The Lovers - Cain and Abel

Up until this card, no other symbol has provided me with more trouble than this symbol. I have spent weeks looking at the story from the point of view of the Midrash, especially through this (long) article

http://www.aish.com/jl/b/eb/ca/

On the face of it, this card shows a marriage of duality, the separation needed for God to experience Creation, the alchemical marriage, the formation of the Orphic Egg, and as Crowley put it, "a glyph of duality." Fascinating stuff, but when I first looked at Cain and Abel, my first thought was that they weren't opposites at all. Reading more, I certainly understood the significance of the biblical story better as a parable of the consequences of the forbidden fruit, of how Cain failed to master the snake-like passions that led him to believe that his achievements in agriculture were his alone (just as his mother said "קניתי איש את אלוהים"), causing him to make an inferior offering to God. God, in turn, warns him his passions will lead him astray, Cain doesn't listen and kills Abel. In so doing, Cain becomes less human and more like an animal, and God gives him horns to protect him during his exile. Seven generations later, the father of smelting iron for weapons, which could be thought of as "Cain perfected" inadvertently kills him. I am paraphrasing, and am also in a hurry, so don't take what I said above as the whole story.

Good. Nothing, though, has helped me to understand Crowley's topsy-turvy interpretation portraying Cain as the hero, the Mark as a sign of initiation and active discourse with God, and the shedding of blood as a prerequisite for initiation. I mean, I understand it theoretically, but... I guess I have trouble agreeing with it. I can see the inherent duality in the story, but not as the Vision and the Voice explains it.

http://hermetic.com/crowley/the-vision-and-the-voice/aethyr2.html

Any thoughts?

I think it would be rather difficult to 'reconcile' or blend Rabbi David Fohrman 'take' on the 'mystery' with Crowley's.

For me it's a bit like assuming modern western 'hermetic qabbalah' with traditional Hebraic Kabbalah (was that the right term?).

In 'ARN' Crowley writes; " ... They joined different fables together to try and make a connected story, and they sophisticated them to suit their social and political conditions. " (perhaps relevent to Crowley himself?) and

"All this while no image hath come unto the Stone, and no voice hath been heard. " and

"I cannot get any idea of the source of what I have been saying." all need to be bought into context.

IMO it all depends on basic assumptions or prejudices (or postjudices) on the nature of Jehovah (i.e. not 'God" generally but that deity whose existence and 'development' can be tracked through (in my case) the Old Testament.

Rabbi David Fohrman starts his article with a comparison of God to a parent and identifies that God with the 'good' self (why would I do / not do what God did - yes I know he admits it is a wrong question)

Crowley at times seems to do the exact opposite. As I do at times as well; certain readings seem to portray this God as some type of demented violent space vampire (consuming of blood, wave offerings, breaking out of the tabernacle and consuming people).

Getting away from the literal interpretation I can see a pattern at work on the anthropological evolutionary level, or the 'forces of evolution' -whatever they are, that seem to 'direct' the evolution and destruction (when appropriate) of cultures.

Was the 'offensive' offering shabby or was it because of its content. Was one 'gathered' or the product of agriculture? The best of the crop suggests natural selection processes via agricultural modification as does the best lamb suggest the same from animal husbandry. Any old gathering of produce or a random animal suggests hunting and gathering as opposed to agriculture and animal husbandry. That is the Neolithic revolution.

Further in the story we have " Seven generations later, the father of smelting iron for weapons, which could be thought of as "Cain perfected" inadvertently kills him."

A further stage in the evolution of a culture.

So I can see the story in another light and have a different concept of 'Jehovah' again.

Yes ... in all the ways of looking at it I can come to some 'agreement' theoretically, as you say.

But is more essentially needed? - Unless you are considering a conversion to 'Crowleyanity' as opposed to being a Thelemite.

ravenest said:

......Crowley at times seems to do the exact opposite. As I do at times as well; certain readings seem to portray this God as some type of demented violent space vampire (consuming of blood, wave offerings, breaking out of the tabernacle and consuming people)......

Click to expand...

Not an uncommon view in Gnosticism: יהוה as the malevolent Δημιουργός (Demiurge).

ravenest said:

I think it would be rather difficult to 'reconcile' or blend Rabbi David Fohrman 'take' on the 'mystery' with Crowley's... For me it's a bit like assuming modern western 'hermetic qabbalah' with traditional Hebraic Kabbalah (was that the right term?).

