Hieros Gamos

Masonry is the repository of the highest level of knowledge inherited from the Library of Aleandria in ancient Egypt, Kaballah, the epic of Gilgamesh, Traditions of Ancient Mesopotamia, the Greek and Roman Mythology, Hinduism, the Christian tradition,  Islam, and other rituals and belief system.

The square and compass, the symbol of Freemasonry have many meanings and interpretations depending upon the consciousness of individual mason and definition varies upon the level of enlightenment as there are no teacher – only guide on every travel. Mine is a different path. Maybe because of the prominence of occult planets in houses of my birth chart having uranus conjunct star sirius in 8th house, retrograde pluto in leo in the 9th house of philosophy , belief and travel (planetary). A sagitarius rising sun in the constellation of sagittarius denotes soul mission journey and the alignment of venus, mars, and north node in the 3rd house of Aquarius.

The square and compass ritual,  as one of the secrets of Freemasonry,  is an allegory of the ancient hieros gamos or the sacred marriage. Following are excepts from other writers – as reference  of my study on the ancient craft masonry and its symbols.

__________________________

The Hieros Gamos

http://www.cs.utah.edu/~spiegel/kabbalah/jkm015.htm

The kabbalah holds the secret of holy marriage – hieros gamos the holy union above paralleling that below. That is the union of hochmah with binah, and yesod with malchut. The Soul mate relationship is what we seek in holy matrimony that is G-d the king striving to find the Shechinah his lost princess. We are the king of old and his high priestess joined with G-d and the Shechinah. There are four parties in holy marriage.

Today the egalitarian movement of Judaism has awakened hieros gamos from the ashes. In their Amidah we see references to the G-d(m) of Abraham … and the God(f) of Sarah. There is an improvement to be made. It is Elohai Avraham with Eloah Sarah. Eloah the name of G-d with the gematria 42 is the name of G-d Maker of the Universe. When we recite Hieros Gamos that is the Kedushah in the Amidah: ‘Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts, the whole land is filled with his Glory’, we are united the heavenly G-d with the feminine Gaia.^[1548] Cavodo – glory is His seed and haAretz – the land is her Shechinah. Holiness is the secret of hieros gamos that husband and wife are soulmates in love. The wellbeing of one is the other. The happiness of one is the other. The nachas of one is the other. They are two parts to one soul. This week^[1549] the Torah portion is Chaya Sarah – the life of Sarah, priestess of the Shechinah—Abraham’s oracle; and G-d said listen to Sarah that is do what she says. Listen to your soulmate for she is part of You-and-You are part of her. The Kedushah is the prayer par excellence of hiergamos our holiest expression.^[1550]

Few things are less understood than the hieros gamos – the “sacred marriage”. Considered to be the “Holy Grail” of sexual rituals, is it within reach of comprehension and explanation?

One of the most intriguing, nebulous and controversial topics of history and magic is the “hieros gamos”, “the sacred marriage”. Believed to incorporate both sex and ritual, it should not come as a surprise that throughout history, it has attracted many – and often, those who should truly well stay clear of it. Its fame has meant that the theme was used by Dan Brown in “The Da Vinci Code”, where he described it as how “man could achieve a climactic instant when his mind went totally blank and he could see God”. Brown is not the only one who has linked the experience with tantrism and the withholding of orgasm. He is, of course, also the man who considered Mary Magdalene’s vulva to be the Holy Grail.

The quest to define the hieros gamos foremost is one of answering the question who and when it was performed. Some – including Dan Brown – link it to temple prostitution, while others see it as the king of the country who marries “the land” – in the form of a high priestess – to rejuvenate it. For the Greeks, it was more abstract. They considered it a marriage between the gods and hence apparently outside of the reach of ordinary human beings. It was only in the Jewish and medieval tradition that the hieros gamos became linked with magic and ritual and it is therefore here that we find the current obsession with it. As such, in 1605, Cesare della Riviera wrote that “in Europe, the tracks of these ancient rituals pass through the Gnostic schools, the alchemical and cabalistic currents of the Middle Ages and Renaissance – where numerous alchemical texts can be read on two levels.”

What is the hieros gamos? At its core, the sacred marriage is more of a sacrament than a ritual. It is a marriage between husband and wife, but is of a sacred nature: it is a marriage blessed by the gods, with active participation of those deities, present in the act of lovemaking between the two humans. Focusing on the king having sexual intercourse with the high priestess is thus largely a misnomer, as the king was equally a high priest, and the queen… a high priestess.

In the 20th century, Carl Gustav Jung studied the hieros gamos through the Rosarium Philosophorum, a series of twenty woodcuts, printed in Frankfurt in 1550. The images have a clear sexual and royal nature: a king and queen are depicted with the sun and the moon, sharing a bed, performing sexual acts, as a result of which they become one, and are transformed. And it is with these woodcuts that we come to the core of the hieros gamos: indeed, the primary purpose of the sacred marriage is that two equals, twin souls, a husband and wife, reunite through the hieros gamos. In short: the hieros gamos, or sacred marriage, was not a marriage of just any human beings, but of twin souls.

