|
THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
|
|
THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
[from
ftp://ftp.winternet.com/users/robin/magick/text/Thelema/Liber-ALcom1.html ]
AL I,1
Subject: Had! The manifestation of Nuit
THE OLD COMMENT
1. Compare II,1c201, the complement of this verse. In Nu is Had
concealed; by Had is Nu manifested. Nu being 56 and Had 9, their
conjunction results in 65, Adonai, the Holy Guardian Angel. Also Hoor,
who combines the force of the Sun with that of Mars. Adonai is
primarily Solar, but 65 is a number sacred to Mars. See the "Sepher
Sephiroth" ,and "The Wake World" in "Konx Om Pax" for further details
on 65. Note moreover, the sixty-five pages of the MS. of Liber Legis.
Or, counting NV 56, Had 10, we get 66, which is (1-11). Had is further
the centre of the Key-Word ABRAHADABRA.
THE NEW COMMENT
The theogony of our Law is entirely scientific, Nuit is Matter, Hadit
is Motion, in their full physical sense.> They are the Tao and Teh of
Chinese Philosophy; or, to put it very simply, the Noun and Verb in
grammar. Our central Truth -- beyond other philosophies -- is that
these two infinities cannot exist apart. This extensive subject must
be studied in our other writings, notably "Berashith", my own Magical
Diaries, especially those of 1919, 1920 and 1921, and "The Book of
Wisdom or Folly". See also "The Soldier and the Hunchback". Further
information concerning Nuit and Hadit is given in the course of this
Book; but I must here mention that the Brother mentioned in connexion
with the "Wizard Amalantrah" etc. (Samuel bar Aiwaz) identifies them
with ANU and ADAD the supreme Mother and Father deities of the
Sumerians. Taken in connexion with the AIWAZ identification, this is
very striking indeed.
It is also to be considered that Nu is connected with North, while Had
is Sad, Set, Satan, Sat (equals "Being" in Sanskrit), South. He is
then the Sun, one point concentrating Space, as also is any other
star. The word ABRAHADABRA is from Abrasax, Father Sun, which adds to
365. For the North-South antithesis see Fabre d'Olivet's "Hermeneutic
Interpretation of the Origin of the Social State in Man". Note "Sax"
also as a Rock, or Stone, whence the symbol of the Cubical Stone, the
Mountain Abiegnus, and so forth. Nu is also reflected in Naus, Ship,
etc., and that whole symbolism of Hollow Space which is familiar to
all. There is also a question of identifying Nu with On, Noah, Oannes,
Jonah, John, Dianus, Diana, and so on. But these identifications are
all partial only, different facets of the Diamond Truth. We may
neglect all these questions, and remain in the simplicity of this Her
own Book.
AL I,2: "The unveiling of the company of heaven."
THE OLD COMMENT
This book is a new revelation, or unveiling of the holy ones.
THE NEW COMMENT
This explains the general theme of this revelation: gives the Dramatis
Personae, so to speak. It is cosmographically, the conception of the
two Ultimate Ideas; Space, and That which occupies Space. It will
however appear later that these two ideas may be resolved into one,
that of Matter; with Space, its 'Condition' or 'form', included
therein. This leaves the idea of 'Motion' for Hadit, whose interplay
with Nuit makes the Universe. Time should perhaps be considered as a
particular kind or dimension of Space.>
Further, this verse is to be taken with the next. The 'company of
heaven' is Mankind, and its 'unveiling' is the assertion of the
independent godhead of every man and every woman! Further, as Khabs
(see verse 8c108) is "Star", there is a further meaning; this Book is
to reveal the Secret Self of a man, i.e. to initiate him.
AL I,3: "Every man and every woman is a star."
THE NEW COMMENT
This thesis is fully treated in "The Book of Wisdom or Folly". Its
main statement is that each human being is an Element of the Cosmos,
self-determined and supreme, co-equal with all other Gods.
From this the Law "Do what thou wilt" follows logically. One star
influences another by attraction, of course; but these are incidents
of self-predestined orbits. There is, however, a mystery of the
planets, revolving about a star of whom they are parts; but I shall
not discuss it fully in this place.
Man is the Middle Kingdom. The Great Kingdom is Heaven, with each star
as an unit; the Little Kingdom is the Molecule, with each Electron as
an unit. (The Ratio of these three is regularly geometrical, each
being 10 to the 22 times greater in size than its neighbour.)
See "The Book of the Great Auk" for the demonstration that each 'star'
is the Centre of the Universe to itself, and that a 'star' simple,
original, absolute, can add to its omnipotence, omniscience and
omnipresence without ceasing to be itself; that its one way to do this
is to gain experience, and that therefore it enters into combinations
in which its true Nature is for awhile disguised, even from itself.
Analogously, an atom of carbon may pass through myriad Proteus-phases,
appearing in Chalk, Chloroform, Sugar, Sap, Brain and Blood, not
recognizable as "itself" the black amorphous solid, but recoverable as
such, unchanged by its adventures.
This theory is the only one which explains "why" the Absolute limited
itself, and why It does not recognize Itself during its cycle of
incarnations. It disposes of "Evil" and the Origin of Evil; without
denying Reality to "Evil", or insulting our daily observation and our
common sense.
I here quote (with one or two elucidatory insertions) the original
note originally made by Me on this subject.
May 14, 1919, 6.30 p.m.
All elements must at one time have been separate -- that would be the
case with great heat. Now when atoms get to the sun, when we get to
the sun, we get that immense, extreme heat, and all the elements are
themselves again. Imagine that each atom of each element possesses the
memory of all his adventures in combination. By the way, that atom,
fortified with that memory, would not be the same atom; yet it is,
because it has gained nothing from anywhere except this memory.
Therefore, by the lapse of time and by virtue of memory, a thing
(although originally an Infinite Perfection) could become something
more than itself; and thus a real development is possible. One can
then see a reason for any element deciding to go through this series
of incarnations (god, that was a magnificent conception!) because so,
and only so, can he go; and he suffers the lapse of memory of His own
Reality of Perfection which he has during these incarnations, because
he knows he will come through unchanged.
Therefore you have an infinite number of gods, individual and equal
though diverse, each one supreme and utterly indestructible. This is
also the only explanation of how a being could create a world in which
war, evil, "etc". exist. Evil is only an appearance because, like
"good", it cannot affect the substance itself, but only multiply its
combinations. This is something the same as mystic monism, but the
objection to that theory is that God has to create things which are
all parts of himself, so that their interplay is false. If we
presuppose many elements, their interplay is natural. It is no
objection to this theory to ask who made the elements -- the elements
are at least there; and God, when you look for him, is not there.
Theism is "obscurum per obscurius". A male star is built up from the
centre outwards, a female star from the circumference inwards. This is
what is meant when we say that woman has no soul. It explains fully
the difference between the sexes.
{WEH NOTE: Although Crowley evidently felt that this characterization
was true simply, it should be noted that this comment is not CLASS A.
The idea of center outwards and circumference inwards may actually
have described the impression received by a male of the Victorian age
in regard to men and women. Certainly every male mystic has the state
here described as "circumference inward", "...no soul" and "female" at
the time of reception --- vide Liber LXV. Equally, every woman who
acts positively from awareness of her identity would qualify for
"center outwards", "soul" and "male" in this sense. What Crowley
identified as sex-linked may better be considered as modality linked,
with the sexual linkage as much an accident of culture as anything
else.}
AL I,4: "Every number is infinite; there is no difference."
THE NEW COMMENT
This is a great and holy mystery. Although each star has its own
number, each number is equal and supreme. Every man and every woman is
not only a part of God, but the Ultimate God. "The Centre is
everywhere and the circumference nowhere". The old definition of God
takes new meaning for us. Each one of us is the One God. This can only
be understood by the initiate; one must acquire certain high states of
consciousness to appreciate it.
I have tried to put it simply in the note to the last verse. I may add
that in the Trance called by me the "Star-Sponge" -- see note to v.
59c159 -- this apprehension of the Universe is seen as an astral
Vision. It began as "Nothingness with Sparkles" in 1916 E.V. by Lake
Pasquaney in New Hampshire, U.S.A. and developed into fullness on
various subsequent occasions. Each 'Star' is connected directly with
every other star, and the Space being Without Limit (Ain Soph) the
Body of Nuith, any one star is as much the Centre as any other. Each
man instinctively feels that he is the Centre of the Cosmos, and
philosophers have jeered at his presumption. But it was he that was
precisely right. The yokel is no more 'petty' than the King, nor the
earth than the Sun. Each simple elemental Self is supreme, Very God of
Very God. Ay, in this Book is Truth almost insufferably splendid, for
Man has veiled himself too long from his own glory: he fears the
abyss, the ageless Absolute. But Truth shall make him free!
It must be understood from the beginning that this book contains the
keys of all the knowledge necessary for the operation of the Magical
Formulae of the world during the Aeon which it initiates. In this very
early verse is already given a Master Key to mathematics and
metaphysics. On applying this to current problems of thought, it will
be discovered that the long-fast doors fly open at a touch.
Let use briefly examine the implications of this statement. It should
not occasion surprise to find that the Book of the Law not only
anticipates the conclusion of the greatest modern mathematicians like
Poincare, but goes beyond them. It was necessary that this should be
the case, so that the book might be, beyond question, the expression
of a mind possessed of superior powers to any incarnated mind soever.
It may clarify the subject if we venture to paraphrase the text. The
first statement "Every number is infinite" is, on the face of it, a
contradiction in terms. But that is only because of the accepted idea
of a number as not being a thing in itself but merely a term in series
homogeneous in character. All orthodox mathematical argument is based
on definitions involving this conception. For example, it is
fundamental to admit the identity of 2 plus 1 with 1 plus 2. The Book
of the Law presents an altogether different conception of the nature
of number.
Mathematical ideas involve what is called a continuum, which is,
superficially at least, of a different character to the physical
continuum. For instance, in the physical continuum, the eye can
distinguish between the lengths of one-inch stick and a two-inch
stick, but not between these which measure respectively one thousand
miles and one thousand miles and on inch, though the difference in
each case is equally an inch. The inch difference is either
perceptible or not perceptible, according to the conditions.
Similarly, the eye can distinguish either the one-inch or the two-inch
stick from one of an inch and a half. But we cannot continue this
process indefinitely -- we can always reach a point where the extremes
are distinguishable from each other but their mean from neither of the
extremes. Thus, in the physical continuum, if we have three terms, A,
B, and C, A appears equal to B, and B to C, yet C appears greater than
A. Our reason tells us that this conclusion is an absurdity, that we
have been deceived by the grossness of our perceptions. It is useless
for us to invent instruments which increase the accuracy of our
observations, for though they enable us to distinguish between the
three terms of our series, and to restore the theoretical Hierarchy,
we can always continue the process of division until we arrive at
another series: A', B', C', where A' and C' are distinguishable from
each other, but where neither is distinguishable from B'.
On the above grounds, modern thinkers have endeavoured to create a
distinction between the mathematical and the physical continuum, yet
it should surely be obvious that the defect in our organs of sense,
which is responsible for the difficulty, shows that our method of
observation debars us from appreciating the true nature of things by
this method of observation.
However, in the case of the mathematical continuum, its character is
such that we can continue indefinitely the process of division between
any two mathematical expressions so-ever, without interfering in any
way with the regularity of the process, or creating a condition in
which two terms become indistinguishable from each other. The
mathematical continuum, moreover, is not merely a question of series
of integral numbers, but of other types of numbers, which, like
integers, express relations between existing ideas, yet are not
measurable in terms of that series. Such numbers are themselves parts
of a continuum of their own, which interpenetrates the series of
integers without touching it, at least necessarily.
For example: the tangents of angles made by the separation of two
lines from coincidence to perpendicularity, increases constantly from
zero to infinity. But almost the only integral value is found at the
angle of 45 degrees where it is unity.
It may be said that there is an infinite number of such series, each
possessing the same property of infinite divisibility. The ninety
tangents of angles differing by one degree between zero and ninety may
be multiplied sixty fold by taking the minute instead of the degree as
the co-efficient of the progression, and these again sixty fold by
introducing the second to divide the minute. So on ad infinitum.
All these considerations depend upon the assumption that every number
is no more than a statement of relation. The new conception, indicated
by the Book of the Law, is of course in no way contradictory of the
orthodox view; but it adds to it in the most practically important
manner. A statistician computing the birth-rate of the eighteenth
century makes no special mention of the birth of Napoleon. This does
not invalidate his results; but it demonstrates how exceedingly
limited is their scope even with regard to their own object, for the
birth of Napoleon had more influence on the death-rate than another
other phenomenon included in his calculations.
