Saturday, March 22, 2008

The sex magick of Jesus Christ

This blog post can make you rich.

I'm not kidding.

The success of Dan Brown's rather silly novel The DaVinci Code proves that a large public hungers for late-breaking news about Our Lord's wee-wee and the manifold uses thereof. In popular imagination, Mary Magdalene has become God's main squeeze. If you want your book to become a surefire seller, put "Mary Magdalene" in the title: Cooking with Mary Magdalene, Lose Weight the Mary Magdalene Way, Mary Magdalene's Guide to Southwest Vacation Spots, Mary Magdalene and the Goblet of Fire...

With all the recent literature capitalizing on the popularity of the MM+JC relationship, you may think that this lowly blog could offer no new revelations. Not true. The most shocking part of the story is -- you should pardon the expression -- coming.

A rotten pun, yes, but it contains more meaning than you can guess.

If you jump to the next page, I shall give you the foundation of your own bestseller, should you choose to write it. This is the Sacred Penis story to end 'em all. As Richard Burton says at the beginning of Hammersmith is Out: "Listen to me: I shall make you rich and strong, strong and rich..."

Hit PERMALINK for the Big Damn Secret of Sex Magic

In The DaVinci Code, Brown -- who is to scholarship as a molecule is to the Matterhorn -- offers a few observations about sex magic, most of which were cribbed from Clive Prince. But anyone who has studied the various sex magick traditions could instantly see that Brown was bluffing.

Why do I use the Olden Tymes spelling "magick"? Because such was the preference of Aleister Crowley, the foremost sex magician of the modern era. He argued that the K stands for kteis, Greek for "vagina."

Contrary to what Brown tells you, sex magick is not simply a matter of 'really feeling it' and respecting your partner and all that other New Agey claptrap. A specific physical practice is involved.

Grade 9 from inner space

Crowley headed, but did not originate, an occult group called the O.T.O. -- Ordo Templi Orientis. Membership within that group now numbers between 2,000 and 3,000. I used to date a fairly high-ranking member of the order, which is one of the reasons I know what I know. (Although I never joined, she was the blabby type.)

(Actually, the O.T.O is not just one organization, due to incessant schisms. Those squabbles need not concern us.)

The Order is a hierarchical organization, in which members slowly climb from grades one through nine. The tenth level is held by the leadership.

The Big Damn Secret of Sex Magick is supposed to be revealed only to those who make it to the Ninth Degree, when one becomes an Initiate of the Sanctuary of the Gnosis -- although nowadays, even the lowliest members usually get advance word of what is to come. Various publications have also given the game away. Crowley's diaries have been published.

Of course, few things are truly secret in the information age. If you want to read the text of the Ninth initiation, you could search out Francis King's ultra-rare volume The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O -- or you could just go here. At the other end of that link, you will find the text of the incantation -- which you won't comprehend unless you know the Big Damn Secret.

Before we get to that, let us first note a few things about this text. You will note that Crowley -- widely reviled as a Satanist -- makes some surprising references to Jesus:
O thou on whom the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ hath fallen!
Hence is Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega, the symbol of the union of GOD and man
Not what you might expect from Crowley, eh wot? You don't hear this sort of diabolical dialog recited during the "black mass" scenes in those old Hammer horror films. The text traces the Secret back to Jesus, because
Our Lord Jesus Christ established it through the mouth of the Beloved Disciple.
If you think that "Beloved Disciple" is a reference to John, think again.

A Wagnerian side-trip

Another point of interest is the text's reference to Richard Wagner, said to be an adept of The Secret. This claim requires some explanation.

The head of the O.T.O. before Crowley was a German named Theodore Reuss. He was a fascinating footnote figure -- an occultist, an author, a Socialist, a spy for Bismarck, and an opera singer. Although he once played Donner in Das Reingold, his musical career did not prosper. Even so, he managed to meet Wagner himself in 1873, at the age of 18 -- and in later years, the two men became fast friends. (Or so Ruess claimed; I've seen no confirmation by any Wagner biographer.)

Reuss later bragged that he sang in the premiere performance of Wagner's last and most mysterious opera, Parsifal. Alas, he is not listed in the cast, although he may have been in the chorus. Crowley, in his book on tarot, offhandedly asserts that Reuss provided Wagner with the entire thematic basis for Parsifal.

