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

To: Babalon-L
From: lucifer@baphomet.demon.co.uk (Nyk Cowham)
Subject: Re: Aeonics, Baphomet
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 16:15:13 GMT

Greetings (93),

nagasiva writes:

> ky951104 (bounced from old address, I hope the reply-to's are now fixed)

Yes, I changed the reply-to's to babalon@pobox.com, I don't know what the
hell the other address was all about; that was courtesy of POBOX ;')

> |From: Nyk Cowham 
> |Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 20:58:51 GMT
> 
> |...children being eaten: the theme of Child sacrifice is particularly
> |strong in my current workings which are connected to the Phoenician/
> |Carthaginian cult of Thanith (ThNTh=930) which was one of the last cults to
> |continue the ancient practice of Child sacrifice and this was one of the
> |reasons the Phoenicians were so abhorrent to and despised by other peoples in
> |the civilised world. Indeed, this practice was also linked to the Rites of
> |Moloch who was worshipped in ancient Jerusalem (930 is the number of
> |Moloch-Shalem as well as Thanith) by the Caananites.

Please read my response of Caroline Kenner (Re: Stygian Aphrodite) for my
current feelings towards these comment, and the sort of thinking upon which
they are based.

> Upon my altar the child-troll beheaded, a sacrifice to the Mad Mother.  
> Consumption of children and the sacrament of sexual mass are one.

The best sacrifice is a 'male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence',
i.e. sperm. Amen ;')

Actually, using these motifs I have a particular penchant for cannibalistic
imagery. It is not enough to sacrifice, there also needs to be an act of
consumption; but that is just because I am an incorrigible gourmand 

> |...the Old Aeon was symbolised by the Dying God who shed his blood that the 
> |child might be spared ....
> 
> Interesting.  I'd always heard the story was that the Dying God spends his
> life for all, as a testament to the eternal endurance of martyrdom.

The Xtian interpretation of the crucifixion is that God came to earth as his
own only begotten son, to offer himself as a sacrifice, so that mankind might
be redeemed (illogical as it sounds). In the context of history (not my
favourite context) the death of Jesus, was seen as the one last Great
sacrifice, and the need for animal sacrifice was therefore abandoned by the
early Xtian sects and communities.

The sacrifice of animals was itself a substitute for human sacrifice and in
Judaism the sacrifice was of a goat (Azazel, the scape-goat, was freed to
wander the desert, taking the sins of the community with it). It has also
been suggested that infant circumcision was a reduced form of infant sacrifice
(i.e. taking a little from each child, rather than the life of a single child). 
Thus, the story of Abraham and Issac may be seen as the transfer point from
infant to animal sacrifice.

> |(the story of Abraham being spared from sacrificing his first-born son by 
> |Jehova represents this transfer from the Aeon of the Mother to the Aeon 
> |of the Father), 
> 
> And here I just thought it was a simple parable about how important it
> is/was to obey without question the Lord Almighty.  Cf. Yeheshua ben Miriam's
> exhortations about being at potential odds with family members if one is to
> tread the 'Good Path'.

This is certainly one of the theistic interpretations. However, Genesis is
mostly concerned with creation and human origins (actually the origins of the
wandering tribe of the Khabiru, and their journey from the early Chaldean
civilisation of the city of Ur). Most of the Torah deals with origins (Genesis,
Exodus), history (Chronicles, Kings, Judges, et.c.), and law and social
organisation, which was needed in the absence of a traditional common law
(Leviticus, Numbers). There is very little parable, as properly understood,
in the Hebrew scriptures at all. Parable was a teaching tool most commonly
associated with Jesus, who used it as a way of relating theological and moral
issues to common everyday terms.

> I'd call the sacrifice you mention above socially-conditioned and a form of
> psychological harness.

"A rose is a rose by any other name". The sense of loss and nostalgia that
adults tend to feel for childhood, and their resultant over-romanticization
of children (i.e. totally innocent and mild), indicates that something has
been lost, or taken away, during the process of maturation (adulteration);
or rather adult *feel* that something has been taken from them.

> |Thus, the Aeon of Child is that wherein this sacrifice is totally abandoned
> |(the formula of FIAOF, and a variant of that formula WH-IAO-WH, which
> |emphasises the hermaphroditic twin current of that formula, is particularly
> |relevant in this respect). For this reason the Cult of Thanith is important
> |in that this cult never abandoned the more ancient bloody sacrifice, and it
> |is therefore appropriate that from this cult the end of all sacrifice
> |of the Child should be declared.
> 
> I appreciate the sentiment but feel that such 'declarations' are in essence
> Old AEon (to use your terminology) evocations.  The only worthwhile manner
> that we shall declare our will (true, presumably) is through direct action
> and personal exchange. The concepts of cults and organizations spearheading
> individualist principles has been shown to be bankrupt and illusory, the
> notion that there are 'Universal AEons' itself is an 'Old Aeon' (e.g. 'BC')
> concept which has yet to loose its grip upon the modern mind.

We are by essence confined by the language available. The concept of Aeonic
progression, is Crowley's own adaption of Xtian mysticism which was a
projection of Xtian values upon historical cycles (original: Aeon of Father,
Aeon of Son, Aeon of the Holy Ghost).

Every religion has done this, and I note that you invoke the historical
cyclic pattern of Hinduism, when you quote the date in terms of the progress
of _manvantara's_ and the Yugas therein (Kali Yuga being the age of Iron).

