Friday, September 10, 2010

StarCup: A Hare in the Grail is Ni in the Bush

A bit back, the Sync Whole did a series on the Star Cup, which overlapped with a lunar eclipse and dealt mainly in the idea of a merging of two perceived opposites - you know, Union.

A few days before Melissa and I got married - celebrated our Union - we needed to unwind from the stress of planning and preparing for the big day. We chilled and watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail for what must be the buzzillionth time. This image from the inside booklet struck me as if I had never seen it before.
Putting the rabbit in the holy grail adds a whole other spin to the image. We saw how the rabbit and the moon already go together in the Flaming Hare post, but note the quote that reads "Inspired Lunacy!" Luna, of course, meaning the moon. So here we have a quite literal representation of the StarCup with two big nods to the lunar eclipse.

But perhaps I should go into the idea of the StarCup a little further. It was explained as being the union of This and That, Male and Female, Yin and Yang, Ego and Id, etc. etc. etc.
This obviously plays into questions of Individuality and Oneness.
While many will debate the finer points of these two seemingly opposing ideals, the StarCup was meant as a metaphor to teach us that both are true at once. We are both Separate and Whole. (And if you're ready for a bigger mindfu3k, realize that we are also creator, created, creating [and destroyer, I might add] all at once as well. See Toure's iCreator post for more on that beautiful truth).
How much of our dualistic thinking is a product of Hegelian constructs? What is the fate for succumbing to duality?

In the same Python movie, there is a famous scene with "The Knights who say Ni." These knights shout the word "Ni" as a sort of verbal weapon. We had just examined the fact that "Ni" in Japanese is "Two." So, perhaps the reason Arthur and his round table were so flustered by the word "Ni" is because they were being shouted at in Hegelian terms of duality. While they were seeking union with the holy grail (StarCup) others sought to divert them from their path with thoughts of "Two." Bear in mind, the last obstacle/distraction the Knights who say Ni throw before Arthur is a red herring.

So, if we are seeking to find balance (or Union) between our seemingly opposed halves - we should learn to integrate all that they have to teach us.
I just covered some of the Eco/ECCO/Echo syncs I'd encountered in the last post. I am now thinking that this may be a product of and/or a representation of the Id and the collective unconscious.

I just saw a bus ad for a show that looks like a rehashed Dharma and Greg, but that would also seem to confirm my hunch.
Ego meets Eco.
Ego meets Id.

See how the "Ego" and "Id" resonators each hold a cup?

This synopsis of the show describes the "Ego" character as a "Playboy"


  1. I've been researching the Grail mythos a lot lately. Wolfram says that "Parzival" means that he "pierced through his mother's (Binah's) heart," which fully gives away the meaning. Parzival's mother is "Herzeleide," lit. "heart's sorrow," pierced by the risen Holy Spear/Spirit.

    The grail was brought down by the neutral angels as a means of reconciling good and evil, so you are right that the grail mystery revolves around unity. Which should not, of course, be held (as Jung thought) to mean that the shadows should be embraced, but that love transforms all things.

  2. Great additions Eleleth.

    As to the "embracing shadows" bit, I haven't come to a conclusion on that myself. I agree that "love transforms all things" - and that's where I choose to focus my energy. But are the two mutually exclusive? Should we ignore the fact that darkness has its role to play in our transformation?

  3. Yes, I should clarify this. The Tarot shows that the goddess is veiled when one approaches her. We must confront the shadows and pierce through ("Parsifal") the veil in order to connect with ourselves. You can't just sit around thinking happy thoughts; it's always described as a long and arduous process.

    Sayeth evil old Aleister:

    9. Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains.

    The problem with Jung is that he knew that the shadow had to be brought into consciousness, but from there he did not know—or tell, at least—that they have to be purged away by the Secret Fire. Jung believed that everyone was innately evil, which is a terrible thought. And here, Crowley's view of this is actually considerably less evil than Jung's!

    "The word of Sin is Restriction. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." ...

    Now did I understand that all men live in sin, being baulked of their True Will, that is, of the free function of their essential nature....

    Learn this also, a great Mystery and wonderful, that all conflict between the parts of the Universe springs from this error, and none other. For in our infinite Space (which is nothing but our boundless range of possibilities) there is no need that any one should push his fellow aside. As there is room in Heaven for every Star to pass upon its Way unchallenged, so also with those Stars of Earth, which go masked as men and women.
    (Heart of the Master)

    The problem, then, is that the shadows are a form of restriction (sin) created by the false ego—the dangerous consequence of being able to create things that are unlike itself. For if the Self is love, then "love is the law." By circumventing Tiphareth, one plunges into Daath.

    Once one reaches the center, he kills his father (the ego) and marries his (unveiled) mother. (The true origin of the Oedipus complex, of course.) Then he becomes a conscious, rather than unconscious, creator, "flooding the world with life and beauty."

  4. Thank you for those wonderful additions.
    I have long held that Crowley's whole of the law was an objective and universal truth that anyone would come to if they searched long enough (no matter if they were looking to be the world's most evil man or the world's most pious). It just tends to get a bad rap because of the stigma attached to his name. I think most of his "evil" schtick was for show anyway.
    I have not read many of his works, but the quotes you have provided give a great context to the discussion.


Related Posts with Thumbnails