misunderstanding have withered and grown weak.
Unless they are nursed back to health, man will despair
106 Winkler, Franz E., For Freedom Destined: Mysteries of Man’s
Evolution in the Mythology of Wager’s Ring Operas and Parsifal.
Garden City, NY: Waldorf Press, 1974, pages #54-55.
- 192 -
of life and eventually throw it away in a mass suicide by
nuclear destruction.
But how can we care for what we no longer
comprehend?
Modern science, admirable in its achievements on a
material plane, has proven ineffectual in the
understanding of intangible values. This limitation,
while freely admitted by the small number of truly
creative scientists, seems to elude the average
intellectual. And the failure to recognize this limitation
adds to the delusion that natural science in its present
form can be the judge of religious or spiritual truth.
Making modern man’s plight even more serious is
the fact that his materialistic delusion of himself not
only deprives him of wisdom and happiness, but acts
also as a pattern in whose dreary image he tends to
reshape his nature. Consequently more and more
personalities emerge who think and act virtually like
robots. They know no happiness and have no
perception of objective morality.
We have grown wise in the analysis of the material
world, have expanded the scope of our perception to
outer space and to the world beneath the atom. But
objective inner experience has faded almost entirely
away, and it has left us groping in the dark for the true
image of ourselves. 107
It is a function of the Temple of Set, as of the ancient
Egyptian priesthoods, the Pythagorean Brotherhood, and
the Platonic Academy before it, to inspire the Elect of
humanity to awaken to that knowledge which is latent
within their consciousness and needs only to be
appreciated as such. 108 Winkler rightly points out that,
107 Ibid., pages #19-21.
108 Within initiation the term “Elect” identifies an individual who has
not merely been chosen for this transformative adventure, but who
intrinsically possesses the intelligence, vision, and ambition to
pursue it successfully. It is thus both an active and a passive
qualification.
- 193 -
the more highly initiated one becomes, the more one can
experience such prerogatives of Xeper. But this is a
matter of perspective and proportion, not of the quality of
immortality itself.
D. Emperor of Dreams
I don’t make things up, and I can’t write stories. I
daresay that if I tried to do either, the results would be
awkward, clumsily and self-consciously [in the banal
sense] artificial. So what are these books of mine that are
casually labeled “fiction”?
Simply: SUs outlined and shared in print. And they
exemplify the flexibility of SU-creation from little if any
OU-modification - Secret of the Lost Ark, Grail Mission,
We Break the Sword, and Ode to Esmé - to near-
complete disassociation: Morlindalë, FireForce.
Often - and I confess somewhat mischievously - I
enjoy pranking the reader with OU-facts that appear
fantastic, as well as SU-constructs that have every
appearance of OU-substantiation. 109
This is not just an attentiveness- and credibility-
challenge to the reader, but a very serious representation
of how, when we assume we perceive and interact with
the OU daily, the reality is that each individual creates
and indwells a SU interpretation of the OU, sufficient to
render it intelligible and practical for physical
functioning.
Beyond each personal SU and the OU are also several
Collective SUs (CSU) (C#1.E), constructed by groups of
109 There wasn’t really an article in the Los Angeles Times about the
discovery of an ancient city of lizard-beings beneath L.A. Or was
there? Robert Fulton didn’t really build the first Nautilus for
Napoleon. Or did he? The secret SS records of the Atlantis expedition
aren’t really on decaying microfilm reels in the U.S. National
Archives. Or are they?
- 194 -
necessarily. As we have seen herein, many such CSUs -
ideological, profane-religions, etc. - insist that they are
not CSUs but indeed the OU: an image they deem
essential to their effectiveness.
Once, like Her-Bak, you are awakened to and begin to
understand this “matrix” of interleaved, interlocking
universes, you become their controller and manipulator,
not their blind, ignorant slave.
At the end of this “Mind- trilogy”, as the Afterword to
FindFar, appears “The Prince and the Magician”, a
rarely-noticed incidental in John Fowles’ The Magus. It is
a Black Mass, a “red pill”, or as Fowles terms it,
“disintoxication”.
MindStar is also such a disintoxication. The Preface
predicted that it would expose you to nothing whose truth
you don’t already know: anamnesis.
That turned out to be the case, yes?
E. The End of the Beginning
MindStar has endeavored to take its subject to the
limits of conventional exposure and expression. 110
Religious eschatology myths and contemporary
science-fiction re-attempts like 2001 characteristically
fall silent at precisely the moment when the subject
becomes most interesting: Once you are re-created as a
disincarnate, immortal being, freed from both your
material body and the OU to which it was permanently
chained during your incarnation, what’s next?
