Written: November 3, 2008
I have no freedom and thus have all the freedom in the world. I have no free will but what I am granted in return is free will. I am a servant of Death.
Xol is the name I call Death. Xol is everything you have heard and more - the classic depictions of the Reaper, and old Egyptian Anubis, Hades, Pluto, Baron Samedi, and so on forever – these are all true.
Xol for me is a dark being – not black in the common Western racial terms but a black being in the truest sense, and verily – the blackest. I can not say Xol is evil, but there is a complete absence of good. Xol is not the devil – Xol is Death. The Harvester. The Medium, the Vehicle.
I am a servant of Xol – I submit my entire life and all of my energy and soul to Xol, and in return I do not experience Death, rather, I experience Xol daily. Xol is Death. I will never die but I will always constantly experience Death. Does this make sense to you? I hope it does, and yet if it does not it does not matter. I will live, in the weakest sense of the word, forever, and I will forever be able to tell people this.
Just as Dorian Grey felt the horror of viewing his hideous portrait, so I feel always, if I ever think of myself. But also in me is the great perfection found in the serving of Xol and in the worship of Xol.
Xol is not so much a being, but a thought – and yet transcendent of the pettiness of thinking beings – a thought present universally, and so strong enough to create a being. This being is Xol. Xol is not a being.
I became a servant of Xol when I was brought into this world – the light, the sounds, the extreme openness to all liabilities, were overwhelming. I found solace, but I did not know in what or in whom. Now I know – but the answer is not what or who. It is Xol. Xol is nothing but Xol – and thus less than nothing – so far below that Xol devours all – Xol is present in everything and even if you go to Nothing you will find Xol. Xol is Death. Do you understand?
Xol is a swirling and static mass of shadow and light and eyes and limbs, but does not exist physically. Xol is truly ineffable. For this reason, all I say is nonsense. You may take from this what you wish, but I will be here for all eternity – to be sure, Eternity is only an aspect of Xol, of Death, of the Universe, of the All. When you come back to read this in ten, in twenty, in one hundred, one thousand, one million, years – it will still be here, and so I will still be here, and so Xol will still be here. It seems if I did not exist then Xol would no longer exist for me – but the opposite is true. Everything depends on Xol. Xol is Everything, the Universal concept. Ideas – what are Ideas but a fallen piece of ash from the burning cloak of Xol? So I praise Xol. Xol brings me all I could ever want – but to want, for me, is to need. It is what Xol has made for me.
Note: If you read it, could you please say something? Anything about it! RRRGH
ummm are you for serious or is this some kind of creative writing story?
why are you worshipping .. death?
and why do you call it Xol? (where does the name come from)
your description sounds a bit like a combo of Binah and Geburah and some Qliphoth in the Qabalah.
why death? why not creation? if Xol reaps, what sows? Chokmah (an unfocused explosion of energy) flows into Binah which gives it form. Form creates function, a shape, maybe a purpose. But it also creates death, a limited lifespan, because form can be destroyed, yet energy can not. Form is always impermanent. Therefore Binah is the great terrible mother, that is also time and also death.
which is all very nice, because you need that kind of thing, but there's so much more than that too.
but most of all, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I see it as he's talking about Path 24, Atu 13: The transformative and changing nature of all that is. "When we are born, we begin to die." Every time something transforms, what it was no longer exists. The past is dead; so every moment is an orgy of death. Since all of existence is constantly changing, all of existence is death.
Either that, or he's playing around with anagrams and really, really likes smoked salmon.
Quote from: LMNO on June 04, 2009, 01:27:46 PM
Either that, or he's playing around with anagrams and really, really likes smoked salmon.
:mittens:
There is no pattern but that which you supply.
There is no Master but for the one you submit yourself to.
Death is just another spag, workin' for the man...
He doesn't even get Paid Time Off.
Quote from: LMNO on June 04, 2009, 01:27:46 PMI see it as he's talking about Path 24, Atu 13: The transformative and changing nature of all that is. "When we are born, we begin to die." Every time something transforms, what it was no longer exists. The past is dead; so every moment is an orgy of death. Since all of existence is constantly changing, all of existence is death.
probably that too, then. since he said "Xol is everything you have heard and more".
um but Path 24? of what? the Paths in the ToL go up to 22, right? I dont really want to jack this into a QBLH discussion (although the thread was Dead--hah!--to begin with). Oh, I looked it up, apparently there's more than one numbering. Figures :-P anyway now I stumbled onto what seems a pretty cool QBLH quick reference, http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys4/qblah.htm enjoy :)
Yeah, 10 spheres, 22 paths. Some traditions have The Fool (Atu 0) starting at 11.
