A quick web scan shows the "normal" pentacle represents spirit on top, while the inverted has earth and fire up, so it's physicality rather than spirituality.
this is why it is a popular symbol with groups such as lavey's 'church of satan', whose philosophy is very much along these lines. personally, having read up on them, talked to a few and read some key texts, i would be inclined to respect them for what they're trying to do and leave them alone to get on with their lives. they're not bothering anyone and are no more harmful (and a good deal more rational) than the average member of society. to fear them is to misunderstand them - and this, in turn, is to amuse them. never underestimate the entertainment factor!
Scandinavians still use it, at least the older generations. We bake buns with saffron or cardamom and twist them into the shape of the swastika (or the suncross), a spiral or a double spiral, to celebrate that Yule/Christmas/Winter Solstice is approaching and scare away winter.
this would fit very well with the mythology of what hitler believed he was trying to do. in his scenario, the nazis were the sun that was coming to scare away the winter of the "inferior races". it is interesting that he should invert the symbol - is the suncross the same way round as the hindu swastika? either way, the inversion is replete with opportunities for us all to interpret his actions as the reverse of the sacred intention behind the sign, so let's all take that as a given and stop congratulating ourselves on our perception - we all agree nazis are bad, i hope.
This famous symbol is older than time itself, it was in use by the Aztecs too.
not that i wish to quibble, but the aztecs aren't that old a culture. nor do i particularly consider that their religious system was particularly steeped in wisdom when their main form of worship consisted of copious amounts of human sacrifice.
i've never heard of a direct connection between the swastika and the Tetragrammaton (incidentally, actually, i'd appreciate it if people didn't spell the Big T out) but there may be an indirect one via the
alef, the first letter of the hebrew alphabet (or alef-beth). interestingly, the Torah does not start with an alef, but with a
beth, the second letter. there are many reasons given for this in the tradition but for our purposes in this discussion, there is a connection described in the
sefer Bahir (C12th) which shows an alef as being made up of four beths and then, especially with the diagram in the kaplan edition, the connection is obvious, as it denotes the functioning of linear time in our universe.
i have my own ideas about what the pentagram represents (it was sometimes known as the "seal of solomon") but, basically, it's the natural shape of a five-dimensional internally connected matrix, which connects it to the five directions of the
sefer Yetzirah and the fiery "sword which turns every way" of genesis. it's a different thing from the swastika at any rate and to me it makes little difference whichever way up it is.
The Gospel of Peter is the Gospel of the Philosopher's Stone, the Occult Stone, thus, Jesus called him Ceiphas, "which by interpretation, is a stone."
erm, i thought "petrus", the latin for peter, literally means a stone. in the NT, jesus gives him the nickname, but when i read the passage concerned i felt the nickname was actually given in frustration, as in "you must have rocks in your head"; jesus could see how peter's church might turn out and was angry that he had been misinterpreted. a rock is defined by its unchangingness and lack of flexibility.
as for this also being the philosophers' stone, i would say that it's not as certain as all that. the "stone that the builders rejected" is considered by jewish tradition to be the jewish people, which in isaiah (i think) becomes the cornerstone of the Temple rebuilt. however, there is more than one rock around the place - the
Tzur Yisrael or "Rock of Israel", being another name for G!D. furthermore, the "stumbling block" (see leviticus 19:14) is not an "even" or a "tzur", so it cannot necessarily be identified with a stone. look, not all stones are necessarily one stone; this raises my problem with some forms of gnosis and hermeticism, that there is this apparent need to include absolutely everything in one giant concordance-riddled system, whether it's tarot, chess, kabbalah, enochian, christianity, hinduism, egyptian and greek mysticism and alchemy. all of these things come from different places and different cultural contexts, yet they are all expected to harmonise? i don't see overwhelming evidence of it, i'm afraid, though i am more than happy to consider that we're all on the same side (or walking up the same mountain, if you prefer).
there is an interpretation of the Tetragrammaton which is a representation of the power of sexuality, but the same interpretation can just as easily refer to charitable giving. so to say that all systems are one system and that the cross, the swastika and the Tetragrammaton are all one thing is frankly reductive and open to considerable misinterpretation.
In Kabbalah, we would say it relates to Yesod and Daath, or the Sexual Organs (cross of the Lingam-Yoni) and the Creative Larynx (from which the Logos sounds, because the Creative Larynx of J-E is a uterus that fecundates The WORD).
again, i'd really rather you didn't use english approximations of Divine Names. secondly, i think you mean yesod-malkhut. thirdly, i think the kabbalah you're talking about is hermetic, not jewish and i'd appreciate it if you made the distinction. the logos is not a concept that comes from judaism, but from gnosis and mystical christianity. the greek origin of the name should be a clue.
This is why the cornerstone, sexuality, is the rock of offense and stone of stumbling, but yet, is the stame rock we must build our internal temple upon.
now this is an interesting concept and one which i find much evidence for in our tradition, but the difference is that we don't consider sexuality to be the *cause* of the "original sin", this being a christian, not a jewish concept, but a *consequence of our becoming free-willed humans and therefore having to leave the garden*. in this context, sexuality is seen as a *compensating factor*, not something to be punished for - except when it is misused, as it was during the period of biblical idolatry. nonetheless, the paradox remains that sexuality is a powerful force both for good and for evil, so thank you for mentioning it.
i'm a little bit curious, neoxenos - you're a gnostic, right? but you said in your other post (about madonna) that you didn't "much care either way" - what did that mean?
b'shalom
bananabrain
