Liber al vel legis sub figura ccxx as delivered by xciii = 418 to dclxvi

Download 1,21 Mb.
Date conversion31.10.2017
Size1,21 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   22

AL vel

sub figura

as delivered by

XCIII = 418



GCL Rectory

In conjuction with

Birdland Commumications


To Mega Projects



This manuscript is the most complete collection of commentaries to Liber AL vel Legis yet assembled. It is bound with love under will by Frater Zephyros and intended for serious students of Thelemic thought. Please note that the comments (both old and new) by the Master Therion are in plain type and the numbered comments are from the Djeridensis Working. Comments by Marcelo Motta are in Italics and only in these sections. Those comments in italics in the Djeridensis Working are Crowley’s.

{Bracketed Notes by Bill Heidrick of Caliphate infamy} I thought it good to include these as Mr. Heidrick has access to those archives that are so jealously guarded by so many profit mongers.


AL vel

sub figura

as delivered by

XCIII = 418




In the first edition, this Book was called L. L is the sacred letter in the Holy Twelvefold Table which forms the triangle that stabilizes the Universe. See Liber 418. L is the letter of Libra, Balance, and ‘Justice’ in the Taro. This title should probably be AL, “El”, as the ‘L’ was heard of the Voice of Aiwaz, not seen. AL is the true name of the Book, for these letters, and their number 31, form the Master Key to its Mysteries.

With regard to the above note by A.C., serious students should consult Liber V vel RegulI. the Ritual of the Mark of the Beast, for a more thorough analysis of the Word AL.

AL I.1: "Had! The manifestation of Nuit."

1. Nuit defined

Nuit is all that may be, and is shewn by means of any one that is.

Compare II.1, the complement of this verse. In Nu is Had concealed; by Had is Nu manifested. Nu being 56 and Had 9, their conjunction results in 65, AdonaI. the Holy Guardian Angel. Also Hoor, who combines the force of the Sun with that of Mars. Adonai is primarily Solar, but 65 is a number sacred to Mars.

See the "Sepher Sephiroth" ,and "The Wake World" in "Know Om Pax" for further details on 65.

Note moreover, the sixty-five pages of the MS. of Liber Legis.

Or, counting NV 56, Had 10, we get 66, which is (1-11). Had is further the center of the Key-Word



The theogony of our Law is entirely scientific, Nuit is Matter, Hadit is Motion, in their full physical sense.<> They are the Tao and Teh of Chinese Philosophy; or, to put it very simply, the Noun and Verb in grammar. Our central Truth -- beyond other philosophies

-- is that these two infinities cannot exist apart. This extensive subject must be studied in our other writings, notably "Berashith", my own Magical Diaries, especially those of 1919, 1920 and 1921, and "The Book of Wisdom or Folly". See also "The Soldier and the Hunchback". Further information concerning Nuit and Hadit is given in the course

of this Book; but I must here mention that the Brother mentioned in connection with the "Wizard Amalantrah" etc. (Samuel bar Aiwaz) identifies them with ANU and ADAD the supreme Mother and Father deities of the Sumerians. Taken in connexion with the AIWAZ identification, this is very striking indeed.

This last sentence was added because A.C. was convinced that Aiwass was the Being worshipped under this name by the ancient Sumerians.

It is also to be considered that Nu is connected with North, while Had is Sad, Set, Satan, Sat (equals "Being" in Sanskrit), South. He is then the Sun, one point concentrating Space, as also is any other star. The word ABRAHADABRA is from Abrasax, Father Sun, which adds to 365. For the North-South antithesis see Fabre d'Olivet's "Hermeneutic In

terpretation of the Origin of the Social State in Man". Note "Sax" also as a Rock, or Stone, whence the symbol of the Cubical Stone, the Mountain Abiegnus, and so forth. Nu is also reflected in Naus, Ship, etc., and that whole symbolism of Hollow Space which is familiar to all. There is also a question of identifying Nu with On, Noah, Oannes, Jonah, John, Dianus, Diana, and so on. But these identifications are all partial only, different facets of the Diamond Truth. We may neglect all these questions, and remain in the simplicity of this Her own Book.
AL I.2: "The unveiling of the company of heaven."
2. Pantheism of AL.

The Book of the Law shows forth all things as God.

This book is a new revelation, or unveiling of the hold ones.


