Book of Law Study Group 1.52

ravenest

RLG said:
Dwtw
I see the point you're trying to make, but I'm speaking strictly about what appears in Liber Legis.

Yes, RLG that was clear from the begining! I understand you.
RLG said:
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.
Thats the way it looks to me.
RLG said:
To me, it's more like Hadit is Yang and RHK is Yin, and Nuit is the Tao that mediates between them.
YES! I think that is a very helpful model for people trying to understand these concepts.
 

ravenest

Aeon418 said:
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?

Thanks for the anti-new age lecture explaining the difference between new age and new Aeon, Aeon :rolleyes:

You seem to like giving my above post a varied meaning that you keep retaining, regardless of my attempts to bring some clarity. It's like everything I have ever written in this forum is being ignored, and all of a sudden I have this wierd denial christian concept.

Maybe its the way I'm writing? Maybe no-one understands what I'm saying?
Oh well, should I bother .... probably not.

But ... 3 times lucky ?

Aeon418 said:
666 - God, man, & animal in one. Now that's holistic. I don't see any room for rejected bits. Do you?
No I dont. But I'm not talking about rejecting bits, I am talking about the best or better approach. Of course I will 'avoid' things that are 'unThelemic', I will not give up my feedom and individuality, I will not bow down in supplication. etc, if that makes me a newager in your eyes well ....

or how about this, does this explain it ? (and I'm trying my best to use your terms of reference, hence Liber Tzaddi again);

It does help clarity to quote ALL the lines in a concept, not just the first parts, your quote ended here;

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

But ... what you didnt quote;

41. But since one is naturally attracted to the Angel, another to the Demon, let the first strengthen the lower link, the last attach more firmly to the higher.

42. Thus shall equilibrium become perfect. I will aid my disciples; as fast as they acquire this balanced power and joy so faster will I push them.

and ...

44. They shall be masters of majesty and might; they shall be beautiful and joyous; they shall be clothed with victory and splendour; they shall stand upon the firm foundation; the kingdom shall be theirs; yea, the kingdom shall be theirs.

Oh-oh, more 'rejection' and 'avoidence' ... Crowley's going all New Age on us! he should have written; ' They shall be masters of majesty and failure, of might and weakness; they shall be beautiful and ugly and joyus and sad, thay shall be clothed and naked with victory and defeat and splendour and dross they shall stand upon the firm foundation and the quicksand, the kingdom will be theirs and not theirs; yea, the kingdom shall be theirs and not theirs. :laugh:
 

Grigori

Moderating Note

Hi all,

Perhaps we could move the discussion back to the topic more tightly, and off of the individuals participating in it.

If I may steal a line from another "As brothers fight ye!" (AL III:59)
 

Grigori

I find it interesting that we are told to see RHK as a punisher in this line. Previously I've been thinking about RHK as the generic representation of our own HGA. I think most of us raised in a modern Christan culture would automatically assume our own "guardian angel" or higher self will be soft and full of live and light, very right hand pillar. The idea of an angel as a punisher, or even something that could create terror as well as wonder is quite foreign to us, though not to early Christian cultures.

I was reading the companion book to the Druid Animal Oracle last night, the section about the Wolf and was reminded of RHK and some of the discussion in this thread so far. The author was talking about the wolf as a family creature, and a fierce hunter to protect and feed its family. That nature has been bastardized to make the wolf an object of fear and persecution, it being hunted to extinction in the majority of countries it once called home. I was reminded of the Wolf's relationship to Mars and the Tower, and hence to RHK. I made a Tower card a little while back and included a Wolf and a Bear as Martial animals, but now see a further meaning and reasons than what I understood before.

Also interesting to think about the idea of a wolf as an extremely social animal, yet one that carries the label "lone wolf" often in human conversation. A lone wolf is a wolf rejected by or without a pack, and in danger of being dead in the very near future, either from attack or starvation. That reminds me of previous threads where we've discussed the thelemic idea of the individual as paramount, and yet also looked at how that fits into a society of social animals who are interdependent.

With that in mind, I can also see this line of the BoL as a call to community. To remember that underlying the individual, is the group "Nuit". Remember that though an individual you have a place in the larger group, or you'll face the punishment of RHK, you'll be a lone wolf, or a star off its course.
 

RLG

Aeon418 said:
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.