A short digression is necessary. There may be some who are still
unaware of the fact, but the mathematical and physical sciences are in
no sense concerned with absolute truth, but only with the relations
between observed phenomena and the observer. The statement that the
acceleration of falling bodies is thirty-two feet per second, is only
the roughest of approximation at the best. In the first place, it
applies to earth. As most people know, in the Moon the rate is only
one-sixth as great. But, even on earth, it differs in a marked manner
between the poles and the equator, and not only so, but it is affected
by so small a matter as the neighborhood of a mountain.
It is similarly inaccurate to speak of "repeating" an experiment. The
exact conditions never recur. One cannot boil water twice over. The
water is not the same, and the observer is not the same. When a man
says that he is sitting still, he forgets that he is whirling through
space with vertiginous rapidity.
It is possibly such considerations that led earlier thinkers to admit
that there was no expectation of finding truth in anything but
mathematics, and they rashly supposed that the apparent ineluctability
of her laws constitutes a guarantee of their coherence with truth. But
mathematics is entirely a matter of convention, no less so than the
rules of Chess or Baccarat. When we say that "two straight lines
cannot enclose a space", we mean no more than we are unable to think
of them as doing so. The truth of the statement depends, consequently,
on that of the hypothesis that our minds bear witness to truth. Yet
the insane man may be unable to think that he is not the victim of
mysterious persecution. We find that no reason for believing him. It
is useless to reply that mathematical truths receive universal
consent, because they do not. It is a matter of elaborate and tedious
training to persuade even the few people when we teach of the truth of
the simplest theorems in Geometry. There are very few people living
who are convinced -- or even aware -- of the more recondite results of
analysis. It is no reply to this criticism to say that all men can be
convinced if they are sufficiently trained, for who is to guarantee
that such training does not warp the mind?
But when we have brushed away these preliminary objections, we find
that the nature of the statement itself is not, and cannot be, more
than a statement of correspondences between our ideas. In the example
chosen, we have five ideas; those of duality, of straightness, of a
line, of enclosing, and of space. None of these are more than ideas.
Each one is meaningless until it is defined as corresponding in a
certain manner to certain other ideas. We cannot define any word
soever, except by identifying it with two or more equally undefined
words. To define it by a single word would evidently constitute a
tautology.
We are thus forced to the conclusion that all investigation may be
stigmatized as obscurum per obscurium. Logically, our position is even
worse. We define A as BC, where B is DE, and C is FG. Not only does
the process increase the number of our unknown quantities in
Geometrical progression at every step, but we must ultimately arrive
at a point where the definition of Z involves the term A. Not only is
all argument confined within a vicious circle, but so is the
definition of the terms on which any argument must be based.
It might be supposed that the above chain of reasoning made all
conclusions impossible. But this is only true when we investigate the
ultimate validity of our propositions. We can rely on water boiling at
100 degrees Centigrade,> although, for mathematical accuracy, water
never boils twice running at precisely the same temperature, and
although, logically, the term water is an incomprehensible mystery.
To return to our so-called axiom; Two straight lines cannot enclose a
space. It has been one of the most important discoveries of modern
mathematics, that this statement, even if we assume the definition of
the various terms employed, is strictly relative, not absolute; and
that common sense is impotent to confirm it as in the case of the
boiling water. For Bolyai, Lobatschewsky, and Riemann have shown
conclusively that a consistent system of geometry can be erected on
any arbitrary axiom soever. If one chooses to assume that the sum of
the interior angles of a triangle is either greater than or less than
two right angles, instead of equal to them, we can construct two new
systems of Geometry, each perfectly consistent with itself, and we
possess no means soever of deciding which of the three represents
truth.
I may illustrate this point by a simple analogy. We are accustomed to
assert that we go from France to China, a form of expression which
assumes that those countries are stationary, while we are mobile. But
the fact might be equally well expressed by saying that France left us
and China came to us. In either case there is no implication of
absolute motion, for the course of the earth through space is not
taken into account. We implicitly refer to a standard of repose which,
in point of fact, we know not to exist. When I say that the chair in
which I am sitting has remained stationary for the last hour, I mean
only "stationary in respect to myself and my house". In reality, the
earth's rotation has carried it over one thousand miles, and the
earth's course some seventy thousand miles, from its previous
position. All that we can expect of any statement is that it should be
coherent with regard to a series of assumption which we know perfectly
well to be false and arbitrary.
It is commonly imagined, by those who have not examined the nature of
the evidence, that our experience furnishes a criterion by which we
may determine which of the possible symbolic representations of Nature
is the true one. They suppose that Euclidean Geometry is in conformity
with Nature because the actual measurements of the interior angles of
a triangle tell us that their sum is in fact equal to two right
angles, just as Euclid tells us that theoretical considerations
declare to be the case. They forget that the instruments which we use
for our measurements are themselves conceived of as in conformity with
the principles of Euclidean Geometry. In other words, them measure ten
yards with a piece of wood about which they really known nothing but
that its length is one-tenth of the ten yards in question.
The fallacy should be obvious. The most ordinary reflection should
make it clear that our results depend upon all sorts of condition. If
we inquire, "What is the length of the thread of quicksilver in a
thermometer?", we can only reply that it depends on the temperature of
the instrument. In fact, we judge temperature by the difference of the
coefficients of expansion due to heat of the two substances, glass and
mercury.
Again, the divisions of the scale of the thermometer depend upon the
temperature of boiling water, which is not a fixed thing. It depends
on the pressure of the earth's atmosphere, which varies (according to
time and place) to the extent of over twenty per cent. Most people who
talk of "scientific accuracy" are quite ignorant of elementary facts
of this kind.
It will be said, however, that having defined a yard as the length of
a certain bar deposited in the Mint in London, under given conditions
of temperature and pressure, we are at least in a position to measure
the length of other objects by comparison, directly or indirectly,
with that standard. In a rough and ready way, that is more or less the
case. But if it should occur that the length of things in general were
halved or doubled, we could not possibly be aware of the other
so-called laws of Nature. We have no means so-ever of determining even
so simple a matter as to whether one of two events happens before or
after the other.
Let us take an instance. It is well known that the light of the sun
requires some eight minutes to reach the earth. Simultaneous > {WEH
NOTE: SIC. This is page 51 in Eddington, op. cit. 1920 edition, 1959
reprint: "The denial of absolute simultaneity is a natural complement
to the denial of absolute motion ..."} phenomena in the two bodies
would therefore appear to be separated in time to that extent; and,
from a mathematical standpoint, the same discrepancy theoretically
exists, even if we suppose the two bodies in question to be only a few
yards one more remote than the other. Recent consideration of these
facts has show the impossibility of determining the fact of priority,
so that it may be just as reasonable to assert that a dagger-thrust is
caused by a wound as vice versa. Lewis Carroll has an amusing parable
to this effect in "Through the Looking-Glass", which work, by the way,
with its predecessor, is packed with examples of philosophical
paradox. >
We may now return to our text "Every number is infinite". The fact
that every number is a term in a mathematical continuum is no more an
adequate definition than if we were to describe a picture as Number
So-and-So in the catalogue. Every number is a thing in itself,>
possessing an infinite number of properties peculiar to itself.
Let us consider, for a moment, the numbers 8 and 9. 8 is the number of
cubes measuring one inch each way in a cube which measures two inches
each way; while 9 is the number of squares measuring one inch each way
in a square measuring three inches each way. There is a sort of
reciprocal correspondence between them in this respect.
By adding one to eight, we obtain nine, so that we might define unity
as that which has the property of transforming a three-dimensional
expansion of two into a two-dimensional expansion of three. But if we
add unity to nine, unity appears as that which has the power of
transforming the two-dimensional expansion of three aforesaid into a
mere oblong measuring 5 by 2. Unity thus appears as in possession of
two totally different properties. Are we then to conclude that it is
not the same unity? How are we to describe unity, how know it? Only by
experiment can we discover the nature of its action on any given
number. In certain minor respects, this action exhibits regularity. We
know, for example, that it uniformly transforms an odd number into an
even one, and vice versa, but that is practically the limit of what we
can predict as to its action.
We can go further, and state that any number soever possesses this
infinite variety of powers to transform any other number, even by the
primitive process of addition. We observe also how the manipulation of
any two numbers can be arranged so that the result is incommensurable
with either, or even so that ideas are created of a character totally
incompatible with our original conception of numbers as a series of
positive integers. We obtain unreal and irrational expressions, ideas
of a wholly different order, by a very simple juxtaposition of such
apparently comprehensible and commonplace entities as integers.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from these various
considerations. It is that the nature of every number is a thing
peculiar to itself, a thing inscrutable and infinite, a thing
inexpressible, even if we could understand it.
In other words, a number is a soul, in the proper sense of the term,
an unique and necessary element in the totality of existence.
We may not turn to the second phrase of the text: "there is no
difference". It must strike the student immediately that this is, on
the face of it, a point blank contradiction of all that has been said
above. What have we done but insist upon the essential difference
between any tow numbers, and show that even their sequential relation
is little more than arbitrary, being indeed rather a convenient way of
regarding them for the purpose of coordinating them with out
understanding than anything else? On a similar principle, we number
public vehicles or telephones without implication even of necessary
sequence. The appellation denotes nothing beyond membership of a
certain class of objects, and is indeed expressly chosen to avoid
being entangled in considerations of any characteristics of the
individual so designated except that cursory designation.
when it is said that there is no difference between numbers (for in
this sense I think we must understand the phrase), we must examine the
meaning of the word 'difference'. Difference is the denial of identity
in the first place, but the word is not properly applied to
discriminate between objects which have no similarity. One does not
ask, "What is the difference between a yard and a minute?" in
practical life. We do ask the difference between two things of the
same kind. The Book of the Law is trying to emphasize the doctrine
that each number is unique and absolute. Its relations with other
numbers are therefore in the nature of illusion. They are the forms of
presentation under which we perceive their semblances; and it is to
the last degree important to realize that these semblances only
indicate the nature of the realities behind them in the same way in
which the degrees on a thermoetric scale indicate heat. It is quite
unphilosophical to say that 50 degrees Centigrade is hotter than 40
degrees. Degrees of temperature are simply conventions invented by
ourselves to describe physical states of a totally different order;
and, while the heat of a body may be regarded as an inherent property
of its own, our measure of that heat in no way concerns it.
We use instruments of science to inform us of the nature of the
various objects which we wish to study; but our observations never
reveal the thing as it is in itself. They only enable us to compare
unfamiliar with familiar experiences. The use of an instrument
necessarily implies the imposition of alien conventions. To take the
simplest example: when we say that we see a thing, we only mean that
our consciousness is modified by its existence according to a
particular arrangement of lenses and other optical instruments, which
exist in our eyes and not in the object perceived. So also, the fact
that the sum of 2 and 1 is three, affords us but a single statement of
relations symptomatic of the presentation to us of those numbers.
We have, therefore, no means soever of determining the difference
between any two numbers, except in respect of a particular and very
limited relation. Furthermore, in view of the infinity of every
number, it seems not unlikely that the apparent differences observed
by us would tend to disappear with the disappearance of the arbitrary
conditions which we attach to them to facilitate, as we think, our
examination. We may also observe that each number, being absolute, is
the centre of its universe, so that all other numbers, so far as they
are related to it, are its appanages. Each number is, therefore, the
totality of the universe, and there cannot be any difference between
one infinite universe and another. The triangle ABC may look very
different from the standpoints of A, B, and C respectively; each view
is true, absolutely; yet it is the same triangle.
The above interpretation of the text is of a revolutionary character,
from the point of view of science and mathematics. Investigation of
the lines here laid down will lead to the solution of these grave
problems which have so long baffled the greatest minds of the world,
on account of the initial error of attaching them on lines which
involve self-contradiction. The attempt to discover the nature of
things by a study of the relations between them is precisely parallel
with the ambition to obtain a finite value of Pi. Nobody wishes to
deny the practical value of the limited investigations which have so
long preoccupied the human mind. But it is only quite recently that
even the best thinkers have begun to recognize that their work was
only significant within a certain order. It will soon be admitted on
all hands that the study of the nature of things in themselves is a
work for which the human reason is incompetent; for the nature of
reason is such that it must always formulate itself in proportions
which merely assert a positive or negative relation between a subject
and a predicate. Men will thus be led to the development of a faculty,
superior to reason, whose apprehension is independent of the
hieroglyphic representations of which reason so vainly makes use.>
{This then will} be the foundation of the true spiritual science which
is the proper tendency of the evolution of man. This Science will
clarify, without superseding, the old; but it will free men from the
bondage of mind, little by little, just as the old science has freed
them from the bondage of matter.
