Book of Law Study Group 1.48
Always Wondering
I am wondering about the significance of three one's.
As far as ox I can see that as a reference to Aleph and the Magus.
None has already been spoken about.
AW
As far as ox I can see that as a reference to Aleph and the Magus.
None has already been spoken about.
AW
Yygdrasilian
6th Magic Constant
1 1 0
Could it be true, that a Magus sometimes plays the Fool?
1 1 0
Could it be true, that a Magus sometimes plays the Fool?
Aeon418
0 = 2
Despite the rather self-serving remarks in Crowley's commentary, I tend to see this verse as a rebuke against Crowley's ingrained monotheism.
During the last couple of verses you can imagine Crowley forming a mental question. "But aren't all these different forms of nothing really just One?" The answer is a bit of a slap in the face.
"My prophet is a fool with his one, one, one; are not they the Ox, and none by the Book?"
It seems very counter intuitive, but what we normally tend to think of as the unitary "all is One", is actually 0 - None. Perception requires two things. A perceiver and an object of perception. When the perceiver and the object unite we tend to automatically think "they are one". But the act of union also destroys the faculty of perception, which depends on the existence of 2 things. Without perception even the concept of One disappears into Nothing.
Despite the rather self-serving remarks in Crowley's commentary, I tend to see this verse as a rebuke against Crowley's ingrained monotheism.
During the last couple of verses you can imagine Crowley forming a mental question. "But aren't all these different forms of nothing really just One?" The answer is a bit of a slap in the face.
"My prophet is a fool with his one, one, one; are not they the Ox, and none by the Book?"
It seems very counter intuitive, but what we normally tend to think of as the unitary "all is One", is actually 0 - None. Perception requires two things. A perceiver and an object of perception. When the perceiver and the object unite we tend to automatically think "they are one". But the act of union also destroys the faculty of perception, which depends on the existence of 2 things. Without perception even the concept of One disappears into Nothing.
Grigori
Aeon418 said:
Like AW this makes me think of the Fool (0) and its letter Aleph (1). Or 1=0. By the book of tarot, 1 = 0. Also reminds me of the three loops on the Fool card, sometimes said to represent the three veils, or the three nothings. None, none and none.
Aeon418
Lots of unmanifest possibilities and latent seed potential in that card waiting to be made manifest.similia said:
1:1 Had! The manifestation of Nuit.
Hadit is the root male principal behind existence who is never known. He is the phallic number 1 pushing outwards from the undifferentiated No-thing. He "sticks out" and "stands up". I'm sure you don't need a picture.
Elsewhere Hadit tells us that he is 8, the number of Mercury. The same planet as the Magus, which is card 1 but letter 2, Beth - House. This indicates a movement of force into form, manifestation, duality, and illusion.
Unexpressed it is the Fool - HPK. Expressed it is the Magus -RHK. (Think of the Golden Dawn neophyte signs.
)Note how both cards are hermaphrodite in nature. The Fool is passive (female) force (male). The Magus is force (male) transformed into form (female).
RLG
Dwtw
One of the difficulties with this verse is the word 'they'. What is it referring to? Does it refer to the two halves of the previous verse, which are to be united by 'thine art'? Or to the phrase 'one, one, one' singly, (or in conjunction with the word fool or Prophet)? Or does it refer to the 61 vs 8, 80, 400 & 18?
As to the third possibility, this was covered by Fr. Achad. he showed that 61 = AIN = nothing, therefore 'none'; while 8 + 80 + 418 = 506 = Heb. ShUR = Ox, (technically Bull), the name of the constellation Taurus.
while Achad's insight is valuable, it is important to remember that an Ox and a Bull are not the same beast at all.
But that notwithstanding, Achad's interpretation brings in the matter of Taurus, and this was attributed to the Hierophant and the letter Vav, with a value of 6. so this might be linked with my previous discussion of the first of the two possibilities:
If the esoteric meaning of VIII = 80 = 400 = XVIII produces the sum of 610, while the exoteric meaning of 8 + 80 + 418 = 506, then the sum of these two interpretations is 610 + 506 = 1116.
Now 1116 is not only 12 x 93, but it could be considered - symbolically- to represent the letter Alef spelled in full, thus 111, and the letter Vau, thus 6. This would then be referred to as the 'Ox and none', and would then be an interpretation of the first possibility, namely, that the word 'they' refers to the number-words mentioned in verse 1:46.
