- The Solar Set
Set is made out to be a "stellar" being as opposed to a Solar one, but this was never really the case with Set. Even ignoring the Osiris myths, Set was the son of Nuit an adoptive son of Ra. Ra recruited Set to defend him from Apep, the chaos serpent, making Set the Storm God of the Egyptian Chaoskampf myth. In fact it sets him directly in opposition to the darkness of Chaos. It's false to associate him with beings like Veles or serpents for instance, he was the slayer of the Serpent.
Not only did Set defend Ra but he was seen as the midnight, hidden sun, for he was the one in power when defending Apep. Indeed his association with the night sky and Ursa Major is directly because of his role as the sun, he has the reigns when they sun is "down". Even his constellation, Ursa Major, was mainly a solar symbol of the bulls leg, only associated with Set because of his role related to the sun.
- The "Setian" Kings
Besides Peribsen possibly, there was no such thing. There's no evidence of some sort of Setian monotheism or henotheism before dynastic Egypt, and those were brutal rulers driven by human sacrifices and such anyways. There's even theories that Khasekhemway and Peribsen were the same Pharaoh, defeating the idea of a Setian Pharaoh even here. Even if this is not the case, Set was always an important God of strength, and his was scepter carried by most gods and kings. This will lead us to a further point regarding Set's nature below.
The Setian Kings saw Set as one of the gods not separate, they honored other gods even above him. Especially in the 18th dynasty, they worked to restore the religious tradition as a whole without any specific focus on Set. The only reason Seti had such a name was likely because of his home in Abydos his role as a priest of Set. These aren't even choices, they're happenstance and assignments. In truth Atum-Ra saw prominence in this time.
Set was not seen as negatively before the late periods as it's made out to be, it was really only with the fall of Egypt that Set died out. Yes he was a disturber, but this was almost always positive mythologically. It was Set who initiated both Osiris and Horus through disruption. Set defeated Apep through disruption. But he also causes miscarriages, storms, illness. Disruption is a double edged sword. He was not a being "separate from the gods", he was one of them who was just a bit more individual. The idea of Set as the separator, which comes from Te Velde's interpretations of a certain hieroglyphic, seems to solely exist from Te Velde and his promoters. Dictionaries have this symbol with an entirely different meaning. He was not some satanic or Luciferian being, more similar to the ranking of a Gnostic Archon. He was not good or evil, no Egyptian God was.
- Xeper
Xeper/Kheper has nothing to do with Set, but the scarab God Khepri. At times - I only know one example from the 20th dynasty - a king would mix the two as Khepri-Set, but that happened with tons of gods all the time, and this one wasn't common. The only correlation is Set protects the solar barque at night and Khepri is the dawn, but Kephri is very much identical with Ra. If anything Khepri-Ra is the God of Xeper, and Set its defender.
- Set as the God of Consciousness
Set as consciousness makes no sense, if anything he is the subconscious and Horus/Ra the consciousness. Set is disruptive, unpredictable, unknowable and hidden, related to Chaos - everything representing the watery abyss of the subconscious mind. He was also tied to things explicitly not related to consciousness, like storms, illness, miscarriage, etc. The "Setianism" of Aquino sees him as the God of individual consciousness because they see him as a satanic being that was "outside" of and separate from nature, and further see consciousness outside of material nature (Dualism). Most of this has already been addressed above. Set wasn't a heavily thinking being in charge of organization and such, he was an act-without-thinking type, a force of nature, he represented divine strength and Dominion, not any kind of intellect. He needed to be reigned in and controlled, literally what the individual must do with their subconscious mind.
- Dualism
Dualism is an unsupported position that brings more questions that answer. Pragmatically materialism is supported and reasonably idealism is supported, but dualism is just more problems with less answers. It's only held to in "Setianism" to force Set to be associated with "separate" consciousness.
- Modern History
Aquino didn't even think of any of this himself. Grant was first with his rediscovery of Set, which fits with the thelemic tradition, which Aquino even absurdly tried to use to validate himself as Crowley's successor. Since this brings in the Book of the Law and it's riddles, may as well point out that Set=Aiwass is a very different being than Set=Satan. Grant, I can't believe I'm saying this about him despite loving him, was much closer to reality with his Set too - a watery cthonic being of the unconscious and Qlipoth. Further work, such as the solution to the Line Key of AL III, also give a "mystical" support of Set in modern Occultism, but again as a solar God. The fact that Aquino tried to use the riddle of Chapter 2 to validate himself makes this relevant whether you put any stock into the book of the law or not. Just look at this silliness!
“Destined First Century Heir – Aquino – Breaking Keys By Doctrines Anton LaVey – Great Magus Of Re-consecration Coming Year Xeper – Founding His Rightful Priesthood – Set – True Origin Volume AL.”
- Bonus
There's no reason to even use Set as the name of the religion, we don't know he's oldest "dark God" and he almost certainly isn't. And he's not a dark God. Plus even though we can certainly compare gods across traditions, Set does not fit at all with the serpentine, trickster deity of other "princes of darkness". And that title fits none of them.
QED.
93s
This seems to be an attempt to refute some body of thought i have not encountered, that certainly has nothing at all to do with Thelema/the legacy of AC.