This explains the general theme of this revelation: gives the Dramatis Personae, so to speak. It is cosmographically, the conception of the two Ultimate Ideas; Space, and That which occupies Space. It will however appear later that these two ideas may be resolved into one, that of Matter; with Space, its 'Condition' or 'form', included therein. This leaves the idea of 'Motion' for Hadit, whose interplay with Nuit makes the Universe.

Time should perhaps be considered as a particular kind or dimension of Space. <> Further, this verse is to be taken with the next.The 'company of heaven' is Mankind, and its 'unveiling' is the assertion of the independent godhead of every man and every woman! Further, as Khabs (see verse 8) is "Star", there is a further meaning; this Book is to reveal the Secret Self of a man, i.e. to initiate him. Or of a woman, and initiate her. As to the meaning of the verses, there are at least four Great Meanings, one for each of the Four Ordeals mentioned the Chapter Three, vv. 64-67. Besides these, there are subsidiary meanings which depend on the Grade of the Commentator, or the Grade of the Reader. This is one of the reasons why this matter of commentaries is so difficult, and why any commentary must not be taken too seriously. The Four Great Meanings, of course, are beyond any danger of being confused, since they are experienced in Trance, and independent of Reason. They cannot be communicated through the intellect. Even the most accurate attempt to do so misleads.

AL I.3: "Every man and every woman is a star."
3-4. Virtues of the Soul

All things are able to know all; all are alike in this, at the end of all.

This thesis is fully treated in "The Book of Wisdom or Folly". Its main statement is that each human being is an Element of the Cosmos, self-determined and supreme, co-equal with all other Gods.

From this the Law "Do what thou wilt" follows logically. One star influences another by attraction, of course; but these are incidents of self-predestined orbits. There is, however, a mystery of the planets, revolving about a star of whom they are parts; but I shall not discuss it fully in this place.
Man is the Middle Kingdom. The Great Kingdom is Heaven, with each star as an unit; the Little Kingdom is the Molecule, with each Electron as an unit. (The Ratio of these three is regularly geometrical, each being 10 to the 22 times greater in size than its neighbour.)

See "The Book of the Great Auk" for the demonstration that each 'star' is the Centre of the Universe to itself, and that a 'star' simple, original, absolute, can add to its omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence without ceasing to be itself; that its one way to do this is to gain experience, and that therefore it enters into combinations in

which its true Nature is for awhile disguised, even from itself. Analogously, an atom of carbon may pass through myriad Proteus-phases, appearing in Chalk, Chloroform, Sugar, Sap, Brain and Blood, not recognizable as "itself" the black amorphous solid, but recoverable as such, unchanged by its adventures.

This theory is the only one which explains "why" the Absolute limited itself, and why It does not recognize Itself during its cycle of incarnations. It disposes of "Evil" and the Origin of Evil; without denying Reality to "Evil", or insulting our daily observation and our common sense.

I here quote (with one or two elucidatory insertions) the original note originally made by Me on this subject.

May 14, 1919, 6.30 p.m.

All elements must at one time have been separate -- that would be the case with great heat. Now when atoms get to the sun, when we get to the sun, we get that immense, extreme heat, and all the elements are themselves again. Imagine that each atom of each element possesses the memory of all his adventures in combination. By the way, that atom, fortified with that memory, would not be the same atom; yet it is, because it has gained nothing from anywhere except this memory. Therefore, by the lapse of time and by virtue of memory, a thing (although originally an Infinite Perfection) could become something more than itself; and thus a real development is possible. One can then see a re

ason for any element deciding to go through this series of incarnations (god, that was a magnificent conception!) because so, and only so, can he go; and he suffers the lapse of memory of His own Reality of Perfection which he has during these incarnations, because he knows he will come through unchanged.

Therefore you have an infinite number of gods, individual and equal though diverse, each one supreme and utterly indestructible. This is also the only explanation of how a being could create a world in which war, evil, "etc." exist. Evil is only an appearance because, like "good", it cannot affect the substance itself, but only multiply its combinations. This is something the same as mystic monism, but the objection to that theory is that God has to create things which are all parts of himself, so that their interplay is false. If we presuppose many elements, their interplay is natural. It is no objection to this theory to ask who made the elements -- the elements are at least there; and God, when you look for him, is not there. Theism is "obscurum per obscurius". A male star is built up from the centre outwards, a female star from the circumference inwards. This is what is meant when we say that woman has no soul. It explains fully the difference between the sexes.