Another argument for the number 1116 being significant is that it can be the result of using Nuit's formula given in vv. 1:24-25. She says that her word is 'six and fifty', and that we should then 'divide, add, multiply and understand'.
let's use the formula on both numbers:
Divide 6 and 50 into their divisors:
6 = 1, 2, 3
50 = 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50
then Add these divisors:
1 + 2 + 3 + 6 = 12
1 + 2 + 5 + 10 + 25 + 50 = 93
then Multiply these two sums:
12 x 93 = 1116
Therefore 1116 is a legitimate solution to the puzzle of vv. 1:24-25
And having this number in hand we can see how it can easily be - symbolically - a number that refers to the prophet. If the prophet is a fool with his 'one, one, one,' and the word 'they' refers to BOTH 111 and the Prophet, (i.e., the second possibility mentioned above), then the number 1116 could be split up as 111 x 6 = 666, thus giving us the number of the Prophet, Therion.
(These of course are only symbolically connected, as the number 1116 is not related to the number 666 mathematically).
The straight reading of the verse is also valid; that the prophet represents the fool, and the letter Alef, which equals 111 when spelled in full as Alef-Lamed-Peh, and is an Ox because this is the meaning of the letter-name of Alef. But reading it this way, the verse is not a rebuke of Crowley, simply a statement of his 'title' or position relative to the Book of the Law at the time, (and may also indicate the he is also the fool mentioned in v. 3:63, who 'understandeth it not').
It's an enigmatic verse, to be sure, and accommodates multiple, non-exclusive meanings. It's much like a zen koan.
Litlluw
RLG
One of the difficulties with this verse is the word 'they'. What is it referring to? Does it refer to the two halves of the previous verse, which are to be united by 'thine art'? Or to the phrase 'one, one, one' singly, (or in conjunction with the word fool or Prophet)? Or does it refer to the 61 vs 8, 80, 400 & 18?
As to the third possibility, this was covered by Fr. Achad. he showed that 61 = AIN = nothing, therefore 'none'; while 8 + 80 + 418 = 506 = Heb. ShUR = Ox, (technically Bull), the name of the constellation Taurus.
while Achad's insight is valuable, it is important to remember that an Ox and a Bull are not the same beast at all.
But that notwithstanding, Achad's interpretation brings in the matter of Taurus, and this was attributed to the Hierophant and the letter Vav, with a value of 6. so this might be linked with my previous discussion of the first of the two possibilities:
If the esoteric meaning of VIII = 80 = 400 = XVIII produces the sum of 610, while the exoteric meaning of 8 + 80 + 418 = 506, then the sum of these two interpretations is 610 + 506 = 1116.
Now 1116 is not only 12 x 93, but it could be considered - symbolically- to represent the letter Alef spelled in full, thus 111, and the letter Vau, thus 6. This would then be referred to as the 'Ox and none', and would then be an interpretation of the first possibility, namely, that the word 'they' refers to the number-words mentioned in verse 1:46.
Another argument for the number 1116 being significant is that it can be the result of using Nuit's formula given in vv. 1:24-25. She says that her word is 'six and fifty', and that we should then 'divide, add, multiply and understand'.
let's use the formula on both numbers:
Divide 6 and 50 into their divisors:
6 = 1, 2, 3
50 = 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50
then Add these divisors:
1 + 2 + 3 + 6 = 12
1 + 2 + 5 + 10 + 25 + 50 = 93
then Multiply these two sums:
12 x 93 = 1116
Therefore 1116 is a legitimate solution to the puzzle of vv. 1:24-25
And having this number in hand we can see how it can easily be - symbolically - a number that refers to the prophet. If the prophet is a fool with his 'one, one, one,' and the word 'they' refers to BOTH 111 and the Prophet, (i.e., the second possibility mentioned above), then the number 1116 could be split up as 111 x 6 = 666, thus giving us the number of the Prophet, Therion.
(These of course are only symbolically connected, as the number 1116 is not related to the number 666 mathematically).
The straight reading of the verse is also valid; that the prophet represents the fool, and the letter Alef, which equals 111 when spelled in full as Alef-Lamed-Peh, and is an Ox because this is the meaning of the letter-name of Alef. But reading it this way, the verse is not a rebuke of Crowley, simply a statement of his 'title' or position relative to the Book of the Law at the time, (and may also indicate the he is also the fool mentioned in v. 3:63, who 'understandeth it not').
It's an enigmatic verse, to be sure, and accommodates multiple, non-exclusive meanings. It's much like a zen koan.
Litlluw
RLG
Always Wondering
similia said:
Opps
Similia knew what I meant.
The Magus has been upturned on my desk all week.
Fool
Fool
Fool
Aeon418 said:
I would have never noticed. I thought I was the only one struggling with this 0=2=nothing concept.
Difficulties getting grounded today.
The Gemetria will have to wait.
AW
ravenest
Yygdrasilian said:
It could be, but how about the converse?
ravenest
Aeon418 said:
That's how I've seen this verse. We can intellectually understand something consciously but we still need to get over our past conditionings (and slap in the face certainly helps that!)