This science is the proper and particular study of initiates, and its
principia are formulated in the Book of the Law. This Book may
therefore be regarded as indicating a complete revolution in human
affairs, for it advances mankind in the most radical manner. The road
of attainment to self-realisation is made open as never before has
been done in the history of the planet.
AL I,5: "Help me, o warrior lord of Thebes, in my unveiling before the
Children of men!"
THE OLD COMMENT
5. Nu, to unveil herself, needs a mortal intermediary, in the first
instance.
It is to be supposed that ankh-f-n-khonsu, the warrior lord of Thebes,
priest of Men Tu, is in some subtle manner identical with either
Aiwass or the Beast.
THE NEW COMMENT
Here Nuit appeals, simply and directly, recognizing the separate
function of each Star of her Body. Though all is One, each part of
that One has its own special work, each Star its particular Orbit.
In addressing me as warrior lord of Thebes, it appears as if She
perceived a certain continuity or identity of myself with
Ankh-f-n-khonsu, whose Stele is the Link with Antiquity of this
Revelation. See Equinox I, VII, pp. 363-400a, for the account of this
event.
The unveiling is the Proclamation of the Truth previously explained,
that the Body of Nuith occupies Infinite Space, so that every Star
thereof is Whole in itself, an independent and absolute Unit. They
differ as Carbon and Calcium differ, but each is a simple "immortal"
Substance, or at least a form of some simpler Substance. Each soul is
thus absolute, and 'good' or 'evil' are merely terms descriptive of
relations between destructible combinations. Thus Quinine is 'good'
for a malarial patient, but 'evil' for the germ of the disease. Heat
is 'bad' for ice-cream and 'good' for coffee. The indivisible essence
of things, their 'souls', are indifferent to all conditions soever,
for none can in any way affect them.
AL I,6: "Be thou Hadit, my secret centre, my heart & my tongue!"
THE OLD COMMENT
6. The recipient of this knowledge is to identify himself with Hadit,
and thus fully express the thoughts of her heart in her very language.
THE NEW COMMENT
Nuit formulates me as Hadit, especially in the three centres of
consciousness of her Being. IN this way, for this purpose, I became
the complement of Her.
These centres are those of Love, Life and language. Duality is the
condition of all three. It will appear later how it is that None and
Two are identical; they are distinct in our minds only because those
minds are conscious, and therefore think of "two" as their own state.
But the unconscious mind thinks Nothing, and is Nothing. Yet it is the
same mind.
Nuith selects three centres of Her Body to become "Two" with Hadit;
for she asks me to declare Her in these three. Infinite freedom,
all-embracing, for physical Love; boundless continuity for Life; and
the silent rhythm of the Stars for Language. These three conceptions
are Her gift to us.
AL I,7: "Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of
Hoor-paar-kraat."
THE OLD COMMENT
7. Aiwass -- see Introduction. He is 78, Mezla, the "influence" from
the Highest Crown, and the number of cards in the Tarot, Rota, the
all-embracing Wheel.
Hoor-paar-Kraat -- see II, 8c208.
Aiwass is called the minister of Hoor-paar-Kraat, the God of Silence;
for his word is the Speech of the Silence.
THE NEW COMMENT
Aiwass is the name given by Ouarda the Seer as that of the
Intelligence Communicating. See note to Title.
Hoor-paar-Kraat or Harpocrates, the "Babe in the Egg of Blue", is not
merely the God of Silence in a conventional sense. He represents the
Higher Self, the Holy Guardian Angel. The connexion is with the
symbolism of the Dwarf in Mythology. He contains everything in
Himself, but is unmanifested. See II:8c208.
He is the First Letter of the Alphabet, Aleph, whose number is One,
and his card in the Tarot is The Fool, numbered Zero. Aleph is
attributed to the "Element" (in the old classification of things) of
Air.
Now as "One" or Aleph he represents the Male Principle, the First
Cause, and the free breath of Life, the sound of the vowel A being
made with the open throat and mouth.
As Zero he represents the female Principle, the fertile Mother. (An
old name for the card is Mat, from the Italian 'Matto', fool, but
earlier also from Maut, the Egyptian Vulture-Mother-Goddess). Fertile,
for the 'Egg of Blue' is the Uterus, and in the Macrocosm the Body of
Nuith, and it contains the Unborn Babe, helpless yet protected and
nourished against the crocodiles and tigers shown on the card, just as
the womb is sealed during gestation. He sits on a lotus, the yoni,
which floats on the 'Nile', the amniotic fluid.
In his absolute innocence and ignorance he is "The Fool"; he is the
'Saviour', being the Son who shall trample on the crocodiles and
tigers, and avenge his father Osiris. Thus we see him as the "Great
Fool" of Celtic legend, the "Pure Fool" of Act I of "Parsifal", and,
generally speaking, the insane person whose words have always been
taken for oracles.
But to be 'Saviour' he must be born and grow to manhood; thus Parsifal
acquires the Sacred Lance, emblem of virility. He usually wears the
'Coat of many colours' like Joseph the 'dreamer'; so he is also now
the Green Man of spring festivals. But his 'folly' is now not
innocence but inspiration of wine; he drinks from the Graal, offered
to him by the Priestess.
So we see him fully armed as Bacchus Diphues, male and female in one,
bearing the Thyrsus-rod, and a cluster of grapes or a wineskin, while
a tiger leaps up by his side. This form is suggested in the Taro card,
where 'The fool' is shown with a long wand and carrying a sack; his
coat is motley. Tigers and Crocodiles follow him, thus linking this
image with that of Harpocrates.
Almost identical symbols are those of the secret God of the Templars,
the bi-sexual Baphomet, and of Zeus Arrhenothelus, equally bi-sexual,
the Father-Mother of All in One Person. (He is shown in this full form
in the Tarot Trump XV, "the Devil".) Now Zeus being lord of Air, we
are reminded that Aleph is the letter of Air.
As Air we find the "Wandering Fool" pure wanton Breath, yet creative.
Wind was supposed of old to impregnate the Vulture, which therefore
was chosen to symbolize the Mother-Goddess.
He is the Wandering Knight or Prince of Fairy Tales who marries the
King's Daughter. This legend is derived from certain customs among
exogamic tribes, for which see "The Golden Bough".
Thus one Europa, Semele and others claimed that Zeus -- Air It seems
as if this great division, which has wrought such appalling havoc upon
the Earth, were originally no more than a distinction adopted for
convenience. It is indeed the task of this Book to reduce Theology to
the interplay of the Dyad Nuith and Hadith, these being themselves
conceived as complementary, as Two equivalent to Naught, "divided for
lvoe's sake, for the chance of union.">> -- had enjoyed them in the
form of a beast, bird, or what not; while later Mary attributed her
condition to the agency of a Spirit -- Spiritus, breath, or air -- in
the shape of a dove.
But the "Small Person" of Hindu mysticism, the Dwarf insane yet crafty
of many legends in many lands, is also this same "Holy Ghost", or
Silent Self of a man, or his Holy Guardian Angel.
He is almost the "Unconscious" of Freud, unknown, unaccountable, the
silent Spirit, blowing "whither it listeth, but thou canst not tell
whence it cometh or whither it goeth". It commands with absolute
authority when it appears at all, despite conscious reason and
judgment.
Aiwass is then, as this verse 7 states, the "minister" of this
Hoor-paar-Kraat, that is of the Saviour of the World in the larger
sense, and of mine own "Silent Self" in the lesser. A "minister" is
one who performs a service, in this case evidently that of revealing;
He was the intelligible medium between the Babe God -- the New Aeon
about to be born -- and myself. This Book of the Law is the Voice of
his Mother, His Father, and Himself. But on His appearing, He assumes
the active form twin to Harpocrates, that of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. The
Concealed Child becomes the Conquering Child, the armed Horus avenging
his father Osiris. So also our own Silent Self, helpless and witless,
hidden within us, will spring forth, if we have craft to loose him to
the Light, spring lustily forward with his cry of Battle, the Word of
our True Wills.
This is the Task of the Adept, to have the Knowledge and Conversation
of His Holy Guardian Angel, to become aware of his nature and his
purpose, fulfilling them.
Why is Aiwass thus spelt, when Aiwaz is the natural transliteration of
OIVZ{WEH NOTE: This word is not certain.}? Perhaps because he was not
content with identifying Himself with Thelema, Agape, etc. by the
number 93, but wished to express his nature by six letters (Six being
the number of the Sun, the God-Man, etc.) whose value in Greek should
be A=1, I=10, F=6, A=1, S=200, S=200: total 418, the number of
Abrahadabra, the Magical Formula of the new Aeon! Note that I and V
are the letters of the Father and the Son, also of the Virgin and the
Bull, (See "Liber 418") protected on either side by the letter of AIR,
and followed by the letter of Fire twice over.
AL I,8: "The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs."
THE OLD COMMENT
8. Here beings the text.
Khabs is the secret Light or L.V.X.; the Khu is the magical entity of
a man.
I find later (Sun in Virgo, An VII) that Khabs means star. In which
chase cf. v.5c105.
The doctrine here taught is that that Light is innermost, essential
man. Intra (not Extra) Nobis Regnum Dei.
THE NEW COMMENT
We are not to regard ourselves as base beings, without whose sphere is
Light or "God". Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within.
The uninitiate is a "Dark Star", and the Great Work for him is to make
his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is
really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that
the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore
consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in
itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil'.
(This will be understood better in the Light of "The Hermit of Esopus
Island", q.v.) The Doctrine is evidently of supreme importance, from
its position as the first 'revelation' of Aiwass.
This 'star' or 'Inmost Light' is the original, individual, eternal
essence. The Khu is the magical garment which it weaves for itself, a
'form' for its Being Beyond Form, by use of which it can gain
experience through self-consciousness, as explained in the note to
verses 2c102 and 3c103. This Khu is the first veil, far subtler than
mind or body, and truer; for its symbolic shape depends on the nature
of its Star.
Why are we told that the Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the
Khabs? Did we then suppose the converse? I think that we are warned
against the idea of a Pleroma, a flame of which we are Sparks, and to
which we return when we 'attain'. That would indeed be to make the
whole curse of separate existence ridiculous, a senseless and
inexcusable folly. It would throw us back on the dilemma of
Manichaeism. The idea of incarnations "perfecting" a thing originally
perfect by definition is imbecile. The only sane solution is as given
previously, to suppose that the Perfect enjoys experience of
(apparent) Imperfection. (There are deeper resolutions of this problem
appropriate to the highest grades of initiation; but the above should
suffice the average intelligence.)
AL I,9: "Worship then the Khabs, and behold my light shed over you!"
THE OLD COMMENT
9. That Khabs is declared to be the light of Nu. It being worshipped
in the centre, the light also fills the circumference, so that all is
light.
THE NEW COMMENT
We are to pay attention to this Inmost Light; then comes the answering
Light of Infinite Space. Note that the Light of Space is what men call
Darkness; its nature is utterly incomprehensible to our uninitiated
minds. It is the 'veils' mentioned previously in this comment that
obstruct the relation between Nuit and Hadit.
We are not to worship the Khu, to fall in love with our Magical Image.
To do this -- we have all done it -- is to forget our Truth. If we
adore Form, it becomes opaque to Being, and may soon prove false to
itself. The Khu in each of us includes the Cosmos as he knows it. To
me, even another Khabs is only part of my Khu. Our own Khabs is our
one sole Truth.
AL I,10: "Let my servants be few & secret: they shall rule the many &
the known."
THE OLD COMMENT
10. This is the rule of Thelema, that its adepts shall be invisible
rulers. This, it may be remarked, has always been the case.
THE NEW COMMENT
The nature of magical power is quite incomprehensible to the vulgar.
The prophet Ezekiel besieging a tile in order to destroy Jerusalem,
and the adventure of Hosea with Gomer, seem as absurd to the
'practical' man as do the researches of any other scientific man until
the Sunday Newspapers have furnished him with a plausible explanation
which explains nothing. ("Book 4", Part III, must be read in this
connexion.)
"My servants"; not those of the Lord of the Aeon. "The Law is for
all"; there can be no secrecy about that. The verse refers to
specially chosen 'servants'; perhaps those who, worshipping the Khabs,
have beheld Her light shed over them. Such persons indeed consummate
the marriage of Nuit and Hadit in themselves; in that case they are
aware of certain Ways to Power.
There is also a mystical sense in this verse. We are to organize our
minds thoroughly, appointing few and secret chiefs, serving Nuit, to
discipline the varied departments of the conscious thought.
AL I,11: "These are fools that men adore; both their Gods & their men
are fools."
THE OLD COMMENT
11. "The many and the known" both among Gods and men, are revered;
this is folly.
