Book of Law Study Group 1.56
ravenest
Perhaps Crowley's 'expected ' child ( who was first ... and then was not later; Archad) was 'doomed' to fail?
The unexpected one has the key. But how to identify them?
That last sentance ... seems full of contradiction.
The unexpected one has the key. But how to identify them?
That last sentance ... seems full of contradiction.
RLG
Dwtw
This verse is certainly full of conundrums. I'll throw out some various observations.
First of all, the verse is numbered 56, and this number has already been mentioned in verse I:24 as the value of Nuit's "word". Notice that following the mention of 'six and fifty', we are told a procedure, namely to 'divide, add, multiply and understand'.
Now the first three words of this procedure could easily form the 'first half' of an equation, i.e., all the numbers and functions on the left hand side of the equals sign. Those procedures are then finalized by the injunction to 'understand', which is clearly not an overt mathematical command.
Now in this verse, numbered 56, we are told that all words are sacred, and all prophets are true...as long as they 'understand a little'. So perhaps the prophet is again being urged to understand, and since this is the second half of the equation mentioned in verses 24-25, the book goes on to say that he, the prophet, should 'solve the first half of the equation' but 'leave the second (half) unattacked'.
Well the funny thing is that it would seem that if you solved one half of the equation, then you would automatically know the answer to the second half, unless of course there is more than one variable in the second half. We know at the very least that the second half is probably connected to the word 'understand'. Perhaps it is also related to 'unattacked'?
Is this yet a further mention of the idea that AC was not going to divine all the mysteries of the Book? Was he being told to work on one part, but don't even try to attack the second half of the problem, it's not yours to solve? It seems that way, given that the verse immediately goes on to say that he has all in the 'clear light', and some, though not all in the 'dark'.
This contrasting of 'some' versus 'all' reminds me of verse 1:47, regarding how one should 'unite by thine art so that all disappear, (which is certainly a way to literally 'solve' a problem).
I think, as I've mentioned before, that verse 24-25 & 46-48 are very closely linked, and this verse seems to take up elements of both of them, and wrap them into yet another enigma. It can certainly be figured out, but it works on so many levels that its hard to make plain sense out of it all, without sounding so abstruse as to bore people. But knowing exactly which 'equation' is being discussed seems to be key to most of this verse.
As for the East and West dichotomy, it's yet another duality to rear its head in this verse:
East - West
words - prophets
first half - second
solve - leave unattacked
clear light - dark
all - some
I suppose it's to be expected, (pun intended), for a verse whose number is 56, which sum people like to add up so that it equals 11, (as all their numbers who are of us), which then reduces again to 2.
Aum can be solved, but Ha?
don't even try it...
Litlluw
RLG
This verse is certainly full of conundrums. I'll throw out some various observations.
First of all, the verse is numbered 56, and this number has already been mentioned in verse I:24 as the value of Nuit's "word". Notice that following the mention of 'six and fifty', we are told a procedure, namely to 'divide, add, multiply and understand'.
Now the first three words of this procedure could easily form the 'first half' of an equation, i.e., all the numbers and functions on the left hand side of the equals sign. Those procedures are then finalized by the injunction to 'understand', which is clearly not an overt mathematical command.
Now in this verse, numbered 56, we are told that all words are sacred, and all prophets are true...as long as they 'understand a little'. So perhaps the prophet is again being urged to understand, and since this is the second half of the equation mentioned in verses 24-25, the book goes on to say that he, the prophet, should 'solve the first half of the equation' but 'leave the second (half) unattacked'.
Well the funny thing is that it would seem that if you solved one half of the equation, then you would automatically know the answer to the second half, unless of course there is more than one variable in the second half. We know at the very least that the second half is probably connected to the word 'understand'. Perhaps it is also related to 'unattacked'?
Is this yet a further mention of the idea that AC was not going to divine all the mysteries of the Book? Was he being told to work on one part, but don't even try to attack the second half of the problem, it's not yours to solve? It seems that way, given that the verse immediately goes on to say that he has all in the 'clear light', and some, though not all in the 'dark'.
This contrasting of 'some' versus 'all' reminds me of verse 1:47, regarding how one should 'unite by thine art so that all disappear, (which is certainly a way to literally 'solve' a problem).
