Little Essay Towards Truth -Love

[Always Wondering]

I have been turning over the Little Essay on Love for a few months now and there are a couple things I either don’t understand or can’t come to terms with.

Now it cannot be too clearly understood, or too acutely realised by means of action, that the intensity of the Joy liberated varies with the original degree of opposition between the two elements of the union. Heat, light, electricity are phenomena expressive of the fullness of passion, and their value is greatest when the diversity of the Energies composing the marriage is most strenuous. One obtains more from the explosion of Hydrogen and Oxygen than from the dull combination of substances indifferent to each other. Thus, the union of Nitrogen and Chlorine is so little satisfying to either molecule, that the resulting compound disintegrates with explosive violence at the slightest shock. We might say, then, in the language of Thelema, that such an act of love is not "love under will." It is, so to speak, a black magical operation.

Is Crowley saying that love without passion is not love? Or that only sexual relationships involve love? And how does a black magical operation come from such tepid passions as regard, affection or kindliness? I was thinking love under will might be applied to those times in sexual relationships when there is little passion or combustion due to stress or illness, etc. I love friends and siblings with regard and affection, it's peaceful.

Let us consider, in a figure, the "feelings' of a molecule of Hydrogen in the presence of one of Oxygen or of Chlorine. It is made to suffer intensely by the realisation of the extremity of its deviation from the perfect type of monad by the contemplation of an element so supremely opposed to its own nature at every point. So far as it is egoist, its reaction must be scorn and hatred; but as it understands by the true shame that is put upon its separateness by the presence of its opposite, these feelings turn to anguished yearning. It begins to crave the electric spark which will enable it to assuage its pangs by the annihilation of all those properties which constitute its separate existence, in the rapture of union, and at the same time to fulfil its passion to create a perfect type of Peace.

Okay, I don’t get the scorn and hatred. Opposites attract, (is this an over simplification?) where is the scorn and hatred in that? As a child budding into adolescence I have experienced this "boys are gross" stuff.

Any thoughts?

AW

 

[Grigori]

Thanks for posting the thread, AW! I've not seen these before. Very interesting. A link for those wanting to have a read
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/littleessays/love.html

Is Crowley saying that love without passion is not love? Or that only sexual relationships involve love?

I don't know what Crowley meant, and my interpretation of it is perhaps quite different, but....

I don't think Crowley is speaking primarily about "love" in the sense of human relationships, but rather the bigger picture "LOVE" which is about union of opposites. A universal law, which in his metaphor is reflected in the human sphere. Sexual union would be the closest equivalent to union in the human sphere, where two opposite things are joined so that they can create a third/new thing to carry on the cycle. And in the process both are (temporarily) destroyed as they merge into one (orgasm). Perhaps in that sense a human "platonic" relationship is of less value, in that it does not create a child to carry on the cycle or result in the destruction of the imperfect individuals?

And how does a black magical operation come from such tepid passions as regard, affection or kindliness? I was thinking love under will might be applied to those times in sexual relationships when there is little passion or combustion due to stress or illness, etc. I love friends and siblings with regard and affection, it's peaceful.

Following on from that, fraternal relations are people or in his other example chemical elements that are somewhat similar and so grouped together, but there is no real union, as that is only possible from opposites (chemically, electrically etc. that is pretty accurate at least). And so no real LOVE occurs(in the sense that he is meaning, rather than what we could more accurately label "warm mushies").

Okay, I don’t get the scorn and hatred. Opposites attract, (is this an over simplification?) where is the scorn and hatred in that? As a child budding into adolescence I have experienced this "boys are gross" stuff.

In the example, the Oxygen seems to have scorn and hatred for itself, rather than its opposite. The hatred of "other" is a projection, as the Oxygen feels to be inferior to the ideal.

The passion of Hatred is thus really directed against oneself; it is the expression of the pain and shame of separateness; and it only appears to be directed against the opposite by psychological transference. This thesis the School of Freud has made sufficiently clear.

Though this whole discussion leave me wondering, if this is the definition of LOVE, and its not to be confused with "affection" etc., then what does it mean when the Book of Law tells us there are two types of Love, the Serpent and the Dove?

Invoke me under my stars! Love is the Law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well!

 

[Aeon418]

Is Crowley saying that love without passion is not love? Or that only sexual relationships involve love? And how does a black magical operation come from such tepid passions as regard, affection or kindliness? I was thinking love under will might be applied to those times in sexual relationships when there is little passion or combustion due to stress or illness, etc. I love friends and siblings with regard and affection, it's peaceful.

Love is the law, love under will. What is this Love? It is the sacred Agape. The Bhakti of the yogis, passionate love of the divine. It is the universal law of attraction, in which two unite to become None. It is unconditional and without limits or boundaries. It is the desire to be changed via union, but without conditions or restraint. (This is not limited to human experince. It's universal in scope.)

But this divine Love (Agape = 93) is totally unknown to most people because it is filtered through this very restrictive principle called the Ego. This principle within ourselves fears change, therefore it restricts Love and transforms it into the lesser human love that breeds petty jealousies, selfishness, and pain. This is usually the only kind of love that most people are familiar with. In fact it's the most that they are capable of because of their inability to see beyond their selfish needs and cravings for affection and sentimentality. Love me how I want to be loved, or I'll hate you. Only love me and no one else. If you love me you will do what I want. Is that really Love? Or is it the fear of the little ego?

Real Love doesn't rely on restriction, boundaries or pre-conditions. In it's true sense Love is unconditional.

I read somewhere that our capacity for real love is inversely proportional to the strength of the fear of our own deaths. There's a lot of truth in that.

THE STAG-BEETLE

Death implies change and individuality if thou be
THAT which hath no person, which is beyond the
changing, even beyond changelessness, what hast
thou to do with death?
The bird of individuality is ecstasy; so also is its
death.
In love the individuality is slain; who loves not love?
Love death therefore, and long eagerly for it.
Die Daily.

The Book of Lies ~ Aleister Crowley

 

[Always Wondering]

Though this whole discussion leave me wondering, if this is the definition of LOVE, and its not to be confused with "affection" etc., then what does it mean when the Book of Law tells us there are two types of Love, the Serpent and the Dove?

Yes, exactly. Just when I think I begin to understand what Crowley is saying I read something like the Serpent and the Dove, which throws me again.
This difference between love and Love on the surface seems fairly obvious and elemental to me yet it is challenging me on a deeper level.

In the example, the Oxygen seems to have scorn and hatred for itself, rather than its opposite. The hatred of "other" is a projection, as the Oxygen feels to be inferior to the ideal.

Oh, I see. I was confusing the elements. Makes more sense now.

Love is the law, love under will. What is this Love? It is the sacred Agape. The Bhakti of the yogis, passionate love of the divine. It is the universal law of attraction, in which two unite to become None. It is unconditional and without limits or boundaries. It is the desire to be changed via union, but without conditions or restraint. (This is not limited to human experince. It's universal in scope.)

I often get carried away with Crowley’s writing, his style and his big words I have yet to understand and forget, 0=2.

I read somewhere that our capacity for real love is inversely proportional to the strength of the fear of our own deaths. There's a lot of truth in that.

THE STAG-BEETLE

Death implies change and individuality if thou be
THAT which hath no person, which is beyond the
changing, even beyond changelessness, what hast
thou to do with death?
The bird of individuality is ecstasy; so also is its
death.
In love the individuality is slain; who loves not love?
Love death therefore, and long eagerly for it.
Die Daily.

The Book of Lies ~ Aleister Crowley

Ah, I start to understand Crowley and myself a little better.


AW

 

[Abrac]

Yes, exactly. Just when I think I begin to understand what Crowley is saying I read something like the Serpent and the Dove, which throws me again. This difference between love and Love on the surface seems fairly obvious and elemental to me yet it is challenging me on a deeper level.

There's a good chance you will never get to the point where you can say "aha," now I understand Crowley's philosophy. It wanders from point to point to point without really going anywhere. But this is precisely its appeal for a lot of people who enjoy the mental stimulation itself as opposed to arriving at a particular destination. Not that there's anything wrong with that mind you, just an observation based on my own study of his works. And to be fair, this is common with a lot of occult schools not just Crowley.

 

[Grigori]

I often get carried away with Crowley’s writing, his style and his big words I have yet to understand and forget, 0=2.

This seems to be the same conversation at 0=2 to me, but just heading back in the opposite direction. In fact I've been referring back to the thread on 0=2 as I think about this the last couple days.

0=2 is the original creation/division, the Tao that is divided so that things can exist.

29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

Then the way to back to the Tao, is through union, i.e. Love. Which is why we need big-banging Love, and not just warm cuddlies love.

30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.

45. The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none!

So it seems that Love's function, or maybe definition is something that creates unity between opposites, by destroying them as individuals and uniting them as something new and perfected, or as no-thing. But there are multiple ways of love...?

57. Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God.

All these old letters of my Book are aright; but [Tzaddi] is not the Star. This also is secret: my prophet shall reveal it to the wise.

