Well, in my opinion, someone like Aquino very much advances a
"user-friendly" version of this god. Though, to be fair, others in the
Temple of Set, like Don Web, show much more consistency with historical
sources (such as the Greek Magical Papyri). Nevertheless, this disparity
between Aquino's (influential) interpretation of Seth and what we know of
the god from the historical sources is very wide, and is in fact one of the
reasons why the Schrecks departed from the Temple of Set. Ultimately, Seth
is a complex deity, and I think the onus is on the practitioners to
approach him with an increasingly deeper understanding of his nature.
~ Aaron
At 08:38 AM 8/04/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Aaron,
>
>>>And to be able to deal with this as an *initiate*, you would have to be
>>>very much like Empedocles: "an exile from the gods and a wanderer,
>>>having put my trust in mad Strife."<<
>
>Right. Well, I'd be totoally unsuitable for that then - I get enought of
>that without deliberatly calling it into my life! That's one of the things
>that *did* pique my interest though, the fact that Set is that sort of
>deity. I was wondering whether people these days saw / interpreted /
>experienced him in the manner you've described, the ancient Egyptian
>manner (and why that would be appealing?), or whether they'd kinda turned
>him into something more user-friendly. It seems that former is indeed the
>case, at least in the example you mention.
>
>~Caroline.
|