|
Post by paul on Sept 16, 2011 7:38:04 GMT 9.5
I wonder which of us has favourite mythological beings. One of mine is the Apkallu. www.livius.org/ap-ark/apkallu/apkallu.html They were supposed to have educated the human race. They were also known as the Annedotus. The word is commonly translated as "repulsive ones" Here is an apparently accurate depiction of Anu the leader of the Annedotus Anu was apparently the tallest of the gods - the most high. The descendents may be the Anakim who were tall and strong. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anak
|
|
|
Post by cwhite on Sept 17, 2011 3:06:10 GMT 9.5
Mine would be Shiva. Destroyer and restorer at the same time. Shiva represents cosmic balance, to me. Balance is key.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 18, 2011 8:33:48 GMT 9.5
Another favourite is Blake's Tyger Tyger! Tyger! burning bright In the forests of the night, What immortal hand or eye Could frame thy fearful symmetry? In what distant deeps or skies Burnt the fire of thine eyes? On what wings dare he aspire? What the hand dare sieze the fire? And what shoulder, & what art. Could twist the sinews of thy heart? And when thy heart began to beat, What dread hand? & what dread feet? What the hammer? what the chain? In what furnace was thy brain? What the anvil? what dread grasp Dare its deadly terrors clasp? When the stars threw down their spears, And watered heaven with their tears, Did he smile his work to see? Did he who made the Lamb make thee? Tyger! Tyger! burning bright In the forests of the night, What immortal hand or eye Dare frame thy fearful symmetry? There are various points to note including the reference to the Tyger coming from outside the solar system (In what distant deeps or skies Burnt the fire of thine eyes?) Arguably however the most important point is that Blake who was a very exacting engraver used a triangular pupil for the eye of the Tyger. This is relevant to practitioners of the GD tattwas and to Ark Mariners. Also some brethren might wonder why Blake (who depicted several esoteric Masonic scenes) should have depicted a triangle within an eye rather than an eye within a triangle.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 18, 2011 8:36:56 GMT 9.5
The Tyger fishes in the solar system as a cat fishes in a gold fish bowl
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2011 11:05:26 GMT 9.5
Which mythological beings have you encountered Paul?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2011 11:05:57 GMT 9.5
Ridden any unicorns lately?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 18, 2011 11:21:42 GMT 9.5
Which mythological beings have you encountered Paul? That is an interesting question. As you may know the planetary logos and solar logos are progressively raising their consciousnesses (or analogue thereof) and to do that they require not only to refine the various kingdoms within but also the material substances used by those kingdoms. This results in the progressive disappearance (transmutation) of the lowest subplanes and of course requires the human race to build its bodies from higher subplane matter. This progressively brings human ordinary perception into the etheric subplanes. The etheric subplanes, just like the lowest subplanes, have a wide range of flora and fauna that will progressively become visible. The concept of fauna coming into the visible range was the subject of the Predator videos www.imdb.com/title/tt0093773/There are also traditions of various entities being able to make themselves visible at will on the physical plane. I suspect all native cultures have such traditions. If the above is true then mythical creatures will progressively enter in the modern culture. As you have indicated the Unicorn is already popular in modern culture - and of course in ancient cultures across the planet. (A Google search for unicorn images shows almost 8 million hits)
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 18, 2011 19:35:14 GMT 9.5
As you have indicated the Unicorn is already popular in modern culture - and of course in ancient cultures across the planet. (A Google search for unicorn images shows almost 8 million hits) I remember you tying your self up in contradictory knots elsewhere over the subject of unicorns. I especially well remember your account of flying on a unicorn over around the North Pole and insisting that the reality of your adventure went beyond imagination (it was so physical you could feel the texture of the creature's mane). I have had several occasions to relate to friends how you indignantly corrected my recollection of your account by saying you had never said you had gone OVER the North Pole, instead, some of your companions had but you went AROUND it (without even the comfort of arctic clothing and back in time for tea and scones, if you so desired) Everyone I've told has been highly amused.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 18, 2011 19:43:59 GMT 9.5
Would you like to contribute to the thread any of your favourite mythological beings?
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 18, 2011 20:33:24 GMT 9.5
Would you like to contribute to the thread any of your favourite mythological beings? Not on this forum, where myth is likely to be construed literally rather than metaphorically.
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Sept 18, 2011 20:53:57 GMT 9.5
Tamrin, like you I dont get the unicorn experience, but unlike you I wont dismiss and act unkindly.