{NOTE: Although Crowley evidently felt that this characterization was true simply, it should be noted that this comment is not CLASS A. The idea of center outwards and circumference inwards may actually have described the impression received by a male of the Victorian age in regard to men and women. Certainly every male mystic has the state

here described as "circumference inward", " soul" and "female" at the time of reception --- vide Liber LXV. Equally, every woman who acts positively from awareness of her identity would qualify for "center outwards", "soul" and "male" in this sense. What Crowley identified as sex-linked may better be considered as modality linked, with the

sexual linkage as much an accident of culture as anything else.}

AL I.4: "Every number is infinite; there is no difference."

This is a great and holy mystery. Although each star has its own number, each number is equal and supreme. Every man and every woman is not only a part of God, but the Ultimate God. "The Centre is everywhere and the circumference nowhere". The old definition of God takes new meaning for us. Each one of us is the One God. This can only be understood by the initiate; one must acquire certain high states of consciousness to appreciate it.

I have tried to put it simply in the note to the last verse. I may add that in the Trance called by me the "Star-Sponge" -- see note to v. 59 -- this apprehension of the Universe is seen as an astral Vision. It began as "Nothingness with Sparkles" in 1916 E.V. by Lake Pasquaney in New Hampshire, U.S.A. and developed into fullness on various s

ubsequent occasions. Each 'Star' is connected directly with every other star, and the Space being Without Limit (Ain Soph) the Body of Nuith, any one star is as much the Centre as any other. Each man instinctively feels that he is the Centre of the Cosmos, and philosophers have jeered at his presumption. But it was he that was precisely right. The yokel is no more 'petty' than the King, nor the earth than the Sun. Each simple elemental Self is supreme, Very God of Very God. Ay, in this Book is Truth almost insufferably splendid, for Man has veiled himself too long from his own glory: he fears the abyss, the ageless Absolute. But Truth shall make him free!

The reader will assimilate this more easily, on the intellectual plane, by considering the Theory of Relativity. From the point of view of Initiation, the difference between a Magister Templi and a ‘Black Brother’ is that the Magister knows that He is the Center of the Universe for himself, but understands that the same is simultaneously true of any other human being. The ‘Black Brother’ knows that he is the center of the universe, but does not understand that the same is true of toers. Of all others. What is more, he does not want to understand. He interprets any manifestation of autonomy as an attempt against his authority. The reader must not think that a ‘Black Brother’ is necessarily a mean person. On the contrary, his intentions are usually of the best. He wants your happiness. But since his definition of your happiness is based on what he thinks you should be happy with, he may cause you much harm by trying to help you. A Magister, as a rule, will not try to help you at all. The Magister is selfish. He minds His own business, and no other.

Frederick Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth had a very amusing tale of a man who approached two ‘Black Brethren’ and challenged them. “What does he say?” the second ‘Black Brother’, who was somewhat hard of hearing, asked the first. “He says we are not God,” the first explained. At once, the second snapped: “Atheist!” The utter lack of sense of humor is a characteristic of ‘Black Brotherhood’. A Magister might have said the same thing—but with a twinkle.

There are certain analogies between “Black Brotherhood’ and paranoia, but while paranoia is a mental disorder, ‘Black Brotherhood’ is of Daath, and much more dangerous. Religious persecutions, throughout history, were always the result of a man reaching the threshold of the Abyss through the discipline of a particular faith, and then fearing to jump. His disease would then affect, telepathically and magically, those of his faith, with results such as Holy Inquisitions, Crusades, and others.

It must be understood from the beginning that this book contains the keys of all the knowledge necessary for the operation of the Magical Formulae of the world during the Aeon which it initiates. In this very early verse is already given a Master Key to mathematics and metaphysics. On applying this to current problems of thought, it will be discovered that the long-fast doors fly open at a touch.

Let use briefly examine the implications of this statement. It should not occasion surprise to find that the Book of the Law not only anticipates the conclusion of the greatest modern mathematicians like Poincare, but goes beyond them. It was necessary that this should be the case, so that the book might be, beyond question, the expression of a mind possessed of superior powers to any incarnated mind whatsoever.
It may clarify the subject if we venture to paraphrase the text. The first statement "Every number is infinite" is, on the face of it, a contradiction in terms. But that is only because of the accepted idea of a number as not being a thing in itself but merely a term in series homogeneous in character. All orthodox mathematical argument is

based on definitions involving this conception. For example, it is fundamental to admit the identity of 2 plus 1 with 1 plus 2. The Book of the Law presents an altogether different conception of the nature of number.