The concept of twin souls – more popularly known as soulmates – is as old as civilisation itself. Isis and Osiris were both sister and brother and husband and wife: twins. Rather than seeing this as an incestuous relationship, the ancient Egyptians were using this imagery to portray a complex metaphysical framework.

They – like so many other religions – believed that each human being possessed a soul. That soul was half of one unit, which consisted out of one male and one female half. This meant that for every human being alive, there was a perfect twin soul. The quest in this lifetime was to find that twin soul, and be reunited with it. This was the truest of loves; the greatest quest. If not the Great Work of Alchemy. The alchemist Nicolas Flamel stated that he was only able to accomplish the Great Work while in the presence of his wife Perenelle, but it was equally accepted that the majority of marriages here on earth, was not between twin souls.

Once the twin souls had found themselves, apart from understanding the true depths of love and kinship they shared throughout their many lifetimes together, the hieros gamos would be completed at some point. What was it? It was seen as God personally “attending” a sexual activity, in which the human beings – male and female – each get “infused” by the divine essence of the male and female component of God.

The best-known historical example of such a sacred marriage is between King Solomon and Queen Sheba. The story relates how the Queen of Sheba travelled from her homeland to meet Solomon, to perform the hieros gamos with him.

This story is discussed by Kathleen McGowan in her fact-based novel “Book of Love”. She relates that ancient traditions stipulate God had both a male and female aspect: El and Asherah. Tradition relates that they desired “to experience their great and divine love in a physical form and to share such blessedness with the children they would create. Each soul who was formed was perfectly matched, given a twin made from the same essence. […] Thus the hieros-gamos was created, the sacred marriage of trust and consciousness that unites the beloveds into one flesh.”

Echoes of the sacred marriage can be found in the Song of Songs, directly linked with Solomon and describing lovemaking. The title highlights it was the holiest of all songs, underlining its importance. Margaret Starbird has pointed out that there are strong parallels between the Song of Songs and poems to the Egyptian goddess Isis. Of course, both Solomon and Sheba and Isis and Osiris were twin souls, and hence able to experience the hieros gamos.

The Song of Songs became very important for the Kabbalists, specifically following the Book of the Zohar, which saw the Song of Songs as a prime example of the hieros gamos. It is in the Zoharic Kabbalah that God is represented by a system of ten spheres, each symbolizing a different aspect of God, who is perceived as both male and female. The Shekina was identified with Malchut, which was identified with the woman in the Song of Songs. Her beloved was identified with Yesod, which represents God’s foundation and the phallus or male essence.

Within the Jewish religion, Malchut and Yesod are El, the fatherly creator god, and his consort, Asherah. He was identified with the bull and She with the mother goddess. Indeed, women who have experienced the hieros gamos note that they have experienced this mother goddess energy, some even mentally visiting some of her sanctuaries during the experience. The imagery also reveals how long our ancestors have been familiar with this sacred marriage: the link between the bull and the earth goddess is visible on the walls of Catal Huyuk, built in the 8th millennium BC.

The hieros gamos should therefore be more appropriately labelled the reunion of twin souls, while incarnate in the body, through sexual activity, involving the active participation of the male and female aspect of God: “What God has put together, let no man separate.”

Those who have experienced such union find it largely impossible to describe – “beyond words”. They are, however, capable of breaking down the experience in some components. The man will become one with El, while the female melts with Asherah, the “Queen of Heaven”. During this union, it is entirely possible that Asherah or El is more prominent in one partner than in the other. During these encounters, the sexual activity exceeds – and is different from – a normal orgasm; it is normally more intense, prolonged and multiple, whereby the orgasm itself is more energetic, rather than physical. However, the presence of this divine energy should not be seen as a form of possession; normally, the human sexual energy is equally present, and the sexual experience is a balance and interplay between both energies. To put it crudely: the hieros gamos is a foursome: two human beings, and El and Asherah operating with and through them.

Where does this leave the reputation of the hieros gamos as a form of temple prostitution? Asherah has been linked with the Mesopotamian Ishtar, whose cult did involve sacred prostitutes. However, should we perhaps see in these women initiatrices: women who prepared and taught certain methodologies as to how sacred sexuality should be experienced between partners, so that their union could lead to a sacred marriage?

Interestingly, the world’s oldest poem, “The Epic of Gilgamesh”, relates how when Gilgamesh discovers the wild man Enkidu, he sends him to Shamhat, a priestess of Ishtar. She was instructed to teach Enkidu how to live as a cultural human being, suggesting that our ancestors identified culture specifically with how to make love properly – the hieros gamos way.

