Book of Law Study Group 1.52

Aeon418

Adding to what I said above. Notice how in the 1:51 thread the subject of antipathy has come up. If we apply that to the self many things can appear antipathetic. What about all those parts of our selves that, for various reasons, we are not so proud of. Are we supposed to pretend that those qualities don't exist. Are we supposed to ignore or bury them?

In the other thread Ravenest emphasised loving kindness and compassion as spiritual virtues appropriate to Nuit. But what about anger? Everyone gets angry from time to time. Does that mean it's not spiritual. Does that mean it must be rejected and supressed? As soon as you do that you create division within the self. This part of yourself can no longer be harnessed in a positive way, it's become an enemy in your own camp that hounds you.

In the language of qabalah it is like an over-emphasis on Chesed, and a complete rejection of Geburah. But Geburah is still a part of yourself. This is why R.H.K. seems very Geburan in nature. It is those parts of ourselves that we still haven't assimilated. Instead of pulling our chariot, it creates strife elsewhere.

Sex is another good one. How many people have problems with that? Still lingering within society is the notion that sex is that naughty thing that your not supposed to do. There's nothing spiritual about that ...... or is there? Well that depends on whether it is a source of conflict or just a normal part of your self expression.

RLG

Aeon418 said:
R.H.K. is the child of Nuit and Hadit.

Dwtw

I would have to take issue with this statement. It is a commonplace one, but also one which I feel is unfounded in terms of Liber Legis.

Can you tell me exactly where in the Book of the Law this idea is stated?

We are told in chapter three that Heru-ra-ha is split into Ra Hoor Khut and Hoor pa kraat, (at least that is one way to read the verse); and we are told elsewhere that Heru-pa-kraath and Hadit are synonymous, (at least that is one interpretation). If both of these interpreations are 'correct' than RHK is the 'other half' of Hadit, not some sort of child of his union with Nuit.

I understand that the statement you made was promulgated by Crowley in his commentaries on AL, but where in Liber AL itself is it claimed that Ra Hoor Khuit is the child of Nuit and Hadit?

Litlluw
RLG

Always Wondering

Opps.

Never finished reading 1.51.
I'll just shut up now.

AW

ravenest

Each for himself

Always Wondering said:
I don't understand.

I was thinking along the lines that the direful judgements of Ra Hoor Khuit was the false dicotomy we make for ourselves.

What am I missing because nobody's mentioning it? I hate that.

AW

Aw- the comments here are suggestions only, no truth except ones own, hopefully self validated by further study but most of all experience.

"All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself. "

EACH FOR HIMSELF ... or herself

In that light, I appreciate your comments as it gives me another viewpoint other than my own.

And for Aeon's clarity:
A viewpoint I have on this is that MY 'religion of Nuit' is not just that loving kindness is appropriate to Nuit, it is that the message of Nuit is appropriate to us all in this aeon and if we dont practice those qualities we will end up in certain troubles which can be equated to the direful vengance.

I'll make it simpler. If you create a society where you dont enjoy life, where you oppress women, where you insist on a particular style of dress, or non-beard, where you oppress individuality and freedom, then you will end up being in a society of direfull judgement, oppression, backwards evolution, suffering, public executions, lock the women up in their houses and eventually even the oppressors will be oppressed by those higher up the chain.

All of life experience 'good' and 'bad' is offered up to Nuit ... unto me!

Rediculous to suggest that I am 'avoiding' the 'bad' or intense or that I have no knowledge of the implimentation of the core principles of Liber Librae just because I have this take on BoL

Aeon418

3Fold31?

RLG said:
I would have to take issue with this statement. It is a commonplace one, but also one which I feel is unfounded in terms of Liber Legis.

Very true. But Liber Legis didn't develop in a vacuum, did it? Crowley was kicking around a lot of the ideas in the book long before 1904.

For example see Crolwey's 1902 essay, BERASHITH: An Essay in ontology, where he formulated the idea of the union of two opposite infinities creating a third thing. On top of that Liber Legis uses Crowley's personal symbol set. A symbol set that he defines again and again in his other works. You might equally object that some of the symbolism used in the book is derived from the Golden Dawn, but because it doesn't specifically say so, it's not. Is the Equinox of the Gods null and void because we have to refer to a text outside Liber Legis to clarify it's meaning?

RLG said:
We are told in chapter three that Heru-ra-ha is split into Ra Hoor Khut and Hoor pa kraat, (at least that is one way to read the verse); and we are told elsewhere that Heru-pa-kraath and Hadit are synonymous, (at least that is one interpretation). If both of these interpreations are 'correct' than RHK is the 'other half' of Hadit, not some sort of child of his union with Nuit.