What on earth did he mean by that?

Ruess himself explained what he considered to be the hidden meaning of Parsifal in an ultra-secret, hush-hush document that is supposed to be made available only to ranking members of the O.T.O. And here it is.

The piece is long and abstruse. Here's the gist: Reuss believes that the opera Parsifal (which was really his idea, dammit!) has embedded within it a coded version of the Big Damn Secret of Sex Magick, which is "the true secret of the Graal, to serve the sexually mature and courageous development of the German people."

Oh dear. Yes, I fear that Reuss went veering off into that territory.

I know Parsifal well, as most O.T.O.-ers do not. (Best recordings: Knapperstbusch '62, Von Karajan '80, and Armin Jordan's version for the Syberberg film.) In my opinion, Reuss' essay doesn't do much to explain the actual mysteries within Wagner's text, which allows for multiple interpretations. Nevertheless, you may want to study Reuss while listening to the "transformation" music in Act I.

Man, I love those bells. But I have never played that CD during lovemaking. That would be a weird trip even for me.

Herr Reuss meets Mr. Crowley

As a young man irresponsibly blowing his inheritance, Aleister Crowley joined many occult societies. In those days, occultists routinely joined each others' cults "on paper," a formality akin to businessmen exchanging cards. After a brief period of dabbling, Crowley usually lost interest in the tiny sects in which he held ostensible membership.

One such organization was the O.T.O.

You can imagine Crowley's surprise when, one fine evening in 1910, Theodore Reuss came knocking at his door in order to lodge a serious complaint: Crowley, in one of his recent writings, had given away the Big Damn Secret! That was a very naughty thing for a low-level initiate to do.

This news surprised Crowley, who had almost forgotten his O.T.O initiation. He replied that he had learned about sex magic on his own, while traveling in the East.

The offending Crowleyan text was Psalm 69 of The Book of Lies (Falsely So-Called), titled "How to Succeed."

If this title confuses you, then perhaps I should note that my former ladyfriend -- the O.T.O. adept -- had read this text and knew very well how to succeed. BOY HOWDY did she know how to succeed. So successful was she that I have now withdrawn from the world to devote myself to peaceful and pure contemplation of the universe.

Reuss made AC a high-level initiate, in order to seal him to secrecy and stop him from giving away the whole store.

How did AC really learn the Secret? One theory holds that he received it from sages belonging to ancient mystical orders that have covertly survived throughout the ages in far-off Eastern lands. The other theory holds that he found it in the library.

It's there, if you know where to look.

(Incidentally: In Jacques Tourneur's classic film Night of the Demon, a character obviously modeled on Crowley is seen hanging out at the library of the British Museum, where the real AC probably learned the Big Damn Secret.)

Back to Jesus

What was the book that came to AC's attention? I believe that he encountered a copy of the Medicine Chest Against Heresies written by Epiphanius of Salamis. He was born around the year 310, and died circa 403. At one time, you had to visit a large library to locate this book. At present, the only online translations are partial.

In that work, Epiphanius references a now-lost work called The Gospel of the Greater Questions of Mary. Scholars believe that this text is not the same thing as the now-familiar Gospel of Mary Magdalene, which has come to us by way of the Berlin codex, and in even more fragmentary versions. (We can't be absolutely certain that we're dealing with two separate books, since pages are missing -- torn out? -- of the Berlin codex.)

The Greater Questions must have been one heck of a read. Epiphanius shocks his readers with an X-rated summary. (WARNING: If you are easily offended, find some other web site RIGHT NOW.) In essence (so to speak):

The Greater Questions portrays Jesus as taking Mary up to "the mountain." Jesus prays with her.

Then he reaches into his side and disgorges a full-grown woman. Just like that.

Then he begins to "mingle fluids" with the woman. That means fucking.

Oh, but it gets worse...

After Jesus ejaculates into the woman, he sucks out the semen -- now thoroughly admixed with the vaginal fluids -- and consumes the concoction. Then he turns to Mary and says the only logical thing to say:

"We must act thus, so that we might live."

Now Mary (according to longstanding report) is a girl who has been around. Not easily shocked, or so you would think.

However, this tableau stuns her so much that she faints dead away.