These examples, and the example of Solomon and Sheba, make it clear that the quest of the hieros gamos is not open to anyone: it is only the bailiwick of twin souls. It is why Flamel noted that it was only possible to be performed with Perenelle, clearly not only his wife, but also his twin soul. It is also not so much ritual, but total union of body, mind and spirit: the two parts of one soul become united in the body, thus accomplishing in the body what they were at the beginning of time: a unity. The Great Work. And this union was “blessed” by the sacrament of the hieros gamos, in which God themselves, present at the separation of these souls at the beginning of time, reunited and blessed the two lovers.

So even though tantric yoga as such has nothing to do with it, tantrism does know about this state of perfect union and has labelled it Samadhi. It is the state where the respective individualities of each of the participants are completely dissolved in the unity of cosmic consciousness – the two units are reunited. For tantrics, the deities are not El and Asherah, but Shakti and Shiva.

Because it is “restricted” to twin souls, the hieros gamos might not hold the sexual and ritual appeal that many would like to give it. But it is nevertheless the most important sacrament of all, as it was the completion of the quest of the soul in life: to find his twin soul and reunite, and within this love, continue their life, combined.

People who have experienced the hieros gamos agree that this is a unique experience. One person stated that during the hieros gamos, both partners experienced total orgasm, though this was without any physical activity – through a physical connection, the other partner experienced perfectly the sexual stimulation the other person was sending in the mind – in short, the partners were both not only reading the other person’s mind, but interacted within that mind – as one unity of cosmic consciousness. Another person described it as “utter bliss” or what “heaven” must have felt like. The feeling of “heaven on earth” may indeed be what the hieros gamos was all about: the twin souls in heaven, experiencing their divine union on earth. As above, so below?

Become the “inner man with Heart” (tiferet) and she will become “Wisdom” (hochmah).^[1551] The princess malchut ascends to hochmah and the prince yesod ascends to tiferet. Tiferet and hochmah is the union of hieros gamos awakening an even higher union of hochmah and binah. To be correct it is really malchut that has awakened hochmah and joined with paternal wisdom who in kind reaches for binah (understanding) and joins with her—opening up knowledge (da’at). Together crowns rest upon their heads and their will ascends to keter and merges with the will of the divine male and female together

Inanna and the “Sacred Marriage”

Couple on terracotta bed, perhaps representing the “Sacred Marriage.” Object could have been bought at the festival. Mesopotamia 3rd. millennium BCE. © S. Beaulieu, after Teubal 1983: 117. larger view of image

by Johanna Stuckey

The king goes with lifted head to the holy lap,
Goes with lifted head to the holy lap of Inanna,
[Dumuzi] beds with her,
He delights in her pure lap.
(Sefati 1998: 105)

The “Sacred Marriage” was “joyously and rapturously” celebrated in the ancient eastern Mediterranean for over two thousand years (Kramer 1969:49). “Sacred Marriage” translates Classical Greek hieros gamos, originally the marriage of Zeus and Hera, but Classicists used the term for alliances between other deities or deities and humans, particularly when marked by ritual. Sir James Frazer (1854-1941), author of The Golden Bough, expanded the term to mean “mythic and ritual sexual acts” connected with fertility (Cooper 1993:82).

Although, for ancient Mesopotamia, the term refers to “the ritual enactment of the marriage of two deities or a human and a deity” (Cooper 1993:82), the participants were understood as deities: usually Inanna-Ishtar and Dumuzi-Tammuz.[1] In historic times, the main aim was “to decree a good fate for the king and his country” (Lapinkivi 2004:7).[2] Nonetheless, as I shall speculate later, early priests could have appropriated to their own ends a rite which, originally, had a very different function.

Uruk Vase, with procession of naked priests carrying gifts to Inanna’s shrine., Inanna greeting them at its door marked by her gateposts. Alabaster. 3′. Uruk, Mesopotamia. Fourth millennium BCE. © S. Beaulieu, after Gadon 1989:137.

From extant hymns, we can piece together what happened in the ritual (Lapinkivi 2004:47,#29;50,#35). First, Inanna was bathed, perfumed, and adorned, while Dumuzi and his retinue processed towards her shrine. The famous Uruk vase may represent this procession. All the while, temple personnel sang love songs, many of which are extant (Sefati 1998:25,120-364). Resplendent Inanna greeted Dumuzi at the door, which, on the Uruk vase, is flanked by her signature standards (gateposts), and there he presented her with sumptuous gifts. Subsequently, the pair seated themselves on thrones, although sometimes the enthronement took place only after sexual consummation (Jacobsen 1976:38).

The deities entered a chamber fragrant with spices and decorated with costly draperies. Lying down on a ceremonial bed constructed for the occasion (Jacobsen 1976:38), they united in sexual intercourse (Henshaw 1994:238). Afterwards, pleased by and with her lover, Inanna decreed long life and sovereignty for him and fertility and prosperity for the land. She might also have presented him with the ring, rod, and line, emblems of royal power. The ritual over, the people celebrated in a huge festival.

