From: Domi O Area: MagickNet To: Red E Turok 11 Aug 92 15:09:00 Subject: Sun? Female? UpdReq Lugh and Bel has a number of attributes, but being sun gods isn't among them. The notion that they were sun gods comes from mythological descriptions of them as red and gleaming-- a description which also applies to most of the legendary warriors, such as Fionn and Cuchulain. There is nothing in the early tales that marks them as sun gods. The sun is female in Irish, in Scots, and in Manx. I can't comment on the Welsh, Breton or Cornish because I don't speak, read or write those languages. Bel is not sun, but world tree, related to bile. It is also related to the concept progenitor. Lugh is light in the sense of inspiration, brightness in the sense of multi-talent and far-ranging intelligence. It doesn't mean light as in sun. Is mise le meas, Domi O'Brien, Acting ArchDruid, Ar nDraiocht Fein 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Domi O Area: MagickNet To: Erin 11 Aug 92 15:16:00 Subject: Sun? Female? UpdReq Red and gleaming, or red colour upon him from sunset to dawn, are not in Irish sun-god attributes, but attributes of all the mythic warriors (like Fionn and Cuchulain). Sun is female in Irish, Manx, and Scots. Lugh is related to light as in inspiration, talent, etc NOT light as in sun. Bel is related to the words for progenitor and for world-tree. (Bile). The naming of them as sun gods occurs when mythographers familiar with other belief systems than the Celtic attempt to make Celtic cosmology fit other systems. It doesn't work. There are no four sacred directions and no cardinal points among the insular Celts. All the sacred objects come FROM the North. Things are always in motion, moving towards or away from; in Irish the action is more important than the actor. Attributes are ON someone, not felt by them or part of them. This includes emotions. I am sure Lorax and Airmid will comment here, and most accurately. Domi O'Brien, Acting ArchDruid, Ar nDraiocht Fein 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Grendel Area: MagickNet To: William Mclaughlin 12 Aug 92 17:25:00 Subject: Gerald Schueler UpdReq > I couldn't help but notice your tagline. Have you a problem > with Schueler's stuff? Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you--my ignorance > is too vast--but I'd be interested in any criticisms you have. I've read > his first two books and they seemed OK. They shed a bit of light on the > stuff in the Golden Dawn stuff and A.C.'s books. I'd be interested in your > comments. Schueler's stuff is just a mixing of what he has read. He doesn't seem to actually practise any of it. It is misleading and not that well written. His first book (the red one) is complete crap. The second (the blue one) is Ok. His physics book is WORSE than crap, it is gibberish. -= Grendel =- 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: MagickNet To: William Mclaughlin 11 Aug 92 19:48:04 Subject: Gerald Schueler UpdReq WM>JN> * SLMR 2.1a * Help stamp out Gerald Schueler. WM> I couldn't help but notice your tagline. Have you a problem with >Schueler's stuff? Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you--my ignorance is >too vast--but I'd be interested in any criticisms you have. I've read his >first two books and they seemed OK. They shed a bit of light on the stuff in >the Golden Dawn stuff and A.C.'s books. I'd be interested in your comments. >Take care! Hi, Mac! Haven't seen you on here in a while. I bought Schueler's first book when it first came out, and thought it was OK, but nothing great. Most of it was just a rehash of some second- and third-hand sources. There were a bunch of things wrong with it, such as the cavalier way in which he changed the gematria values and attributes of the letters to suit whatever point he was proving. (He clearly got these by compiling the footnotes in "Vision and the Voice", and had no idea how they came from the G.D.'s geomantic divination method.) His ideas about the Aethyrs were obviously copied from Crowley, with a liberal interspersing of Theosophical garbage. By the time his second book ("Advanced Enochian Magick") came out, I had had a couple of years of VERY intense experience with the Enochian system -- daily invocations / astral projections for nine months, triweekly for the rest of the time. Reading that book, it was apparent that he was fabricating his whole system with very little experience actually using the Calls and Tablets. It had no relation at all to my own experience, or that of the other magicians I was corresponding with. I began to suspect that he was just an opportunist with a talent for selling himself to publishers. Then "Enochian Physics" was published, and removed any remaining doubts in my mind. One can not say this book was plagiarized, since he was very careful to rephrase whatever sources he was using. But it was obvious that he had stolen practically every idea in the book from other people, and had mashed them together without really understanding any of them. A prime example of the "Baffle 'em with bullsh*t" school of occult writing. A quick reading by an unthinking or uneducated person would give the impression that there was something meaningful there; but if you take the time to figure out what he is saying, you will find that most of it sounds good but means nothing. Reference to reliable sources in the areas of physics he talks about will show that the remainder is simply wrong. In the entire book I found exactly two ideas that both meant something and were not contradicted by the facts. I attribute these to the fact that even a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it's digital ). So (IMO) there is no reason to treat Schueler's work with anything other than contempt. The field of Enochian magick would have been better off had he never started his little carnival show. * SLMR 2.1a * Never trust an occipian. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718