Click to expand...

That's an understatement. Fohrman describes the traditionalist view, and concocts a smacking good story in the doing. He reminds me of my bible classes I had to take in school. Crowley, on the other hand, takes the Gnostic view LRichard mentioned of having Cain the son of the snake, who wasn't entirely the animal we know until after the Fall. But he fudges up the sequence, making no sense. Who was Abel's "demon" to whom he sacrificed his animals? Is this the same entity as "God" spoken of a sentence later? I can understand the view of Abel being the first murderer, although it almost seems as though ARN has a vegan agenda However, this makes sense, as in Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam to be a vegetarian; Abel was perhaps the sinner. Later on, though, in Genesis 9:3, Noah is given mandate to eat meat as well.

ravenest said:

IMO it all depends on basic assumptions or prejudices (or postjudices) on the nature of Jehovah (i.e. not 'God" generally but that deity whose existence and 'development' can be tracked through (in my case) the Old Testament.

Rabbi David Fohrman starts his article with a comparison of God to a parent and identifies that God with the 'good' self (why would I do / not do what God did - yes I know he admits it is a wrong question)

Click to expand...

I suppose prejudices about God are unavoidable, and I have them, too (however un-Thelemic they probably are!), although Fohrman's interpretation makes him not that bad a bloke. Neither Cain nor the snake are "evil;" each does what their nature demands of them, and seen in this light, the snake is telling Eve to perform her Will. However, I seem to prefer the misguided Cain as a tragic figure, rather than the hero Crowley makes him out to be. The snake cajoled Eve to listen to her urges, telling her they were as valid as God's actual words, and she agreed. Later on, Cain does the same thing, but wrongly. God in this sense could equal Love under Will. Any text can be raped to fit any view, I suppose.

ravenest said:

Crowley at times seems to do the exact opposite. As I do at times as well; certain readings seem to portray this God as some type of demented violent space vampire (consuming of blood, wave offerings, breaking out of the tabernacle and consuming people).

Click to expand...

You've got me there, but I won't defend any God other than myself

ravenest said:

Getting away from the literal interpretation I can see a pattern at work on the anthropological evolutionary level, or the 'forces of evolution' -whatever they are, that seem to 'direct' the evolution and destruction (when appropriate) of cultures.

Click to expand...

Which thankfully brings us back to the topic, and the Lovers (or Brothers!), quite aptly conveying construction and deconstruction. I also read that the story symbolizes a move from a hunter-gatherer society to an agrarian one.

ravenest said:

Yes ... in all the ways of looking at it I can come to some 'agreement' theoretically, as you say.

Click to expand...

What of the necessary shedding of the blood, that God did not listen to the children of Eve until then? That part eludes me. In any case thank you. Although I am still not resolved, I am more comfortable with the lack of resolution. I like the two brothers being there, although for reasons completely other than the "official" ones, with which I still disagree

ravenest said:

But is more essentially needed? - Unless you are considering a conversion to 'Crowleyanity' as opposed to being a Thelemite.

Click to expand...

I am neither; both definitions seem too crass and bourgeois. I wouldn't join any club that would have me.

Interesting question, closrapexa.

I think Crowley's mystical insight here is typical of the sort of things one sometimes comes up with in a semi-trance state, like when you're half-awake in the early morning. But it is not really satisfying intellectually, certainly not as profound biblical exegesis.

In the first place, God did already hear the children of Eve - he converses with Cain quite familiarly both before and after the incident. One wonders why sacrifice had to be made at all.

This is all entirely beside the question of why God had no regard for Cain's offering - there is no clue why, we are only speculating if we claim to see anything in the biblical text that gives a clue.

God's statement about "sin at the door" etc. is completely obscure, and I am sure that numerous attempts have been made down through the ages to interpret it as is, or to emend the text somehow so that it makes sense as a play on words or straighforward moral instruction.

My own "insight" was that Cain saw Abel's blood sacrifice was pleasing to God, and said to himself, "Okay God, here's a blood sacrifice for you." And thereby invented human sacrifice (notice he does it in a field too - sacrifice for the crops? - and God hears his blood (maybe this is what Crowley was thinking of)). But that doesn't answer all the questions about this story.