The earliest “detailed direct evidence” of the ritual comes from the time of King Shulgi of Ur (2095-2048), but the first ruler named “beloved of Inanna” reigned in Uruk around 2700 BCE, a hint that the ritual was already occurring by then (Lapinkivi 2004:2; Sefati 1998:30-31).

How do we know that the ritual actually took place? Some consider this question “controversial” considering the paucity of evidence (Henshaw 1994:239). When and how often it occurred is also controversial. However, since a number of poems describe the ritual in detail and some of the details are supported in “important and reliable evidence” such as “royal inscriptions, economic texts, etc.” (Sefati 1998:32), we can assume that Sumerians did celebrate the “Sacred Marriage.”

Did the participants actually engage in sexual intercourse? Again the subject is controversial, some scholars arguing that they did (Frayne 1983, Kramer 1969; see Cooper 1993:87-88), others insisting that the act was “purely symbolic” (Steinkeller 1999:133).

Couple on terracotta bed, perhaps representing the “Sacred Marriage.” Object could have been bought at the festival. Mesopotamia 3rd. millennium BCE. © S. Beaulieu, after Teubal 1983: 117.

Who, then, were the participants? It appears certain that, at Uruk, the priest-ruler, theen, spent at least one ritual night in the high-priestly residence, the gipar, “during which [period] he consummated the marriage with Inanna” (Steinkeller 1999:132). Further, poems name two historically identifiable kings as participants in the rite, but only for the period 2100-2000 BCE. A king of Sumer could take part only if he held the office of en of Uruk and bore the title “spouse of Inanna” (Steinkeller 1999:130-131). By 2000 BCE, according to some scholars, the monarch of Sumer normally represented Dumuzi in the rite. As a result of the ceremony, he received the authority to manipulate “the natural and human environments for greater productivity and security” (Wakeman 1985:13).

The texts refer to the female participant only as Inanna (Frayne 1985:14), a possible indication that Inanna had incarnated herself in a priestess.[3] The likeliest candidate would be the priestess known as nin-dingir, Sumerian for “Lady Deity” or “Lady Who Is Goddess.”[4]

A man could achieve authority in Inanna’s temple community at Uruk as either her “trusted servant” or her consort or both. Indeed, traditionally, the ruler of Uruk and its goddess co-habited in the gipar. The “Sacred Marriage,” which at first conferred authority temporarily on one man, eventually provided religious sanction for male exercise of power (Wakeman 1985:12).

Around 2900 BCE, Inanna, incarnated in the nin-dingir,[5] “chose [Uruk’s] en” (Wakeman 1985:23-my emphasis). By around 2300 BCE, however, the Mesopotamian king had appropriated the right to appoint an en.[6] Eventually, around 2100 BCE, the nin-dingir/entu became merely spouse of the city god she served and/or the consort of Dumuzi. Furthermore, after about 1700 BCE, the title entu disappeared from archival texts (Frayne 1985:22). Concomitantly, the “Sacred Marriage” also altered, until, in its latest form, it probably involved two statues (Cooper 1993:91; Frayne 1985:22).

According to Steinkeller, “the earliest Sumerian pantheon was dominated by female deities,” and a goddess, the divine “owner” of most early cities, “controlled … fertility, procreation, healing, and death.” Paired with each was a god, “a personification of male reproductive power.” Over time, the power of male deities increased, “though never superseding that of goddesses” (1999:113). Perhaps Inanna’s domination of much “Sacred Marriage” material (Jacobsen 1976:39-40) reflects those earliest times, when the “Sacred Marriage” centred on goddesses. Is it possible that the ceremony originally dealt with her concerns alone?

Detail, Uruk Vase, with procession of naked priests carrying gifts to Inanna’s shrine., Inanna greeting them at its door marked by her gateposts. Alabaster. 3′. Uruk, Mesopotamia. Fourth millennium BCE. © S. Beaulieu, after Gadon 1989:137. larger view of image

Part of the answer lies, I think, in an exciting theory propounded by Sumerologist Douglas Frayne, who presents a convincing explanation of the evidence.[7] After showing thatnin-dingir and entu refer to the same office, Frayne suggests that this priestess was the Inanna of the “Sacred Marriage” poems. He then re-examines the available evidence and concludes that the ritual was integral to the installation of “new entu priestesses” (Frayne 1985:12ff.,14-18).

In supporting his theory, Frayne discusses what scholars call “year formulae”; the Mesopotamians named a year by its significant event and recorded it on, for instance, building bricks (Cohen 1993:4). One such happening was the installation of an en: for instance, “The year the entu of Nanna was chosen by omens” or “The year Nur-Adad installed the entu of Utu [the sun god]” (Frayne 1985:15). The latter correlates with a passage in a “literary letter of Sin-Iddinam” who describes significant occurrences in the early reign of his father Nur-Adad:

An entu priestess who perfected the immaculate lustration rites, he installed for [Utu] in her gipar. From evening to morning he added [offerings?], and filled it with abundance (Frayne 1985: 15).

