The theory of Harry Potter symbolising the Path of Alchemical Liberation.

[cat_kind]

No: HPFGUIDX 126007


Hans:
> I understand what you're saying. There are several ways you could
> familiarise yourself with this Path. All my main posts to HPFGU 
> since April 2003 are also in the message archive of the Yahoo 
> group: Harry Potter for Seekers:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/messages.
> If you read my messages in chronological order you will see a 
> gradual development and you should be able to "get it" alright. 

catkind:  That's precisely where I don't "get it".  In your posts 
you explain the path in terms of Harry Potter.  That would be a 
reasonable standpoint if you were trying to recruit an audience of 
HP fans to the Path, or if you were trying to create a new religion 
based on HP. But if, as you claim, you are trying to demonstrate 
that Harry Potter is analogous to the Path, you need to define the 
path independently of HP.   

The comparisons with other religions are more confusing than 
enlightening.  Are we expected to take a kind of lowest common 
denominator for all the traditions you bring up and compare Harry 
Potter to that? But the religions you refer to barely agree on 
anything other than that there exists some kind of spiritual world 
and it's probably a good idea to think about it.  

If you don't tell us what the Path is in and of itself, it seems 
like you are simply drawing a collection of parallels between 
various religious traditions and HP and then claiming this proves HP 
is based on some undefined fundamental truth.  Any features of the 
religions which don't fit HP can then be thrown away as being 
features of that particular tradition and not of the fundamental 
truth.  I could pick any other book and do the same thing, just as 
effectively.

We don't know what you believe unless you tell us, Hans.  You may 
believe it's the fundamental underlying truth of all things, but you 
still need to tell us what exactly you think this truth is before 
you can usefully compare it to Harry Potter. 

Hans: 
> To understand what I mean by etheric, astral etc. read
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/messages/566 
> (The Structure of the Universe). This will explain a lot. I do use
> these words in the traditional sense, as also used by the 
> Theosophists, the Anthroposophists etc. But feel free to ask.

catkind: 
Oops, guess I'm coming from a different traditional background. 
By "traditional meaning" I meant the meaning I will find in a 
dictionary.  For example, "ether" was a posited fluid substance of 
space itself through which light waves were believed to propagate, a 
theory later disproved in experiments (that is, assuming you don't 
mean the chemical compound).  "Astral" means to do with stars. 

Hans in above quoted message: 
> Each of the seven Cosmic Planes is further divided up
> into seven sub-planes. We call these sub-planes, in
> order of vibration rate starting at the lowest:
> physical, etheric, astral, mental, the mental ideation
> plane, the emotional ideation plane and the
> consciousness ideation plane (Other people give them
> different names).

catkind: Do I understand from the above quote that you use "etheric" 
simply as a name for this second sub-plane?  Could I just as well 
call it "beta" or "level two" or "cheese"? Otherwise I'm still short 
a useful definition of etheric. The other names are more evocative:  
physical, for example, or mental.

The quoted message raises another question:  You give there some 
very detailed physical or geometric description of these higher 
planes.  Do you believe that they literally exist in any sense, say 
in a fourth dimension which we cannot see?  Or is this another 
analogy? If the former, what evidence do you have for this belief, 
or where does it come from?

Hans: 
> What I'm saying is that the teachings in the gospels were in fact
> taken by the early church and made out to be their sole property. 
> I deny ownership of the gospels and I feel I can and should 
> compare Harry Potter to the gospels as well as the Alchemical
> Wedding or whatever else I can see parallels with.

catkind:  Given the number of branches of Christianity there are 
today, many rebuilt from 
the basis of the Bible alone and independent of the early church,  I 
don't really feel it's necessary to repossess the gospels.  If it is 
vital to the point you want to make, then I'd say you have the right 
to give your own interpretation, and Christians have the right to 
disagree with you.  Don't forget the gospels have been extensively 
studied over the ages, both from a religious and a historical 
standpoint.  If you make claims that contradict established 
historical truth, or interpret the Christian Bible inconsistently, 
you can certainly expect to be argued with.  If it's not important 
to your point, it would be polite to leave other people's religions 
alone. 

I would also point out that whether your sect is repressed or not 
has no relevance to whether they're right or not!

Hans:
> Why get so excited? Because Liberation is the most wonderful,
> ecstatic and rapturous thing there is. 

catkind: This doesn't answer my question at all.  I'm not asking why 
you're excited about Liberation, you're entitled to be excited about 
your own religion:->  The question is why you are excited that it 
shows up again in HP, when you claim it shows up practically 
everywhere else already.  

If I may presume to venture an analogy of my own, consider 
Christianity and C.S.Lewis's children's books.  The Narnia series is 
a strong allegory of Christianity, but I don't see any Christians 
running around basing new religions on Narnia!

 Hans:
> In the interview you're quoting she didn't say she was a
> Christian. She was talking about "if she believes in God", and 
> she said she does. That could be interpreted to mean she's 
> a Moslem, a Jew, a Rosicrucian, a Gnostic, a Manichaean, etc. 

catkind:  Nonetheless, Rowling is known to attend a Presbyterian 
church.  Sorry. 

Hans:
> If I compared Harry Potter to the Path of Liberation without 
> referring to other parallels you wouldn't believe me. 

catkind:  It's not so much that I don't believe you as I don't see a 
concrete point to agree or disagree with. You're trying to compare 
HP to something you haven't defined!

Hans: 
> Yes it would make it much simpler if I compared Harry Potter only
> to, say "The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross". 

catkind:  Personally, I'd find this much more interesting.

Sorry if I sound a bit confrontational here, Hans.  I'm genuinely 
interested in your posts because I think there's things about the HP 
characters in there that would make for interesting discussion if 
only I could figure out what you're actually saying.  I wouldn't be 
replying otherwise.

catkind, drowning in analogies