Jesus awakens her, raises her up, and announces: "O person of little faith, why did you doubt?"

I'm not sure that doubt is what made her pass out, but the text reads the way the text reads and I cannot change it. I have no idea as to what happened to Jesus' sex partner; presumably, she disappears into a wormhole in space.

Note that our beloved Magdalene plays only an observational role in all of this. We have no indication that she and JC went on to "act thus."

Epiphanius says that the Greater Questions was a text used within a certain notorious Christian cult of his day, whose female members had several times tried to seduce him into undergoing an, er, initiation. Fortunately, the sage of Salamis resisted those hussies.

"Take, eat..."

And that, folks, is the Big Damn Secret: Felching.

If you don't know what the verb "to felch" means, ask your mother.

According to Crowley, the Pure and Concentrated Thought held in the minds of both parties during mutual orgasm will invariably become manifest in the material world, if the resultant co-mingled fluids are consumed by both parties. If you want a new pair of roller skates, just concentrate, copulate, felch and gobble. The skates will soon come sailing at you out of the clear blue sky.

(Or so runs the theory. I've not made the experiment. According to his diaries, Crowley often did this when the rent came due.)

The most propitious time for this ritual is during the woman's menses. As the O.T.O.-ers like to say: "First 'e loves 'er, then elixer!"


Of course, it is very difficult for most people to concentrate on something other than orgasm during orgasm. That's the tricky part.

(Jackie Kennedy always struck me as the type who could do it easily. "Oh, those curtains have got to go...")

If you're gay, you can still get in on the magick. Crowley teaches a cognate technique in his ultra-ultra secret Eleventh Degree of initiation, which I should have told you about before but didn't, and which is purely voluntary and only for those who are into that sort of thing. In this form of magick, the participants...

...oh, why bother? I'm sure you get the picture by now. As the immortal Robert Williams says, "It's a retrieval system!"

Back to Epiphanius. What stuns me about his report is that he is not the only person who informs us that ancient texts ascribe this practice to Jesus.

A number of old documents claim that the Carpocratians were also given to such practices. They were another group of naughty early Christians, said to have held their wives in common and to have eaten aborted fetuses in order to prevent the "divine essence" from escaping. (Rumor also held that they possessed a portrait of Jesus painted by Pilate himself.) The Carpocratians are said to have possessed the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark, in which Jesus engages in what some consider a gay sex magick ritual. (This is the origin of the "back to Jesus" movement.) Unfortunately, that document may well be an elaborate hoax by Morton Smith; the jury remains sequestered.

The Romans formed the impression that all Christians went in for this sort of "fine dining," which is one reason the early church was so brutally persecuted, even by the otherwise-decent Marcus Aurelius. The Christian communion bread was thought to contain semen and menstrual blood.

The proto-Orthodox church insisted that they were innocent, that all such vile rituals were a purely Gnostic thing.

As you probably know, Gnostics were mystical Christians opposed by the proto-Orthodox party. There were many different Gnostic communities. A few appear to have done the deeds described in this article, but the majority considered such practices as shocking as you surely do. (Contrary to the impression Dan Brown gives you, most Gnostics lived ascetic lives.)

In a Gnostic text called the Pistis Sophia, we read:
Thomas said: "We have heard that there are some on the earth who take the male seed and the female monthly blood, and make it into a lentil porridge and eat it, saying: 'We have faith in Esau and Jacob.' Is this then seemly or not?"

Jesus was wroth with the world in that hour and said unto Thomas: "Amēn, I say: This sin is more heinous than all sins and iniquities. Such men will straightway be taken into the outer darkness and not be cast back anew into the sphere, but they shall perish, be destroyed in the outer darkness in a region where there is neither pity nor light, but howling and grinding of teeth.
Poor Aleister!

Of course, no canonical Scripture suggests that Jesus had an opinion of this practice one way or the other.

Even so, I invite the reader to consider the chronology. The Pistis Sophia -- which, at the very least, proves that "elixer" consumption was a hot topic of debate in early Christian communities -- was written around the year 200. (Or so scholars guess; the date might have been later. Some say much earlier.) Epiphanius encountered those hussies in the middle of the Fourth century. Conclusion: For at least a hundred years, many people associated Jesus with the Big Damn Secret of Sex Magick.

And some people still do.

