Of Setian and setian.

[Azakel]

This subject as been brought up before on another site I was on, and a much of it on one that I still go to. Is some one a Setian if there not a part of the Temple of Set?


I will post a Q&A on this in a bit but I would like a word.(Clears throat)
To me any one who follows in the way of Set is a Setian, the ToS(as much as I love them) do not own the title Setian, or the name Set. Though the title Setian may be new, Setians themselves are not. I am not a member of the Temple, though I plain to be one soon, I am still a Setian, I follow Set in the way of Xeper(or coming into being).
From: http://www.balanone.info/baltsfaq.frm6.html
No the Q&A:
6.2.4 -- Who is a Setian?

Various people continue to call themselves Setian even though they are not members of the Temple of Set. The question as asked on the Xepera-L mailing list in May, 1999 was:

If one can be a *Satanist* without being a member of CoS, can one be a *Setian* without being a member of ToS?​

My answer:

• If you mean "Can someone believe in the Prince of Darkness as Set without being a member of the Temple?" Then yes, they can.
• If you mean "Can someone actively seek and accomplish Xeper without being a member of the Temple of Set?" Then yes, they can.
• If you mean "Can someone practice Setian forms of magic without being a member of the Temple of Set?" Then yes, they can.
• If you mean "Can someone be recognized as and called a Setian by theTemple of Set's administration, Priesthood, or general membership without being a member of the Temple of Set?" Then no, they cannot.

This evoked the question "Why not?" I responded with the following two definitions:
Setian (n) A member of the Temple of Set. setian (adj) 1. action, statement, or belief inspired by the philosophy of Xeper and/or the being or idea of Set. 2. action, statement, or belief compatible with inspiration by the philosophy of Xeper and/or the being or idea of Set.
-Balanone- Link to the site: http://www.balanone.info/baltsfaq.frm6.html

Though to me all they really did with the Definitions is make one a S and the other a s. But his is still a well and good in the end.

 

[Mr.Advocate]

Let’s start with a few quotes from “Black Magic in Theory and Practice” as found in The Crystal Tablet…..

“The III* identifies a transition from a human state of being to that of a divine being – ordained by, consecrated by, and sacred to Set.”

“Just as the II* represents the height of personal identity, and glory to be taken in that identity via application of the Black Arts, so the Priesthood involves the opening of a very special kind of door: the merging of the consciousness, indeed the personality, with that of the Prince of Darkness himself.”

“…so the Temple of Set as an institution is ultimately a vehicle for the identification and formalization of the Priesthood of Set. Through whose souls flow the current of the Aeon of Set. Each Priest and Priestess of Set is a Temple of Set…”

“As the Priesthood constitutes a merging of the individual soul with that of Set, so the Magistry constitutes an expansion of that merger to a full apprehension of the Aeon of Set.”

With this in mind, let’s ask the question again: Is it necessary to belong to the Temple of Set (inc.), to be recognized as a Setian?

After all, if a III* (herself a Temple of Set) has merged with Set, and the IV* has not only merged, but is some sort of conduit of the Aeon, can these recognized grade holders not initiate Setians whether they belong to ToS inc. or not?

Let’s use the off shoot of the ToS inc., “The Storm” (a collection of III*+) as an example. Can the members of The Storm not initiate a Setian?

I don’t mean to isolate The Storm (who count as a member the first High Priestess of ToS inc.), as there have been a number of splinter groups that have left the ToS inc. to form their own organizations. The first person to be recognized to the VI* after Aquino left to form his own group. Hell, even Liliths brother-in-law left to form his own group. Flowers left to form his own group. Need I go on?

Are any of these folks who have been recognized as III-VI unable to initiate Setians, simply because they choose to depart from the ToS inc.? They are the living embodiment of Set itself, many of which apprehend and acted upon and within the Aeon itself.

Who is the true authority here, Set, or Bob “Balanone” Menschel?

 

[Sireal]

This subject as been brought up before on another site I was on, and a much of it on one that I still go to. Is some one a Setian if there not a part of the Temple of Set?


I will post a Q&A on this in a bit but I would like a word.(Clears throat)
To me any one who follows in the way of Set is a Setian, the ToS(as much as I love them) do not own the title Setian, or the name Set. Though the title Setian may be new, Setians themselves are not. I am not a member of the Temple, though I plain to be one soon, I am still a Setian, I follow Set in the way of Xeper(or coming into being).
From:
No the Q&A:
6.2.4 -- Who is a Setian?

