The Book of the Law Study Group 2.19
Grigori
A little joke to get things started, this came in my email today and I thought it was funny enough to share and also a bit interesting how often we doggie lovers make the connection God/dog because of the spelling.
Grigori
I find this line a hard one to read, the grammar is a bit confusing to me.
I often misread this line as if it said "Is God to live in a dog". It's interesting to me that my brain takes it immediately to a (perhaps) more Christianized version. Cultural no doubt, and the "a" serves to remind me that we not necessarily talking about the external all powerful deity, but rather the idea of the god-head within.
I'm also reminded by this line of the linking of the wolf to Mars and in turn to Horus and the Aeon of War. A dog is the domesticated version of the wolf, just as the lamb on the Emperor card is the domesticated ram. Like the tamed version from the garden of Eden joke. No doubt a Martial god would be quite unhappy in a dog and much more comfortable in a wolf.
This line I struggle with the most, as the grammar leads me to read it in conflicting ways. Why is the "but" there, is implies a relationship between this sentence and the previous that eludes me. It would seem to make more sense if it read "Is a God to live in a dog? No! the highest are of us."
Aeon418
To me this verse is a contination of the same theme we've been covering in the last few verses.
G
o } Rejoicing / King - Ruler of the elements.
d
-
d
o } Sorrowful / Slave of the elements.
G
G
o } Rejoicing / King - Ruler of the elements.
d
-
d
o } Sorrowful / Slave of the elements.
G
thorhammer
FWIW, Grigori, I read it without the "a" at first as well, and when I read your post, I had A Moment 
and now I get it. Wow, do I get it.
Your story from the email is lovely. And pertinent, I think. It set the scene for the use of the dog in the verse.
The part: "They shall rejoice, our chosen:" confuses me. What plural is being referred to with "our"? It implies "us" - who is "us"? Hadit and I?
\m/ Kat
and now I get it. Wow, do I get it.Your story from the email is lovely. And pertinent, I think. It set the scene for the use of the dog in the verse.
The part: "They shall rejoice, our chosen:" confuses me. What plural is being referred to with "our"? It implies "us" - who is "us"? Hadit and I?
\m/ Kat
Grigori
thorhammer said:
hmm I read this as Nuit and Hadit, the 'folks' we have met thus far. I s'pose an argument could be made also for us being Aiwass & Ra-Hoor-Khuit, or perhaps even Hadit & The Beast. Or maybe Hadit has just changed to the royal 'we', which makes an interesting contrast to the previous verses where he uses the singular. Using 'me' when talking a single perspective, and 'us' when referring to all Hadits, one in each Star everywhere.
Aeon418
Have you noticed how intimate chapter 1 is? It's almost one to one. Just you and the Goddess. (Her servants are few and secret - Hermits of Ordo A.'.A.'.)thorhammer said:
Then in chapter 2 there is "us", plural. But there is mention of the "Chosen" versus the "people". There's also an elitist theme. Kings and slaves. It's almost a club with "us" and "them".
For the most part chapter 3 reads very differently. It's almost as if R.H.K. is a great orator addressing to the masses. He's a new Solar Icon that people can rally to before they are tried and tested.
Remember the first Ordeal? The Gross must pass through fire. R.H.K. is like a general giving his solidiers a final speach before the battle.