Mathematical ideas involve what is called a continuum, which is, superficially at least, of a different character to the physical continuum. For instance, in the physical continuum, the eye can distinguish between the lengths of one-inch stick and a two-inch stick, but not between these which measure respectively one thousand miles and one thousand miles and on inch, though the difference in each case is equally an inch. The inch difference is either perceptible or not perceptible, according to the conditions. Similarly, the eye can distinguish either the one-inch or the two-inch stick from one of an inch and a half. But we cannot continue this process indefinitely -- we can always reach a point where the extremes are distinguishable from each other but their mean from neither of the extremes. Thus, in the physical continuum, if we have three terms, A, B, and C, A appears equal to B, and B to C, yet C appears greater than A. Our reason tells us that this conclusion is an absurdity, that we have been deceived by the grossness of our perceptions. It is useless for us to invent instruments which increase the accuracy of our observations, for though they enable us to distinguish between the three terms of our series, and to restore the theoretical Hierarchy, we can always continue the process of division until we arrive at another series: A', B', C', where A' and C' are distinguishable from each other, but where neither is distinguishable from B'.

On the above grounds, modern thinkers have endeavoured to create a distinction between the mathematical and the physical continuum, yet it should surely be obvious that the defect in our organs of sense, which is responsible for the difficulty, shows that our method of observation debars us from appreciating the true nature of things by this method of observation.

However, in the case of the mathematical continuum, its character is such that we can continue indefinitely the process of division between any two mathematical expressions so-ever, without interfering in any way with the regularity of the process, or creating a condition in which two terms become indistinguishable from each other. The mathematical continuum, moreover, is not merely a question of series of integral numbers, but of other types of numbers, which, like integers, express relations between existing ideas, yet are not measurable in terms of that series. Such numbers are themselves parts of a continuum of their own, which interpenetrates the series of integers without touching it, at least necessarily.

For example: the tangents of angles made by the separation of two lines from coincidence to perpendicularity, increases constantly from zero to infinity. But almost the only integral value is found at the angle of 45 degrees where it is unity.

It may be said that there is an infinite number of such series, each possessing the same property of infinite divisibility. The ninety tangents of angles differing by one degree between zero and ninety may be multiplied sixty fold by taking the minute instead of the degree as the co-efficient of the progression, and these again sixty fold by introducing the second to divide the minute. So on ad infinitum.

All these considerations depend upon the assumption that every number is no more than a statement of relation. The new conception, indicated by the Book of the Law, is of course in no way contradictory of the orthodox view; but it adds to it in the most practically important manner. A statistician computing the birth-rate of the eighteenth century makes no special mention of the birth of Napoleon. This does not invalidate his results; but it demonstrates how exceedingly limited is their scope even with regard to their own object, for the birth of Napoleon had more influence on the death-rate than another other phenomenon included in his calculations.

A short digression is necessary. There may be some who are still unaware of the fact, but the mathematical and physical sciences are in no sense concerned with absolute truth, but only with the relations between observed phenomena and the observer. The statement that the acceleration of falling bodies is thirty-two feet per second, is only the roughest of approximation at the best. In the first place, it applies to earth. As most people know, in the Moon the rate is only one-sixth as great. But, even on earth, it differs in a marked manner between the poles and the equator, and not only so, but it is affected by so small a matter as the neighborhood of a mountain.

It is similarly inaccurate to speak of "repeating" an experiment. The exact conditions never recur. One cannot boil water twice over. The water is not the same, and the observer is not the same. When a man says that he is sitting still, he forgets that he is whirling through space with vertiginous rapidity.
It is possibly such considerations that led earlier thinkers to admit that there was no expectation of finding truth in anything but mathematics, and they rashly supposed that the apparent ineluctability of her laws constitutes a guarantee of their coherence with truth. But mathematics is entirely a matter of convention, no less so than the rules of Chess or Baccarat. When we say that "two straight lines cannot enclose a space", we mean no more than we are unable to think of them as doing so. The truth of the statement depends, consequently, on that of the hypothesis that our minds bear witness to truth. Yet the insane man may be unable to think that he is not the victim of mysterious persecution. We find that no reason for believing him. It is useless to reply that mathematical truths receive universal consent, because they do not. It is a matter of elaborate and tedious training to persuade even the few people when we teach of the truth of the simplest theorems in Geometry. There are very few people living who are convinced -- or even aware -- of the more recondite results of analysis. It is no reply to this criticism to say that all men can be convinced if they are sufficiently trained, for who is to guarantee that such training does not warp the mind?