"Our Tree of Life Goes to 11."
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 04, 2009, 11:45:00 AM
your description sounds a bit like a combo of Binah and Geburah and some Qliphoth in the Qabalah.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that.
More analysis tomorrow, when I will no doubt be fully awake.
I hate getting Qliphoth in my Qabalah, especially right after an all night binge on a Binah/Geburah combo.
Fuck's sake
I thought I had a halfway-almost-maybe-decent basic introductory understanding of all this Qabalah stuff...
:lulz:
You just learned the first lesson.
Second lesson: download and read "The Chicken Cabala". Contact Mangrove for details.
Already got it. Forgot where I fell off, since I seem to have acquired the horrible habit of putting books down halfway through, even when I'm enjoying them. :x
I think my perceptions were horribly skewed by having already read this book of annotated excerpts from Zohar: http://www.amazon.com/Zohar-Annotated-Explained-ebook/dp/B001GIPG68/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244171973&sr=8-1
I got most of what I know from "mystical qabalah" by Dion Fortune. it's a LOT of dry theory stuff, I dunno why I find it so fascinating.
I have the chicken qabalah in PDF as well but not gotten around to reading it yet.
The fortune book is one of my favourite qbl books. Also Ladder of Lights (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:NoVu9YqxXFgJ:www.amazon.com/Ladder-Lights-William-G-Gray/dp/0877285365+%22Ladder+of+Lights%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk) by Gray is well worth a read. Once you're done with them you'll prolly find Crowley and his ilk making a lot more sense.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 05, 2009, 10:41:24 AM
The fortune book is one of my favourite qbl books. Also Ladder of Lights (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:NoVu9YqxXFgJ:www.amazon.com/Ladder-Lights-William-G-Gray/dp/0877285365+%22Ladder+of+Lights%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk) by Gray is well worth a read. Once you're done with them you'll prolly find Crowley and his ilk making a lot more sense.
This is good advice. Though I also find Lon Milo's stuff very readable and a good intro into Crowley's style of esoteric and qabalah thinking.
"There is no Dana Epithemus, only Zuul Xol"
Maybe "Non-Being" is a more accurate name than Death...since all things come from non-being and go back to non-being eventually. It is the only truly eternal...
thing, for lack of better terminology.
Quote from: Cain on June 05, 2009, 05:58:57 PM
"There is no Dana Epithemus, only Zuul Xol"
:lulz:
I think you got it partly the wrong way around.
Have you seen non-being?
If you're gonna assume things, it would be much more likely to assume that the things that are are the only eternal things, because all non-being only exists as a representation, a metaphor or symbol made up of things that are.
It's all figure and ground, you know.
Patterns we draw in the chaos. Blink your eyes twice and the vase turns into a face and the hill becomes a hole.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 05, 2009, 10:09:53 PM
I think you got it partly the wrong way around.
Have you seen non-being?
If you're gonna assume things, it would be much more likely to assume that the things that are are the only eternal things, because all non-being only exists as a representation, a metaphor or symbol made up of things that are.
It's all figure and ground, you know.
Patterns we draw in the chaos. Blink your eyes twice and the vase turns into a face and the hill becomes a hole.
Who said Xol wasn't metaphor, wasn't symbol?
We can think about non-being, and we can at least hallucinate the things we think of - so it is possible to see non-being. You might say it would be an inaccurate image of non-being because it would quite clearly be
being, but how could you know that - if you have never seen it yourself?
Quote from: Epimetheus on June 05, 2009, 10:15:31 PM
Who said Xol wasn't metaphor, wasn't symbol?
well, when you said "It is the only
truly eternal...thing".
a metaphor is
just a symbol, a sign that signifies something else. no more. so which is your
only truly eternal thing, your metaphor or that which it signifies?