The last sentence recalls the ruler’s bringing gifts to Inanna in the “Sacred Marriage.”

Frayne then points to archival texts that “record disbursements of materials that were used to construct cult objects, or were used in ceremonies …” (1985:17). One, almost certainly relating to the installation of an entu, lists as cult objects: “[One] lady’s throne/one bed …” “Sacred Marriage” hymns often describe the setting up of a bed and a throne before the ritual (Frayne 1985:18ff.). Thus, Frayne concludes that the installation of a nin-dingir/entu entailed the celebration of the “Sacred Marriage.”

The question is: Why? The nin-dingir/entu was probably the priestess who, at Uruk, incarnated Inanna, and in other cities she sometimes embodied the female half of the divine couple that protected the city (Steinkeller 1999:123). If her installation necessitated the “Sacred Marriage,” she might also have incarnated Inanna. The Mesopotamians clearly understood Inanna to be closely connected with fecundity. Originally, then, the ritual might have been a fertility rite, a possibility supported by Wakeman’s suggestion that the “Sacred Marriage” was central to an early Urukian harvest festival.[8]

Couple on terracotta bed, perhaps representing the “Sacred Marriage.” Object could have been bought at the festival. Mesopotamia 3rd. millennium BCE. © S. Beaulieu, after Teubal 1983: 117. larger view of image

My high field that which is well watered,
My own nakedness, a well-watered, a rising mound–
I, the maiden-who will plough it? . . . .
Young lady, may the king plough it for you,
May Dumuzi, the king, plough it for you!”
(Sefati 1998:225)

The agricultural Sumerians metaphorically equated ploughing of land with sexual intercourse (Jacobsen 1976:46). Therefore, it seems reasonable to theorize that “Goddess on Earth” Inanna, whose body was identified with arable land, would not be able to bring about the land’s fertility until she herself, at least potentially, became fertile. Thus, the “Sacred Marriage” might have been integral to the installation of nin-dingir/entu as Inanna because, I suggest, like the land, she had to be “ploughed” to be fertile and to bring fecundity and prosperity to Sumer.

Possibly, then, the “Sacred Marriage” rite was not originally concerned with king-making at all, but rather with “goddess-making”; perhaps it was a ritual for, as it were, “activating,” making fertile a “Goddess on Earth.” To that end, the ceremony entailed ritual mating between theentu-designate and, say, a temple priest, since, for the Mesopotamians, fertility on earth, as in heaven, resulted from the union of male and female.

Dumuzi (man in net kilt; see Steinkeller 1999: 104-111) approaching Inanna at shrine, procession of naked priests following, with gifts. Reconstruction. Alabaster Vase. 3′. Fourth millennium BCE. Uruk, Mesopotamia. © S. Beaulieu, after Meador 2000: 59. larger view of image

The ritual would, I theorize, have confirmed the priestess as Inanna — permanently — and, for a short time, the priest would have incarnated a divine lover. However, to have embodied a deity, if only temporarily, would have set him apart: for a time he had been a god!

At some point, one priest might have seen the advantage of continuing to incarnate the goddess’s lover, of using the role’s charisma to achieve power in the community. Indeed he could have been the first en!

According to Kramer, the “Sacred Marriage” was being celebrated for several generations before the Sumerians associated Dumuzi with it (1969:57-8). Furthermore, Dumuzi occurs in the Sumerian “King List” as an early en of Uruk (Kramer 1969:328). Could it have been this very Dumuzi who appropriated the mating ritual for the validation of kingship? As en, he would have been the main administrative officer of the temple complex and its estates, in effect the ruler of the city (Steinkeller 1999:105; Henshaw 1994:44). Possibly also a talented general, he could slowly have increased the significance of his role through military activity at the city’s need. Nevertheless, he would have remained aware of the importance of continuing his relationship with Inanna and of keeping the title en to indicate that connection.

Inanna holding date frond. Fragment of a relief vessel. Mesopotamia. About 2400 BCE. © S. Beaulieu, after Gadon 1989:134.

Succeeding male ens, now perhaps also using the title lugal “big man,” could have followed suit, until gradually they became kings in their own right.[9] Steinkeller’s view, that “enship apparently was the original form of Sumerian kingship,” supports this theory (1999:112). However, as many later Mesopotamian kings appear to have done, early en/lugals would still have had to rely on a relationship with Inanna to confirm their kingship. Although eventually Mesopotamian kings ruled without reference to anentu or a “Sacred Marriage” rite, many of them continued to style themselves “beloved” or “spouse” of Inanna or her counterpart Ishtar (Lapinkivi 2004:59-62).