You’ll think of something. As Walt Disney said, “It’s
kind of fun to do the impossible.”
The common feature of all the old superstitions -
whether Hebraic, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or etc. -
110 At least, hopefully, without scaring the cats.
- 195 -
was that you’re in big trouble: if not just from your own
sinfulness, that of great+grandparents Adam & Eve. Your
whole life is spent trying to get out of the Very Bad
Eternity this promises.
Or, if you shucked that all off, the Big Black Sack.
Isn’t it nice to punt all of this?
Millennia of foggy fablisms have also left Hereafters
surprisingly unexplored. Well, the Egyptians had Amenti
and the Tuat nicely mapped out, including where not to
step if you didn’t want your ba-foot eaten by Apep.
No guidebook was need for the Jewish Sheol; it’s a
divine dump, a celestial cesspool for rephaim refuse.
At least Christians could throw dice for Dante’s Divine
Comedy (!) of Paradise, Purgatory, or Inferno, for which
Hieronymus Bosch and Francisco Goya were only too
happy to offset Michelangelo and da Vinci.
Upon deactivation of your physical body, the khat
ceases to be the “default” emanation, re-centering your
“sense of self” in the ba. Extension from the ba is
thereafter effortless: for instance into the ka for a SU
manifestation of 4D displacement for travel throughout
the OU or other SUs. The khabit reaches across the SU/
OU boundaries if you wish varying types of “visits” from
delicate inspiration to full-fledged ghost or house-
haunter.
At the onset of the American Civil War, a Union
soldier came closer than Aragorn to anticipating the
khabit, writing to his wife:
... But oh! Sarah: If the dead can come back to this
Earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall
always be near you in the gladdest days and in the darkest
nights - always, always.
And if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall
be my breath; as the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it
shall be my spirit passing by.
- 196 -
Sarah, do not mourn me dead. Think I am gone and
wait for thee, for we shall meet again. 111
Queen Tera knew well from her own initiation how to
escape the perils of her original time. 112 Upon the precise
culmination of the ceremonial, incantational, and
astronomical alignments combined to send her khabit
unobtrusively into the 19th-Century body of Margaret113
Trelawny, whose own khat had been conjured into a
physical double of the Queen’s, therein to blend delicately
and willingly with the khabit of Margaret:
In the autumn Margaret and I were married. On the
occasion she wore the mummy robe and zone and the jewel
which Queen Tera had worn in her hair. On her breast, set
in a ring of gold make like a twisted lotus stalk, she wore
the strange Jewel of Seven Stars which held words to
invoke the neteru of all the worlds.
At the marriage the sunlight streaming through the
chancel windows fell on it, and it seemed to glow like a
living thing.
The graven words may have been of efficacy; for
Margaret holds to them, and there is no other life in all the
world so happy as my own.
111 Letter, Sullivan to Sarah Ballou, July 14, 1861. One week later, on
July 21, Sullivan was killed at the First Battle of Bull Run.
112 The XI [Theban] Dynasty (2134-1991 BCE) was dominated by the
Priesthood of Amon. The only child of Mentuhotep III, Princess Tera
took the throne in 1998, reigning for seven years under the male
name of “Mentuhotep IV”.
Tera’s father, fearing that her youth and sex would cause her
assassination, had sent her to the Delta for initiation into the
Priesthood of Set at Hwt-nen-nesu (Gr . Herakleopolis Magna), 20
miles from the successor Tanis of the Setian XX Dynasty.
Queen Tera’s Arts indeed protected her, but upon her death (said
to be by her own Arts] she was entombed “namelessly” in the “Valley
of the Sorcerer” and her reign erased, shown on the Turin Papyrus as
“7 empty years”. No “Mentuhotep IV” tomb has ever been found.