THE NEW COMMENT
It is a fact of meditation that everything which becomes manifest is
instantly recognized as unreal. All perfect unveiling solves, wholly
or in part, the equation "Something equals 0/0." (See comment on verse
28c128.) Adeptship is little more than ability to perceive this 0/0
phase of "Something" in respect of larger and larger "Somethings".
A verse with so sacred a number as 11 is likely to mean very deep
things. Probably much concerning the function of The Fool is concealed
in it.
It has been shewn in a previous note that the principal Gods, and men,
that men have adored, are in one way or another represented in the
Tarot card "The Fool". The statement in the text is, superficially,
either a platitude or a petulance; neither sounds like the tone of
Nuit. A third alternative? Can we have "phrased" it carelessly, or
punctuated it incorrectly? Or is there a Qabalistic puzzle or a mystic
submeaning concealed? The subject changes instantly, as it seems. I
prefer to suggest that these "fools" are "Silent selves", impotent
babes unborn; then verse 12 continues "Come forth!", that is, bring
your Holy Guardian Angel from the womb of your subconsciousness. Then,
"take your fill of love"; that is, do your True Will, whose mode of
fulfillment is love, as explained later in this chapter.
AL I,12: "Come forth, o children, under the stars, & take your fill of
love!"
THE OLD COMMENT
12. The Key of the worship of Nu. The uniting of consciousness with
infinite space by the exercise of love, pastoral or pagan love. But
vide infra.
THE NEW COMMENT
The whole doctrine of 'love' is discussed in the Book "Aleph (Wisdom
or Folly)" and should be studied therein. But note further how this
Verse agrees with the comment above, how every Star is to come forth
from its veils, that it may revel with the whole World of Stars. This
is again also a call to unite or 'love', thus formulating the Equation
1 (-1) = 0>, which is the general magical formula in our Cosmos.
"Come forth" -- from what are you hiding? "under the stars", that is,
openly. Also, let love be 'under' or 'unto' the Body of Nuith. But
above all, be open! What is this shame? Is Love Hideous, that men
should cover him with lies? Is Love so sacred that others must not
intrude? Nay, 'under the stars', at night, what eye but theirs may
see? Or, if one see, should not your worship wake the cloisters of his
soul to echo sanctity for that so lovely a deed and gracious you have
done?
AL I,13: "I am above you and in you. My ecstasy is in yours. My joy is
to see your joy."
THE OLD COMMENT
13. This doctrine implies some mystic bond which I imagine is only to
be understood by experience; this human ecstasy and that divine
ecstasy interact. A similar doctrine is found in the Bhagavad Gita.
THE NEW COMMENT
Note that Space is omnipresent.> The cause of 'sorrow' is the
'imaginary' solutions of continuity in this substance. Ecstasy is
produced by the resolution of these illusions. Observe well that to
beings in a state of strain or sorrow the "Great Work" is bound to
appear in the guise of a relief or joy. But this is not to assert
Samadhi, that unity with the universe which brings relief and joy by
"love", as an "absolute good". It is only good relatively to our
present condition as beings divided by Illusion from Nuit. When one
returns to the 'simple' state, one soon begins to think out a new
route through the Universe, and devise new combinations in the Great
Game called Seeing Life.
In Nature few elements are lone wolves. Most of them are being thrown
in and out of combination constantly; on suns this occurs with lordly
vehemence.
Note that Nuith, although She is Infinite Space, speaks as an
individual might do, often enough. This is not that She is 'talking
down to our level'; it is a fact. In the Cosmos almost any aggregation
can think and act as an Ego. For instance, the cells of our bodies are
each units, diverse in composition and character, living each a life
of its own. Yet we think and act for them, and say "I". The stars are
the cells of Her Body. Each one of us is such a cell; not less itself
but more because of its secret function in Her.
It should be evident that Nuith obtains the satisfaction of Her Nature
when the parts of Her Body fulfil their own Nature. The sacrament of
live is not only so from the point of view of the celebrants, but from
that of the divinity invoked.
It is said that for every step one takes towards one's Holy Guardian
Angel, He takes two towards his client.
What do I mean by "beings divided by Illusion from Nuith", in the
first paragraph? This, that we are limited mentally, that we realize
only an infinitesimal fraction of the possible forms of expression. We
can hardly even imagine ourselves as living on another planet, or in
the Sun; much less as apprehending the Universe by means of a totally
different set of senses. Yet most of us who are not mere placental
amnoites possess an instinct which persistently regrets our
incapacities. It is bad enough to be dependent on scientific
instruments for our knowledge of all but the grossest of the wonders
and splendours of the Universe; but worse that we are aware of an
infinite variety of order of phenomena, such as electricity,
magnetism, chemical action, and a host of others, which we can explore
only by indirect means, interpret only by obviously inadequate
symbols, and understand only in terms of arbitrary relations with our
animal-sense-perceptions. We know theoretically that every object must
react to every other object; and it is evident that each type of
reaction may be as overwhelmingly interesting as those which happen to
affect us. What unimaginable rapture to be able to observe magnetic
fields or molecular movements as directly as we do the Ocean and the
Ant-heap! It is the task of the Initiate to adapt himself to the
Totality of Existence, and to develop in himself the means of
apprehending it wholly and fully.
AL I,14: "Above, the gemmed azure is
The naked splendour of Nuit;
She bends in ecstasy to kiss
The secret ardours of Hadit.
The winged globe, the starry blue,
Are mine, O Ankh-af-na-khonsu!"
THE OLD COMMENT
14. This verse is a direct translation of the first section of the
stele. It conceals a certain secret ritual of the highest rank,
connected with the two previous verses.
THE NEW COMMENT
This is a poetic description of the symbolism of the Stele. It is
suitable fore such minds as approach Truth in this manner rather than
by way of Science or Philosophy.
It contains a Formula of Magick Art, connected with the Stele. Also,
less ineffably, it boasts the consummation of the marriage of Hadit
and Nuit in the priest. That is, he has freed Hadit, in the core of
his Star, from the illusion-veils of the Khu, so that the two
Infinities become one, and none; and create, in the manner shortly to
be described, a new Finite.
This Finite will evidently be an expression of the particular mood of
its Father and Mother at the moment of its conception. Obviously, this
"Child" cannot add to the Universe; it is therefore inevitably twin
(Horus and Harpocrates, Osiris and Typhon, Jesus and Barabbas) in
Nature, formed of equal and opposite elements. When the Operation is
mystical in character, the "Child" does not appear at all in this
manifested form as Two, but as Naught. In the consciousness of the
Adept, this is called Samadhi. He has united himself with, and lost
himself in, Nuit. When the "Child" appears as Two, it is Magick, as
the other is Mysticism. This is the essential difference between these
Arts.
AL I,15: "Now ye shall know that the chosen priest & apostle of
infinite space is the prince-priest the Beast; and in his woman called
the Scarlet Woman is all power given. They shall gather my children
into their fold: they shall bring the glory of the stars into the
hearts of men."
THE OLD COMMENT
15. The authority of the Beast rests upon this verse; but it is to be
taken in conjunction with certain later verses which I shall leave to
the research of students to interpret. I am inclined, however, to
believe that "the Beast" and "the Scarlet Woman" do not denote
persons, but are titles of office, that of Hierophant and High
Priestess ( Vau and Gimel ), else it would be difficult to understand
the next verse.
THE NEW COMMENT
The definition of "infinite space" offered in the Comment on verse
13c113 is useful here. My Work is in great part to insist upon the
infinite possibilities of human development. Man has too slavishly
acquiesced in his limitations. Science itself has shewn itself almost
as intolerant as Religion toward certain lines of research. Indeed,
every element of society has added its energy to the opposition which
bars each pioneer with undiscriminating stupidity. Darwin, Pasteur,
Lister, and Jenner met with the same ferocious cowardice as Shelly and
Luther; they were assailed on every ground from Religion and Morality
upwards; every falsehood that malice could invent was circulated about
them. In short, they were treated then as I am being treated now; and
I am resolute to prosecute my Work now as they were resolute then.
That which is beneath is like that which is above. The Beast and the
Scarlet Woman are avatars of Tao and Teh, Shiva and Sakti. This Law is
then an exact image of the Great Law of the Cosmos; this is an
assurance of its Perfection.
It is necessary to say here that The` Beast appears to be a definite
individual; to wit, the man Aleister Crowley. But the Scarlet Woman is
an officer replaceable as need arises. Thus to this present date of
writing, Anno XVI, Sun in Sagittarius, there have been several holders
of the title.
1. Rose Edith Crowley nee Kelly, my wife. Put me in touch with Aiwas;
see Equinox 1, 7, "The Temple of Solomon the King." Failed as
elsewhere is on record.
2. A doubtful case. Mary d'Este Sturges nee Dempsey. Put me in touch
with Abuldiz; hence helped with Book 4. Failed from personal
jealousies.
3. Jeanne Robert Foster nee Oliver. Bore the "child" to whom this Book
refers later. Failed from respectability.
4. Roddie Minor. Brought me in touch with Amalantrah. Failed from
indifference to the Work.
5. A doubtful case, Marie Rohling nee Lavroff. Helped to inspire Liber
CXI. Failed from indecision.
6. A doubtful case, Bertha Almira Prykryl nee Bruce. Delayed
assumption of duties, hence made way for No. 7.
7. Lea Hersig. Assisted me in actual initiation; still at my side, An
XVII, Sol in Sagittarius. (P.S. & An XIX, Sol in Aries).
"Prince-priest" is an unusual word, and not in tone with other
references to me. I suspect therefore a secret cipher of some sort.
For one thing, it is an anagram of PRINCEPS ITER, not bad for Alastor
the Wanderer, or PRINCIPS ERIT, he shall be the chief (see verse
23c123). But such Qabalah is hardly to be considered serious. The
recurrence of the letters PRI is however curious and may be
significant. The combination PR in most Aryan Languages gives the idea
of "Before." P and R are the letters of Mars and Sol respectively. Now
Mars is referred to the number 5, and Sol to the number 6; both to the
idea "Force and Fire", though in different ways. Now "Force and Fire"
is the attribute of Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Lord of the Aeon; and 5 and 6 are
mystically mated to represent the Accomplishment of the Great Work in
Abrahadabra, the Word of the Aeon. (See, for this Word, infra
Qabalistic Appendix). The termination ST is the coronal combination
XXXI which we shall notice often enough later on.
The Beast, besides 666 correspondences, is by English sound, the Magus
(Beth, Mercury, etc.) of this ST. S has in the Tarot the card numbered
XX, which represents the Stele of Revealing, and is called the
Judgment; i.e., the ending of an Aeon. T has the card numbered XI and
is called Strength. It is the card of Leo and represents Babalon and
the Beast conjoined.
"Their fold"; not only a sheepfold, but as if it were written "their
embrace".
AL I,16: "For he is ever a sun, and she a moon. But to him is the
winged secret flame, and to her the stooping starlight."
THE OLD COMMENT
15. In II, 16c216, we find that HAD is to be taken as 11 (see II, 16,
comment). Then Hadit = 421, Nuit = 466.
421 - 3 (the moon) = 418
466 + 200 (sun) = 666
These are the two great numbers of the Qabalistic system that enabled
me to interpret the signs leading to this revelation.
The winged secret flame is Hadit; the stooping starlight is Nuit;
these are their true natures, and their functions in the supreme
ritual referred to above.
THE NEW COMMENT
The sun and moon, in their occult sense, are secondary representatives
of this original duality which is a phase of the Qabalistic Zero.
Other correspondences are Yun {SIC, s.b. "Yang" ?WEH} and Yin, Yod and
He, etc. But most such dualities have been conceived in very gross and
unphilosophical forms. Of course, it is impossible to grasp this
subject properly by reason; only the understanding developed by
meditation and spiritual experience avails. Initiation is
pantomorphously progressive.
Note that the Secret Divine Letter ShT which is the key of this book
is by shape the Sun united with the Moon C = Sh, O = t CO = Sht. {WEH
NOTE: Elsewhere Crowley calls this sign "the secret sigil of the
Beast" and it is depicted by a crescent attached to the left side of a
circle. Sometimes the circle is dotted. Sometimes the Greek lower case
letters sigma-theta are written connectively for this (vide. Liber
MCCLXIV, value 209, first edition, OTONL-6 and note 28).}
AL I,17: "But ye are not so chosen."
THE OLD COMMENT
17. "Ye" refers to the other worshippers of Nuit, who must seek out
their own election.
THE NEW COMMENT
That is, there is a special incarnation of Nuit and Hadit for the
Beast and the Scarlet Woman, as opposed to the general truth that
every man and woman are images of these ineffable Beings.
