Book Read Free

The Temple of Set I

Page 29

by Michael A Aquino


  the silent night, lit by the cool, beautiful light of the stars. A land under that Northern star,

  whence blew the sweet winds that cooled the feverish desert air. A land of wholesome greenery,

  far, far away. Where were no scheming and malignant priesthood; whose ideas were to lead to

  power through gloomy temples and more gloomy caverns of the dead, through an endless ritual of

  death! A land where love was not base, but a divine possession of the soul! Where there might be

  some one kindred spirit which could speak to hers through mortal lips like her own; whose being

  could merge with hers in a sweet communion of soul to soul, even as their breaths could mingle in

  the ambient air! I know the feeling, for I have shared it myself. I may speak of it now, since the

  blessing has come into my own life. I may speak of it since it enables me to interpret the feelings,

  the very longing soul, of that sweet and lovely Queen, so different from her surroundings, so high

  above her time! Whose nature, put into a word, could control the forces of the Under World; and

  the name of whose aspiration, though but graven on a star-lit jewel, could command all the

  powers in the Pantheon of the High Gods. And in the realisation of that dream she will surely be

  content to rest!

  In Love and Patience we are taught the secret of true immortality - not the repulsive

  reanimation of corpses ( anastasis nekron) of Christianity, nor the vague confusion of

  reincarnationists - but the infinite radiance of one’s MindStar by its most magnificent

  expression, and with a serene transcendence of natural time.

  The last two souls are unique in that they must arise from the individual, and require initiate

  consciousness to do so, per the formula Xepera Xeper Xeperu (“I Have Come Into Being and

  Created That Which Has Come Into Being.”).

  7. Sekhem

  The neter-emanation. While the term sekhem is ordinarily translated as “power”, this is

  misleading, because it is power in a very rarified sense - that emanating from the neteru

  themselves. For this reason it is also described as “the power of the stars” through which the

  neteru manifest in the natural universe. The sekhem combines with the ab (as, in effect, a temple

  - 157 -

  within one’s consciousness), to draw down the essence of one or more adored neteru to indwell

  therein.

  Activation of the sekhem has another effect: every incidence infuses the Initiate with more of

  the neter invoked, to the cumulative degree that the Initiate’s personality becomes accented by

  the neter’s: seeing as that neter sees, speaking as that neter would speak, acting as that neter

  would act. Hence it is the sekhem which makes possible, and ultimately consecrates priesthood

  of a neter in the individual so aligned. Once this transformation has taken place, it cannot be

  undone; at most it may be sublimated or repressed, but only at great cost to the priest’s or

  priestess’ very sanity.

  8. Akh

  The star-emanation. Beyond the priesthood of the sekhem is the akh, in which the Initiate

  rises to the company of the neteru as one of their essence, if not of them absolutely. Such one is

  indistinguishable from the actual neteru except by the neteru themselves. Such a mode of

  existence departs completely from all concern with physical displacement within natural-

  universal references or boundaries, manifestation, or action, and affects otherness only by the

  radiance of its presence. While it does not destroy any of the other emanations, it permeates all

  of them, such that henceforth they all exist in conformity and concert with it.

  L. Consciousness

  Having established and defined the OU/SU environment in which existence occurs, it is next

  necessary to discuss who or what exists to perceive and interact with this environment. A

  phenomenon of distinction from that environment is essential, and it must be aware of itself to

  recognize and appreciate that distinction. It is inherently a function, not a thing, traditionally

  called “consciousness”.

  Consciousness is both easy and difficult to establish - easy because its presence is obvious:

  the mere awareness [of self and/or anything else] characteristic of a living, sentient being.

  Having achieved this realization, the possessors of consciousness have found its constitution

  maddeningly elusive.

  Over the centuries theologians, philosophers, and scientists have sought to portray and

  advocate consciousness as something either supporting or refuting the existence of what is really

  their concern: the “soul”.

  1. Metaphysics: Consciousness as an Entity

  Since conventional theology regards consciousness as “the soul in action”, it has generally

  been happy to just blur the two concepts into a single, nothing-further-needed axiom of religious

  faith.

  Philosophers seeking to escape the label of such mere faith found that the moment they

  strayed from the simple act of self-awareness, they were actually addressing other issues, such as

  whether physical sensory input is/was occurring, whether such input is reliable, and indeed

  whether the mental processing of concepts and information (e.g. “thought”) should somehow be

  either a requirement or evidence of awareness. René Descartes’ famous “cogito ergo sum” (= I

  think, therefore I am) is an example of such off-the-mark confusion; arguments both pro and

  con this maxim have all focused on the act of thinking rather than mere self-awareness.