As we saw, Mary Wakeman argues that the “Sacred Marriage” originated in early Uruk to provide religious sanction for male exercise of power. Although this explanation throws light on how an increasingly male-dominated city might have exploited the ritual, it does not explain why the city would have needed to use this particular rite instead of developing another which was less empowering of the goddess. Nor does it really speak to the origin of the ritual. I have hypothesized, however, that the “Sacred Marriage” originated as a ritual for activating a nin-dingir/entu to ensure the fertility of her land. Not only does this suggestion explain the historically attested references to the association of the “Sacred Marriage” with the installation ofentus, but it also illuminates the powerful fertility elements in the ritual.

The inviolability of religious tradition would explain why an increasingly male-dominant society would have been forced to continue to use the time-honoured ritual to achieve its own ends; why the ritual survived for so long; and why, even after the entu had disappeared from archival texts, most kings of Mesopotamia continued to call themselves “spouse/beloved of Inanna-Ishtar.”

Notes

1. Or a city goddess normally, but not always, identified with Inanna and a city god normally, but not always, identified with Dumuzi (See Steinkeller 1999:130-131).
2. For a review of interpretations of the ritual, see Lapinkivi 2004:3-13.
3. Incarnation or spirit possession is a phenomenon of many religions today and in the past. A deity or spirit takes over the body of a medium (often incorrectly called shaman) in order to have direct communication with worshippers (Bowker 1997:884-885,1083-1084). There is no reason to think that Mesopotamian religions were exempt from this practice.
4. Also see Steinkeller (1999:120-121) for a different interpretation of the role of this religious functionary.
5. In Sumerian, a non-gendered language, en could be feminine or masculine (Henshaw 1994:44). In gendered Semitic languages, the equivalents of en are enu and entu, the latter meaning nin-dingir, “Goddess on Earth” (Frayne 1985:14; Henshaw 1994:45-51).
6. For example, Mesopotamian king Sargon (ca. 2300 BCE) appointed his daughter Enheduanna as entu of the god Nanna, protector deity of Ur. See previous column.
7. Jerrold Cooper disagrees with Frayne’s thesis, as do some other scholars (Cooper 1993:88-89).
8. Following Jacobsen, Wakeman says that, at Uruk, Dumuzi was “the power inherent in seasonal foods (grain, milk, dates)” and Inanna, in whose temple the produce was deposited, was the power in the storehouse (Wakeman 1985:12; Jacobsen 1976:36).
9. The Sumerian word lugal eventually came to mean “king.” See Steinkeller 1999:105,112 and following.

Works Cited

• Bowker, John, ed. 1997. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Oxford: Oxford University.
• Cohen, Mark E. 1993. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, MY: CDL Press.
• Cooper, Jerrold S. 1993. “Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia,” 81-96, in Matushima, E., ed. Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East — The City and its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitake, Tokyo) March 20-22, 1992. Heidelberg: Winter.
• Frayne, Douglas 1985. “Notes on the Sacred Marriage Rite,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 42:5-22.
• Gadon, Elinor W. 1989. The Once and Future Goddess: A Symbol for Our Time. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
• Henshaw, Richard A. 1994. Female and Male, the Cultic Personnel: The Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East. Allison Park, Pennsylvania: Pickwick.
• Jacobsen, Thorkild 1976. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven: Yale University.
• Kramer, Samuel N. 1969. The Sacred Marriage: Aspects of Faith, Myth and Ritual in Ancient Sumer. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University.
• Lapinkivi, Pirjo 2004. The Sumerian Sacred Marriage in the Light of Comparative Evidence. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, University of Helsinki.
• Meador, Betty D. S. 2000. Inanna, Lady of Largest Heart: Poems of the Sumerian High Priestess Enheduanna. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
• Sefati, Yitschak 1998. Love Songs in Sumerian Literature: Critical Edition of the Dumuzi-Inanna Songs. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University.
• Steinkeller, Piotr 1999. “On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship,” 103-137, in Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East, The Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, ed. K. Watanabe. Heidelberg: Winter.
• Teubal, Savina 1983. Sarah the Priestess: The First Matriarch of Genesis. Athens, OH: University of Ohio Swallow.
• Wakeman, Mary K. 1985. “Ancient Sumer and the Women’s Movement; The Process of Reaching Behind, Encompassing and Going Beyond,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 1/2:7-27.

Graphics Credits

• All images © Stéphane Beaulieu. All rights reserved.

Freemasons

Brother Freemasons with Bro Ali Peek at the Installation of New Set of Officers of Pagkakaisa Lodge No. 282, Las Pinas City, Jan 9, 2015.