113 Reverse the last four letters.
- 197 -
We often think of the great Queen, and we talk of her
freely. Once, when I said with a sigh that I was sorry she
could not have waked into a new life in a new world, my
wife, putting both her hands in mine and looking into my
eyes with that far-away eloquent dreamy look which
sometimes comes into her own, said lovingly:
“Do not grieve for her! Who knows, but she may have
found the joy she sought? Love and patience are all that
make for happiness in this world, or in the world of the
past or of the future; of the living or the dead. She dreamed
her dream, and that is all that any of us can ask!” 114
Upon rising to Neter-Xertet, your MS can be as
neteru-harmonious or Set-creative as you wish, whether
it is fulfillment of such a gentle and modest dream as
Queen Tera’s, or the magnificent grandiosity of a Clark
Ashton Smith. Assume your ka and explore galaxies [with
your friends along], toss Esmé a seaweed cigar, discuss
straightening-out Earth’s wobbly axis with Adolf Hitler,
or go back a few Ages to revisit it as Arda. Don your
khabit and kiss your still-incarnate Beloved [or settle
some scores with those in need of nightmares]. Join
Princesses Ozma of Oz and Dorothy Gale for red-tinted
Quadling tea on the terrace of Glinda’s palace. Later
perhaps enjoy a glass of sherry with Barnabas Collins at
the Old House. Frolic with everyone ever in your furmily
at the Rainbow Bridge. Re-go-out on every date you ever
screwed up and get it right this time. Snap your fingers
and transform a revived Christopher Reeve from
wheelchair to [the real] Superman; the planet definitely
needs him!
Oh, and if you’re having any trouble figuring out
Plato, just conjure up a sphinx and a chimæra to help.
Ascending into the radiant æthyr, among the
immortals, you shall be yourself a god.
- Pythagoras, Golden Verse #37
114 Stoker, op.cit. , pages #255-6.
- 198 -
- 199 -
Afterwords: The Sphinx and the Chimæra
On May 30, 1975 in Santa Barbara,
California, a sphinx and a chimæra were evoked
to manifestation in order to explore certain
esoteric implications of the Dialogues of Plato.
Placed upon the altar: The Collected Dialogues of
Plato , Hamilton & Cairns (Ed.), Princeton
University Press, 1961. This conversation was
recorded, transcribed, and annotated by Michael
A. Aquino.
The Sphinx: I think it essential to preface any
discussion of a single Platonic dialogue with two
major qualifications. The first is that, to be treated
without distortion, Plato’s philosophy must be
appreciated in its entirety. Emphasis upon any
single dialogue or group of dialogues carries with it
a certain unfairness to the author.
The Chimæra: Yet our span of materialization is
limited, and we cannot hope to treat the entire
range of Plato’s thought in the time available to us.
The Sphinx: True, and so let us focus first upon The
Sophist, which illustrates many of the points most
important to this investigation.
- 200 -
The Chimæra: But what is your second qualification?
The Sphinx: There is the problem of understanding
what Plato “really meant”. This is an issue against
which I am powerless to defend myself. I am of
Khem and not of Hellas; I am bilingual only in
English and hence must depend upon my
understanding of Plato as he is translated into the
English language. The dialogues center much of
their discussion around terms whose final
definitions are elusive at best, even in
conversations carried out at intellectual planes
below that of Plato. Then, too, there is always the
spectre of imprecise translation from the Greek to
the English. And Plato himself could not anticipate
this.
The Chimæra: Your qualifications are entirely
acceptable. Proceed.
The Sphinx: The initial question raised by The Sophist
is its raison d’être. Why should Plato have felt it
necessary to include such a dialogue as this in his
philosophy at all? Was it truly because the
included lines of argument required exposure? Or
did Plato intend the document rather as a gauntlet
of sorts to be flung before the Sophists
themselves?
The Chimæra: I sense that the editors of this book
ventured one explanation. Grasping it with a
forepaw, he turns to page #958. Yes, here it is:
The argument is hung on the figure of the
Sophist quite arbitrarily. No real picture is given
of the men who were the professional
instructors of Greece for many years. All Plato
- 201 -
does is ascribe to them every notion he
disapproves. He detested the whole band of
Sophists. To him they were shallow-minded,
pretentious, superficial, mercenary - they were
really doing what Socrates was charged with,
corrupting the minds of the young.
And this appears to be reinforced by the dialogue’s
concluding statement, which seems to be little
more than an outright vilification of Sophistry. He
turns to page #1016 and quotes:
The art of contradiction-making, descended
from an insincere kind of conceited mimicry, of
the semblance-making breed, derive from
imagemaking, distinguished as a portion, not
divine but human, of production, that presents a
shadowy play of words - such are the blood and
lineage which can, with perfect truth, be
assigned to the authentic Sophist.
The Sphinx: Obviously that is not an objective
philosophical statement. It is a deliberate insult
reached through a dialectical process which, in
retrospect, seems a transparent parody of Plato’s
more serious argumentative style. In most of the
Platonic dialogues one feels that Socrates is not
“managing” the conversation towards an end that
he has conceptualized beforehand. But every twist
and turn of The Sophist is designed only to
channel the conversation into providing a part of
that final statement.
The Chimæra: But how would you have Plato compose
such a definition, save by a summary of the
component arguments preceding it?
- 202 -
The Sphinx: I quarrel not with the final assembly