Note that a woman, having no soul of her own, can be used always as a
'Form' for any Being. This explains why Nuit can incarnate at will in
successive women, careless of the physical limits of life. {WEH NOTE:
Crowley's opinion regarding the soul-less state of women refers to a
matter of expression. He believed it more generally, but probably
based it on Victorian male conceptions of "unliberated women". The
Comment to this and the previous verse may say more about the
defensive insecurity of Crowley the man than the verses of Liber AL.
In Chapter I Comment, remember that all this is a male mind trying to
contemplate the revelations of a goddess. Square peg and round hole
problems may arise.}
I feel a certain necessity to explain that an 'avatar' implies rather
a release from the limits of personality than anything else. The
Scarlet Woman and I are peculiarly representative of Nuit and Hadit by
virtue of our attainments in making our consciousness omniform as They
re. It must not be supposed that our original individualities can
claim any special prerogatives as such.
AL I,18: "Burn upon their brows, o splendrous serpent!"
THE OLD COMMENT
18. The serpent is the symbol of divinity and royalty. It is also a
symbol of Hadit, invoked upon them.
THE NEW COMMENT
For the images in this and the next verse see the Stele of Revealing,
to which they allude.
The Serpent is the Uraeus, with the powers of Life and Death, wise,
ecstatic, immortal; winged and hooded, that he may go as a god swiftly
and silently. It refers in this place especially to Hadit.
# $k + AL I,19: "O azure-lidded woman, bend upon them!"
THE OLD COMMENT
19. Nuit herself will overshadow them.
THE NEW COMMENT
These two verses 18, 19, seem to be interpolated by Aiwaz, invoking
the Gods to The Beast and The Scarlet Woman, perhaps as a formal
Consecration.
AL I,20: "The key of the rituals is in the secret word which I have
given unto him."
THE OLD COMMENT
20. This word is perhaps ABRAHADABRA, the sacred word of 11 letters.
THE NEW COMMENT
For this word see Appendix {WEH NOTE: The Appendix has not yet been
recovered. Kenneth Grant, in his "Magical and Philosophical
Commentaries ..." pp. 105-108 has a lengthy extension here. The
providence of the extension is not definitely known to be Crowley at
this writing, hence cannot be included here.}. ABRAHADABRA is "The key
of the rituals" because it expresses the Magical Formulae of uniting
various complementary ideas; especially the Five of the Microcosm with
the Six of the Macrocosm.
AL I,21: "With the God & the Adorer I am nothing: they do not see me.
They are as upon the earth; I am Heaven, and there is no other God
than me, and my lord Hadit."
THE OLD COMMENT
21. Refers to the actual picture on the stele. Nuit is a conception
immeasurably beyond all men have even thought of the Divine. thus she
is not the mere star-goddess, but a far higher thing, dimly veiled by
that unutterable glory.
This knowledge is also to be attained by adepts; the outer cannot
reach to it.
THE NEW COMMENT
The importance of this verse lies in the assertion of the metaphysical
entity of Our Lady, Her incomprehensibility to normal sense.
The Method of invoking Nuit is given in Liber XI (see Equinox I, VII).
Note the initials of God and Adorer GA, the Earth.
Note that Heaven is not a place where Gods Live; Nuit is Heaven,
itself. And "Heaven" is of course "a place wherein one may fulfil
oneself", conformably to the definition of Nuit as Space previously
offered.
AL I,22: "Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name Nuit, and to him
by a secret name which I will give him when at last he knoweth me.
Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also
thus. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between
any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."
THE OLD COMMENT
22. A promise -- not yet fulfilled. P.S. since (An V) fulfilled) A
charge to destroy the faculty of discriminating between illusions.
THE NEW COMMENT
We have here a further conception of the cosmographical scheme. Nuit
is All that which exists, and the condition of that existence. Hadit
is the Principle which causes modifications in this Being. This
explains how one may call Nuit Matter, and Hadit Motion, in the
highest physico-philosophical sense of those terms.
We are asked to axquiesce in this Law of Nature. That is, we are not
to oppose resistance to the perfect fluidity of the "Becoming" of
Nature. Similarly, we are not to attach more importance to any one
momentary appearance than to any other.
For, the moment we do so, we confirm illusion of Duality. We assert
Imperfection as absolute instead of as a device of Perfection for
self-appreciation.
The Secret name was revealed in the Sahara desert -- see Liber 418, 12
Aethyr, Equinox I, V, Suppl. pp. 82-87.
This question of making "no difference" as ordained is to regard the
whole of the non-Ego or universe apparently external to the Self as a
single phenomenon; Samadhi on any one thing becomes therefore Samadhi
on The Whole. The mystic who "availeth in this" can then perform his
Great Work of "love under will" in a single operation instead of being
obliged to unite himself with the non-Ego piecemeal. But see also the
Comment on verse 4c103, above.
Notice the word "hurt", from he French "heurter", meaning to knock
against an obstacle. There is thus a strictly technical accuracy in
the choice of the term.
(Insert quotations from Essay of AN XIX March 31 - April 11 showing
how all is the same to Nuit, though not to partial views.)
AL I,23: "But whoso availeth in this, let him be the chief of all!"
THE OLD COMMENT
23. The chief, then, is he who has destroyed this sense of duality.
THE NEW COMMENT
This chief is of course no more or less than others. The limitations
of our dualistic language obscure the meaning of these loftier Words.
Chieftainship is to be understood as one of the illusions; but, in
respect of that plane, a fact. The facts of Nature are perfectly true
in so far as their mutual relation is concerned; their invalidity
refers only to their total relation with the philosophical canon of
Truth.
The word "all" is not to be taken as elliptical for "all men"; it
means that such an one is completely master of his universe. For when
one has become indifferent to phenomena, and accepts any one of them
as necessary, indeed as an essential part of the whole, he has made
himself Lord of the Whole as such. In fact, it is obvious on quite
rational grounds that this must be the case. My discrimination between
artichokes and arsenic puts me at the mercy of a million
circumstances, from my cook to my wife.
AL I,24: "I am Nuit, and my word is six and fifty."
THE OLD COMMENT
24. Nu = 6 + 50 = 56.
THE NEW COMMENT
One must observe the special significance of these numbers, not only
conjoined, but separate. For 6, Vau, is the Bull; and 50, Nun, the
Scorpion. But 6 is also the number of the Sun, our Star. The N of Nu
is therefore the Dragon -- "Infinite Space" -- and V is "the Infinite
Stars" thereof. The ITH is the honorific termination representing Her
fulfilment of Creative Force. "I" being the Inmost Force, and "Th" its
Extension.
The Dragon in current symbolism refers to the North or Hollow of
Heaven; thus to the Womb of Space, which is the container and breeder
of all that exists.
Liber Aleph should be consulted for further information as to the
magical import of Scorpio and Taurus.
AL I,25: "Divide, add, multiply, and understand."
THE OLD COMMENT
25. Dividing 6/50 = 0.12.
0, the circumference, Nuit.
., the centre, Hadit.
1, the Unity proceeding, Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
2, the Coptic H, whose shape closely resembles the Arabic figure 2,
the breath of Life, inspired and expired. Human consciousness, Thoth.
Adding 50 + 6 = 56, Nu, and
Concentrating 5 + 6 = 11, Abrahadabra, etc.
Multiplying 50 x 6 = Shin, and Ruach Elohim, the Holy Spirit.
I am inclined to believe that there is a further mystery concealed in
this verse, possibly those of 418 and 666 again.
THE NEW COMMENT
See Qabalistic Appendix. {WEH NOTE: Appendix not yet recovered. K.
Grant, op. cit., adds several paragraphs here which appear to come
from Crowley. This is not provided in this text for lack of certainty
of the providence.}
AL I,26: "Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one: Who
am I, and what shall be the sign? So she answered him, bending down, a
lambent flame of blue, all-touching, all penetrant, her lovely hands
upon the black earth, & her lithe body arched for love, and her soft
feet not hurting the little flowers: Thou knowest! And the sign shall
be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the
omnipresence of my body."
THE OLD COMMENT
26. The prophet demanding a sign of his mission, it is promised; a
Samadhi upon the Infinite.
This promise was later fulfilled -- see "The Temple of Solomon the
King", which proposes to deal with the matter in its due season. (P.S.
It did so, vide Equinox I.)
THE NEW COMMENT
In the MSS., the last 5 words of this verse do not occur. The original
reading is 'the unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality'.
This phrase was totally beyond the comprehension of the scribe, and he
said mentally -- with characteristic self-conceit -- "People will
never be able to understand this." Aiwass then replied,
"Write this in whiter words. But go forth on."
He was willing that the phrase should be replaced by an equivalent,
but did not wish the dictation to be interrupted by a discussion at
the moment. it was therefore altered (a little later) to "the
omnipresence of my body."
It is extremely interesting to note that in the light of the cosmic
theory explained in the notes to verse 3c102 and 4c104, the original
phrase of Aiwass was exquisitely and exactly appropriate to his
meaning.
It take this opportunity of quoting from Professor Eddington, Op.
Cit., a passage which should make it perfectly clear that the
"mystical", "irrational", "paradoxical" conception of Nuit expressed
in this chapter has a parallel in the sober calculations of a
perfectly orthodox astronomer in the undeniably practical University
-- a poor thing, but mine own -- of Cambridge:
"Whenever there is matter there is action and therefore curvature; and
it is interesting to notice that in ordinary matter the curvature of
the space-time world is by no means insignificant. for example, in
water of ordinary density the curvature is the same as that of space
in the form of a sphere of radius 570,000,000 kilometers. The result
is even more surprising if expressed in time unites; the radius is
about half-an-hour.
"It is difficult to picture quite what this means; but at least we can
predict that a Globe of water 570,000,000 km. radius would have
extraordinary properties. Presumably there must be an upper limit to
the possible size of a globe of water. So far as I can make out a
homogeneous mass of water of about this size (and no larger) could
exist. It would have no centre, and no boundry, every point of it
being in the same position with respect to the whole mass as every
other point of it -- like points ion the surface of a sphere with
respect to the surface. Any ray of light after travelling for an hour
or two would come back to the starting point. Nothing could enter or
leave the mass, because there is no boundary to enter or leave by; in
fact, it is coextensive with space. There could not be any other world
anywhere else because there isn't an 'anywhere else'.
"The mass of this volume of water is not so great as the most moderate
estimates of the mass of the stellar system".
AL I,27: "Then the priest answered & said unto the Queen of Space,
kissing her lovely brows, and the dew of her light bathing his whole
body in a sweet-smelling perfume of sweat: O Nuit, continuous one of
Heaven, let it be ever thus; that men speak not of Thee as One but as
None; and let them speak not of thee at all, since thou art
continuous!"
THE OLD COMMENT
27 - 31. Here is a profound philosophical dogma, in a sense possibly
and explanation and Illumination of the propositions in "Berashith".
The dyad (or universe) is created with little pain in order to make
the bliss of dissolution possible. Thus the pain of life may be atoned
for by the bliss of death.
This delight is, however, only for the chosen servants of Nu.
Outsiders may be looked on much as the Cartesians looked on animals.
Yet, of course, this is only on the plane of Illusion. One must not
discriminate between the space marks. (P.S. The Crhistian is one who
has acquiesced in his own dishonour; a renegade from manhood).
THE NEW COMMENT
The physical description of the onset of this ecstasy refers to the
actual facts at the period of receiving this knowledge.
The attempt to resolve All into One is a philosophical blunder. It
explains nothing; neither how One came to be, nor how Two came to be.
The only sound conception is that of "Zero not extended" with a phase
of "Something" ("0 degree = X") which makes the answer to both
questions self-evident.
The idea "One" is intelligible enough as the result of the resolutions
of Two. But in itself it is meaningless because of the absence of any
co-ordinates. A point can heave no qualities except as it is related
to a second point. It is only 'high' if there be another which is
'low'. It cannot even be said to exist unless there be something which
does not exist.
Note the word 'continuous' repeated. It suggests the "continuum" of
modern mathematical philosophy.