Various people continue to call themselves Setian even though they are not members of the Temple of Set. The question as asked on the Xepera-L mailing list in May, 1999 was:

If one can be a *Satanist* without being a member of CoS, can one be a *Setian* without being a member of ToS?​

My answer:

• If you mean "Can someone believe in the Prince of Darkness as Set without being a member of the Temple?" Then yes, they can.
• If you mean "Can someone actively seek and accomplish Xeper without being a member of the Temple of Set?" Then yes, they can.
• If you mean "Can someone practice Setian forms of magic without being a member of the Temple of Set?" Then yes, they can.
• If you mean "Can someone be recognized as and called a Setian by theTemple of Set's administration, Priesthood, or general membership without being a member of the Temple of Set?" Then no, they cannot.

This evoked the question "Why not?" I responded with the following two definitions:
Setian (n) A member of the Temple of Set. setian (adj) 1. action, statement, or belief inspired by the philosophy of Xeper and/or the being or idea of Set. 2. action, statement, or belief compatible with inspiration by the philosophy of Xeper and/or the being or idea of Set.
-Balanone- Link to the site:

Though to me all they really did with the Definitions is make one a S and the other a s. But his is still a well and good in the end.

I think your answers are right on Azakel.
Here's my 2cents:
The Setian lives an Examined Life. It is not lip service life but an active Initiatory existence. I have met folks outside of the Temple that I would consider setian but not Setian for the very fact that their understanding of the Principle of Isolate Intelligence/Set is either non-existent or mis-informed or their understanding of Initiation is severely hampered by the profane world and ineffective eg. they can't drag themselves away from the shiny things the world of horrors has to offer in order to Xeper.

Good post.
I had to delete Balanone's info to post this apparently I have to post 15 times before I'm permitted to post links

 

[Darth Brooks]

Though the title Setian may be new, Setians themselves are not.

Actually, neither the word "Setian" nor "Typhonian" are really that new. One of the earliest uses of the word "Setian" I've found is in Sir William Matthews Flinders Petrie's Ancient Egypt, Volume 1, published by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt in 1914. The word "Typhonian," which I regard as a synonym for "Setian," appears as early as 1841 in Sir John Gardner Wilkinson's A Second Series of the Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. Heck, even the word "Setite," which some role play gamers I've met seem to treat as the intellectual property of White Wolf Entertainment, appeared as early as 1934 in E. A. Wallis Budge's From Fetish To God In Ancient Egypt. So no one really "owns" either of these terms. I suppose it's true enough that these terms are "new" in that they didn't appear in history until the nineteenth century, but they are older than the Temple of Set, the Typhonian O.T.O., or any other Setian/Typhonic group that is active today.

For my own part, I regard a "Setian" or a "Typhonian" as someone who either Works with Set, or who worships Him, or both. I accept Temple of Set members as fellow Setians, and even Typhonian O.T.O. members. I even consider Kemetic Orthodox practitioners who worship Set as their patron to be Setian. I don't believe a person has to be affiliated with any group to be one of Set-Typhon's chosen ones. Set-Typhon chooses His own, and neither He nor the people He chooses need validation from anyone else.

 

[ktf]

Mr. Advocate makes some very good points. I would think it obvious that anyone in touch with the Setian current could recognize and help facilitate Initiation. That being said I also think that it must be possible to have this experience for oneself regardless of anyone to recognize the accomplishment. Ofcourse, as Ouspensky skillfully points out, there is the benifit of a school....

I would like to ask Mr. Advocate to provide information about the non-TOS groups alluded to. I am familiar with the Rune-Gild and the work of Dr. Flowers outside of the TOS but I wasnt aware that he had left to form his own group. Is this true? Is the Storm still active? What of other LHP groups founded by former TOS members? Are there any still active? What happens to the higher ranks who leave the TOS, do they continue the LHP work as individuals?
Just some questions.

 

[Daelach]

Historically, many religious movements have justified promotions of members by divine decisions. This has a great advantage: those in power do not need to justify their decision, they can choose arbitrarily. Just look at the medieval Catholic popes: it was always also a political question whom to make pope.