This paragraph seems fundamental to the concepts of Will/Thelema, and Love/Agape, but also the Thoth tarot and Crowley's changes there. I find it fascinating that all these things are touched on by one paragraph. Maybe Crowley is not referring to the two different Love/loves as we did, but two different types of big-bang Love? Both of which, the Dove and the Serpent, are illustrated on the Tower card, the "House of God/Fortress", and all three appear in this paragraph.

Together with them is the initiating oracle for the Tzaddi swap, which moved Heh (the primary female division of the Tetragrammaton) onto the card that depicts Nuit, the primary goddess in Crowley's mythology. i.e. one half of the equation, to be united by Love. So the whole thing again is about the formula of the tetragrammaton.

I find that fascinating and exciting. You start the best threads AW!

 

[Grigori]

I just remembered this interesting article from Snuffin, on his website. Perhaps not directly connected, but about the threefold nature of love.

http://www.hermetic.com/osiris/scorpioandthelovedragon.htm

 

[Aeon418]

There's a good chance you will never get to the point where you can say "aha," now I understand Crowley's philosophy. It wanders from point to point to point without really going anywhere. But this is precisely its appeal for a lot of people who enjoy the mental stimulation itself as opposed to arriving at a particular destination.

Actually, in a certain way, I agree with you. Dabblers, dilettante's, and armchair theoreticians really do go nowhere when it comes to understanding Crowley. Do what thou wilt begins with DO for a very good reason.

Would it be fair for someone to read a book on Tarot and declare the whole subject as nonsense, without ever going near a pack of Tarot cards or doing a reading?

A quote from Crowley's version of the Tao Te Ching says it nicely:

To understand this Mystery, one must be fulfilling one's will. If one is not thus free, one will but gain a smattering of it.

 

[Aeon418]

Thelema = 93 = Agape

The three horizontal paths on the Three of Life that join the masculine pillar to the feminine pillar = 93

Daleth (The Empress / Dove) = 4

Teth (Lust / The Serpent) = 9

Peh (The Tower / Choose ye well) = 80

Liber AL 1:57. Invoke me under my stars. Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress and the great mystery of the House of God.

If you view the path of Teth as a fulcrum, then 2:26 has special significance.

2:26. I am the secret Serpent coiled about to spring: in my coiling there is joy. If I lift up my head, I and my Nuit are one. If I droop down mine head, and shoot forth venom, then is rapture of the earth, and I and the earth are one.

The Dove (Venus) is the descent of the Spirit.
The Serpent (also related to Mars) is the rising Kudalini serpent.

Drooping down/lifting up might also be referrence to the upright and averse pentagram.

This paragraph seems fundamental to the concepts of Will/Thelema, and Love/Agape, but also the Thoth tarot and Crowley's changes there. I find it fascinating that all these things are touched on by one paragraph. Maybe Crowley is not referring to the two different Love/loves as we did, but two different types of big-bang Love? Both of which, the Dove and the Serpent, are illustrated on the Tower card, the "House of God/Fortress", and all three appear in this paragraph.

Choose ye well.

Hopefully no one will object to this attempt at Hebrew transliteration (not translation )

Choose = ChVVSH = 85 = MILH - Circumscision. (See Robert Wang's, The Qabalistic Tarot, the Tower chapter.)
Personally I see the "serpent" in this context.

Ye = Yod Heh - the great Masculine and Feminine principles.

Well = VHLL = 71 = IVNH - Dove.

 

[Aeon418]

Then the way to back to the Tao, is through union, i.e. Love. Which is why we need big-banging Love, and not just warm cuddlies love.

Crowley defines Nuit as the total of possibilities of every kind. Hadit is that point (of consciousness) that experiences these possibilities through union (Love) with the goddess. The whole of life may therefore be conceived as the love play of the goddess and the god. The "climax" being reached at the moment of death, when the division between the Great All/Nuit and the Point/Hadit is dissolved. 0=2.

28. None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.

29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.

But how are we supposed to know which possibilities/aspects of the goddess we are to unite with/Love at any one time? Our mind, the ego, does not have the answer. But the god within, represented by Hadit, knows what to do. (Love under Will) Unfortunately the human ego is very good at ignoring this inner guidance and makes life decisions based on petty whims, fears, ignorance, and "lust of result". The key is to get the mind out of the way for a while, so that the inner guidance can be heard and the possibilities, in harmony with your own nature (True Will), can be experienced. Love is the law, love under will.

CHAPTER VII
THE CONCEALMENT OF THE LIGHT.

1. Heaven and Earth are mighty in continuance, because their work is delivered from the lust of result.

2. Thus also the sage, seeking not any goal, attaineth all things; he doth not interfere in the affairs of his body, and so that body acteth without friction. It is because he meddleth not with personal aims that these come to pass with simplicity.