  - 158 -

  2. Physics: Consciousness as an Illusion

  Modern physical science is adamantly materialistic; any hint of a metaphysical presence or

  activity is tantamount to heresy. If consciousness exists, therefore, it must be explainable [away]

  as the physical brain generating some form of illusory self-imagery.

  In support of this theory, scientists note that if the brain is anæsthetized, the individual

  “blacks out”. Also when the body and brain sleep, consciousness either blacks out or becomes

  merely a spectator to hallucination (e.g. dreaming).

  Upon examination both of these scientific claims fail to be conclusive. As ordinary

  consciousness is accustomed to being reactive to physical sensory input, the sudden muting of all

  such input by anæsthesia throws the consciousness into a sudden non-sensory mode with which

  it has no experience. The result is temporary inactivity, though below the level of sensory

  imagery it continues to receive stimulus signals from the physical body.

  In certain anæsthesia applications, moreover, the body’s transmissions to the consciousness

  are muted while that consciousness remains alert and communicative. If it were merely a

  function of the body’s normal physical sensory processes, this would not occur.

  Where sleep and dreaming are concerned, it has already been established that the quality and

  coherence of the act of thinking is an entirely different concern than self-awareness per se.

  Where ordinary sleep and dreaming are concerned, once again awareness must not be

  confused with thinking. In short, the random imagination characteristic of dreams, or the

  absence of such experiences if the resting brain has so lowered its sensory transmissions, has no

  relevance to awareness. Being self-aware does not require this to be continuous.

  3. Inconsequence

  The phenomenon of
self-awareness is as a simple incident essential to validating the

  distinction between the individual and the OU. Beyond this, however, it is not a component of

  either a “soul” or the physical brain/body which can be used to verify either premise. Indeed in

  the search for the “soul” awareness is something of a red herring, being confused with the

  thinking process by agenda-advocates.

  4. The Platonic “Pyramid of Thought”

  The concept of an individual’s transcending a “threshold of consciousness” is among the most

  ancient of recorded human experience. In various cultures and countries it has been known as

  “initiation”, “enlightenment”, “illumination”, “awakening”, etc. [This is not the same thing as

  bodily “rites of passage” involving puberty/admission to an adult community. Those of course

  happen to all in that community; by contrast only a relative few encounter and confront

  initiation.]

  Human consciousness consists of both self-awareness and the sensation of phenomena that

  are “not the self”. At the most base level, these are little more than instinct and stimulus/

  response. An individual can [and many do] go through an entire physical lifetime in this mode of

  dull relaxation. In Book VII of his Republic Plato symbolized this as a “cave” in which ordinary

  humanity is “chained facing the inner wall, on which only faint reflections can be seen”. The

  initiate (Plato’s “philosopher”) breaks free or is freed by an initiator. What he then confronts and

  experiences is the challenge, ordeal, and promise of initiation, as summarized by Raghavan Iyer

  in his Parapolitics:

  - 159 -

  The upward ascent, which involves pain and struggle, will only be valid because of an

  exact correspondence between levels of reality, modes of knowing, and states of being.

  Who a man is reflects and determines what he really knows, which is connected with

  what he regards as real.

  Man determines what and to what degree things, objects of desire, and values will be

  real for him. To this extent it is tempting to agree with Protagoras that “man is the

  measure of all things”.

  But as a reality-assigning agent, man is confronted with the philosophical question

  which Protagoras, a sophist and epistemological relativist, did not face: What is it about

  the world of nature that allows the existence of such a reality-assigning agent?

  There must be a sense in which there is a reality independent of individual minds

  and wills. There is also a subtle interplay between the reality that cannot be wholly

  grasped by the individual, and his own capacity to make that reality come alive through

  the self-conscious exercise of his reality-assigning function. He is able to grow in a

  direction that is in harmony with the whole of nature.

  If a man truly embodies what is implicit in the ascent from the Cave, he must realize

  the extent to which time and nature are on his side. He must prevail, but this idea of

  prevailing is much subtler and more elusive than any crude conception of survival or

  power.

  His moral growth is marked by an increase in the intensity and potency of his power of

  thought and ideation. The crucial assumption is that the mind of man, at any stage,

  is engaged in a mode of participation in planes of awareness divided into

  objects existing in relation to interdependent categories of space, time, and

  perception.

  There are four stages of cognition on the “divided line’ [between intellectual and

  sensory knowledge] that may be viewed in this way.

  At the lowest level of eikasia are instantaneity and localization, the prison of the

  “here and now”. To be caught up in them is to be so lacking in critical distance from a

  given setting that nothing else can be seen.

