The Temple of Set II
Page 73
- 297 -
Again from my own point of view, the fact that the Temple doesn’t yet have all the answers doesn’t indicate it
isn’t the only true religion. The Elect and the potentially Elect have more of the answers than other religious
systems, but these answers lead to more questions which lead to more answers, which ... etc.
Adept Murad is quite correct in saying the Temple is not a finished product. If our progress thus far is any
indication, then we will have the answers to our present questions. But I might add there will be new questions - and
all in accordance with the concept of Xeper. So will we ever have all the answers? Perhaps in the future through
Setamorphosis, but I am no prophet and can only speculate.
Finally I cannot agree that Magister Seago’s article overlooks dealings with friends or loved ones. While the
relationship dealings are not expressed openly, there are many implications to his statement that: “There is
generally some kind of reciprocal benefit in such relationships, or they would not be entered into. The non-Setian
may be entertaining and amusing, possess some skill which you can learn or persuade him to employ on your
behalf, etc.” I feel it’s the latter half of this quote which may make the article seem cold to some; I’d point out that
these examples are by no means the only benefits obtained from relationships with non-Setians. As I said, there are
many implications in the first half of the quote.
I for one am glad Adept Murad expressed his opinion in the Scroll. I know it made me think, and I’m sure it has
done so for others.
- 298 -
A37: By Any Other Name
- by Alexandra Sarris (NebXet) III° and Linda Parrinello [Reynolds] (Medu n Xensu) III°
Scroll of Set #III-7, March 1978
That the symbolic value of names has been used as an element in initiation is attested in countless
inscriptions. Even the names of things bear witness to the constant solicitude to establish a relation between
the thing and its essential quality or its function ...
The name was held to be a definition of the essential nature of the individual and the plan of his
development. That is why one person could receive several names according to the stages of his evolution.
- Isha Schwaller de Lubicz, Her-Bak
The Anubis Pylon in San Francisco celebrated the arrival of year XIII by hosting a New Year’s Eve feast and
ritual. Attending were the eight Anubians and five other Setian guests. During the post-ritual discussion, the subject
of magical names arose. From the comments received, it became evident to us that we were involved in certain
magical developments that our guests found extremely interesting and that we would like to share with you.
There has been a tradition among witch doctors, shamans, and magicians to have both a public and a secret,
personal name. These people believed that knowledge of their secret names would make them vulnerable to their
enemies. Thus they were carefully guarded by those magicians.
In the Church of Satan initiates chose names for themselves to represent their desired path of development.
They focused energy toward the evocation of the qualities they felt these names represented. In the Temple of Set
there is no specific policy for the acquisition of a magical name. Some Setians have chosen their names according to
the Church of Satan guidelines. However we of the Anubis Pylon have discovered our magical entities in another
way. While we have found that there is no timetable for receiving a magical name, for us it has occurred at a point
when we were becoming attuned to our selves and each other during ritual.
Within a month’s time five Anubians perceived their magical selves in the form of names. We did not choose
these names! [Interestingly these entities which became manifest were Egyptian.]
Here is an example: one member considered herself to be somewhat powerless though actually she was not.
Fittingly the entity who came to her was an Egyptian being who exemplified power - a being who recognized that
this aspiring magician needed to evolve toward a perception of her own power. In this very same way we received
the magical names of entities befitting our evolutionary needs.
Who are these entities? Are they telesmic images? Are they merely manifestations of our imagination? Are they
existing beings with whom we are interreacting?
We believe they are the latter, though we cannot substantiate our reasons for this belief. We have only our
impressions and perceptions to support our conclusions. We believe these beings have existed for thousands of
years and have passed out of consciousness until now. They have re-emerged as they recognized those Setians
evolving to the point where their (the entities’) particular attributes were appropriately suited. However the entity
cannot “connect” with the Setian until an evolutionary level has been attained allowing both to become magically
attuned. The entity recognizes the needs of the Setian that must be met in order to continue toward Setamorphosis.
At this point you may be thinking that we are creating telesmic images to counteract the flaws that we see in
ourselves. We do not believe this to be true, because the entity in each instance has appeared before the individual
had any knowledge of the qualities attributable to that entity! For the same reason they cannot be manifestations of
the imagination, for often the Setian had little or no knowledge of Egyptology .
We do, however, consider that these entities may be telesmic images created by the ancient Egyptians, or the
essence of pre-existing beings.