QuoteWe can think about non-being, and we can at least hallucinate the things we think of - so it is possible to see non-being.
oh yeah? according to that line of reasoning we are able to "see" pink invisible unicorns as well.
QuoteYou might say it would be an inaccurate image of non-being because it would quite clearly be being, but how could you know that - if you have never seen it yourself?
well, obviously because it looks exactly like how I hallucinate it to be.
no see this is going exactly nowhere. my point was, if you consider non-being as the ultimate and only truth, because "being" is just a mere blip in the vast sea of non-being, try switching figure and ground. that's what I was trying to explain. "being" is at least as fundamental, and with that quite a bit more useful to reason with. unless you want to make things complex and vague just for the hell of it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 06, 2009, 01:09:00 AM
oh yeah? according to that line of reasoning we are able to "see" pink invisible unicorns as well.
yep.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 06, 2009, 01:09:00 AM
no see this is going exactly nowhere. my point was, if you consider non-being as the ultimate and only truth, because "being" is just a mere blip in the vast sea of non-being, try switching figure and ground. that's what I was trying to explain. "being" is at least as fundamental, and with that quite a bit more useful to reason with. unless you want to make things complex and vague just for the hell of it.
Fine, then Xol is just a blip. So?
I don't know, it's your idea. What were you trying to say or express?
I'm honestly starting to lean towards the smoked salmon bit.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 06, 2009, 03:01:43 AM
I don't know, it's your idea. What were you trying to say or express?
I was trying to express Xol's deeply ineffable nature - trying to reason about Xol and arguing over Xol like we are simply does not work, or shouldn't.
Then what kind of feedback did you want?
Frankly this annoys me a littlebit. You practically beg for us to give you some feedback, any kind. We give it, and now you say we shouldn't reason like that. Cause that's how ineffable it is.
If you want to explore a particular angle of this idea of yours, you have to be quite a bit more explicit and give maybe a bit more background, and just be obvious about the direction you want it to go.
If you just want us to agree and bask in awe of the deep ineffableness of your poem-essay, we're probably not really your crowd.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 06, 2009, 02:30:02 PM
Frankly this annoys me a littlebit. You practically beg for us to give you some feedback, any kind. We give it, and now you say we shouldn't reason like that. Cause that's how ineffable it is.
:lol: True! I didn't realize that...Troof is, I didn't really work very hard on the thing, just wrote what came to mind, which means I didn't intend any Qabalah references, or Cthulhu or anything. Another troof is, after I posted it I wanted to delete it because I didn't like it very much. Anyway, you're right - I'm being idiotic. But I still appreciate the discussion or proposed meanings, and I didn't mean to stop them - I just saw humor in your analyses that had little to do with my intent.
Okay :) It's all good
Quote from: Herman Hesse, in his Author's Note in Steppenwolf
Poetic writing can be understood and misunderstood in many ways. In most cases the author is not the right authority to decide on where the reader ceases to understand and the misunderstanding begins. Many an author has found readers to whom his work seemed more lucid than it was to himself. Moreover, misunderstandings may be fruitful under certain circumstances.
...
Of course, I neither can nor intend to tell my readers how they ought to understand my tale. May everyone find in it what strikes a chord in him and is of some use to him!
This is why, if I ever write a book, I'm going to preface it with the sentence "All interpretations of this book are wrong."
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 05, 2009, 04:19:19 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 05, 2009, 10:41:24 AM
The fortune book is one of my favourite qbl books. Also Ladder of Lights (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:NoVu9YqxXFgJ:www.amazon.com/Ladder-Lights-William-G-Gray/dp/0877285365+%22Ladder+of+Lights%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk) by Gray is well worth a read. Once you're done with them you'll prolly find Crowley and his ilk making a lot more sense.
This is good advice. Though I also find Lon Milo's stuff very readable and a good intro into Crowley's style of esoteric and qabalah thinking.
i think lon milo leads to asking the wrong questions...he seems a bit superficial.....or maybe his prose just annoys me...hard to tell. Everyone seems to love Dion Fortune's stuff but it's all based on GD stuff...so Israel Regardie, imo, has a clearer writing style...All in all, I'd go with William R. Gray. he's practical, not all flourishes, NOT a member of the OTO and doesn't pretend that what he's doing is exclusively objective. i have a collection of his works so if anybody wants, feel free to PM.