I think, as I've mentioned before, that verse 24-25 & 46-48 are very closely linked, and this verse seems to take up elements of both of them, and wrap them into yet another enigma. It can certainly be figured out, but it works on so many levels that its hard to make plain sense out of it all, without sounding so abstruse as to bore people. But knowing exactly which 'equation' is being discussed seems to be key to most of this verse.
As for the East and West dichotomy, it's yet another duality to rear its head in this verse:
East - West
words - prophets
first half - second
solve - leave unattacked
clear light - dark
all - some
I suppose it's to be expected, (pun intended), for a verse whose number is 56, which sum people like to add up so that it equals 11, (as all their numbers who are of us), which then reduces again to 2.
Aum can be solved, but Ha?
don't even try it...
Litlluw
RLG
Grigori
I wonder if this verse can be read as directed to each of us individually. As long as we understand a little bit, then we are all prophets. The "child" doesn't come from the East or West or any external direction, as each of us is the child. No need to look without to see what direction they may come from, instead look to the center/within. "Aum" always makes me think of Tipareth (for some reason I cannot remember why 
) which makes this line immediately seem personal and in fact resonates within my chest where the word Aum vibrates. With that in mind this verse tells us Crowley understood some of it, and we will understand some more of it, but that there is always more to be found, so don't get too carried away with your being the prophet 
) which makes this line immediately seem personal and in fact resonates within my chest where the word Aum vibrates. With that in mind this verse tells us Crowley understood some of it, and we will understand some more of it, but that there is always more to be found, so don't get too carried away with your being the prophet Always Wondering
I like this Similia, I always read the book as a personal directive. You guys always help me fill out the outer intrige.
I could take this further and say as long as we are trying to understand. That's the work of it, I think.
As you said being carried away with the idea that we are the profit; well that may be lust of result. Sometimes it's hard to be a plain, simple, ordianary star. But I love the idea of thinking of myself as my own profit. Who else would know my true will?
AW
Similia said:
I could take this further and say as long as we are trying to understand. That's the work of it, I think.
As you said being carried away with the idea that we are the profit; well that may be lust of result. Sometimes it's hard to be a plain, simple, ordianary star.
But I love the idea of thinking of myself as my own profit. Who else would know my true will?AW
Grigori
Always Wondering said:As you said being carried away with the idea that we are the profit; well that may be lust of result. Sometimes it's hard to be a plain, simple, ordianary star.
Ah I like that a lot. And you are a lovely Star AW
Aeon418
The last "child" was supposed to come from the House of David. But if the child of the New Aeon is not a person, but something born within each of us, how can it come from any expected house of east or west?
http://thelemicgoldendawn.net/documents/therion.htm
http://thelemicgoldendawn.net/documents/therion.htm
RLG
Dwtw
We are told not to 'expect' the child from East or West, because the child shall not appear from an 'expected' house.
This is similar to the idea stated in chapter three that AC should not look for the answers to all the mysteries of Liber AL:
"It shall be his child, and that strangely. Let him not seek after this, for thereby alone can he fall from it".
It would seem that the child, and the mysteries he shall perceive, is not at all what we would expect.
'expect' means to 'look out(ward)'
So if we should not ex-pect, than perhaps, as others have suggested, we must in-spect, and find the child within each and every star.
Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe the child will be born at 0 degrees of longitude ;-)
Litlluw
RLG
We are told not to 'expect' the child from East or West, because the child shall not appear from an 'expected' house.
This is similar to the idea stated in chapter three that AC should not look for the answers to all the mysteries of Liber AL:
"It shall be his child, and that strangely. Let him not seek after this, for thereby alone can he fall from it".
It would seem that the child, and the mysteries he shall perceive, is not at all what we would expect.
'expect' means to 'look out(ward)'
So if we should not ex-pect, than perhaps, as others have suggested, we must in-spect, and find the child within each and every star.
Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe the child will be born at 0 degrees of longitude ;-)
Litlluw
RLG
Always Wondering
similia said:Ah I like that a lot. And you are a lovely Star AW
I had a big grin all morning long.AW
Aeon418
All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little
I take this to mean that all religions contain some truth. But they are not the infallible vehicles of truth they are purported to be. Their understanding is incomplete. This probably explains the savage attacks by RHK in chpater 3.
I take this to mean that all religions contain some truth. But they are not the infallible vehicles of truth they are purported to be. Their understanding is incomplete. This probably explains the savage attacks by RHK in chpater 3.
