Thanks for the response IAO131,

you have given me much to think about. I have The Book of Thoth, so i'll read into the Devil symbolism there.

I guess where I'm having a problem understanding is my whole life I've seen the devil figure as the Nephesh... that desire that overturns the will. So it sounds like i need to open my mind a bit, try and forget my past conceptions, and read the source material you cited.

I'll give it a shot. Of the other author's you cited, "Gerald MAssey, Fabre d"olivet, etc., are there specific works you'd recommend? Or just anything I can find, will be worthwhile to this question?

A much-neglected part of the doctrine of Satan in Thelema is that which is given in the third-aethyr chapter of Liber 418:
"O thou that hast beheld the City of the Pyramids, how shouldst thou behold the House of the Juggler? For he is wisdom, and by wisdom hath he made the Worlds, and from that wisdom issue judgements 70 by 4, that are the 4 eyes of the double-headed one; that are the 4 devils, Satan, Lucifer, Leviathan, Belial, that are the great princes of the evil of the world."

Firstly one should note that this demon list is the same as that given by Abramelin. Secondly, the double-headed one is apparently the qlippah of Kether: Thaumiel, the Twins of God. There being four eyes of the two heads, the number is 4 x 70 (Ayin/eye) and therefore there are 280 judgements. And clearly, the four are presented as bona fide great devils, and so Satan might be imagined to be, as is suggested in the passage following the one I quoted, not so far distant from the conventional view of Him - except that He is one of four and that at least some of those who pretend to oppose Him actually worship Him. Yet those devils are said to issue from the wisdom which makes the worlds. And they are seen in the context of the Severities and the pillar of Severity with Beth/The Magician on the top of that pillar - but then Chokmah, on the Pillar of Mercy, is also identified with the Magician. One might well have to invert the symbolism multiple times, not just the once, to get some sense out of it. I shall also use the excuse that is indeed too abstruse and complicated to explain fully here but I shall suggest one line of inquiry as to how to reconcile the various interpretations.

While the Great Demons can be clearly seen manifesting in the division of the world into the four main religious points of view, in the great walls between the peoples that prevent them from even seeing the others' point of view (it is all about the Eye, remember; and in the news currently it manifests very visually even in what TV feeds the various counties take of the Gaza conflict, so they simply don't see, though they very easily could, more of the other side of the conflict), they are also those biased tendencies in one's own soul towards one or the other. It is therefore essentially demonic to worship one or the other, them being only part, and the favoured part, of one's essential self. But even if one identifies Satan fully with some idea of Set or Hadit as one's complete inner self, to worship it is essentially narcissistic as it is to worship oneself - which is to not worship She Of Whom It Is Better Not To Speak. And the same point applies if one views it as a quarter aspect of Hadit. So how is it that RHK is a valid object of worship? Good question (if I must say so myself).

Whether A.C. was ever really reconciled with this one-of-four interpretation of Satan is open to debate. He certainly didn't discuss it much though it is possible to construe, with some effort, such references as there are to Satan, as being somehow associated with one's inner self, as subtly neglecting the other three. In that he was addressing an English-speaking audience they would have been, as they still are, by and large, in Satan's dominions. Also be aware that his use of the word "hell" is cognate here; and it should be noted that there is a doctrine of the "birth of hell" (also in Liber 418; 22'nd aethyr), which is also obscure and neglected.

Furthermore, regarding Duqette's bowdlerization of Liber Samekh, it appears to be the policy of the Order of which he is a senior member to not provoke the Satanic forces of their nation. They seem to believe it better to deny that Satan is recognized in Thelema. One can well understand why they would want to do that, the doctrine being so easily misrepresented, but adding to the lies isn't, in my view, the way to deal with the issue. I have pointed out on numerous occasions for many years that a statement, still on their official website( http://oto-usa.org/theology.html ;bottom of page), that "Thelema has no direct parallel to the Judaeo-Christian concept of the devil or Satan" is clearly false - but they still keep it up there. Apparently, they consider the words sufficiently weaselly for it not to be an outright lie, but I disagree.