Synonymous, but not identical. Remember that Hadit is an unmanifest infinite. As such he can't exist. The closest symbol there is to him is the god of silence, Heru-pa-kraath. But the silent self, even though unmanifest, exists. Hence it can not be Hadit. Anything that exists is the child of Nuit and Hadit.

RLG said:
I understand that the statement you made was promulgated by Crowley in his commentaries on AL, but where in Liber AL itself is it claimed that Ra Hoor Khuit is the child of Nuit and Hadit?

Like I said above, many of the ideas in Liber Legis did not originate in that work. Crowley had already formed them long before. Liber Legis was like the flowering of that earlier work.

Aeon418

ravenest said:
And for Aeon's clarity:

That's ok. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me.

RLG

Aeon418 said:
Very true. But Liber Legis didn't develop in a vacuum, did it? Crowley was kicking around a lot of the ideas in the book long before 1904.

For example see Crowley's 1902 essay, BERASHITH: An Essay in ontology, where he formulated the idea of the union of two opposite infinities creating a third thing.

Dwtw

Understood. I've spent over a decade working on Trigrammaton, which is based around that principle. nevertheless, the deities of Liber AL are defined in that book, and nowhere does it say that RHK is the offspring of the other two.

Aeon418 said:
On top of that Liber Legis uses Crowley's personal symbol set. A symbol set that he defines again and again in his other works. You might equally object that some of the symbolism used in the book is derived from the Golden Dawn, but because it doesn't specifically say so, it's not. Is the Equinox of the Gods null and void because we have to refer to a text outside Liber Legis to clarify it's meaning?

I see the point you're trying to make, but I'm speaking strictly about what appears in Liber Legis. The idea of RHK as an offspring is one interpretation of the verses, given by Crowley elsewhere, but he had many interpretations, not all of them accurate, and by his own admission didn't really understand the third chapter.
Naturally, we need outside information to develop a deeper understanding of Liber AL; but in all cases it has to be grounded in the Book itself.

Aeon418 said:
Synonymous, but not identical. Remember that Hadit is an unmanifest infinite. As such he can't exist. The closest symbol there is to him is the god of silence, Heru-pa-kraath. But the silent self, even though unmanifest, exists. Hence it can not be Hadit. Anything that exists is the child of Nuit and Hadit.

Not sure where you get this 'unmanifest infinite' stuff. Nowhere in Liber AL does it say that Hadit is either of those things. Nuit says she is infinite space and the infinite stars thereof, but Hadit does not say he is infinite, (unless we interpret him as 'the core of every star', and that the stars are infinite, but that may mean infinite in number, not individually infinite, since stars are clearly not infinite in extent).

If Hadit is 'life and the giver of life', how is that being unmanifest? If Hadit can't 'exist', then why is he married to Nuit, and why is there a whole chapter devoted to him? (and of course I use 'him' in a very loose, allegorical way).

I can understand Hadit is hidden by Nuit, so that he is not an object of knowledge, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say he is unmanifest, unless we consider that, being the 'manifestation of Nuit', he is himself the opposite of that, and therefore unmanifest. That might work, but there are a lot of ontological consequences of that, which I'm sure we can explore when we get to chapter two

Aeon418 said:
Like I said above, many of the ideas in Liber Legis did not originate in that work. Crowley had already formed them long before. Liber Legis was like the flowering of that earlier work.

Agreed. But it just does not seem to me that the birth of the new from the confluence of the other two is necessarily explicated in Liber Legis. In terms of Trigrammaton, such a triad sets up a situation where any member of the triad is the threshold between the other two. All three of them have a sort of revolving relationship.

Crowley may well have formed many of these concepts, and he was obviously aware of Hegel's dialectic, but it just doesn't come across in Liber AL itself, in fact doesn't even seem to hint at it, that RHK is the offspring of the other two. In fact, it appears more likely that RHK is the active aspect of Heru-ra-ha, while Hadit is the silent aspect, (Lord of Strength & Silence, etc.), making the two of them sort of twin brothers, rather than parent and child.

So I'm not saying its impossible to interpret RHK the way that you do, it's just not really easy to find any justification in the text of AL itself. And really, is there anything child-like about RHK? Man, if my kid acted like that...

But seriously, I can see where you're coming from when you say that anything that exists is a 'child' of Nuit and Hadit, possibility and point converging, I just never felt that Liber Legis was setting up RHK to be understood in that way. To me, it's more like Hadit is Yang and RHK is Yin, and Nuit is the Tao that mediates between them.