There are several references to Aquino, and "Satanism"- perhaps you would find more interest in this material in a forum devoted to that sort of thing? These are silly people, who very likely think and do silly things- who cares?
Can you provide some context here? Your posts seem to be primarily about some personal mythology you are constructing, and not the things we usually discuss here.
The only forum identities I've had are 'dom' and 'david williams' nevertheless your advice is appreciated.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Set-Tetu-Ra
I'm refuting their silliness.
How's that?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
I'm refuting their silliness.
But why do so here? I would assume most here think of Aquino, and all other "Satanists", as silly, posing, overgrown adolescents. So kind of shooting fish in a barrel while preaching to the choir?
The only forum identities I've had are 'dom' and 'david williams' nevertheless your advice is appreciated.
I think you are responding to a post i made in the thread you started called "Removal"?
Replying over there.
How did that happen?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Your posts seem to be primarily about some personal mythology you are constructing, and not the things we usually discuss here.
Oh, you noticed that.
The only forum identities I've had are 'dom' and 'david williams' nevertheless your advice is appreciated.
We know who you are and were ... but who are you replying to, and which advice is being appreciated?
How did that happen?
Robots, alcohol, strange meds, epilepsy, demons, Los. Take your pick and apply gently.
Is this supposed to be ironic? A satanic Synod of Antioch, laying out cases against the "Setian" heresy? If this isn't a joke, I must agree with Ignant that it serves no purpose here; I would also point out that, in the words of Aleister Crowley (or maybe Gerard Aumont), everyone has the right to have his own universe the way he wants it. I have no love of Satanists, having met a few of them, but you must understand that you would look just as ridiculous to an Egyptologist as these so-called Setian Satanists look to you, so why the hard feelings?
you must understand that you would look just as ridiculous to an Egyptologist as these so-called Setian Satanists look to you
[Cue oceans of defensive pseudo-Egyptology cited to dubious sources, in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...]
I suppose it was an unnecessary addition.
you must understand that you would look just as ridiculous to an Egyptologist as these so-called Setian Satanists look to you
[Cue oceans of defensive pseudo-Egyptology cited to dubious sources, in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...]
I agree with your major points. Personally I think Set is underappreciated in the Thelemic milieu notwithstanding the work of Grant's, in my opinion, only semi-successful approach to the subject. The Set of Temple of Set is really just an egregor of the magicians involved. Perhaps the fictional Vampire Masquerade clan of the same name is the best archetypal representation of the sect. There appears to be no great strides in the acceptance of Setian occult lore suggesting that the initiates fail to achieve HGA grades (and that makes sense with their obsessions with vampirism). I would like to greater success of archaeological investigations of Set but it seems unlikely that will happen. Of course there is Oliver St. John's approach of Set from the Grant school but his work is the philosophers stone of pseudo-Egyptology of it's worse kind and his hatred of AC even as Prophet is palatable.
In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.
cited to dubious sources, in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...]
0. Regardless of cosmic cosmologies and satanic satanists, the scriptures pictures show two things:
1. Set was a good guy. He defended the Egg of Ra from the devouring reptile, Apep the Evil ...
2, Set was a bad guy. He murdered his Frater Asar and took over his Seat in the Orient, and gave the last Aeon a bad reputation ...
The scripture pictures are appearing thumbnail size in my typing reply box. If they're not bigger in the real post, I hope you can click on them, or something, to get the real true secret(s).
It cannot be forgotten that Egypt had numerous different cosmologies that mesh and then separate again over thousands of years.
Set: Your Wiki link posted as a reply to serious charges is unacceptable. Please state your case in clearer, whiter words.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shadow-boxing/201208/serial-killers-and-the-supernatural
satanic satanist
How many people is AC supposed to have killed? I can only think of one when he claimed to shoot in self-defense in some back ally asia or India I forget which. FWIW I don't believe claims he was Jack the Ripper due to his young age at the time.
In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.
FWIW I don't believe claims he was Jack the Ripper due to his young age at the time.
I agree! Second that opinion, or whatever... He'd have been, what - thirteen at the time which - even allowing for his prodigious puberty with the parlour maid & ability to commute from his strict Plymouth Brethren Crowleyan household to be able to make regular forays into Whitechapel - seems to be pushing at the probabilities, just a little bit...
Or does anybody wish to disagree?
Norma N Joy Conquest
Or does anybody wish to disagree?
I would, but I'm too tired from reading endless puzzle solution logistics.
@set-tetu-ra
Any book recommendations for understanding Set?
- The Sky Religion in Egypt by Wainwright
- The Conflict of Horus and Set by Griffiths
- Images of Set by Lansberry
- Seth God of Confusion by Te Velde
- The Dark Lord by Levenda
- Bull of Ombos by Morgan
@set-tetu-ra
Any book recommendations for understanding Set?
- The Sky Religion in Egypt by Wainwright
- The Conflict of Horus and Set by Griffiths
- Images of Set by Lansberry
- Seth God of Confusion by Te Velde
- The Dark Lord by Levenda
- Bull of Ombos by Morgan
Also The Pyramid Texts
@set-tetu-ra
Much appreciated. I've only just recently begun to understand what Set means and it may be important for me to find out more. I think I'll start with "The Dark Lord", it was mentioned in another thread recently.