I hope that this has given you further food for thought.

P.S. Please note that I observe a literal reading of The Comment and shall shun any discussers of the contents of Liber El.

And, to pull a royal "we" out of the air, and to invert it, "you" usually elect a "white" man as Prez. Doesn't mean everyone has to, forever and a day.

"It isnt worth it to try to explain the symbolism to people." Well what the hell does he, and you in defending him, think you are doing, then? You have made my point exactly. He, and the COTO, would rather lie than try to come to grips with the real meaning of the received texts and to help foster understanding of them.

And as you obviously weren't enlightened by my piece, I shall try again. The various uses by A.C. are one thing and those in the received texts are another. For the original enquirer, and others who might not be aware, A.C. was highly influenced early in life, when it was one of the few books allowed to him, by Milton's "Paradise Lost" and the portrayal of Satan in that - as a sort of leader of an underworld gang bent on having free will in defiance of the law of god (which, by the by, had as much to do with the 17'th C. English Revolution and the defiance of the monarchy as it did with religion). When A.C.'s father died and he flipped from being pious to being half Satanic and half pious, he apparently understood his moral position as that of having denied God - that is to have committed the crime of Satan. And, even in later life, with a more sophisticated understanding of the doctrines, he seems to have had at least a sentimental attachment to the figure that might have, in my humble view, clouded his better judgement.

However, A.C.'s personal view and that of the received texts are not altogethor irreconcilable - with some effort. For instance by reference to Liber 570 (who "they" generally call Liber 813), Chapter II, verse 1, it is clearly stated that God can be seen even in the qliippah of Kether:

"I saw the twin heads that ever battle against one another, so that all their thought is a confusion. I saw Thee in these."

Which is it that isn't part of the "Secret Self", then? God or Kether? Enlighten us. Please.

My point is that it is one thing to invoke, or release, or whatever you like to call it, the secret self or unconcious, and it is quite another to worhip the self, secret or otherwise. One can understand God to have acted through the qlippoth without worshipping either God or the qlippoth. To take a Biblical illustration, the Seven Plagues might be read as pretty qlippothic but they were still Acts of God. Should one worship boils? Some people might believe that they should, I suppose.

And it is just this confusion between recognition of god and worship of god that leads many persons, signed up COTO members or just poor little general-public bookbuyers, into lots of trouble. I think that it is better to try to understand the symbolism correctly rather than hiding it away - which, very often, is both caused by, and results in confusion.

CSM

There are currently available on the (Australian) ABC website, two radio programs of some peripheral interest to this topic.

One is on Milton and his drift towards what was called "Christian Liberty" (i.e. a good Christian may do as he chooses); and to what he called his "Church of One". That one is here:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2009/2536875.htm

The other is on the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean tradition of the Evil Eye. It illuminates somewhat, I thought, the doctrine of the Four Eyes that are equal to the Five Severities. To take a dim view of something has its magical power, in this tradition - so how much more a collective disrespect? That one may be found here:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/360/stories/2009/2524384.htm

CSM

Nachash NChSh (the serpent) = 50 + 8 + 300 = 358

Because Nun + 50, Cheth + 8, and Shin = 300.

To align the first and second numbers:

Nephesh NPhSh(the soul) = 50 + 80 + 300 = 430

Because Nun = 50, Peh = 80, and Shin still = 300

And bringing the third letter into line:

Nephil NPhL(He fell) = 5o + 80 + 30 + 160.

Nun = 50, Peh = 80, Lamed = 30.

And there is the story of the Fall of Man in one operation of Temurah.

The serpent tempted Eve. She heeded the voice of her own unconscious will and, in her turn, tempted Adam and thus he fell. Mankind became free and divine at once, which is why

Nachash (the serpent) = 358

and also

Messiach (the savior) = 358.

There is the Gnostic interpretation.

but the Christianoids have never understood "sin", no wonder they attack it so violently. They assume that fury makes up for ignorance.

P.S.: They're wrong, but they'll never know it.

With love under will,

Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville