Book of Law Study Group 1.1

ravenest

Aeon makes a good point, Thelema IS NOT Ancient Egyptian religion ... and I seriously doubt that anyone now knows what Egyptian religion was (although we may have close modern interpretations of serious scholars and people that tried to live it ; Om Seti or Rosemary Clarke - who is still around).

These metaphors were used at a time when knowledge of Ancient Egyptian religion and magic were quiet in vouge with post victorian yuppie society and their knowledge was much more limited ... research was primative and understanding patchy. AC was not trying to depict the reality of Egyptians but using some of their ideas to demonstrate his different reality. It would be pointless to change things in thelema as we make new discoveries about the ancient Egyptians ... unless they more acuratly described the original Thelemic idea.

If you just cant feel the energy of Nu from Ch 1 (as an individual new revelation / manifestation (?) ) ... well, then I guess you just cant relate to it and comparing it to Egyptology wont help you get it.

Not in any Egyptian tradition I know of is Nuit a primary deity as in BoL. This is new and different and although the idea has been around for a while (I call it posative life-affirmation gnosticicsm) it has taken on differnt clothes.
 

Yygdrasilian

The Tinkling of a Timepiece

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwass
1. Had! The manifestation of Nuit.

Aeon418 said:
If the symbolic deities in the Book of Law really were Egyptian, then the apparent mistranslation would be a blunder. But they are not Egyptian. They are Thelemic deities clothed in borrowed symbolic forms. Abstract principles finding expression through one particular historical pantheon.

Say Crowley believes Aiwass is who he says he is.

"Aiwass claims to be the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat, a god the ancient egyptians knew as Harpocrates. Harpocrates is a form of the god Horus depicted as an innocent child. His mother is Nut, or Nuit in Liber AL. This attribution further emphasizes the role of Aiwass in delivering the word of the crowned and conquering child.

Aleister Crowley believed Aiwass to have been one of the Secret Chiefs of the A.'.A.'. Crowley also eventually considered Aiwass to be his own Holy Guardian Angel." ( http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Aiwass )

Abrahadabra : represents the great work complete; Word of the Aeon (AC)

Abra-
-Had-
-Abra

-Had-
Harpocrates,
a Horus between abra- & -abra

What is an abra?
Candle -abra? like a menorah?
Trees, Pillars, maybe.
Judith’s handmaiden----?

-Had-
The Word of the Great Work is incomplete. What’s missing?
Did we ever Have it?

There is no Ba- attached to his name.
The Mouth has been opened and his Star has passed thru!
2=0
or
3=1
What is -it?

Stele of Revealing = 20: AEON
Hoor-paar-kraat
My parent, my lover, my child

Does Crowley say more by what he omits than what he reveals?
Or was Aiwass a wise ass?
 

ravenest

Ermmm ... mixed metaphors

You are still buying the mixed metaphor. "Aiwass claims to be the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat, a god the ancient egyptians knew as Harpocrates."

The 'Ancient Egyptians' never used such a word ... it's a Greek word.

Actually the sentance is more correct if reversed; "Aiwass claims to be the minister of Harpocrates a god the ancient egyptians knew as Hoor-paar-kraat."

(But even that is incorrect)

I could go on academicaly ... but I'd rather lie naked under the stars on a magical 'E'.
 

Yygdrasilian

Pull the Wool Over Thine Own Eyes

If mixing of metaphors is a Crowley m.o., then perhaps that is how one is to make sense of his Laws and his Lies.

Whenever I read Crowley I am reminded of the SubGenii precept of ‘bulldada’ whereby any divine revelation is irrevocably distorted the moment it passes through the sensory medium of a fruit-picking monkey. “Bob” compensates for this by distorting his revelations into Satire so that only the “truly enlightened” can get the punch line.

I suspect a similar method is at work in Crowley’s distinct brand of showmanship.
To make sense of some of his puzzles you have to think like a mick punning on a jag.
Finnegan’s Wake is good practice.

Do what thou willteth shall be the loop-hole in the Law
 

Abrac

It might be beneficial to clarify what connection there is between the Stele, The Book of the Law and Thelema, if any. I don't know as much about this as I would like to, but from what I have read it was the Stele that initially inspired Crowley and supposedly the figures on it correspond to Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit. What did Crowley say about it? If there is no connection then it's a dead issue really. But if there is then it seems to me it would be advantageous to find out as much as possible about what is really on the Stele.

Edit: I do appreciate Aeon and ravenest pointing out that this is Thelema we are dealing with and not Egyptian religion as I think this is not always clear. A lot of the imagery and terminology are Egyptian in nature and that can be confusing, at least it has been for me.
 

Aeon418

similia said:
I wonder if Hadit may be equated with the Ego?
Hadit does not represent the ego. Hadit represents that spark of divinity within us all that knows it is one with the rest of the Universe.

The ego, on the other hand, is essentially a tool for the gathering of experience that works from the very limited perspective that it is a finite being, seperate from the universe outside. The ego has no idea that it is connected to the infinite. That is what makes our existence, as apparently seperate beings, work.

Unfortunately the illusion of seperateness that allows the ego to function as a tool also leads it to believe that it is the King-of-the-castle. And this is where our problems begin, because the ego is driven by the desire for self-preservation it will do all that it can to remain seperate and un-changed. It will ignore the voice of the True Will and search out that which provides it with comfort, security, and safety.

That should give you a clue as to why the really good guru's can appear quite threatening to our sense of self. ;)
 

Aeon418

similia said:
Is there any significance in using the name Had, instead of the name Hadit. In mythology is there any distinction of meaning between the two names, or perhaps there is some reason found via gematria even?
Had - HD - Heh Daleth - 9 (Really 11 as revealed later in BoL*.)

Nu - NV - Nun Vau - 56

9 + 56 = 65 - ADNI - Adonai - The Holy Guardian Angel - LUX

HAD (10) + NV (56) = 66 - Mystic number of the Great Work.

EDIT:

* See chp.2:15-16

HAD becomes VAD(11)
NV + VAD = NVAD = 61 - Ain - Nothing. 0=2 once again. ;)
 

Aeon418

ravenest said:
Aeon makes a good point, Thelema IS NOT Ancient Egyptian religion ... and I seriously doubt that anyone now knows what Egyptian religion was
Personally I think the Egyptian-ness of Thelema and the Book of the Law is just window dressing. Harmonious aspects of the Egyptian pantheon were used as a kind of symbolic matrix through which the abstract principles of Thelema were expressed.

Had Crowley been somewhere else in the world in 1904 I think it is highly likely that the BoL would have used a different pantheon of symbolic gods to convey the same message.

I've found that this concept is very difficult to explain to literal minded neo-pagans, who seem to think that Nuit actually is a goddess that lives in space. If ever there was a case of mistaking the menu for the meal..... :rolleyes:

This is what Crowley was getting at in Magick Without Tears - Is Thelema a new religion:
Call it a new religion, then, if it so please your Gracious Majesty; but I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by so doing, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief.
Also from Liber Causae.
23. Deliberately, therefore, did he take refuge in vagueness. Not to veil the truth to the Neophyte, but to warn him against valuing non- essentials. Should therefore the candidate hear the name of any God, let him not rashly assume that it refers to any known God, save only the God known to himself. Or should the ritual speak in terms (however vague) which seem to imply Egyptian, Taoist, Buddhist, Indian, Persian, Greek, Judaic, Christian, or Moslem philosophy, let him reflect that this is a defect of language; the literary limitation and not the spiritual prejudice of the man P.

24. Especially let him guard against the finding of definite sectarian symbols in the teaching of his master, and the reasoning from the known to the unknown which assuredly will tempt him.

We labour earnestly, dear brother, that you may never be led away to perish upon this point; for thereon have many holy and just men been wrecked. By this have all the visible systems lost the essence of wisdom.

We have sought to reveal the Arcanum; we have only profaned it.
 

Aeon418

Abrac said:
It might be beneficial to clarify what connection there is between the Stele, The Book of the Law and Thelema, if any. I don't know as much about this as I would like to, but from what I have read it was the Stele that initially inspired Crowley and supposedly the figures on it correspond to Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit. What did Crowley say about it? If there is no connection then it's a dead issue really. But if there is then it seems to me it would be advantageous to find out as much as possible about what is really on the Stele.
In brief.....

[Note: In the context of Thelema you are not expected, nor required, to believe any of the following. It is merely Crowley's statement of what he claims happened.]

March 16th 1904, Crowley performed a minor magical ritual for the amusement of his wife, Rose Crowley, while they were staying in Cairo, Egypt. The ritual itself didn't seem to produce the expected result, but Rose Crowley seemed to fall into a dreamy, half conscious state and kept on repeating, "They are waiting for you, they are waiting for you." Crowley was mildly annoyed by this and figured his wife was having a joke.

The next day she told him that it is "all about the child" and "all Osiris". Crowley decided to invoke Thoth to try and understand what his wife is going on about. At this point he was still sceptical.

The day after Rose tells Crowley that the "waiter" is Horus. Crowley tests his wife on the magical attributes of Horus. He claims she had no knowledge of Egyptology or magick. Yet she passed the test with flying colours against calculated odds of 21,168,000 to 1. At this point Crowley began to sit up and take notice but was still suspicious. So off the couple went to the Boulak Museum, where Crowley asked his wife to point out Horus among the exhibits. Much to Crowley's amusement his wife walked straight past numerous examples of Horus. But suddenly she stopped and pointed to a stele that was still some way off in the distance saying, "there he is". Crowley approached the stele and found that it was exhibit number 666. That really got his attention.

After that he ordered a physical copy of the stele to be made by the museum staff and a translation of the hieroglyphics. This was done in French. Later Crowley translated the French text into versified English. Some of which was inserted, at the command of Aiwass, into the text of the Book of the Law.