On the other hand, look at universities. If you want to get some diploma, then you have to fulfill clear requirements, you must pass tests and so on. Whether you pass or not can be justified.

The disadvantage with the "some god has decided"-method is that once the degree has been conferred, it cannot be taken away without making the god look stupid. Even if the candidate had "cheated", the god should have known it.

At a university, you can use e.g. faked data to prove some theory and get a degree. However, if this is discovered later, your degree will be taken from you, this happened already.

So both ways have their advantages and disadvantages, but all in all, the "god has said so"-way is more comfortable from the perspective of those in power in the organisation concerned. That is why most religious organisations have used it from ancient times until now. Never forget that such an organisation is always also a tool of power, seen from a Macchiavellian point of view.

 

[blackout]

There's favoritism at Universities as well.

Sure everyone who completes gets a degree,
but teachers, teaching professionals in the fields
often open (higher/other) doors for favorite students.

Probably usually deserved,
but hey?
It's still favoritism beyond the equality of the degree.

 

[blackout]

I am Maga.

I need no one to tell me this.
Or decree it.
I am.

I am NOT 'ToS Maga' though.

"Maga"
and
"ToS Maga"
are not the same thing.
(though they can dovetail)

Also, just because you know you are something,
even if you are,
is no reason that someone else will know you are that something.

I will need to witness that something in you,
before I am able to recognize/'Recognize' that something in you,
that you have Become/'become".

To me, all Setians are capital S Setians.
Not all Setians are ToS Setians though. Obviously.

We each 'Cast our own Spells'.
We name our Own Selves.

When others name us,
in recognition,
of who we are...
it is an honor.

~Vi~

 

[EtuMalku]

I think simply put, what does it really matter if there's an 'S' or an 's'. While anyone can follow a setian path I would point out that the Temple acts as a sort of Mystery School, there is knowledge and information readily available that would be difficult if not impossible to find outside the Temple.

Whereas a solitary path is rewarding, a well worn path is inviting. Both have their merits. The Temple, for myself, is a great platform of display and recognition.

 

[Darth Brooks]

The disadvantage with the "some god has decided"-method is that once the degree has been conferred, it cannot be taken away without making the god look stupid. Even if the candidate had "cheated", the god should have known it.

One of the things I find "iffy" about Dr. Aquino's Book of Coming Forth by Night is its description of how Set made a mistake when He "raised Anton LaVey to the Will of a Daimon." Of course, I understand that some Setians believe Set is not all-powerful, and that He can make mistakes. But I must respectfully disagree.

I think simply put, what does it really matter if there's an 'S' or an 's'. While anyone can follow a setian path I would point out that the Temple acts as a sort of Mystery School, there is knowledge and information readily available that would be difficult if not impossible to find outside the Temple.

That may be true, but Catholics do not refer to non-Catholic Christians as "christians" (lowercase "c"). Protestants can't receive what Catholics define as the "proper" sacraments unless they become Catholics - but this doesn't mean they aren't Christians (capital "C"). As for what the Temple has to offer, I am most grateful for the contributions its members have chosen to make public. But again, I would hazard a guess that my own approach would not mesh very well with Temple group rituals. I'm more than happy to take the more "difficult" road.

And I mean no offense, but I have read works by certain Temple members in which they describe the ancient followers of Set as "Setian," with a capital "S," even though such people were clearly not affiliated with the Temple (since it wouldn't come into being until thousands of years later). There is at least one paragraph in Don Webb's Seven Faces in which this occurs (I believe it was a reference to the Setian Pharaohs, e.g. Seti I, etc.). Wouldn't it be more consistent to refer to the ancients as "setians," with a lowercase "s," as well?

Whereas a solitary path is rewarding, a well worn path is inviting. Both have their merits. The Temple, for myself, is a great platform of display and recognition.

I am glad you are satisfied with your decision.

 

[Adramelek]

And I mean no offense, but I have read works by certain Temple members in which they describe the ancient followers of Set as "Setian," with a capital "S," even though such people were clearly not affiliated with the Temple (since it wouldn't come into being until thousands of years later). There is at least one paragraph in Don Webb's Seven Faces in which this occurs (I believe it was a reference to the Setian Pharaohs, e.g. Seti I, etc.). Wouldn't it be more consistent to refer to the ancients as "setians," with a lowercase "s," as well?

