Abrac said:
Nevertheless, Crowley's interpretation was that he was the warrior lord of Thebes and a reincarnation of Ankh-f-n-khonsu. We must respect this view if we are to understand the BoL from a Thelemic perspective.
I don't fully agree with that. Crowley's interpretation is not
the Thelemic perspective. It's merely his interpretation. If his, or any other, interpretation is wrong, it doesn't reflect on the book itself. That stands on it's own merits.
Verse 5 has a distinctly Geburan flavour. This fits perfectly with the pattern established so far.
1. The Point that manifests the ALL - Kether.
2. The male perspective, looking out from the centre at the whole - Chokmah.
3. The female perspective, from the circumference of the circle looking at the units within - Binah.
4. The watery doctrine of "no difference". All is one - Chesed.
5. The invocation of force and fire as a necessary part of the universe and of ourselves - Geburah.
As Abrac has already pointed out, the epithet "warrior lord of Thebes" is a title of Montu. A lesser known warrior god, local to Thebes. During the eleventh dynasty he became more prominent and was eventually "solarised" into a form of Re-Horakhty - Ra Hoor Khuit - who is the generic form of the Holy Guardian Angel used in Liber Legis. (1:5 A direct instruction aimed at Adepts? Those you have achieved the state symbolised by R.H.K.)
It's also interesting to note that apart form Montu's falcon headed form (reminiscent of Horus), he was also portrayed as a Bull. The bull is the symbol of the Earth Kerub, who is symbolic of one form of the The Beast. Aleister Crowley identified himself as the Beast, but he also believed that he was a reincarnation of Ankh-f-n-khonsu. And thus we come full circle to Crowley's own personal interpretation of this verse. It's funny how these things work sometimes.