On the other hand, the constitution of Nuit is 'atomic' (verse 26c126)
or discontinuous. She is in fact the reconciliation of these
contradictory ideas. It is important for us to grasp the philosophical
situation formally; and this demands a some-what close analysis. The
definitions of Cantorian and Dedekindian continuity should be sought
in Bertrand Russell, Op. Cit.; it is sufficient here to explain that
by the continuity of Nuit I conceive conditions similar to those of
the sphere of water described in the quotation in the note to verse
25c125. Any point in this sphere would be indistinguishable from any
other point in a certain sense; or at least the distinction might be
considered as arbitrary and illusory. Yet there is no reason why we
should not choose to fix our attention on any particular point or
system of points for the purpose of amusing ourselves -- analogously
to the explanation above put forward (notes on vv. 3c103 & 4c104) of
incarnation. The constitution of our illusion will evidently be
atomic. The facts that {...}, and that the subtraction of (a) the
inductive numbers, (b) the inductive numbers greater than n, (c) the
odd numbers, from {...} give respectively zero, n and {...} as the
result, do not interfere with the finite character of the relation
between n and n 1. The transfinite properties of {...} do not destroy
the atomic character of the series of which it is the sum.
Let us investigate the nature of existing ideas a little more closely.
First of all, Nuit, being the totality of possibilities of Form, is
not only one series, but the sum of all series. We are justified in
conceiving any collection of ideas soever as a homologous series, for
we have the right to choose the function which will serve to arrange
them as our design requires. To protest that such a choice is
arbitrary, fantastic or irrational is to assert the authority of some
self-appointed "normal mind" as absolute in Nature. The failure of
philosophers to transcend their own mental limitations has reduced all
their systems to circular arguments, and all their ontologies to
Solipsism, however elaborately they have endeavoured to to cloak the
fact with sophistries. You cannot tie a true knot in a cord with a
closed circuit. All knowledge is relative to the mind which contains
it.
Consider "incommensurable" numbers, such as 1 and 2. This coy surd is
insensible to the fascinations of the deftest Dedekindian Cult. It may
be approached within limits as narrow as we choose to appoint; yet
there remains a "great gulf fixed" which is utterly impassable. The
surd is simply not in the series; you might as well try to find
Consciousness by making microtome sections of the brain. Yet the
relation between 1 and 2 is perfectly clear and simple; there is no
incommensurability about it at all. It is (for one thing) the ratio of
the hypoteneuse of a right-angled isoceles triangle to one of the
other sides, in Euclidian geometry. The difficulty of commensuration
can exist only in minds obsessed by the atavistic necessity of
counting cowries or wives on the fingers.
Let me then maintain that such collections as "The thoughts of a man's
lifetime" constitute a series in the same sense as the inductive
numbers. This collection conforms perfectly with Peano's 'ideas' and
'proposition'. Every thought is a thing in itself; it is determined by
its predecessors and determines its successors; it is concatenated
with them by 'psychological time'. Briefly, it fulfils every condition
required by the definition. (The 'recurrenee' of a thought is no
objection, for the identity is superficial, like that of a digit in a
long decimal. "My aunt", whom I now think of, is not the aunt I
thought of last year, any more than the 4 in the second place of .0494
is the same as that in the fourth place.)
Any thought in this series possesses a chain of sub-thoughts which
connect it with its neighbours; these may be discovered by the proper
psychological methods. "The Words of the insane are mountain-tops";
two successive thoughts may be compared to two snow summits rising
above cloud-banks; they are not isolated, but joined by certain
geologically necessary formations. But each pair of such sub-thoughts
may be similarly investigated, and so on ad infinitum. Each thought is
inevitably itself, although it is related to all other possible
thoughts. There are not two thoughts of which we can say that one
either merges into, or necessarily begets, the other. Any series of
thoughts is therefore a true inductive series, exactly as the "natural
numbers" are, with the added properties that it is real and omniform.
It is atomic, its elements being intrinsically individual; and yet a
continuum, since its intervals are susceptible of subdivision
indefinitely prolonged without producing any diminution of these
properties of the original series. The difference between successive
thoughts and successive numbers is that by inserting r terms between p
and q -- p:p : p 2 : --- p (2 -1) : q -- we apparently approximate the
members, so that p-q (p 2)-(p ); while the sub-thoughts which
intervene between my impression on waking "A fine frosty morning" and
my reaction "I'll go skating" come to me from very various departments
of my mind, and no two of them are in any way more closely connected
than their culmination in consciousness is to its forerunner. But this
difference is in reality an illusion born of the obsession already
diagnosed; 2 is nearer to 1 and to 3 than 3 is to 1 only in respect of
one particular function. Full comprehension of the true nature of
number, as conceived by this Book, should enable the mind to transcend
its "normal" trammels.
It will no doubt be objected that these speculations, even if correct,
are sterile; or, even worse, discouraging to that study of the
relations between phenomena which has been the basis of all advance in
knowledge.
I might deny the reality of the progress, since it has only exposed
the self-contradictions, and emphasized the mysteries, which beset us.
But I prefer to take my stand on the ground that we have been totally
wrong, hitherto, in our fundamental attitude to the Universe. The only
possible issue from the vicious circle wherein we are penned is to
refuse resolutely to allow ourselves to accept (1) the evidence of our
senses, (2) the pleadings of our minds, (3) the reactions between
phenomena as tokens of Truth. All objects are equally capable of
conveying any given impression to us; it is merely a question of
arranging the conditions of the experiments. We can add or subtract
any conceivable quality at will. Thus, "there is no difference"; and
each existence is inscrutably itself. We are only the more deceived as
it multiplies its Protean projections.
Our proper course is to destroy the instruments of perception which we
at present possess, recognizing that they are no more than personal
prejudices which limit and delude us in every way. Our senses assure
us that the earth is flat, and that the Sun moves across it, until we
amend their assertions by the aid of instruments, and of reason. Yet
the astronomer with his telescope is no less arbitrary than the
cave-man with his eye. We are like the Snark in the Barrister's dream,
witnesses, lawyers, and judge in one. We have no standard independent
or ourselves; and we know only too well that our witnesses, the
senses, are neither competent, clear, trustworthy, intelligent, or
even capable of giving evidence on the actual issues.
The mid is in even worse plight. Obviously, its judgments must be
based on its own laws, and we have no shadow of reason for supposing
that these possess any authority beyond their own jurisdiction. We
know that the Structure of the brain has been determined by the animal
struggle to survive: it is adapted to the conditions of environment.
It is the serf of brute passions, the ape of atavism, the dupe of
sense, and the automaton of accident. We have no right to assert that
its internal reactions correspond to the external world in any way
whatever. Officially recognized thinkers are only just beginning to
realize what mystics have known since the Morning Star glimmered
through the haze on the horizon of History, that the Laws of Thought
are only expressions of the bondage of the thinker. Apart from the
dependence of mind upon the unreliable, symbolically communicated, and
fragamentary affidavits of sense, apart from the imperfections
inseparable from its origin, our judgments are necessarily no more
than representations of the consistency of one part of our internal
structure with another. We cannot lift ourselves by pulling at our
toes. We now know that our most fixed axioms are as arbitrary as a
madman's delusions. There is nothing to prevent a man from asserting
that "Things which are both equal to the same thing are both greater
than each other" and constructing a geometry conformable thereto:
neither by reasoning nor by experience could it be proved that his
system was not the "truth" of Nature. More, the word "truth" itself
has proved on analysis to contain no intelligible significance, but to
be an empirical symbol of what can only be described as symptoms of
cerebral inadequacy.
Still worse, even so far as the conclusions of reason express the
relations of an animal with itself, they disclose not the consistency
which is the test of the fulfilment of this limited function, but an
inherent self-contradition which shatters the validity of the entire
process. For the "Law of Contradiction" is the Court of final Appeal
which has been the authority for every step. I quote once more from
the Hon. Bertrand Russell, Op. Cit.:
"The comprehensive class we are considering, which is to embrace
everything, must embrace itself as one of its members. In other words,
if there is such a things as "everything", then "everything" is
something, and is a member of the class "everything". But normally a
class is not a member of itself. Mankind, for example, is not a man.
Form now the assemblage of all classes which are not members of
themselves. This is a class: is it a member of itself or not? If it
is, it is one of those classes that are not members of themselves,
i.e. it is a member of itself. Thus of the two hypotheses -- that it
is, and that it is not, a member of itself -- each implies its
contradictory. This is a contradiction, similar contradictions ad
lib." {WEH NOTE: I'm sorry. I just can't keep shut. This is just the
bloody fallacy of FOUR TERMS!}
This author, perhaps the mightiest mind of its type now living,
proceeds gallantly to go "over the top". But he is always, sooner or
later, drowned in the "blood" of a new contradiction, or the "mud" of
mystery. He finds himself constantly compelled to assume some axiom
which has been proved to be incapable of being proved, or crushed by
the certainty that even in the event of his proving all his
propositions, the sum of their statement amounts to this, that, so far
as he is anybody or anything, he is himself.
Professor Eddington, in the masterly exposition of modern thought
already quoted, presents, clearly enough, the case against supposing
that any phenomenon soever is a "fact" in any absolute sense.
Each account of it must be incomplete, symbolic, and variable with the
position and faculties of the observer.
"By his theory of relativity, Albert Einstein has provoked a
revolution of thought in physical science."
"The achievement consists essentially in this: -- Einstein has
succeeded in separating far more completely than hitherto the share of
the observer and the share of external nature in the things we see
happen. The perception of an object by an observer depends on his own
situation and circumstances; for example, distance will make it appear
smaller and dimmer. We make allowance for this almost unconsciously in
interpreting what we see. But it now appears that the allowance made
for the motion of the observer has hitherto been too crude, -- a fact
overlooked because in practice all observers share nearly the same
motion, that of the earth. Physical space and time are found to be
closely bound up with this motion of the observer; and only an
amorphous combination of the two is left inherent in the external
world. When space and time are relegated to their proper source -- the
observer -- the world of nature which remains appears strangely
unfamiliar; but it is in reality simplified, and the underlying unity
of the principal phenomena from this new outlook have, with one
doubtful exception, been confirmed when tested by experiment."
I must confess that I was amazed with every amazement when so the the
eminent astronomer failed to follow up this brilliant outburst by
turning the devastation of his artillery upon the ramparts of the
citadel whose outlying defenses he had shattered with such stupendous
thunderbolts. Now came it that the very act of detecting so subtly,
and removing so skillfully, the mote in his neighbour's eye, did not
suggest to him that he might be incommoded by the beam of his own?
Aware of the errors introduced into his calculations by the
comparatively steady, regular, and imperceptible motion of his
earth-borne body, how not to be stricken aghast to contemplate the
possible consequences of taking, as a fixed and absolute point for the
base of his triangulations, and unknown and uncontrollable engine in
violent, erratic and incalculable action, neither to be mastered nor
measured, his mind? Who dare presume to set limits to the
eccentricities of a brain which is the logical conclusion for a
love-harried, witch-burning, god-fearing, fox-hunting, cannibal ape,
spice with tubercle, syphilis, insanity and the rest of the poisons
for one premise and an unintelligible and accidental environment for
the other? Is not every thought determined, and its validity
indeterminable, especially by its owner? Who then shall decide what
"trustworthy reasoning" may mean?
At the very least, we must eliminate as far as possible very obvious
source of error, such as personality (in particular) involves. But
further, we must regulate the motion of the mind, control it, bring it
to a standstill. It may be -- I know that it is -- that as soon as
thought is prevented from bewildering us with its torrential turmoil,
we may become aware that we posses a subtler and steadier organ of
apprehension. This is in fact one of the principal points of
initiation.
AL I,28: "None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and
two."
THE NEW COMMENT
Now appears the plain statement of the Perfect Metaphysick. It may be
as well to quote the essential passages from 'Bereshith' in connexion
with this matter.
"I ASSERT THE ABSOLUTENESS OF THE QABALISTIC ZERO."
When we say that the Cosmos sprang from 0, what kind of 0 do we mean?
By 0 in the ordinary sense of the term we mean "absence of extension
in any of the categories".
When I say "No cat has two tails" I do not mean, as the old fallacy
runs, that "Absense-of-cat possesses two tails"; but that "In the
category of two-tailed things, there is no extension of cat".
Nothingness is that about which no positive proposition is valid. We
cannot truly affirm: "Nothingness is green, or heavy, or sweet".
Let us call time, space, being, heaviness, hunger, the categories. If
a man be heavy and hungry, he is extended in all these, besides, of
course, many more. But let us suppose these five are all. Call the man
X; his formula is then
t s b h h
X . If he now eat he will cease to be extended in hunger; if he be cut
off from time and gravitation as well, he will now be represented by
the formula
s b
X . Should he cease to occupy space and to exist, his formula would
then be
0
X . This expansion is equal to 1; whatever X may represent, if it be
raised to the power of 0 (this meaning mathematically "If it be
extended in no dimension or category"), the result is Unity, and the
unknown factor X is eliminated.