From a historical point of view, the ancient Setians were Initiates of the original Temples of Set in ancient Egypt. In 1975 on the North Solstice the modern day Temple of Set was reconsecrated. As for me, even though I took a leave of absence from the ToS for reasons known to certain members of the Setian Priesthood, I still concider myself Setian - with a capital 'S'.

Xeper em Ma'at.
/Adramelek\

 

[Darth Brooks]

From a historical point of view, the ancient Setians were Initiates of the original Temples of Set in ancient Egypt. In 1975 on the North Solstice the modern day Temple of Set was reconsecrated.

I must confess, this reply does not really answer my question. In Egypt, there was clearly more than one "Temple" of Set, as you yourself have indicated. And considering that they existed when polytheism was still the general rule (as opposed to monotheism), it is highly unlikely that either of them claimed exclusivity from one another. In fact, there's no evidence that one had to be a member of any particular temple to be considered Setian, Typhonic, or "of Set." (Quite the contrary.) This would appear to contradict the current California-based Temple's claim to exclusivity - e.g., that one must be affiliated with the Temple to be "truly Setian."

Granted, I understand that The Book of Coming Forth by Night is considered an important historical document (whether Set Himself actually had anything to do with it or not). However, if such highly-regarded Temple affiliates (past or present) as Don Webb are willing to describe Set's ancient followers as "Setian" with a capital "S," it seems inconsistent that they should not extend the same courtesy to non-members who choose to follow Set today. For instance, wouldn't an Egyptian reconstructionist who worships Set as her highest deity, and who attempts to follow Set in a way that resembles that of the ancients as closely as possible, have an equal right to the term? Of course, I believe that she does. But if a member of the Temple should answer no, how then would this be reconciled with the description of Set's ancient Egyptian followers as "Setian"? With all due respect to the Temple and its leadership, such a position strikes me as self-contradictory.

As for me, even though I took a leave of absence from the ToS for reasons known to certain members of the Setian Priesthood, I still concider myself Setian - with a capital 'S'.

I am glad that you do.

 

[ktf]

Just to add my 2 cents as a Black Magician:
I find it a bit interesting that "setians" (whether big S or little s....quite frankly the issue seems ridiculous) and people pursuing the LHP would talk about worshiping anything. It doesnt seem much different to me from a RHP approach. There seems to be little difference in replacing one deity for another. Some worship YHVH, some worship Allah, some worship BUddha, and apparently some worship Set. In my opinion one of the central features of the LHP is that it is a psyche-centered Path, and not a Path the replaces a "white light" deity with a satanic or setian one.

 

[Adramelek]

Ave Darth,

In regards to Initiates of the Priesthood of Set who are of the mind that non-members of the ToS who regard themselves as disciples of the Egyptian Neter Set as (s)etians are simply expressing their personal point of view, which do not necessarly reflect the ToS's official position on the matter. Be that as it may, I personally am a disciple of the Prince of Darkness who chooses to honor Him in His most ancient Form of the Egyptian Set rather than the Hebrew Satan. Indeed I am also an adherent of certain Satanic philosophies, but I am first and formost a Setian.

/Adramelek\

 

[Darth Brooks]

Just to add my 2 cents as a Black Magician:
I find it a bit interesting that "setians" (whether big S or little s....quite frankly the issue seems ridiculous) and people pursuing the LHP would talk about worshiping anything.

It's really not that unusual; it only contradicts how most Western LHP groups define the term. The term "left-hand path" was used in the worship of Shiva and Kali Ma long before it was re-defined as "psyche-worship." Even the worship of Dionysus/Bacchus counts as an example. In its original context, the LHP is about using the body, the physical senses, and the "profane" to experience closeness with divinity, however it might be conceived. The idea being that nothing is really "profane" and that even religious "taboos" can be used to reach divine states of consciousness.

It doesnt seem much different to me from a RHP approach.

In their original contexts, the LHP and the RHP both led to the same goal - i.e., emancipation, moral perfection, etc. They simply used completely opposite methods to achieve it. Which is why I prefer to use them strictly as methodological terms, rather than ideological ones. Here are some quotes from some of my sources:

Khepher-I-Suti

There seems to be little difference in replacing one deity for another. Some worship YHVH, some worship Allah, some worship BUddha, and apparently some worship Set. In my opinion one of the central features of the LHP is that it is a psyche-centered Path, and not a Path the replaces a "white light" deity with a satanic or setian one.