  This mole-like life is restless, fantasy-ridden, and competitive in the extreme. It is

  often characterized through analogies with rodents or insects. At this level of existence we

  engage in activities demeaning to the human status and even abdicate the privilege of

  being human.

  Such analogies usually tend to malign animals, because people cannot do what animals

  do with the natural precision of instinct. Nonetheless this stage of consciousness is quite

  recognizable.

  Above it lies a second stage, pistis, which is much more dangerous than the first

  because it is the realm of pseudo-absolutization. It is characterized by opinions and

  ideologies that are only relatively true and therefore relatively false.

  The knowledge gained by comparison and contrast is contingent and not necessarily

  true. Many questions relative to space and time arise. Suppose someone advances the

  view that it is human nature to be selfish. One might ask what makes him say this? Where

  did he pick it up? What does it mean to him? How does he interpret it? Such questions

  begin to bring out the relativity of such assertions.

  Human beings at this stage, however, do not like the relativity of their opinions to be

  shown, and tend to convey their assertions without qualification as if they were totally

  true. They are made to look like immutable maxims, although if they were they would give

  strength and enable individuals or societies to maintain themselves without need of

  constant reinforcement. They would not leave people afraid of questions, or unable to

  - 160 -

  consider the possibility of other ways of formulating similar truths. But pseudo-

  absolutization goes with dogmatism of the most insecure kind, which must be reinforced

  from outside by polls and by power, by this, that, and the other.

  In the third stage, dianoia, there are still limitations of space and time, but with a

  relative freedom from the “here and now”, and a cleaving to universal generalizations of

  given axioms.

  The supreme example is mathematics. Yet even the most central axioms in

  mathematics are conventional, and are based upon apparently arbitrary assumptions.

  In the third stage the degree of freedom from the relativities of space and time may be

  secured at the cost of being unaware of lurking presuppositions which can act as mental

  blinders. This problem can be mitigated by critical distance wherein assumptions serve as

  aids to further questioning, leading to their step-by-step removal by treating them as

  hypotheses and stairways of ascent until the fourth stage is reached, or at least sensed.

  The fourth stage is nœsis, in which there is almost total freedom from the ordinary

  limitations of space and time.

  There is a need to be flexible in formulation to progress beyond the third stage. But

  once the fourth stage is entered, there is a ready recognition that what is true without

  qualification can only be incompletely articulated or partially intimated at lesser levels. It

  can be embodied, but only imperfectly. Stenzel has described how “just as in the strict

  sense there cannot be an appearance of the Good, so in the end there cannot be opinion

  about it; the true Good can never become an object of opinion because it is an

  unconditional final end”. 61

  Magister Bruce Ware of the Temple of Set has succinctly summarized Plato’s “Pyramid of

  Thought” thus:

  In his quest to define a Philosopher-King, Plato must necessarily define wisdom, and it
/>
  is this effort of definition that generates the Platonic epistemology consisting of the

  Forms, the four types of cognitive capabilities (also called the faculties, or in Greek

  “dynameis”) and their fields of objects.

  For Plato the highest and most fundamental faculty was noesis (sapience); its field of

  objects was of the Forms themselves. For humans noesis is “the capacity for

  knowing” (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 1170a 16). “It is satisfactory to call science and

  reasoning ( episteme and dianoia), taken together, knowing ( noesis)” (Plato, Republic

  533e).

  Noesis is the full exercise of all the faculties of the reasoning mind. It comes intact

  from the Greek, where it means “thought”, based on the verb noein (to think). The Latin

  equivalent may be “cogito” or “sapientia”. Note that this word usually is translated as

  “intelligence”, but I have determined that the word “sapience” is closer to what the

  various writers were referring, while “intelligence” seems to have become a rather vague

  term in recent years.

  Dianoia (thinking) is the second faculty, reasoning, especially practical thought; the

  Latin equivalent is “ratio” (meaning something closer to “calculation”). Its field of objects

  is the human mind’s capability of generating conceptual definitions of the Forms. Plato:

  “The converse of the soul with itself, without speech, is what we called thought ( dianoia).”

  In the analogy of the Divided Line, Plato explains the difference between noesis and

  dianoia:

  61 Iyer, Raghavan, Parapolitics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, pages #43-46.

  - 161 -

  But you want to distinguish that part of the real and intelligible which is studied

  by the science ( episteme) of dialectic as having greater clarity than that studied by

  what are called “sciences” ( technai). These technai treat their assumptions as first

  principles and - though compelled to use dianoia and not sense-perception in

  surveying their subject matter, because they proceed in their investigations from

  assumptions and not to a first principle - they do not exercise noesis on (those

  technai), even though with the aid of first principles they are intelligible. And I

 

‹ Prev