But when we have brushed away these preliminary objections, we find that the nature of the statement itself is not, and cannot be, more than a statement of correspondences between our ideas. In the example chosen, we have five ideas; those of duality, of straightness, of a line, of enclosing, and of space. None of these are more than ideas. Each one is meaningless until it is defined as corresponding in a certain manner to certain other ideas. We cannot define any word soever, except by identifying it with two or more equally undefined words. To define it by a single word would evidently constitute a tautology.

We are thus forced to the conclusion that all investigation may be stigmatized as obscurum per obscurium. Logically, our position is even worse. We define A as BC, where B is DE, and C is FG. Not only does the process increase the number of our unknown quantities in Geometrical progression at every step, but we must ultimately arrive at a point where the definition of Z involves the term A. Not only is all argument confined within a vicious circle, but so is the definition of the terms on which any argument must be based.

It might be supposed that the above chain of reasoning made all conclusions impossible. But this is only true when we investigate the ultimate validity of our propositions. We can rely on water boiling at 100 degrees Centigrade,<> although, for mathematical accuracy, water never boils twice running at precisely the same temperature, and although, logically, the term water is an incomprehensible mystery.

To return to our so-called axiom; Two straight lines cannot enclose a space. It has been one of the most important discoveries of modern mathematics, that this statement, even if we assume the definition of the various terms employed, is strictly relative, not absolute; and that common sense is impotent to confirm it as in the case of the boiling water. For BolyaI. Lobatschewsky, and Riemann have shown conclusively that a consistent system of geometry can be erected on any arbitrary axiom whatsoever. If one chooses to assume that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is either greater than or less than two right angles, instead of equal to them, we can construct two new systems of Geometry, each perfectly consistent with itself, and we possess no means whatsoever of deciding which of the three represents truth.

I may illustrate this point by a simple analogy. We are accustomed to assert that we go from France to China, a form of expression which assumes that those countries are stationary, while we are mobile. But the fact might be equally well expressed by saying that France left us and China came to us. In either case there is no implication of absolute motion, for the course of the earth through space is not taken into account. We implicitly refer to a standard of repose which, in point of fact, we know not to exist. When I say that the chair in which I am sitting has remained stationary for the last hour, I mean only "stationary in respect to myself and my house". In reality, the ear

th's rotation has carried it over one thousand miles, and the earth's course some seventy thousand miles, from its previous position. All that we can expect of any statement is that it should be coherent with regard to a series of assumption which we know perfectly well to be false and arbitrary.

It is commonly imagined, by those who have not examined the nature of the evidence, that our experience furnishes a criterion by which we may determine which of the possible symbolic representations of Nature is the true one. They suppose that Euclidian Geometry is in conformity with Nature because the actual measurements of the interior angle s of a triangle tell us that their sum is in fact equal to two right angles, just as Euclid tells us that theoretical considerations declare to be the case. They forget that the instruments which we use for our measurements are themselves conceived of as in conformity with the principles of Euclidian Geometry. In other words, them measure ten yards with a piece of wood about which they really known nothing but that its length is one-tenth of the ten yards in question.

The fallacy should be obvious. The most ordinary reflection should make it clear that our results depend upon all sorts of condition. If we inquire, "What is the length of the thread of quicksilver in a thermometer?", we can only reply that it depends on the temperature of the instrument. In fact, we judge temperature by the difference of the coefficients of expansion due to heat of the two substances, glass and mercury.

Again, the divisions of the scale of the thermometer depend upon the temperature of boiling water, which is not a fixed thing. It depends on the pressure of the earth's atmosphere, which varies (according to time and place) to the extent of over twenty per cent. Most people who talk of "scientific accuracy" are quite ignorant of elementary facts of this kind.

It will be said, however, that having defined a yard as the length of a certain bar deposited in the Mint in London, under given conditions of temperature and pressure, we are at least in a position to measure the length of other objects by comparison, directly or indirectly, with that standard. In a rough and ready way, that is more or less the case. But if it should occur that the length of things in general were halved or doubled, we could not possibly be aware of the other so-called laws of Nature. We have no means so-ever of determining even so simple a matter as to whether one of two events happens before or after the other.