Furthermore, the Secret seems to have found a home in other religions as well. See this page, which (warning!) opens with a graphic that surprised even this jaded observer.

Think ye upon these things as you plan out your shocking, sensationalized bestseller.

And Happy Easter.

(Jen will never forgive me for this post. I think I've lost my last friend.)
Comments:
Sorry, but I couldn't find any of this in Eusebius on line; not a reference to The Greater Questions of Mary, nor mingling of fluids.
Can you provide a better link?
 
Mr. Cannon, thank you so much (very much) for your "tongue into cheek" (or penis into cheek) writings this Eastre morning. It sent me into a swoon whereupon I commingled with that parallel universe we call the inner net, whereupon I discovered this scholarship that is absolutely incredible (and in the metaphorical sense quite edible). It is all about the Magdalene Mystery of which I am a bit of a scholar, follower, and fellow traveler.

analysis or summery of this fascinating point of view is as follows as written by the father of said theory a, Ramon Jisino, a Catholic High school teacher.

I believe the portrayal of Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi texts, particularly in the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip, is consistent with the portrayal of her in the New Testament's Gospel of John. In each case she is portrayed as the primary proclaimer of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

A lot of people correctly point out that there is no biblical support for seeing Mary Magdalene as the "repentant whore." And they talk about her great role in the founding of the early church. But what was that role? The New Testament and the Nag Hammadi Library both agree on this -- she gave her life to Jesus as Savior. She was the first to proclaim the message of the Resurrected Lord. Every Easter, Christians celebrate the event that was first proclaimed by Mary Magdalene (John 20:18).

Mary Magdalene was first and foremost a Christian. In the Gospel of Mary Jesus is consistently referred to as Savior and Lord. This means that Mary Magdalene looked to Jesus for the forgiveness of sins.

The Nag Hammadi Library makes no mention of her having married Jesus or having had children with him. But her role as primary proclaimer of the gospel is revealed in the Nag Hammadi texts as well as the New Testament, most notably in the Gospel of John (the Fourth Gospel).

I do not view the documents of Nag Hammadi as being of equal value with the New Testament. I simply rely on those texts to show that there were at least some Christians in the earliest days of the Church that saw Mary Magdalene as the Beloved Disciple of Jesus.

Those who invoke the name of Mary Magdalene to try to undermine the message that she gave her life to proclaim are guilty of maligning her legacy. Her legacy is being the first to proclaim to the world that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead. To follow Mary Magdalene is to follow Jesus. For she points to Him as the Savior of the world.

It is in this light, in this spirit, that I offer my suggestion that, perhaps, she is the anonymous unsung voice of the Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel and, therefore, its primary author.


Ramon K. Jusino
www.BelovedDisciple.org

But here is the pages you as an artist will find especially interesting

http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/perugino.htm

MARY BY Paragino

http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html


whoa! What a ride this AM. Kudos' to you and what a well written "spoof"?

Lawrence
(I wish you would write more stuff like this)

I also hope you have a very blessed Easter, even though it feels like it is too early this year but it has to do with the Spring equinox, the moon and the sun as well as the Son now doesn't it?
 
My own vast research - I must have spent 5 minutes using the google - indicates that it was Epiphanius not Eusebius who referenced "The Greater Questions of Mary."
 
Where are the studies from the NASA tests in zero g?
 
Eusebius, Tertullian, Ignatius, Epiphanius, Hippolytus...and other proto-orthdox Christians were hell-bent on discrediting the early centuries' Ebionites, Marconites and Gnostics. The proto-orthodox made shit up, created forgeries, and over time destroyed the literature that supported these Christianities they called heresies. An easy to read overview of this is Ehrman's 'Lost Chistianities'. A classic scholarly work on this (and considered the best)is 'Orthodoxy & Heresy in Earliest Christianity' by Walter Bauer written in 1934 but translated to English in the early seventies. Bauer's Greek Lexicon is the standard for all students of New Testament Greek, so he is no slouch when it comes to ancient/biblical texts. Both authors point to the war for power in the early centuries that begat the 'lewd-sex' accusations against the Gnostics, since it is not supported at all in any of the little extant Gnostic literature.
 
You would be amazed how rapidly this piece was written, gary, and how much was from memory. (Some of those memories were pleasant, and I think you can guess which ones.) I could whip myself on an Easter morning for my mix-up, which I have fixed.