The reason that I wont act unkindly is that it is wrong. I am unkind myself far to often and work hard not to be, so I do realise that it can be difficult (and you in essense taking the p*ss, sorry bringing the unicorn up from nowhere and recounting how you happily gossip about for fun at Pauls expense is unkind). You have again demonstrated publicly that you appear to struggle with ugles primary tenet. Now for a typical mason that is to be expected but you have said that you are a SRIS magus st all, and if your foundations are that shaky I am concerned.
The reason that I wont dismiss is that while much of what has been written over the years has made no sense to me, as the years passed I began to understand more and more of it. The more that I learnt about myself the more that I could understand the stuff that previously went above my head. So while, like you Tamrin, I still dont get the unicorn recollection, I am open to the possibility that one day, once I am sufficiently evolved that I may do.
But again I am disappointed in you Tamrin. An entered Apprentice I would be more forgiving off but a SRIS Magus. Come on man, lead, inspire, show that you havent forgotten from where you came.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 18, 2011 21:22:23 GMT 9.5
Stewart, This stuff is not above your head, it is beneath you. It has nothing to do with genuine esoterica and brings the Craft into disrepute when published by masons. I'm not sure where you have come by the notion that tolerance is the first tenant of Freemasonry. However much some people might like to read something like that into our ritual, it is not there! " But for one reason or another there is no mention of tolerance as a Masonic virtue or tenant" Clive HerronWe are charged to keep our passions and prejudices within due bounds. However, even a passion for tolerance can exceed those bounds where one tolerates what ought to be intolerable.
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Sept 18, 2011 21:28:47 GMT 9.5
Stewart, This stuff is not above your head, it is beneath you. It has nothing to do with genuine esoterica and brings the Craft into disrepute when published by masons. Noted. UGLE -primary tenet (which I think [and you will know] is also talked about in the first degree) and I quote from the UGLE website:- "Every true Freemason will show tolerance and respect for the opinions of others and behave with kindness and understanding to his fellow creatures." Though I do accept that your own fraternity may have different tenets to ugle. So all of the masonic authors who have done this are wrong? The likes of Kirk MacNulty for example? (Thinking of his book "Way of the Craftsman". See the UGLE definition above. [/center] We are charged to keep our passions and prejudices within due bounds. However, even a passion for tolerance can exceed those bounds where one tolerates what ought to be intolerable.[/quote]I dont read any "ifs or buts" in the ugle definition Tamrin.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 18, 2011 22:05:21 GMT 9.5
It's not in the Ritual. What appears on a webpage is the opinion and responsibility of its author: For example, many did and some still do (including UGLE) have the reason for the No Women! rule as being that there were no women medieval stonemasons - there were!
On UGLE's site tolerance is mentioned in defining Brotherly Love. It is not defined in the ritual and, in the rarely presented Sectional Lectures (6th Section), where it is defined, tolerance is not mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Sept 18, 2011 23:16:39 GMT 9.5
OK Tamrin I wonder which of us has favourite mythological beings. Sphinx. Loch Ness Monster (on the occassions I have completed the Loch Ness Marathon I always tip my head to it at the shoreline ). Cheeky hobgoblins.
|
|
|
Post by cwhite on Sept 19, 2011 0:57:42 GMT 9.5
Legend has it that the Loch Ness Monster was the product of a botched ritual performed by Crowley from a poorly translated text...
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 19, 2011 5:35:34 GMT 9.5
There is a bubble of ancient energy at and under Loch Ness. That ancient energy may support ancient life forms and attract those who like ancient energies (e.g. Crowley)
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Sept 19, 2011 10:47:11 GMT 9.5
I love Father Christmas.
And if mind can affect matter then I would not be at all surprised if he did not truly exist at one level or another, having been created by millions upon millions or beautiful innocent minds over many many years.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 19, 2011 11:11:20 GMT 9.5
It seems the sphinx exists in many of the Asian cultures. And here is the earliest officially dated sphinx - 32000 years ago Surely the humans of that time had better things to do than depict non-existent entities? They could have been making weapons.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 19, 2011 15:18:35 GMT 9.5
I love Father Christmas. And if mind can affect matter then I would not be at all surprised if he did not truly exist at one level or another, having been created by millions upon millions or beautiful innocent minds over many many years. Quite so. If a thought form is built over some centuries, perhaps it becomes self-intelligent so that a real Father Christmas may exist on the emotional and mental planes. If so, some people may see it in their dreams or visions
|
|