kwaw
~ deleted ~
Tzaddi and Heh swap (split from "Is it really a Pelican")
Ross G Caldwell
I'm not ridiculing anyone, Steve. I fail to see any ad hominems (neither the logical mistake of attacking a person instead of an argument, nor the more colloquial use of "ad hominem" to mean "personal attack"). I'm only positing what appears to me to be the logical premises and conclusions of engaging in this issue.
Trying to solve it means recognizing that there is a problem. Recognizing that there is a problem means accepting the authority of the problem-poser - in this case Crowley writing from Aiwass' dictation.
Look at it this way - IF you come up with a solution that you judge better than Crowley's, and if other people accept it as such, what will that have proved?
It will appear to have proved that there was a problem to be solved in the first place, which in turn will tend to prove that Crowley was right in claiming supernatural (or "praeterhuman") origin for the problem, since there was a problem and he was unable to solve it.
This whole activity is based on the premise that the book has the authority to pose the problem. If it has this authority, it is probable that the other things it says have the same authority. This includes the clause immediately following the problem in I:57, namely that "my Prophet shall reveal it to the wise".
RLG argues that Crowley failed in this as in many things. It follows that the Book made a false prophecy, OR, that Crowley was not the Prophet being referred to. I don't think there are any other choices, logically.
Either the Book was wrong, or the person who reveals the solution is the Prophet being referred to (in this case at least).
Ross G Caldwell
Another point is the meaning of "prophet". It means, essentially, someone who speaks for, or interprets for, a god.
It may be exegetically sound to interpret "prophet" in this (and other) verse as the one who will solve this riddle posed by Aiwass.
If I felt that I had solved it better than Crowley, such that I was convinced I was right, I'd happily claim the title "Prophet of Aiwass" - IN THIS INSTANCE.
I don't think it is illegitimate exegesis to presume Aiwass can have more than one prophet, or more than one prophet at the same time, or that one prophet should be not expected to solve all problems.
IF the problem of I:57 is better solved by someone else, so that I am convinced, I'll call that person the Prophet of Aiwass - they have interpreted, spoken for, Aiwass.
It may be exegetically sound to interpret "prophet" in this (and other) verse as the one who will solve this riddle posed by Aiwass.
If I felt that I had solved it better than Crowley, such that I was convinced I was right, I'd happily claim the title "Prophet of Aiwass" - IN THIS INSTANCE.
I don't think it is illegitimate exegesis to presume Aiwass can have more than one prophet, or more than one prophet at the same time, or that one prophet should be not expected to solve all problems.
IF the problem of I:57 is better solved by someone else, so that I am convinced, I'll call that person the Prophet of Aiwass - they have interpreted, spoken for, Aiwass.
Ross G Caldwell
The Book itself places that mantle on the exegete - or it is a false prophecy of the Book. It doesn't say "A really smart person will reveal it to the wise", it says "my Prophet shall reveal it to the wise."
It is not arrogant or ridiculous to claim the title of prophet, if you have properly interpreted the will of a god.
It is risky however, unless you are absolutely convinced, as Crowley was. The risk is ridicule (for failure, or ignorant people misunderstanding), but the premise is not ridiculous.
Always Wondering
This is along the lines of what I was wondering about as I read this thread. If we are all stars then we are all possible profits. Of course it would take some critical thinking on my part to accept anyone as my profit or Aiwass'. So I follow and try to understand these type threads.
But I am more with Grigori on this. I don't have to understand it all, and it doesn't have to be perfect. Because neither one of those is going to happen for me anyway.
Much of the benifit has been from choosing the best system for me, and sticking to it.AW
kwaw
"O! what a rogue and peasant slave am I!(Hamlet, scene ii)
To quote Socrates: I am a diviner, but a poor one.
I have no desire to claim myself as one among the prophets, I am content to remain a nothing among the slaves that serve.
"Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one: Who am I, and what shall be the sign?"
Who am I?
Socrates said: "Know Thyself."
But all I know, is that I know nothing,
and that Tzaddi is not the Star.
I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. (Hamlet, scene ii)
I = the self = Ani
The sign = cipher = nothing = Ain
Tzaddi the Star is Not (Our Lady of the Stars).
HAMLET
Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
OPHELIA
No, my lord.
HAMLET
I mean, my head upon your lap?
OPHELIA
Ay, my lord.
HAMLET
Do you think I meant country matters?
OPHELIA
I think nothing, my lord.
HAMLET
That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.
OPHELIA
What is, my lord?
HAMLET
Nothing. (Hamlet, scene ii)
With one foot bare and one foot shoed, the poor peasant slave, having spoken, exits left, chased by a bear.
To quote Socrates: I am a diviner, but a poor one.
I have no desire to claim myself as one among the prophets, I am content to remain a nothing among the slaves that serve.
"Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one: Who am I, and what shall be the sign?"
Who am I?
Socrates said: "Know Thyself."
But all I know, is that I know nothing,
and that Tzaddi is not the Star.
I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. (Hamlet, scene ii)
I = the self = Ani
The sign = cipher = nothing = Ain
Tzaddi the Star is Not (Our Lady of the Stars).
HAMLET
Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
OPHELIA
No, my lord.
HAMLET
I mean, my head upon your lap?
OPHELIA
Ay, my lord.
HAMLET
Do you think I meant country matters?
OPHELIA
I think nothing, my lord.
HAMLET
That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.
OPHELIA
What is, my lord?
HAMLET
Nothing. (Hamlet, scene ii)
With one foot bare and one foot shoed, the poor peasant slave, having spoken, exits left, chased by a bear.
Ross G Caldwell
LOL - I understand. I would ask, though, why a prophet cannot be a slave?
And Ani=Ain isn't fair! Ani is Aleph-Nun-Yod; Ain is (Gh)Ayin-Yod-Nun. Clever, but only in English!
kwaw
The verse, my prophet and slave appears to suggest a prophet can be.
If it's good enough for Jewish kabbalists then its good enough for me - I am pretty sure I have seen keter-ain to malkuth-ani interpreted in the context of Lurianic concepts of yesh and ayin (nothingness and being) and some other jewish traditions as well but I will check up on that and reference some sources if I can find any. Unfortunately a lot of my source texts and dictionaries (Jastrow, et al in which I might find spelling variations) are in a friend's attic back in England, but I will see what I can dig up.
edited to add: a quick internet search gives me 'not/nothing' as aleph-yod-nun, and 'I' as aleph-nun-yod (google translates them that way for example).
Aeon418
Dons 'Centre of Pestilence' cap.
Verse 26 - IHVH. Nuit bends down from Heh prime to touch Heh final, asserting the continuity of existence and the omnipresence of her body. The uniting Vav - The Hierophant (Prophet) - Knowest in the biblical sense. He is the Servant(Slave) and Revealer of Her.
Then there are slaves who don't 'Know', being submerged head-first in Heh final.
What shall be the sign? A Sign - AVTh.
kwaw
Nope, it works in Hebrew too:
AIN = Aleph - Yod - Nun = Not, Nothingness
ref: Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Strong Number H369
ANI = Aleph - Nun - Yod = I (first person singular)
ref: Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Strong Number = H589
AIN as you spell it (Ayin - Yod - Nun) means Eye (H5869) or Spring (H5871).