One thing I have thought about is the parallelism between Cain and Abel and the rest of Jewish history in Genesis. There is a theme about how the second, unexpected son is chosen.

Cain is the firstborn, Abel the younger.
Cain is a type of Esau, Abel of Jacob.
Cain is a type of Ishmael, Abel of Isaac.
(except of course neither Jacob nor Isaac is killed, although of course Isaac famously almost is!)

The text does not say why God favours the unlawful choice - firstborn should always get priority. But he does, and Jewish history is informed by this idea of the underdog, or second choice, winning over the favourite, or first choice. The little guy wins.

One question that occurs to me about the original story is that it says that God liked Abel's offering, but didn't like Cain's. So - how did God show whether he liked it or not? It might have been by saying "Ummm, yummy!", since they were already on speaking terms.

On the other hand, it could have been the typical way - be making the crops or flocks flourish. This is the purpose of sacrifice, after all, before even as a sin offering.

So we might be able to tease out of the story a little background, that Cain's offering was in vain and his crops failed (this becomes part of God's curse on him), while Abel's flocks flourished. This is how they knew that God liked or "had regard" for their respective offerings.

I thought of a way to interpret Crowley's visionary insight so that he is correct in a subtle way.

Abel makes a blood sacrifice, and God likes it - he "hears" Abel. Cain makes a "dry" sacrifice - no blood - and God doesn't like it, he doesn't "hear" Cain (he ignores the intent of his sacrifice, although he can read his mind and knows he is upset that God has rejected his offering).

So Cain spills blood, and God curses him. Now comes the subtle part - Cain is worried that now that he has sinned, anyone may kill him. He expresses his worry to God, and God hears him, and puts on a mark on him to protect him.

So Cain's prayer is only heard after he has shed blood.

I agree Crowley has written in a somewhat confusing manner, but I think he's equating Abel's sacrifice symbolically with "external religion." Note where he says: "The shedding of blood is necessary, for God did not hear the children of Eve until blood was shed. And that is external religion;" It almost sounds like he's saying the shedding of blood is necessary for initiation, then he adds the part about external religion. The path of initiation begins with external trappings.

I don't believe "demon" and "God" refer to the same thing. He seems to associate the "shedding of blood," or external religion if you will, as an offering to demons, a necessary evil.

The questions you raise, Ross, are far from simple, and I apologize in advance for the length of the following, but it really does ultimately make sense. The story is as explicit as this section of the bible is (which it isn't at all) as to what made the offering shabby. On the one hand, Cain was the inventor of the offering in the first place and he is the one who begins the practice. Cain could be thought of as the first initiate and the originator of religion. However, there is no mention of how good his offering was, which in Old Testament shorthand is usually significant, while a relative great deal is said about Abel's offering. It was the best and choicest of his flock.

The clue as to why Cain's offering was inferior is somewhat convoluted, but makes sense when you see it. Cain's birth was nothing short of miraculous, the first birth ever, and proof of the amazing creative powers gained from the Tree of Knowledge. Although not easily translatable into English, the sentence "קניתי איש את אלוהים" ("I have bought a man with God") is highly significant in that Eve considers God the prime partner in Cain's birth, while Adam's role is fleeting (and this makes sense in considering that in the Isian age, the role of the male was not yet understood). However, Eve concedes that she did not create Cain, she "acquired" him. God is the main creative element, and this is where Cain's name comes from.

Just as Adam came from the earth, his firstborn is a farmer, a profession that, in effect, "cohabits" with the earth in order to create. However, contrary to Eve, Cain does not accept God's primary role in his creation, and, according to the Midrash, makes a mediocre offering, a sort of "tip" to a servant. Here I must concede that there is no mention of how the brothers knew which offering was accepted and which was not.