And in my opinion there's very little difference between worshiping an external deity and worshiping your own higher self, especially in systems that identify an external deity with the higher self.

 

[Darth Brooks]

Ave Darth,

In regards to Initiates of the Priesthood of Set who are of the mind that non-members of the ToS who regard themselves as disciples of the Egyptian Neter Set as (s)etians are simply expressing their personal point of view, which do not necessarly reflect the ToS's official position on the matter.

Thank you.

Be that as it may, I personally am a disciple of the Prince of Darkness who chooses to honor Him in His most ancient Form of the Egyptian Set rather than the Hebrew Satan. Indeed I am also an adherent of certain Satanic philosophies, but I am first and formost a Setian.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this with you. For my own part, I consider myself a disciple of Set as well. As for the Hebrew Satan, in my opinion there is absolutely no basis for comparison. I think of Set-Typhon as being much closer to the Neoplatonist version of the Demiurge.

 

[ktf]

Of course the traditional Eastern LHP/RHP distinction is one of practice and not ideology. I think one of the main inovations of Western "occult" traditions has been a new explaination of the LHP and an emphasis on psyche-centered praxis.
Whether we take the semetic idea of Satan, or examine Lucifer, or Set, or Prometheus, the current that seems to transcend the cultural differences is this idea of a god against the gods, or an entity that will not bow to the dominant deity. I find it strange that one could identify with this Prince of Darkness and then turn around and worship It. I would say that the point is not to worship but perhaps to emulate or even imitate to a certain degree.
Having said that, I do recognize that the LHP means many different things to many different people. While I do not agree with all approaches I do think that if they provide meaning to the practioner then they have worth. After all, the map is not the territiory.

 

[Darth Brooks]

Whether we take the semetic idea of Satan, or examine Lucifer, or Set, or Prometheus, the current that seems to transcend the cultural differences is this idea of a god against the gods, or an entity that will not bow to the dominant deity. I find it strange that one could identify with this Prince of Darkness and then turn around and worship It. I would say that the point is not to worship but perhaps to emulate or even imitate to a certain degree.

I see where you're coming from, and I respect your position. Though I feel I should point out that Set was not always considered a "God against the Gods" and that He was worshiped, quite literally, for thousands of years before Christianity. There are, indeed, many religions that direct their worship toward a "God against the Gods" - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam being the three most popular.

Having said that, I do recognize that the LHP means many different things to many different people. While I do not agree with all approaches I do think that if they provide meaning to the practioner then they have worth. After all, the map is not the territiory.

That is a very adept way of looking at it. I quite agree.

 

[EtuMalku]

Just to add my 2 cents as a Black Magician:
I find it a bit interesting that "setians" (whether big S or little s....quite frankly the issue seems ridiculous) and people pursuing the LHP would talk about worshiping anything. It doesnt seem much different to me from a RHP approach. There seems to be little difference in replacing one deity for another. Some worship YHVH, some worship Allah, some worship BUddha, and apparently some worship Set. In my opinion one of the central features of the LHP is that it is a psyche-centered Path, and not a Path the replaces a "white light" deity with a satanic or setian one.

If I may comment on the 'worship' aspect, I don't know how setians conduct their belief systems but within the Temple, we Setians do not 'worship' Set, we work side by side with Set for He is the God of the human psyche.

I hope this helps in some way, I am sure the Priesthood of Set can address this in a clearer fashion.


EM

 

[Adramelek]

The word worship is a tricky one. I worship Set in the sense that I honor Him above all others, and Work with and collaborate with Him. And at times during Ritual Workings I do kneel before the Altar of Set. But each Setian develops their own unique relationship with the Prince of Darkness. By kneeling before the Majesty of Set I am not surrendering my Self, but rather I do it in honor of That which infused within me the greatest Gift - the Flame of Everlasting Being. And btw I am not the only Setian who does this. I have participated in my share of group Workings with other Setians and have witnessed members of the Priesthood kneeling before the Altar during the overwhelming and energizing presence of Set upon a successful activation of the Magical Link.

/Adramelek\