I don't object to those 'outside' concepts outright, merely that they should jibe in some way with what is actually in the Book. According to one interpretation of the Tunis Comment, we can only answer questions about the Law by appeal to 'my writings', and this note is signed by "Ankh-f-n-khonsu". The only works that are by this scribe are the Law and the Comment. In that sense, all questions of the law are to be answered by appeal to the Law. But naturally, we have to have some supplemental information, since not everything is clearly defined in Liber Legis.




Aeon418 said:
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.)

Okay, Hadit says he is the centre of the sphere, but he does not say he is 'infinite'. This is the point I was trying to make. He may well be infinite in some understanding of the Law, but it is not in the text itself. Defining what type of infinity you mean would help me to understand where you're coming from.

Aeon418 said:
Are not both Hadit and Nuit one (none). And Hadit himself tells us that he is perfect being Not. (2:15)

That last part would cover Hadit being 'unmanifest', so if you can work the infinity in somehow, then I can see your point.
I guess the thing is, if you call something 'unmanifest', then it can be any damn thing you want, since it isn't manifest anyway, and we would have no information about it. Hadit could be an unmanifest chocolate bar in that sense, or an unmanifest raking of the lawn.

Aeon418 said:
Define life for me. And I don't mean expressions of life. I mean life itself. What is it?

Awareness.
 

RLG

52. If this be not aright; if ye confound the space-marks, saying: They are one; or saying, They are many; if the ritual be not ever unto me: then expect the direful judgments of Ra Hoor Khuit!

Dwtw

The first sentence is so cryptic. First it would be nice to know what "space-marks" means. But then, we are told not to confound them. They seem to be plural, yet we cannot call them one or many, which really only leaves nothing or infinity.

In this case, I would lean toward an infinity of space-marks, simply because the word is in the plural. Maybe the word even means 'stars', which we are told by Nuit are infinite.

But we are warned not to 'confound' them, and this word means literally, to 'pour together'. So we can't just lump all these space-marks together and call them, categorically, one, or many. Maybe we can't even refer to them en masse at all. So it might have nothing to do with infinity, and everything to do with examining and understanding each 'thing' on its own terms, and not making categorical generalizations about them.

It's curious that by the Trigrammaton gematria, the word 'space-marks' equals 111. That's a nice conundrum in the context of the verse ;-)

Litlluw
RLG
 

Always Wondering

Aeon418 said:
R.H.K. is the child of Nuit and Hadit. He is the symbol of the fully realised human being who can express and manifest the truth of their own nature. He represents the undivided self we aspire to be.

But as long as we are not unified, we are in conflict with ourselves. Just like the four creatures that pull the Chariot, all aspects of ourselves must pull in the same direction. This is the reward of R.H.K. - 418.[/quote}

Okay, this makes sense.

Aeon418 said:
So long as we willfully persist in this state we suffer the direful judgements of our True Selves, the god of War and Vengeance. It is, to all intents and purposes, self inflicted karma.

:(
I've thought on this and just can't figure.
Direful judgements of our true selves, as in not by our true selves? What part of me is judging what part? :confused:
And I guess I better get a handle on the god of War and Vengeance before the next chapter. Got something for me to read?
And while we're at it I need a better understanding of karma, so I can stop inflicting myself with it. :rolleyes:

AW
 

Always Wondering

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

I appreciate you too, Ravenest. I know I pelter everyone with lots of questions, that's because nobody has ever patiently put up with them as you all have.
Truely, I do make up my own mind, but the next day it changes again and I have more questions. :laugh:

AW
 

Grigori

Always Wondering said:
Direful judgements of our true selves, as in not by our true selves? What part of me is judging what part? :confused:

I was randomly thinking about this today, and it occurred to me that its a strong criticism of our culture that we need to have different parts of our natures presented to us as two separate or even conflicting identities. It's as if we are so far away from any form of integration, that we cannot even conceive of the idea that one individual could have a range of appropriate expressions, and so we must project those different parts of us onto two different and separate deities/entities. How messed up are we eh? :eek:
 

Always Wondering

similia said:
It's as if we are so far away from any form of integration, that we cannot even conceive of the idea that one individual could have a range of appropriate expressions, and so we must project those different parts of us onto two different and separate deities/entities. How messed up are we eh? :eek:

Ohhhh. Thanks Similia. It's funny, sometimes I have to think Christian again to get this stuff.
Not that I am particularly integrated or anything. ;) More like I have projected myself all over the place. :laugh:

AW