Now if there was in truth 0, "before the beginning of years", THAT 0
WAS EXTENDED IN NONE OF THE CATEGORIES, FOR THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO
CATEGORIES IN WHICH IT COULD EXTEND! If our 0 was the ordinary 0 of
mathematics, there was not truly absolute 0, for 0 is, as I have
shown, dependent on the idea of categories. If these existed, then the
whole question is merely thrown back; we must reach a state in which 0
is absolute. Not only must we get rid of all subjects, but of all
predicates. By 0 (in mathematics) we really mean 0 to the n, where n
is the final term of a natural scale of dimensions, categories, or
predicates. Our Cosmic Gee, then, from which the present universe
arose, was Nothingness, extended in no categories, or, graphically, 0
to the 0. This expression is in its present form meaningless. Let us
discover its value by a simple mathematical process.
0 1-1
0 = 0 = 01/01 ( Multiply by 1 = n/n ) Then 01/n x n/01 = 0 x infinity
Now the multiplying of the infinitely great by the infinitely small
results in SOME UNKNOWN FINITE NUMBER EXTENDED IN AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF
CATEGORIES. It happened, when this our Great Inversion took place,
from the essence of all nothingness to finity extended in innumerable
categories, that an incalculably vast system was produced. Merely by
chance, chance in he truest sense of the term, we are found with gods,
men, stars, planets, devils, colours, forces, and all the materials of
the cosmos; and with time, space, and causality, the conditions
limiting and involving them all.
Remember that it is not true to say that our 0 to the 0 existed; nor
that it did not exist. The idea of existence was just as much
unformulated as that of toasted cheese.
But 0 to the 0 is a finite expression, or has a finite phase, and our
universe is a finite universe; its categories are themselves finite,
and the expression "infinite space" is a contradiction it terms. The
idea of an absolute and of an infinite God is relegated to the limbo
of all similar idle and pernicious perversions of truth. Infinity
remains; but only as a mathematical conception as impossible in nature
as the square root of -1."
This passage was written in 1902, E.V., before the revelation of the
Law. It remains true that 'infinite space is a contradiction in
terms', and so on; but this is no argument against the Cosmogeny of
this Book. For above the Abyss every idea soever is necessarily a
contradiction in terms; see Liber 418 for the demonstration of this.
There is much more on these points in Liber Aleph, and in "The Urn".
"Breathed" and "light" are highly significant words, implying the
duality of creation in breath -- inspiration and expiration -- and
that of vibratory light; while breath is also Aleph, whose card is
numbered Zero; and Light is L.V.X. 120, the Rosy Cross, wherein the
Positive is dissolved in the Negative.
# $k + AL I,29: "For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of
union."
THE NEW COMMENT
I quote from "The Book of Lies (falsely so-called)".
THE OYSTER
The Brothers of A\A\ are one with the
Mother of the child.
The Many is as adorable to the One as the
One is to the Many. This is the Love
of These: creation-parturition is the
Bliss of the One; coition-dissolution
is the Bliss of the Many.
The All, thus interwoven of These, is Bliss.
Naught is beyond Bliss.
The Man delights in uniting with the Woman;
the Woman in parting from the child
The Brothers of A\A\ are Women; the Aspirants
to A\A\ Are Men."
In order to have Motion one must have Change. In fact, one must have
this in order to have anything at all. Now this Change is what we call
Love. thus "love under will" is the Law of Motion. The re-entrant
character of this Motion is difficult to conceive; but the Aspirant is
urged to try to assimilate the idea. A Hindu might compare the Cosmic
process to a churn which out of milk made butter to feed a
milk-producing woman, every step in the cycle being a Progress of Joy.
Time is necessarily created by us in order to make room for the
apparent existence of the duality which we devise for the presentation
of unity, or nihility.
"Two things" must evidently exist either in two places, or at two
times, or both; else they would be indistinguishable.
Two phenomena which differ in time would be considered simultaneous if
separated in space so that our observation of the former were delayed,
for several reasons; and it is fairly easy to realize the possibility.
But it seems as if separation in space were somehow more intractable.
I can see no priori reason for this distinction; I think it arises
from the fact that space is directly presented to our senses, while
time is proper to the mental apprehension of impressions.
Our universe is (after all) in one place, so far as we are concerned,
i.e., in our sensoria, so that any two impressions can only be
registered by us as consecutive. Even when we are aware of their
simultaneity, we are compelled to place them in sequence. Our
sensorium makes no distinction between concrete and abstract ideas in
this respect. Sensory impressions and general ideas are equally grist
for the mill. But we make a distinction between our record of events
whose sequence is a necessary part of our comprehension of them, and
those which are independent of our history. We insist on the sequence
of school and college, but our general judgments are recognized as
independent of time. This is peculiarly the case with our idea of the
Ego, which we instinctively regard as if it were eternal and
unchanging, though in fact it grows and decays continually. Yet we
think of the incidents of boyhood as having occurred to the Ego,
forming part of its character.
Now since this Ego is only conscious by virtue of having formulated
itself, or the Universe (as it happens to view the case), in the form
of Duality, and since all the experiences of the Ego are necessary to
it, as all phenomena soever are necessary, it is permissible to regard
the totality of the experience of the Ego as the presentation in
duality of a single simultaneous fact.
In other words, life is an attempt to realize one's own nature in
one's own soul.
The man who fails to recognize it as such is hopelessly bewildered by
the irrational character of the universe, which he takes to be real;
and he cannot but regard it as aimless and absurd. The adventures of
his body and mind, with their desires for material and moral
well-being, are obviously as foredoomed to disaster as Don Quixote's.
He must be a fool if he struggles on (against inexorable fate) to
obtain results which he knows can only end in catastrophe, a climax
the more bitter as he clings the more closely to his impossible
ideals.
But once he acquiesces in the necessity of the course of events, and
considers his body and mind as no more than the instruments which
interpret himself to himself by means of dualistic presentation, he
should soon acquire a complete indifference to the nature of the
incidents which occur to him.
It is not surprising that these incidents should occur in an apparent
disorderly sequence any more than that the coours of a picture, or the
words of a story, should not be disturbed according to an a priori
classification, as in a Lexicon or a colourman's catalogue. His task
as a connoisseur is to recognize the idea of the artist, and this he
can only do by appreciation of the complete work. he must analyze the
assemblage of elements, and assign the correct value to each,
comprehending the intention of each relative to the finished design.
It will be said that nobody can realize himself so long as the
presentation is imperfect, that is, so long as he is incarnated. This
is no doubt true in all rigour; but one can obtain an approximation to
the intended self-knowledge by withdrawing for a time to the monistic
form of self-consciousness, which does not distinguish between the Ego
and the Non-Ego; in other words, by attaining Samadhi. But the first
experience of Samadhi will then naturally be an ecstasy devoid of name
or form, and containing no elements distinguishable as such; and we
know this to be the case. One has simply deprived oneself of the means
of expression, and all dual consciousness disappears, together with
its forms, time and space. One concludes from this that the Universe
is identical with the Ego, and all things dissolve into a formless
essence characterized by knowledge and bliss. But this early stage of
Samadhi is an illusion, a sort of drunken dizziness. (So in sexual
love, the ecstasy abolishes the Ego, apparently; it forgets that
duality was its cause, and must be equally real with itself, in one
sense or another). But subsequent Samadhi teaches the adept that his
universal instantaneous Unity exists as "None and Two"; and he learns
that his Samadhi is peculiar to himself as well as common to all.
He becomes able to experience the truth of the statements in the Book
of the Law, the nature of Nuith and Hadith, and of himself as a Star,
unique, individual, and eternal, but yet a part of the Body of Nuith,
and therefore identical with all other stars in that respect.
He realizes himself as the "bed in working" of Nuith and Hadit, as a
particular form assumed by the latter for the sake of Variety in his
"play" with the former; and he partakes in this play by his
self-realization, which he synthesizes from the "events of his life".
He understands that these events are the resultant of the Universe as
applied to him, so that his experience is equally unique and
universal, each star being the centre of the cosmos, and the Cosmos
applicable as a whole to each star.
The experiences of each angle of a triangle are common to all, for one
can express any relation as a function of any angle, at will. Each may
be taken as the starting-point of the study of the properties to the
triangle. But each angle is necessary to the triangle, and each is
equally important to its existence. Each is bound to the others, and
moreover each is in a sense illusory in respect of the triangle, which
is an idea, simple and ideal, whose unity is compelled to express
itself and manifest its properties by extension as a plane figure. For
no triangle can express the idea of a triangle. Any triangle must be
either equilateral, isosceles or scalene, either acute, right-angled,
or obtuse; and no one triangle can be all these at once; while the
idea of a triangle includes all these, and infinite other,
possibilities.
In a similar way, Nuith and Hadith include all possible forms of
existence; they can only realize Themselves by creating an infinite
variety of forms of Themselves, each one real as it is Their image,
illusory as it is a partial and divided aspect of Them.
Each such Star is intelligible to Them, as a poem is to its author as
a part of this soul mirrored by his mind. But it is not intelligible
to itself, because it has no relation with any other ideas; it only
knows itself as the babe of its mother Nuith, to whom it yearns, being
stirred by its father Hadith to express that instinctive attachment by
inarticulate cries.
To know itself, each such Star, or Soul, must eat of the Fruit of the
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, by accepting labour and pain as
its portion, and death as its doom. That is, it must reveal its nature
to itself by formulating that nature as duality. It must express
itself by a series of symbolic gestures ostensibly external to it,
just as a painter reveals one facet of his Delight-Diamond by covering
a canvas with colours in such a way that the picture seems at first
sight to represent something outside himself. It must, in fact, repeat
for itself the original Magick of Nuith and Hadith which created it.
As They made Themselves visible piecemeal by fashioning particular
Souls, expressing the Impersonal and Absolute Homogeneity by means of
Personal Relative Heterogeneity, so, not forgetting their true nature
as forms of the Infinite, whereby they are one with all, must the
stars devise methods of studying themselves.
They must make images of themselves, apparently external, and they
must represent their highly complex qualities in a duality involving
space and time. For each Star is of necessity related to every other
star, so that no influence is alien to its individuality; it must
therefore observer its reaction to every other star.
Just so are most chemical elements possessed of but few qualities
directly appreciable by our senses; we must learn their natures by
putting them into relation with the other Elements in turn. (Note well
that this knowledge were impossible unless there were a variety of
elements; so also the fact of our self-consciousness proves the
existence of individual souls; all related, all parts of the One Soul,
in one sense, but none the less independent in themselves, eternal
entities expressing particular elements of existence).
Each star is in itself immune and innocent; its proper consciousness
is monistic; it must therefore employ a body and mind as the
instruments for interpreting its relations with other souls, and
comparing its nature with theirs. For the mind perceives the contrast
of the Self and the not-Self, and presents its experiences, classified
and judged, to the soul as documents for the dossier; and the body
reports to the mind the impressions received from its contact with
alien forms as the senses receive them.
It must naturally require many incarnations for the soul to begin to
know itself with any degree of perfection; and one may recognize
advanced souls by their minds, which understand the a nature of their
work, are indifferent to the body's preference for any special forms
of experience, and seek eagerly after novel adventures (like a
philatelist after rare stamps) to complete the collection. They are
also as a rule both very careful and very careless about their bodily
welfare, taking pains to preserve their powers for the purpose of
gaining new experiences, but utterly indifferent to them as valuable
in themselves. They rule them with a rod of iron, and train them like
pugilists; but they risk them recklessly whenever the Work demands it.
It is important to understand the necessity of our present Universe.
Perfection could do not otherwise than create Imperfection. But was
there not original Imperfection? No; for Perfection is hardly more
than that original state, since we cannot conceive the total as
susceptible of addition.> This is another view of the God going
through the combinations, on a larger scale, and shows not only why He
does it, but why He must do it. But is not all this based on the
accident that I personally am bored by omniscience on any given
matter? Yes, but Imperfection is a fact, and a God whom Perfection did
not bore would not have created Imperfection. But why not suppose a
wicked God, or a foolish God? Things which seem to me wrong, or
stupid, are so because I am the sole judge. But these things are not
my creations, but those of other Gods. True, but those Gods are all
part of me, so far as I know them. So then, in my own nature are these
contrary Gods, which (as above said) I have created in myself to give
variety. You see that you cannot conceive these divers 'Gods without
conceiving also a Whole, in which the entire equation cancels out to
Naught. One cannot conceive it as a Unity, because 1 to the 0 power
like 1 to the first power, 1 to the 2nd power, etc., is only one, 1,
and cannot become 2 by reflection, as I thought 75 {WEH NOTE: Sic.
This is not possible and must be a typo in the TS. Grant Op. Cit.
gives "18".}years ago, because there is nothing else to reflect it, or
it could not be both All and One. (A heterogeneous One, with a mirror
in its All, would be two). Now Evil is only minus to anyone's Plus;
you cannot have an Evil to destroy the Whole (or we have Two again.)
