From tyagi@bjt.net Mon Dec 2 16:26:05 1996 Return-Path: tyagi@bjt.net Received: from kudonet.com (kudonet.com [165.227.52.1]) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA30826 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:26:01 -0500 Received: from kudo20.kudonet.com by kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01128; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:10:41 -0800 Received: by kudo20.kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06685; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:02:54 -0800 From: tyagi@bjt.net (Tyagi Nagasiva) Message-Id: <199612022102.NAA06685@kudo20.kudonet.com> Subject: 9611.gnmsbkg.mt To: tyagi@hollyfeld.org Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:02:54 -0800 (PST) Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO >From thelema93-l-owner@hollyfeld.org Tue Nov 26 09:08:26 1996 X-Authentication-Warning: bitsy.hollyfeld.org: majordom set sender to owner-thelema93-l using -f Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:40:07 +0000 (GMT) From: Mae Tang To: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org Subject: Re: Gnostic and/or Black Mass In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org Precedence: bulk content-length: 4637 93, On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Rodney Orpheus wrote: > >From: solis, solis@HEVANET.COM > > >Personally, (in otherwords, IMO) turning ones back on the Priestess to > >state that "There is no part of me that is not of the gods" is doing > >both, Priestess and participant a great disservice. If the Priestess > >and communicant are doing their jobs correctly, turning ones back ruins > >the experience of the communicant looking into the eyes of the goddess; > >and from the Priestesse's point of view, she'll not experience looking > >at the Hadit in the communicant. I've been to and in Masses where the congregation communicated and declared that to the Priestess, and to one mass where it was done to the rest of the congregation. From my perspective doing Priestess (IMO! IMO! ;)), I've always really liked the former. I think part of that is a sense of intimacy between the communicant and the Priestess. For me, it has something to do with a sense of personal epiphany, which seems heightened by that simultaneous intimacy and revelation. Or, at the best of time, I feel a sense of vunerability and wonder ignited in that trust. I personally wouldn't take offense if I was doing Priestess, and the communicant declared Old Faithful to the congregation, but I feel that it's always good to have both options at hand. Since no two people will feel the same when communicating (I guess), I think it's nice that there shoud be variations availble so people get to choose what works best for them. Speaking as a communicant, declaring and consuming the host / wine before the Priestess is something that I find special, in the same way as I've outlined above. Some of (IMO) the best Priestess I have seen have had wonderful things to offer in that face-to-face. I've seen them radiate a deep joy and peace; a kind of wonderful love and happiness that just beams out, or something of a sense of humour; like a private joke shared in a playful universe. I know I wax subjective and poetical, but it's something that has deeply moved me since the first mass I attended. Communicating and declaring to the congregation was OK too, and did have it's own distinction, and I can see it working well for some people and some Priestesses, but speaking for myself, I know what I generally prefer. > He rises, takes the Lance, and turns to the PEOPLE. > > The PRIEST: There is no part of me that is not of the Gods. > > > > The PEOPLE communicate as did the PRIEST, uttering the same words in an > attitude of Resurrection Ah-ha! But then if we're going to do the by-the-letter argument, then have you noticed the discrepancies in the Mass, where the Priest would need four hands to manage host / wine and lance? What about the confusion over the Priestess's 3.5 circumambulations (raising Kundalini, etc) as described by AC (even _3:10_ has 2 different diagrams of _that)? That bit where the Priest is supposed to have taken the lance back from the Priestess and she's still holding it lines later? The problem of who covers the Cup? How the Priestess can be holding the Cup in her left hand, Paten in right, and still have the Priest mark the crosses on those in the correct order? I've seen Priests make crosses with the lance, and crosses with their hands where the text ain't clear; I've seen variations on how people hold things, when they hold things, where they stand, how they read / perform various texts, etc. I've heard of "single white robe" being interpreted as the Priest goes naked, and so on. Or, I personally come down on the side of variations and individual interpretations. I think there's no harm in choosing an "official" version of the Mass, for referance. What would get my goat (in more ways than one! ;)) is if that became the _only_ version we could do. Like, a nightmare vision of lances and cups, sizes of Priestesses ;), and furniture being standardised, etc. For me, the letter of it is important, and is valuable, but I feel that the spirit of the thing is perhaps what's most vital. > Seems fairly clear to me that the communicant should therefore have his > back to the Priestess during this section. Makes sense to me too, since I > see no point in the communicants telling the Priestess how they feel, > it's the rest of the world that needs to be told... If if works for you, fine. I worry about that "should" somewhat, but hey--- that's your opinion! ;) My feeling is that since the rest of the world is also going to communicate / has communicated, that they'd probably ah... know already and personally, actually. ;) But that's just me. 93 93/93 Mae Mary Magdalene / 974 ----- End of forwarded message from Mae Tang -----