About Freemasonry

..”Freemasonry consists of fraternal organisations that trace their origins to the local fraternities of stonemasons, which from the end of the fourteenth century regulated the qualifications of stonemasons and their interaction with authorities and clients. The degrees of freemasonry retain the three grades of medieval craft guilds, those of Apprentice, Journeyman or fellow (now called Fellowcraft), and Master Mason. These are the degrees offered by Craft (or Blue Lodge) Freemasonry. Members of these organisations are known as Freemasons or Masons. There are additional degrees, which vary with locality and jurisdiction, and are usually administered by different bodies than the craft degrees.

History of Freemasonry

No one knows with certainty how or when the Masonic Fraternity was formed. A widely accepted theory among Masonic scholars is that it arose from the stonemasons’ guilds during the Middle Ages. The language and symbols used in the fraternity’s rituals come from this era. The oldest document that makes reference to Masons is the Regius Poem, printed about 1390, which was a copy of an earlier work. In 1717, four lodges in London formed the first Grand Lodge of England, and records from that point on are more complete.

Within thirty years, the fraternity had spread throughout Europe and the American Colonies. Freemasonry became very popular in colonial America. George Washington was a Mason, Benjamin Franklin served as the head of the fraternity in Pennsylvania, as did Paul Revere and Joseph Warren in Massachusetts. Other well-known Masons involved with the founding of America included John Hancock, John Sullivan, Lafayette, Baron Fredrick von Stuben, Nathanael Greene, and John Paul Jones. Another Mason, Chief Justice John Marshall, shaped the Supreme Court into its present form.

Over the centuries, Freemasonry has developed into a worldwide fraternity emphasizing personal study, self-improvement, and social betterment via individual involvement and philanthropy. During the late 1700s it was one of the organizations most responsible for spreading the ideals of the Enlightenment: the dignity of man and the liberty of the individual, the right of all persons to worship as they choose, the formation of democratic governments, and the importance of public education. Masons supported the first public schools in both Europe and America.

During the 1800s and early 1900s, Freemasonry grew dramatically. At that time, the government had provided no social “safety net”. The Masonic tradition of founding orphanages, homes for widows, and homes for the aged provided the only security many people knew.

Today in North America, the Masonic Fraternity continues this tradition by giving almost $1.5 million each day to causes that range from operating children’s hospitals, providing treatment for childhood language disorders, treating eye diseases, funding medical research, contributing to local community service, and providing care to Masons and their families at Masonic Homes.

The four million Masons worldwide continue to help men and women face the problems of the 21st century by building bridges of brotherhood and instilling in the hearts of men ideals for a better tomorrow.”                                       – – – From the Masonic Society of North America

FAMOUS ATHLETE FREEMASONS

Ali Peek, basketball                                                                                                           Philippine  Basketball Association
Source: Pagkakaisa Lodge No. 282

Shaquille O’Neal, basketball
Source: Media Daily LA

Scottie Pippin, basketball
Source: Sons of Solomon Lodge #154

John Elway, football
Source: Knights Templar

Red Auerbach, basketball coach
Source: U.S. News and World Report

Arnold Palmer, golf
Source: U.S. News and World Report

Sugar Ray Robinson, boxing
sSource: U.S. News and World Report

June 10, 1988 – Pagkakaisa Lodge No. 282’s Birthday

SATURN, THE GREAT TEACHER

Saturn planet revolves around the sun in 29 1/2 years or  transits  the 12  constellations from aries to pisces in approximately 2 1/2 years every zodiac sign. At present, she is transiting the constellation of sagittarius since Dec 23, 2014 until Dec 20, 2017.

Pagkakaisa Lodge No. 282 was constituted on June 10, 1988 during the Gemini sun (May 22-June 21). Saturn Transit in Sagittarius is presently in opposition to its natal sun of Gemini.

Some analysis of astrologers regarding saturn transit opposition.

“Saturn opposite Sun transit can be a draining time because you are more likely to feel weighed down and pessimistic about the challenges and blockages to your progress. These tests which we all go through seem more serious and more numerous during this transit, and are likely make you feel more burdened and restricted in your freedom or self-expression.

These challenges to your will or ego can come from people who it is very difficult to fight against, such as parents, bosses, anyone with some authority over your life. This is why it can be so frustrating, you have to struggle on through the boring routines even though you may want to break free.

This period can be a low point but it is important to remember that it is probably happening for a reason. It may be that your ambitions are being held back at the moment because the timing is not right. There may be some more lessons or skills to learn so that when this transit passes you are ready to take full advantage of new opportunities.

The Sun rules your self-esteem and your ego, so this may be low during this time, better to remain patience, focus on hard work and look after yourself, play it low-key for a few months. Saturn opposite Sun transit is time to strengthen your character by facing any adversity head on which will give you more confidence in the future”

Saturn opposition to Sun is a stressful. restricting and frustrating period and full of tension in ones life. This happens twice in a lifetime, thats why saturn is called the teacher planet.

