- c'mon, make up your mind)
and the "physical kingship" apparently exemplified and symbolized by
Horus. I suppose if the officers didn't change and a kind of
ecclesia of Magic developed (degrees), then you'd quickly have the
makings of a cult. from my bare understanding, this is precisely the
problem with which the early GD struggled, at various times clinging
to outworn Charter myths and mysterious masters in the clouds or in
some faraway land or constructing on a level-playing-field amongst
all the real membership without undue authority provided to any.

>But in the Golden Dawn, the highest initiate, the Hierophant, Osiris, 
>Asar, shows the path of spiritual death and rebirth which leads to the 
>inner order of Rosicrucianism, 

that is how the GD would like us to see its system. I'm sure there are
some Rosicrucians would claim that this is untrue and that the whole
scheme will lead to a horrible outcome (magic?).

again, I am not sure I understand why Osiris is better than any
other dying god. you can install Jesus there, and God the Father
or Amon in the West. Satan is just over his shoulder trying to
get in. further west you can see the OSGD people running their
rituals and waving.

>while Horus, the Hierus, stands as a king defending the territory 
>from attack.

that's all he is? according to Crowleyans this god is far more,
some kind of fabulo-magicker. no? what's Osiris without his Initiator?

>Take whichever side you like. Both can lead to good things.

I'm not sure about that, but I'd like to learn more about what they
are and are not, and I'm grateful for your elaboration and instruction.
the lazes rejoice!

333