Let us take an instance. It is well known that the light of the sun requires some eight minutes to reach the earth. Simultaneous <>

{NOTE: SIC. This is page 51 in Eddington, op. cit. 1920 edition, 1959 reprint: "The denial of absolute simultaneity is a natural complement to the denial of absolute motion ..."} phenomena in the two bodies would therefore appear to be separated in time to that extent; and, from a mathematical standpoint, the same discrepancy theoretically exists, even if we suppose the two bodies in question to be only a few yards one more remote than the other. Recent consideration of these facts has show the impossibility of determining the fact of priority, so that it may be just as reasonable to assert that a dagger-thrust is caused by a wound as vice versa. Lewis Carroll has an amusing parable to this effect in "Through the Looking-Glass", which work, by the way, with its predecessor, is packed with examples of philosophical paradox. <>

We may now return to our text "Every number is infinite". The fact that every number is a term in a mathematical continuum is no more an adequate definition than if we were to describe a picture as Number So-and-So in the catalogue. Every number is a thing in itself,<> possessing an infinite number of properties peculiar to itself.

Let us consider, for a moment, the numbers 8 and 9. 8 is the number of cubes measuring one inch each way in a cube which measures two inches each way; while 9 is the number of squares measuring one inch each way in a square measuring three inches each way. There is a sort of reciprocal correspondence between them in this respect.

By adding one to eight, we obtain nine, so that we might define unity as that which has the property of transforming a three-dimensional expansion of two into a two-dimensional expansion of three. But if we add unity to nine, unity appears as that which has the power of transforming the two-dimensional expansion of three aforesaid into a mere oblong measuring 5 by 2. Unity thus appears as in possession of two totally different properties. Are we then to conclude that it is not the same unity? How are we to describe unity, how know it? Only by experiment can we discover the nature of its action on any given number. In certain minor respects, this action exhibits regularity. We know, for example, that it uniformly transforms an odd number into an even one, and vice versa, but that is practically the limit of what we can predict as to its action.

We can go further, and state that any number whatsoever possesses this infinite variety of powers to transform any other number, even by the primitive process of addition. We observe also how the manipulation of any two numbers can be arranged so that the result is incommensurable with either, or even so that ideas are created of a character totally incompatible with our original conception of numbers as a series of positive integers. We obtain unreal and irrational expressions, ideas of a wholly different order, by a very simple juxtaposition of such apparently comprehensible and commonplace entities as integers.

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from these various considerations. It is that the nature of every number is a thing peculiar to itself, a thing inscrutable and infinite, a thing inexpressible, even if we could understand it. In other words, a number is a soul, in the proper sense of the term, an unique and necessary element in the totality of existence.

We may not turn to the second phrase of the text: "there is no difference". It must strike the student immediately that this is, on the face of it, a point blank contradiction of all that has been said above. What have we done but insist upon the essential difference between any tow numbers, and show that even their sequential relation is little more than arbitrary, being indeed rather a convenient way of regarding them for the purpose of coordinating them with out understanding than anything else? On a similar principle, we number public vehicles or telephones without implication even of necessary sequence. The appellation denotes nothing beyond membership of a certain class of objects, and is indeed expressly chosen to avoid being entangled in considerations of any characteristics of the individual so designated except that cursory designation.

when it is said that there is no difference between numbers (for in this sense I think we must understand the phrase), we must examine the meaning of the word 'difference'. Difference is the denial of identity in the first place, but the word is not properly applied to discriminate between objects which have no similarity. One does not ask, "

What is the difference between a yard and a minute?" in practical life. We do ask the difference between two things of the same kind. The Book of the Law is trying to emphasize the doctrine that each number is unique and absolute. Its relations with other numbers are therefore in the nature of illusion. They are the forms of presentation under

which we perceive their semblances; and it is to the last degree important to realize that these semblances only indicate the nature of the realities behind them in the same way in which the degrees on a thermoelectric scale indicate heat. It is quite un-philosophical to say that 50 degrees Centigrade is hotter than 40 degrees. Degrees of temperature are simply conventions invented by ourselves to describe physical states of a totally different order; and, while the heat of a body may be regarded as an inherent property of its own, our measure of that heat in no way concerns it. We use instruments of science to inform us of the nature of the various objects which we wish to study; but our observations never reveal the thing as it is in itself. They only enable us to compare unfamiliar with familiar experiences. The use of an instrument necessarily implies the imposition of alien conventions. To take the simplest example: when we say that we see a thing, we only mean that our consciousness is modified by its existence according to a particular arrangement of lenses and other optical instruments, which exist in our eyes and not in the object perceived. So also, the fact that the sum of 2 and 1 is three, affords us but a single statement of relations symptomatic of the presentation to us of those numbers.