Also, for future reference, when I use the word 'cult' I do not necessarily
mean an organisation. I am in contact with many ancient cults which feed my
inner world; but I am not a card-carrying member of any organisation. A
cult is an inner reality and may or may not have physical expression (compare
to the Zos Kia Cultus). By this definition, every philosophical school has
established a cult (eggregore) within inner-space - these may be explored
using the technique described as 'rising on the planes' (see Liber O).

> Children are sacrificed in every way every day.  Our contentions that this
> is the 'Aeon of Child' or 'Aeon of Mother' or whatever amounts to a self-
> delusory fabrication to justify our very real cultural biases, quite useful
> magical tools, but not universal in any sense.

True, but in declaring this, you are following suit, but perhaps less honestly,
by which I mean you have not included your own bias in this critique. It is
easy for someone to adopt a 'middle position' between all extremes and say that
they have no bias - however, the bias is that which follows the middle position.

I will admit that nothing I say now, have said in the past, or will say in
the future, has any relationship to that mythical beast: objective reality.

> |In my own sexual rites I find that congress with Baphomet is a highly potent
> |aspect of my working....
> 
> |Thus, my most potent congress with BABALON is when she ceases to be BABALON
> |and we both become Baphomet (Woman and Beast United, and alternative to the
> |Sphinx), then a Single Baphomet, then NOTHING at all!
> 
> You identify Baphomet as the Beast and Babalon conjoined?  I've more often
> seen Baphomet as masculine than as truly hermaphroditic.  Please elaborate
> from where you derived your notions about Baphomet and if you know anything
> about Hir history.  Thanks.

Firstly, we must be careful here. The name Baphomet is derived from the
confessions of Templar Knights, who were tortured to give evidence of the
Order's idolatories. However, I believe that the most consistant
identification of Baphomet, was as a sort of oracular head (sometimes a skull,
and sometimes the head of a bearded man).

However, in the modern Western magickal revival Baphomet has become
synonymous with the Sabbatic Goat, and the Goat of Mendes (also probably
unrelated to both Baphomet and the Sabbatic Goat). This identification can
be traced to Eliphas Levi in his _Dogma et Rituel de la Haute Magie_. I
shall quote the French mage himself:

"We recur once more to that terrible number fifteen, symbolized in the Tarot by
a monster upon an altar, mitred, and horned, having a woman's breasts and the
generative organs of a man - a chimera, a malformed sphinx, a synthesis of
deformities. Below this figure we read a frank and simple inscription - THE
DEVIL. Yes, we confront here that phantom of all terrors, the dragon of all
theogonies, the Ahriman of the Persian, the Typhon of the Egytians, the Python
of the Greeks, the old serpent of the Hebrews, the fantastic monster, the
nightmare, the Croquemitaine, the gargoyle, the great beast of the Middle Ages,
and - worse than all these - the Baphomet of the Templars, the bearded idol of
the alchemist, the obscene deity of Mendes...One of the arms is feminine and
the other masculine, as in the androgyne of Khunrath, whose attributes we have
combined with those of our goat, since they are one and the same symbol."
	(Eliphas Levi, _Dogma et Rituel de la Haute Magie_, Chapter 15).

It is quite clear that Levi, at least, considered Baphomet to be a compound
of beast and human, and an androgyne. He also related the image to that of
a sphinx; if you strip away Levi's over-excitable Catholic sense of dread,
we are left with a Hermetic reconciliation of opposites and a compound
of Woman and Beast (if we figure the beast as Pan).

My own interpolation is that the figure provides a glyph of Woman and Beast
conjoined and is a single dynamic entity. Thus, the Kali goat (or the
goat of Astarte) and the Panic (or Dionysos) goat are also seen in composite
union.

Another image of Beast and Woman conjoined would be Ardhanari-Ishwara
(lit: The Lord who is male and female). This is the image of Shiva as male on
the right side and female (Shakti/Parvati) on the left side. Shiva as
_Pasupata_ is the Lord of the Beasts and has a close affinity with the
neolithic horned god of the Indus Valley (he is one of the oldest of Hindu
deities probably relating to the first shaman). It is very easy to compare
him to the Thelemite conception of Shaitan (As Rudra, he is the Roaring winds
and god of Storms) - Note: Aivass, is a metathesis of Saivas: the devotees of
Shiva. Thus, we have another perfect image of the composite androgyne of
Woman-Beast.

It is interesting to note that Ardhanari, according to Madam Blavatsky, is
strongly correlated to the Hebrew Adonai (more so to Adon and the cult of
Astarte in Phoenicia: AD-NV being a composite of Had and Nu, just as Ardhanara
is a composite of Shiva and Parvati). Thus, the cult of Adon and Astarte has
inner sympathies with the tantras of Shiva-Shaktism. Remember that it is
Astarte who brings Adon to life back from the underworld, just as Parvati
lures Shiva from his ascetic meditions to engage in a creative cycle of
dance (Siva Nataraj). Shiva is described as a corpse when he does not have
Shakti, just as Adon is dead without Astarte.

Thank you for your response,

93 93/93

-- 
Frater Nekronos, 494 ','           "_Babalon he megale, he meter ton pornon_"

"My legs are spread; My lust is wide, Why not bed down by My side? I'll stoke
      the fire; you stroke the flame; together We'll invoke Her Name."
                          Soror E.P.-156-E.S.