Therefore no Evil can possibly do any harm; it can only be part of the
Play. The Whole is destroyed as soon as understood; that is, it is
conceived as zero to the zero power again; this then bursts forth in
some new combination, with no gain or loss except (perhaps ? ?) the
gain due to Time, as explained elsewhere. But in this case what is
Time? It is a fundamental condition of experience, to say nothing of
memory, so is necessary to the Finity Phase of zero to the zero power,
that is, to any Universe where change occurs. Is there any possible
connexion between two successive such Phases? No; they must be alike
in one respect that they each cancel out, so Balance is a necessary
principle. More so than time; for one could have a Samadhis Phase
which developed Nirvi-Kalpa instantly. But if no Time, then a Unity,
which could never become Naught; no such Phase is possible. Duality is
therefore the nature of any manifested Universe.
1 exists, true; but only by a fiction; for there is always a -1 to
cancel it. But we get the illusion of 1 when we add 1/2 to 1/2 or 1/3
to 2/3, etc., things -- each conscious of its fractional character --
seeking to be whole. Now the bigger any 'One' gets, the more conscious
it is of its "Minus One' wife, the more clearly it sees that 'One; is
illusion, and had better cancel out. The general process of Initiation
is therefore the same for all possible universes.
From the standpoint of Physics, the original Inertia expresses itself
as two complementary forms of Energy -- the small active Negative
Electron (Hadit) and the large passive Positive Electron (Nuit). (It
has recently been shown that the mass of Matter is zero). When these
satisfy each other, two phenomena occur: (1) their opposed equalities
cancel out to Zero. (Perhaps even to 0 to the 0 power, thus restoring
the original Indeterminate Nothing). (2) a "child" is born of the
union; i.e., a positive phenomenon is ;produced, whose nature is
entirely different from that of either of its 'parents'; for it is
finite, and possesses limitations and qualities of its own. Groups of
such primaeval units form the various kinds of 'atom', according to
the number and geometric disposition thereof. (This involves
projection in space and time, ideas which are not necessary to the
Electrons, they being simply ideas posited to serve as a basis for any
dualistic expression to which Zero may be equated, such as Being and
Form, Matter and Motion. We invent Space, Time, Sense-Impression, etc.
to enable us to distinguish between "experiences" to express our
conception of the multiplicity of the possibilities contained in the
Idea of Zero. Each human consciousness being a case of one particular
way of grouping elements, its conception of the Cosmos is limited by
the necessary relations of that group to other groups. It grows by
"union" with such groups, and is glad, partly because it satisfied its
Oedipus-complex by thus approaching Nuit, partly because it fulfils
its natural function of Creation.
AL I,30: "This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division
is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all."
THE NEW COMMENT
This verse is written for men who are still in division, and sore
about it; the pain is only in their idea of it. One should compare
this thought with the Freudian psychology, which regards all
separation from the 'Mother' as heroic but painful. But has a hero
really no compensations? Besides, separation is itself a relief, just
so soon as the strain becomes irksome, as in parturition.
As to "the joy of dissolution" the reference is to Samadhi, the trance
in which Subject and Object become one. In this orgiastic ecstasy is
experienced at first; later, the character of the consciousness
changes to continuously calm delight, and later still, the delight
deepens in a manner wholly indescribable. The technical terms used by
Oriental Initiates to denote these conditions are untranslatable; in
any case, they serve rather to darken counsel.
There is a Qabalistic aphorism concerning the words 'nothing' and
'all'; for this and similar matters see the Appendix. {WEH NOTE: The
Appendix has not yet been recovered}.
AL I,31: "For these fools of men and their woes care not thou at all!
They feel little; what is, is balanced by weak joys; but ye are my
chosen ones."
THE NEW COMMENT
All this talk about 'suffering humanity' is principally drivel based
on the error of transferring one's own psychology to one's neighbour.
The Golden Rule is silly. If Lord Alfred Douglas (for example) did to
others what he would like them to do to him, many would resent his
action.
The development of the Adept is by Expansion -- out to Nuit -- in all
directions equally. The small man has little experience, little
capacity for either pain or pleasure. The bourgeois is a clod. I know
better (at least) than to suppose that to torture him is either
beneficial or amusing to myself.
This thesis concerning compassion is of the most palmary importance in
the ethics of Thelema. It is necessary that we stop, once for all,
this ignorant meddling with other people's business. Each individual
must be left free to follow his own path. America is peculiarly insane
on these points. Her people are desperately anxious to make the
Cingalese wear furs, and the Tibetans vote, and the whole world chew
gum, utterly dense to the fact that most other nations, especially the
French and British, regard 'American institutions' as the lowest
savagery, and forgetful or ignorant of the circumstance that the
original brand of American freedom -- which really was Freedom --
contained the precept to leave other people severely alone, and thus
assured the possibility of expansion on his own lines to every man.
AL I,32: "Obey my prophet! follow out the ordeals of my knowledge!
seek me only! Then the joys of my love will redeem ye from all pain.
This is so: I swear it by the vault of my body; by my sacred heart and
tongue; by all I can give, by all I desire of ye all."
THE OLD COMMENT
32. The rule and purpose of the Order; the promise of Nuit to her
chosen.
THE NEW COMMENT
It is proper to obey The Beast, because His Law is pure Freedom, and
He will give no command which is other than a Right Interpretation of
this Freedom. But it is necessary for the development of Freedom
itself to have an organization; and every organization must have a
highly-centralized control. This is especially necessary in time of
war, as even the so-called 'democratic' nations have been taught by
Experience, since they would not learn from Germany. Now this age is
pre-eminently a 'time of war', most of all now, when it is our Work to
overthrow the slave-gods.
The injunction "seek me only" is emphasized with an oath, and a
special promise is made in connection with it. By seeking lesser
ideals one makes distinctions, thereby affirming implicitly the very
duality from which one is seeking to escape. Note also that "me" may
imply the Greek MH, "not". The word 'only' might be taken as
'{?Ayin-Lamed-Nun-Vau?}' with the number of 156, that of the Secret
Name BABALON of Nuith. There are presumably further hidden meanings in
the key-word 'all'.
AL I,33: "Then the priest fell into a deep trance or swoon, & said
unto the Queen of Heaven; Write unto us the ordeals; write unto us the
rituals; write unto us the law!"
THE OLD COMMENT
33. The prophet then demanded instruction; ordeals, rituals, law.
THE NEW COMMENT
Law, in the common sense of the word, should be a formulation of the
customs of a people, as Euclid's propositions are the formulation of
geometrical facts. But modern knavery conceived the idea of artificial
law, as if one should try to square the circle by tyranny. Legislators
try to force the people to change their customs, so that the "business
men" whose greed they are bribed to serve may increase their profits.
'Law' in Greek, is NOMOC, from NEM , and means strictly "anything
assigned, that which one has in use or possession"; hence "custom,
usage", and also "a musical strain". The literal equivalence of NEM
and the Latin NEMO is suggestive. In Hebrew, 'Law' is ThORA and
equivalent to words meaning "The Gate of the Kingdom" and "The Book of
Wisdom".
AL I,34: "But she said: the ordeals I write not: the rituals shall be
half known and half concealed: the Law is for all."
THE OLD COMMENT
34. The first demand is refused, or, it may be, is to be communicated
by another means than writing.
(It has since been communicated)
The second is partially granted; or, if fully granted, is not to be
made wholly public.
The third is granted unconditionally.
THE NEW COMMENT
The Ordeals are at present carried out unknown to the Candidate by the
secret Magick Power of The Beast. Those who are accepted by Him for
initiation testify that these Ordeals are frequently independent of
His conscious care. They are not, like the traditional ordeals,
formal, or identical for all; the Candidate finds himself in
circumstances which afford a real test of conduct, and compel him to
discover his own nature, to become aware of himself by bringing his
secret motives to the surface.
Some of the Rituals have been made accessible, that is, the Magical
Formulae have been published. See "The Rites of Eleusis", "Energized
Enthusiasm", "Book 4, Part III", "etc".
Note the reference to 'not' and 'all'. Also the word 'known' contains
the root GN, 'to beget' and 'to know'; while 'concealed' indicates the
other half of the Human Mystery.
AL I,35: "This that thou writest is the threefold book of Law."
THE OLD COMMENT
35. Definition of this book.
THE NEW COMMENT
The instruction to write for three days from noon to one o'clock each
day had already been given to The Beast. (See Preface to this
Commentary).
AL I,36: "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes,
shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he
shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
THE OLD COMMENT
36. The first strict charge not to tamper with a single letter of this
book.
The comment is to be written "by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit", i.e.,
by open, not initiated wisdom.
THE NEW COMMENT
Again we find the words Prince and Priest, but differently placed in
their phrase.
The Beast is here definitely identified with the priest of the 26th
Dynasty whose Stele forms the Pantacle (so to speak) of the new
Magick. He is moreover identified with the scribe. It is of immense
importance to the stability of the Law to have a Book not merely
verbally but literally inspired, so that even errors in spelling and
grammar have a secret significance. (That this must be so is
guaranteed by the literary preeminence and impeccable orthography of
the Beast as a man). But the great thing is the Standard to which all
disputes may be referred. It is also necessary to give weight to the
authority of The Beast, lest ignorance, folly, or cunning misinterpret
the text.
AL I,37: "Also the mantras and spells; the obeah and the wanga; the
work of the wand and the work of the sword; these he shall learn and
teach."
THE OLD COMMENT
37. An entirely new system of magic is to be learnt and taught, as is
now being done.
THE NEW COMMENT
Mantras may be defined as sentences proper to concentration of the
mind by virtue of their constant repetition. (See Book 4, Part I,
Chapter II).
Spells are methods of communicating the will to other beings. (See
Book 4, Part III).
The Obeah is the magick of the Secret Light with special reference to
acts; the wanga is the verbal or mental correspondence of the same.
The work of the wand is that of Union; of the sword, Division; these
correspond to the two Phases of the Cosmic cycle described above. (See
Book 4, Part II and III).
For the root OB (AVB = 9), see Appendix;{WEH NOTE: Appendix not yet
recovered} it may be connected with the word "Obey".
The "obeah" being the acts, and the "Wanga" the words, proper to
Magick, the two cover the whole world of external expression.
"The Equinox" and "Book 4" are full of instruction on all these
matters in great detail, and the student must make them his guide.
But I feel bound to observe that they must be studied merely as
classics, just as a musician studies Bach and Others. He cannot
compose by copying or combining their works; they serve him only as
indications of the art of expression. He must master the technique,
theory and practice, of music, til the general principles are
absorbed, and he has command of the language, to use it to express his
Will.
So with Magick; the student must understand and assimilate the basic
propositions, and he must be expert in the drill of the practical
details.
But that is merely ground-work: he must then conceive his own
expression, and execute it in his own style. Each star is unique, and
each orbit apart; indeed, that is the corner-stone of my teaching, to
have no standard goals or standard ways, no orthodoxies and no codes.
The stars are not herded and penned and shorn and made into mutton
like so many voters! I decline to be bellwether, who am born a Lion! I
will not be collie, who am quicker to bite than to bark. I refuse the
office of shepherd, who bear not a crook but a club.
Wise in your generation, ye sheep, are ye to scamper away bleating
when your ears catch my roar on the wind! Are ye not tended and fed
and protected -- until word come from the stockyard?
The lion's life for me! Let me live free, and die fighting!
Now one more point about the obeah and the wanga, the deed and the
word of Magick.
Magick is the art of causing change in existing phenomena. This
definition includes raising the dead, bewitching cattle, making rain,
acquiring goods, fascinating judges, and all the rest of the
programme. Good: but it also includes every act soever? Yes; I meant
it to do so. It is not possible to utter word or do deed without
producing the exact effect proper and necessary thereto. Thus Magick
is the Art of Life itself.
Magick is the management of all we say and do, so that the effect is
to change that part of our environment which dissatisfies us, until it
does so no longer. We "remould it nearer to the heart's desire."
Magick ceremonies proper are merely organized and concentrated
attempts to impose our Will on certain parts of the Cosmos. They are
only particular cases of the general law.
But all we say and do, however casually, adds up to more, far more,
than our most strenuous Operations. "Take care of the pence, and the
pounds will take care of themselves." Your daily drippings fill a
bigger bucket than your geysers of magical effort. The "ninety and
nine that safely lay in the shelter of the fold" have no organized
will at all; and their character, built of their words and deeds, is
only a garbage-heap.
Remember, also, that, unless you know what your true will is, you may
be devoting the most laudable energies to destroying yourself.
Re