Now, God's speech to Cain is not as obscure as it may seem at first, although again, the Sages (חז"ל) are not fond of short answers. What God says to Cain mirrors what was said to Eve immediately after eating the fruit:

"Your desire will be to your husband, yet he can rule you."
"ואל אישך תשוקתך והוא ימשול בך"

"Sin lies crouching at the door, its desire is to you yet you can rule it"
"חטאת רבץ ואליך תשוקתו ואתה תמשל בו"

Feminism aside, there is an analogy here in the relationship Cain must develop with his "evil inclination" (יצר הרע). The Sages codified four type of desires (תשוקות), differentiating them from needs in that desires are of a higher order, and more powerful. One desires something one does not need:

1. The desire of Eve toward Adam;
2. The desire of rain for land;
3. The desire of God for humanity
4. The desire of Cain's evil inclination towards him

According to Genesis, Adam was missing a rib, caused by the creation of Eve. When a man "takes" a woman in marriage, he is in fact taking back his lost rib. Eve was created as a perfect being, and so does not "need" Adam, but desires him. Rain does not need land, but without it, it is meaningless, and so desires it. God does not need humanity, but desires it in order to share in his goodness (the duality of the Lovers descending from Binah is a form of תשוקה).

In echoing his words to Eve, God does not tell Cain to shun his evil inclination completely, but to develop a relationship with it, to direct his creative forces toward constructive means, rather than destructive ones. This suggests the "evil inclination" isn't that evil, and so the Sages looked elswhere for the answer. After Creation, God looked upon it and said that "it was very good." This of course asks how could death and murder come under "very good" and the Sages answer is quite interesring. The Evil inclination is not the Devil or anything like that, but rather as written:

"Can the Evil Inclination be good? It seems impossible. Rather, were it not for the Evil Inclination, a man would not build a house and would not marry a woman, he would not have children and would not engage in business." (Bereishis Rabbah, 9:7)

In other words, the so-called "Evil" Inclination is all our earthly passions, hungers, sexual urges and material desires. The temptation of the snake was exactly those creative passions and base instincts, as for animals instincts are all there there is, the wordless commands of God (as opposed to the Law said in words imposed on Adam and Eve in the form of the prohibition). Eve was forbidden by words to partake of the fruit, but still wanted it, and the snake (quite innocently, actually) suggested to her she act as it did, not being able to see any alternative, in fulfillment of its nature. Cain has a choice: he can either actively use his passions constructively, or allow them to engulf him. The Apple was the drive to create ("ye shall be as Gods") but lacking the discipline needed, and shown in creation itself, where everything has its proper measure, as illustrated by the Tree of Life. In the event, Cain fails, succumbs to his anger against God (instead of listening to God's urging to "do well" and curb himself and enhance his relationship with the creator, rather than sabotage it) and kills his brother.

Now, curse of Cain is even more complicated, but that will have to wait for tomorrow (if anyone wants to hear). While even the Talmud is an interpretation like any other, the presence of Cain and Abel on the Lovers seen in the above context makes far more sense to me than Crowley's standpoint, but perhaps because it is explained better. Also, Cain is a farmer, an acquired man of the earth. Abel is transitory, and this is illustrated by his Hebrew name of הבל, meaning breath. In Ecclesiastes Solomon mourns the transitory nature of his achievements with "הבל הבלים، הכל הבל הבלים." This translates roughly as "all is as air," as nothing is permanent. Cain and Abel are, in a sense, the "Heavens and the Earth" of "בראשית ברא אלוהים את השמיים ואת הארץ." The duality of the Brothers is inherently present in the whole story, and quite clearly, if one digs a bit.

Mild Synchronicity

closrapexa said:

... I also read that the story symbolizes a move from a hunter-gatherer society to an agrarian one ...

Click to expand...

I played on Thoth thread a bit, read this post and then went straight to my new book* for a read and saw this on first page of Ch. 1. " ... the single greatest transformation the human race has ever undertaken: the change from hunting and gathering to husbandry and farming ..."

[ * I haven't been excited about having a new book your about 5 years (you know the type; can't wait to get home to read more ... take it with you and sneak peeks at 'inappropriate' moments) . 'A History of Ancient Egypt - From the First Farmers to the Great Pyramid.' John Romer. Allen Lane (Penguin) 2012. - This period is usually covered in one or two brief chapters in most books - here we have 475 pages.

Certainly worth a read! The intro where John outlines the previous faults and attitudes related to perceptions of the subject and how he plans to present it is refreshing and innovative (although a common sense prerequisite for the researcher - you might like it Ross ).

Errrmmm ... Sorry C. for diverting your subject matter into a book review ... please carry on all, VERY interesting reading.