Saturn, is the ruler of Capricorn. In Greek Mythology, Cronus was one of the Titans, and the father of Zeus. Cronus ate his children to prevent himself from being dethroned as the King of the Gods. That is, until his wife, Rhea, tricked him into swallowing a stone when Zeus was born.

In astrology, Saturn is associated with restriction and limitation. Where Jupiter expands, Saturn constricts. Although the themes of Saturn seem depressing, Saturn brings structure and meaning to our world. Saturn knows the limits of time and matter. Saturn reminds us of our boundaries, our responsibilities, and our commitments. It brings definition to our lives. Saturn makes us aware of the need for self-control and of boundaries and our limits.

Saturn is often associated with our fathers or father/authority figures. In childhood, the discipline, rules, and regulations imposed on us by our authority figures–from parents, teachers, and the like–were not always pleasant, but they actually helped us to understand the world around us. Similarly, Saturn’s lessons actually help us to grow.

In the chart, the position of Saturn by sign and house reveals our own limitations, fears, and sense of responsibility. Saturn brings definition, and often limitation, to the planets it aspects.

My Lodge, Pagkakaisa is having its saturn transit opposing the natal Gemini. Ayaw ko sanang maniwala sa ganitong analysis ng mga astrologers sa kadahilanang hindi naman persona or individual ang lohiya pero sa nangyayaring hindi pagkakaunawaan sa loob  kapag may stated meeting ay hindi maiwasang mag isip ako na maaaring totoo nga ang mga nangyayari. Halos walong buwan na,  na lagi ng sagutan at hindi magandang iringan at personalang batikusan ang mga past masters tuwing may meeting sa mga isyung kung bibigyan lamang ng tamang pang unawa ay hindi magiging problema.

Kapag uma attend ako ng meeting ng ibang lodge ay inggit na inggit ako sa harmonious situation during the meeting. Lahat ay nagkakaunawaan at napakabilis matapos ang meeting pero matagal naman ang dinner at fellowship para sa masasayang kwentuhan. Tunay na salamin ng kapatiran.

Sana maging ganon din ang mga meetings sa aking lohiya. Pero kung ang Pagkakaisa ay apektado ng ikot ng planetang saturn, makakatagal kaya  sa ganitong sitwasyon hanggang Dec 20, 2017?  Ano ang mangyayayri?. Mga katanungang hindi ko pa kayang sagutin at maipaliwanag.

Wala naman makapagsabi sa akin o may magtestimonya na kung ipinanganak  nga ng Gemini ay tensyonado sa ngayon;  sa relationship, sa financial resources, sa mga hindi mabuong goal, at hindi tamang mga desisyon. Pakiramdam na parang guguho ang daigdig, at laging mainitin ang ulo. May mga interview akong ginagawa pero wala naman magsabi ng totoo dahil marahil sa gustong itago ang mga tunay na nangyayari sa kanilang buhay.

Ayon sa mga nakasulat na ginawa ng mga astrologers, sinasabi na kapag dumadaan ang ganitong mga problema at mga pinag dadaanang parang walang solusyon, ang dapat gawin ay huwag kontrahin ang takbo ng buhay at sundan lamang ito na to go with the flow. Prayer and meditation and attunement with the supreme being ang the best solution.

Ang mga pangyayaring ganito ay napagdaanan ko na rin at natutuhan ko din naman ang tamang solusyon sa mga lessons na ipinatong ni Haring Kronus, ang representasyon ni planet saturn. Mabigat ang problema pero ang aral na natutuhan ay para mataas na antas ng liwanag na parehas sa mga itinuturo sa masonerya.

Ordo Ab Chao

Ordo Ab Chao means Order out of Chaos.

From Gnostic Warrior:

ORDO AB CHAO is Latin for “Order Out of Chaos or Order from Disorder.” This term was invented by Freemasons and is the actual motto of the 33rd Degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry.

The name Scottish or Scotland is derived from the Latin, from Greek  skotia, from feminine of skotios, dark, shadowy (from the shadow it casts), from skotos, darkness. In ancient Egypt there was a temple of Venus Scotia and it is said that the country of Scotland had derived its name from an Egyptian Pharaoh Queen named Scota.

The chaos (CHAO) is the society we see around us today and it is the builders who influence the leaders to manufacture this chaos so that they can conceal their creations in darkness while they work towards the light (ORDO). Without chaos there would never be order. Without darkness, there can be no light and without light there can be no darkness. What is the AS ABOVE, is the SO BELOW of this Secret Brotherhood.

The Grand Architects of CHAO (hell or illusion) become the masters of ORDO (Heaven on earth). The torch bearers who carry the light in the dark will now be the light bearers who usher in the new dawn of a new day.

FIAT LUX (Let there be light). What was once dark, now becomes light and what was once light now becomes dark.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – –

The Lodge is now in chaos How to put it in proper order needs divine intervention of the Grand Architect.

Me, i just go with the flow and follow its destiny.

Masonry

A moral science taught by degrees only.