Litlluw
RLG

Aeon418

Old Aeon or simply New Age?

ravenest said:
And for Aeon's clarity:
A viewpoint I have on this is that MY 'religion of Nuit' is not just that loving kindness is appropriate to Nuit, it is that the message of Nuit is appropriate to us all in this aeon and if we dont practice those qualities we will end up in certain troubles which can be equated to the direful vengance.

For Ravenest's clarity:

What was the big problem with Christianity and the image of the Christ? It was too one sided. It was all goodness and light. The turn the other cheek mentality. Love thy neighbour. Meek and mild as a lamb to the slaughter. And never say boo to a goose. All well and good for the new age too, which is the same stuff with a christmas tree fairy stuck on the top.

This one sided emphasis on certain qualities, which don't encompas the whole of the human condition, creates by reflex action it's projected alter ego, Satan. Everything that Christ wasn't, Satan was. To heal this wound to our collective psyche we need something that embraces all the aspects of human nature. Both it's positive and negative sides need an image of deity that includes all parts of the self. From the highest spiritual aspirations, to the most primitive and animal of impulses. So long as aspects of human nature are not included in this image they will never be intergrated. They will always be the rejected parts that are projected outwards onto other people. This is the cause of the very abuses and repressions you list. The human race has never been able to get to grips with them because they are the qualities that we are told are not spiritual due to one sided conceptions of the divine who is all goodness and light.

666 - God, man, & animal in one. Now that's holistic. I don't see any room for rejected bits. Do you?

Liber Tzaddi:

36. Many have arisen, being wise. They have said "Seek out the glittering Image in the place ever golden, and unite yourselves with It."

37. Many have arisen, being foolish. They have said, "Stoop down unto the darkly splendid world, and be wedded to that Blind Creature of the Slime."

38. I who am beyond Wisdom and Folly, arise and say unto you: achieve both weddings! Unite yourselves with both!

39. Beware, beware, I say, lest ye seek after the one and lose the other!

Aeon418

RLG said:
Naturally, we need outside information to develop a deeper understanding of Liber AL; but in all cases it has to be grounded in the Book itself.

I don't see what you are driving at here. You object to concepts no explicitly mentioned in Liber Legis, but admit that outside information is required.

As far as I can see the only place to go for this information is Crowley. More specifically his personal symbol system. Liber Legis came through his mind, clothed in his symbolic constructs. The only other alternative is interpretation in a vacuum.

RLG said:
Not sure where you get this 'unmanifest infinite' stuff.

Off the top of my head try Magick in Thoery and Practice, chp.0, where Crowley sets out the entire cosmology. Practically all of Crowley's work is unintelligable without it.

RLG said:
but Hadit does not say he is infinite, (unless we interpret him as 'the core of every star', and that the stars are infinite, but that may mean infinite in number, not individually infinite, since stars are clearly not infinite in extent).

Hadit says he is the core of every star. He is the infinite centre within. But he is not the star itself. That shines outward as R.H.K. (In it's passive state it is H.P.K.)

RLG said:
Nowhere in Liber AL does it say that Hadit is either of those things. Nuit says she is infinite space and the infinite stars thereof, but Hadit does not say he is infinite,

Are not both Hadit and Nuit one (none). And Hadit himself tells us that he is perfect being Not. (2:15)

RLG said:
If Hadit is 'life and the giver of life', how is that being unmanifest?

Define life for me. And I don't mean expressions of life. I mean life itself. What is it?

RLG said:
So I'm not saying its impossible to interpret RHK the way that you do, it's just not really easy to find any justification in the text of AL itself. And really, is there anything child-like about RHK? Man, if my kid acted like that...

Like Father, like son. Although I think chapter 2 is far nastier than 3.

But seriously, I can see where you're coming from when you say that anything that exists is a 'child' of Nuit and Hadit, possibility and point converging, I just never felt that Liber Legis was setting up RHK to be understood in that way. To me, it's more like Hadit is Yang and RHK is Yin, and Nuit is the Tao that mediates between them.

I have no objection to that. It's just not an idea that is supported by Crowley's cosmology and all the work he produced after. If we junk that we are back to interpretation in a vacuum again.

It's interesting to note the dual appearance of Horus in the final aethyr of Liber 418.

ravenest

Aeon418 said:
That's ok. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me.

Nor do I have a problem with you disagreeing with me, however, I DO have a problem with your continual misinterpretation of what I am saying.