Magister Barrett has described the magical entity acquired by the Setian as “you ahead of yourself”. As we have
said, the magical entity embodies those qualities to which we aspire. As we evolve through ritual experiences, so do
we evolve toward the actualization of our magical selves. As our introductory note states, as a Setian grows, he can
receive his name according to his evolution. [It is not inconceivable that a magical entity might choose to identify
with more than one Setian.] Once the qualities of the magical entity have been realized, the Setian may begin a new
cycle of development with an entirely new being. It becomes tremendously apparent when the existing name has
become obsolete.
We (the authors) perceived our magical names last winter (XI). By mid-October (XII) we both recognized that
these names and all they represented were no longer viable for us. [They may be perfectly adequate for other
evolving Setians to whom the qualities would apply.]
During a ritual on October 21st, our new entities made themselves dramatically - and simultaneously -
apparent. It is significant that though we had obviously become linked with the new entities, we had no idea of their
eventual state of being. Only recently have meaningful aspects revealed themselves. At present we are aware of the
fact that our prior entities seem to have been one-dimensional, with limited function. Our new entities are far more
complex and are gradually becoming defined in many dimensions.
- 299 -
Consider the possible benefits. The magical self can in effect provide an evolutionary “short-cut”. Your
association will be a constant source of stimuli; it is a tool to other dimensions that you need only employ. When
bringing these entities to the fore, we experience an enhanced awareness of true magic. These beings seem to
illustrate hidden aspects of our se
lves that we are either unaware of or do not particularly want exposed. What better
way to overcome negative energies? The solution to a problem lies in clearly defining the problem!
From the text of this article, you can see that there are many questions still unanswered, though we have stated
our beliefs and illustrated our experiences in this matter. Where do you feel the magical entity comes from? Is the
entity directed to us by Set? Are the entities indeed individual, or are they various aspects of the complex Set-entity?
Do they exist with him in his dimension? Consider some of these questions and perhaps offer your own insights,
comments, and experiences which will benefit us and all Setians.
[Note: This article is a discussion by the authors alone, though some of the ideas expressed are shared by all of
Anubis Pylon. Her-Bak is a beautiful book which illustrates in a clear and thought-provoking way an aspect of
ancient Egyptian philosophical thought. It presents Egyptian life in regard to the search for understanding the
intrinsic essence of the name. It reveals the belief of a “lesson in every feature”. From its author’s introduction: “In
every instance these concrete images serve to teach abstract principles hidden within, which in turn reveal universal
laws.” We highly recommend that you read it!]
- 300 -
A38: From Thoughts to Words, or To Define
- by Ricco A. Zappitelli III°
Scroll of Set #III-9, May 1978
I have written this article in an all-consuming drive to make my feelings be understood and felt. I’ll try to speak
of these feelings as clearly and precisely as possible. For all of you out there whom I have never personally met, I ask
you to hear the “heart” of my words.
I notice that of late there seem to be letters, statements, and opinions coming from I° and II°, all questioning
different basic concepts [which in itself is a commendable thing]. But after viewing them from a high enough
perspective, I have begun to see an alarming pattern developing.
This pattern seems to revolve around religion and its various connotations. I am not a trained psychiatrist nor
psychologist, but I do not totally understand why “problems” should arise with no apparent reason. I offer the
following thoughts, words, or definitions to get us closer to working out solutions.
First of all, as the Temple of Set, what are we? Let’s define: As an organization, I feel we are (1) religious, (2)
philosophical, and (3) a magical temple.
What does this all really mean? First, the Temple of Set is a religion. There, I’ve said it. I for one am not afraid
of that word; rather I will define it:
A religion may be to others a principle of worship [which it is most definitely not to me!], or it can be a definite,
all-consuming, all-pervading knowing or belief in a form, principle, or entity. It is this definition of the knowledge
and belief in the existence of Set to be real, that I speak of when I speak of my “religion”.
From this belief springs my concept of a way of living and viewing life, and so emerges the next aspect, my
“philosophy”.
And finally the third and most vital force binding the other two elements together is our magical existence and
life which bridge the gates of the physical and metaphysical and allow us to break natural order and rise high above
lower man’s definitions of religion, philosophy, etc. Cf. Ouspensky’s theory as defined in The Psychology of Man’s
Possible Evolution.
By now you’re probably asking, “What is this madman talking about anyway?” I’ll tell you why I clearly define
what I feel to be our Temple’s three aspects with such deliberation: namely the pattern I see evolving - or rather “de-
evolving” - here concerning the concept of religion and whether Set is or is not real.
I can only say to those who are confused or in doubt on this matter, “Go back to the basics.” Re-read the
informational letter that you received upon entry, re-read other printed material, including the most important [in
my opinion] Book of Coming Forth by Night, in which Set speaks to us: “I think not of those who think not of me.”