(Corrections like this are pretty much the best reason to have comments.)

By the way, I link to Jusino's piece.
 
Gary, I didn't thank you enough just now. I was reading Eusebius (or at least ABOUT Eusebius) recently and I suppose I just had a small synapse meld. You had me worried that I had misrecalled the story of JC and MM on the mountain, but a little double-checking proves that I got the story right.
 
To the person who brought up Jusino:

Actually, I once wrote to him, but he never replied, for reasons that I suppose are understandable.

What I pointed out to him is that the 9th degree initiation ceremony in the OTO (written in the early 20th century) is the only text known to me -- before Jusino -- to identify the Magdalene with the Beloved Disciple.

Give Crowley credit. The man knew his Bible, and he as an original thinker.
 
It just occurred to me.

On Easter Sunday, I talked about ancient lore which holds that Jesus practiced sex magic. I expected cries of outrage.

Nothing of that sort occurred.

But if I offer criticism of Barack Obama...
 
Yeah! Where's Obama's sex majick??? All kidding aside.. while i find this interesting... I can't help but think that this must pale in comparison to the sexual kung fu and Taois secrets of love (a la Mantak et Maneewan Chia), he might have known his bible, and how to be a star, but as for the magick... Joe, it's like watching a 1950s 3-D movie instead of an "Imax in 3-D"
 
"But if I offer criticism of Barack Obama..."

I'm surprised, I was expecting you to present us the proof that Obama is a secret Muslim and Al-Qeada manchurian candidate.

Otherwise, Jesus is not an historical person. The gospels were written years after his "death" and while most people will argue that there's "proof" of Jesus existence, when you really look at what's available, there's not much (apart from 1 or 2 "mentions" in Roman history book)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
 
jesus would not require that he be historical, only his followers require the tangible symbol.

i also doubt the man would require belief in his resurrection, as he likely did not (believe it or do it).

he seemed to live his life as neither symbols nor resurrection mattered.

in any case, not to divert, but here is what horton offers up for today.

being the mahler fan, joseph, thought you might appreciate (and the perhaps cruise his site).

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002723
 
"The gospels were written years after his "death"...

Wow! Really? I never heard that before. Gosh.

"and while most people will argue that there's "proof" of Jesus existence..."

Most people would do no such thing. Most scholars would not. And that includes the scholars who are atheists or irreligious (as I believe Ehrman, mentioned in a couple of earlier posts, now is).

Fudd, I was grateful to read Horton on Mahler. A couple of points. Horton writes...

"There is little doubt that for most of the converts, the adoption of a new religion was a matter of political and social convenience rather than faith. That may be the case with Mahler as well. His famous wife Alma joked with him about his conversion, but after his death, she insisted in the face of all doubters that he was “christgläubig”—a Christian believer."

I'm not sure Mahler's conversion was entirely for political reasons. His only religious training was Catholic, and he excelled in religious studies, being indifferent to most other subjects (except music, obviously). When asked about his religion, Mahler would always answer "I'm a musician." Meaning, THAT was his religion.

Alma was a real piece of work. She became violently anti-Semitic and pro-Hitler while married to her third husband, Franz Werfel, who was, like Mahler, a Jew with an interest in Catholicism. I think she resented the fact that her marriage to a Jew required her to escape from Europe.

After Werfel's death, she always styled herself as Mahler's widow (even though she had treated Mahler like crap). Her book about their years together is not trustworthy. You can see why she would try to "rewrite" Mahler's religion.

Horton recommends the second Solti performance, which is very good indeed. I might favor Berstein.
 
I have to thank you again, Fudd. The video on that site shows a bit from a performance by Simon Rattle, and it is amazingly good. Much of the rest of it seems to be on YouTube.

Did you know Mahler wrote that one "for the drawer"? He had no real expectation of ever seeing it performed, since his First had gone over poorly.
 
For sexuality of Jesus: Magic in the New Testament: A Survey and Appraisal of the Evidence (Mandrake of Oxford), Robert Conner

For Secret Gospel of Mark look for A Letter to Theodore on scribd.com
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?



FeedWind


destiny betrayed ad

destiny betrayed ad

FeedWind











    FeedWind




    FeedWind