One must be or exist in order to do so; this is the very basis of our Temple: not worship, but belief that Set does in
fact exist. Again from the Book of Coming Forth by Night I quote: “Speak rather to me as a friend, gently and
without fear, and I shall hear as a friend. Do not bend your knee nor drop your eye, for such things were not done in
my house at PaMat-et.”
To endorse our religious, philosophical, magical Temple of Set means that one in fact does know that the
existence of Set is valid. To do otherwise is in my opinion quite illogical.
Now to my next feeling: It has been too long since I have seen questions and feedback aired in the Scroll of Set.
We need this, and I for one heartily encourage more of it. To stifle one’s thoughts or feelings is definitely not what
the Temple of Set is about.
I feel as a Priest of Set that honoring the dignity of all Setians, regardless of degree, is vital if we are to continue
to Xeper to a “higher” state. Lower thoughts and mundane, petty ways cannot be. I ask that the following
considerations be thought of before composing a rebuttal [as once proposed by our High Priest for answering
questions, challenges, or disputable statements, especially those of a volatile nature]:
(1) Put the material in question aside for a few days.
(2) Later reread the material and redefine it.
(3) Try looking at it from a higher perspective and from the other fellow’s possible point of view.
These three steps I have used and find helpful, since being basically of an emotional, rash temperament, I might
easily tend to “jump the gun”, “climb a tree”, or be misunderstood. All I can add to this is to ask that we as Setians
always keep uppermost in our mind what we are and remember that dignity and respect must be afforded us all.
I suggest further that whenever we challenge, question, or dispute, it be handled with the aforementioned
qualities in mind. To do otherwise, or to challenge in an accusing or arrogant tone is a thing that can easily be done
without full awareness. This we as Setians cannot allow to happen.
As one is Recognized as passing into a higher degree, one must also understand that perceptions also change,
thus “verbiage” doesn’t mean the same thing and more than oft needs redefining. If a I° or II° fully understood all
the implications from a III° perception, for example, he would be of that degree. This is what any school of magical
initiation is about. There were many times, for example, at my I° and II° level when all I could simply do was “trust”
the higher degrees’ conceptions and perceptions above me. I can look back and truly say that in no instance was I
- 301 -
misled or un-answered. Upon Becoming III° I can now and only now begin to understand and appreciate the
magical system.
In conclusion, I would also suggest that we think beyond simple questioning (gently, with our opinions) while
always thinking of constructive ends towards our and thus our Temple’s goals. I for one will honor questions,
statements, or disagreements stated to me in an inquiring form in a respectful manner - but will disregard and ill-
dignify any written word or thought that tries to demean my thought or dignity, and will expect the same of all other
Setians.
On to the questions raised in reference to the
February Scroll’s article by Magister Dale Seago, “Implications of
Elitism.”
The first concern over Magister Seago’s statement that the Temple of Set embodies the only true religion, I do
not dispute. However I can see how questions may arise on this matter. On the following line, however, I feel he
clears this up. I quote, “It seems to me that this should be clarified. If this organization is in fact the Temple of Set,
then ours is the true religion.” I feel he means this from the precision of his words.
We are not an absolute and complete religion or philosophy. To make this statement would be to dispute our
Word Xeper and concept of this Æon. I feel Magister Seago no more means that than to state we are the only form
of a religion today. Rather I feel he means “absolute” from a higher, purer form - from an original or pure source,
namely ancient Xem/PaMat-et. Definitely this does not mean absolute in the “completed” sense. All other
springboard spin-offs, for example the Osirian cult, Judeo/Christianity, etc., are superficial imitations and in that
sense not true.
How to deal with non-Setians? Again I agree with Seago’s statements. It was good to finally see things I have felt
in my own dealings with “humans” put down in such an explicit manner, However I do feel the key is that he states
these as some of the options. Since very few things in our life are “absolutes”, I agree it all ends up with the
individual Setian. When we write an article, answer a letter, etc., we usually state our opinions and perceived
truths, and only infrequently absolute truth!
So I see no real disagreement, but only a misinterpretation of the term “absolute”, with consideration to the
more rarefied perspective of a Magister.
I hope l have shed some light on these topics for all Setians [I have for myself upon introspection!] and invite
any feedback.
- 302 -
A39: Problems of Perception
- by L. Dale Seago IV°
Scroll of Set #III-10, June 1978
In a recent personal letter to me, Priest James Lewis remarked:
Excuse me, but damn it, Ethel was sneaky as a snake when he came out with the one about Set
“becoming a god like unto the others”. That has caused more upset than anything I’ve seen yet, and the odd