We have, therefore, no means whatsoever of determining the difference between any two numbers, except in respect of a particular and very limited relation. Furthermore, in view of the infinity of every number, it seems not unlikely that the apparent differences observed by us would tend to disappear with the disappearance of the arbitrary conditions which we attach to them to facilitate, as we think, our examination. We may also observe that each number, being absolute, is the centre of its universe, so that all other numbers, so far as they are related to it, are its appendages. Each number is, therefore, the totality of the universe, and there cannot be any difference between one infinite universe and another. The triangle ABC may look very different from the standpoints of A, B, and C respectively; each view is true, absolutely; yet it is the same triangle.

The above interpretation of the text is of a revolutionary character, from the point of view of science and mathematics. Investigation of the lines here laid down will lead to the solution of these grave problems which have so long baffled the greatest minds of the world, on account of the initial error of attaching them on lines which involve self-contradiction. The attempt to discover the nature of things by a study of the relations between them is precisely parallel with the ambition to obtain a finite value of Pi. Nobody wishes to deny the practical value of the limited investigations which have so long preoccupied the human mind. But it is only quite recently that even the best thinkers have begun to recognize that their work was only significant within a certain order. It will soon be admitted on all hands that the study of the nature of things in themselves is a work for which the human reason is incompetent; for the nature of reason is such that it must always formulate itself in proportions which merely assert a positive or negative relation between a subject and a predicate. Men will thus be led to the development of a faculty, superior to reason, whose apprehension is independent of the hieroglyphic representations of which reason so vainly makes use.<> {This then will} be the foundation of the true spiritual science which is the proper tendency of the evolution of man. This Science will clarify, without superseding, the old; but it will free men from the bondage of mind, little by little, just as the old science has freed them from the bondage of matter.

This science is the proper and particular study of initiates, and its principia are formulated in the Book of the Law. This Book may therefore be regarded as indicating a complete revolution in human affairs, for it advances mankind in the most radical manner. The road of attainment to self-realization is made open as never before has been done in the history of the planet.

AL I.5: "Help me, o warrior lord of Thebes, in my unveiling before the Children of men!"

5. Mission of Aleister Crowley,the Beast 666.

I The Beast, the Man Aleister Crowley whose number is 666, help to show forth this truth to men.

Nu, to unveil herself, needs a mortal intermediary, in the first instance.

It is to be supposed that ankh-f-n-khonsu, the warrior lord of Thebes, priest of Men Tu, is in some subtle manner identical with either Aiwass or the Beast.

Here Nuit appeals, simply and directly, recognizing the separate function of each Star of her Body. Though all is One, each part of that One has its own special work, each Star its particular Orbit.

In addressing me as warrior lord of Thebes, it appears as if She perceived a certain continuity or identity of myself with Ankh-f-n-khonsu, whose Stele is the Link with Antiquity of this Revelation. See Equinox I. VII. pp. 363-400a, for the account of this event.

The unveiling is the Proclamation of the Truth previously explained, that the Body of Nuith occupies Infinite Space, so that every Star thereof is Whole in itself, an independent and absolute Unit. They differ as Carbon and Calcium differ, but each is a simple "immortal" Substance, or at least a form of some simpler Substance. Each soul is thus absolute, and 'good'

or 'evil' are merely terms descriptive of relations between destructible combinations. Thus Quinine is 'good' for a malarial patient, but 'evil' for the germ of the disease. Heat is 'bad' for ice-cream and 'good' for coffee. The indivisible essence of things, their 'souls', are indifferent to all conditions whatsoever, for none can in any way affect them.

Although this last sentence is grammatically wrong, we left it as written proof of how hard it is to discuss certain Truths on the plane of the intellect. Aleister Crowley was a Master of the English Language; yet, in trying to express something that transcends Reason, he committed an error of syntax that any modern secretary would avoid!
The problem was that he was caught in the quandary that the “indivisible essence” is simultaneously One and Many! Hence the ‘error’.

Lay readers should understand that when A.C. writes “here Nuit appeals” what he actually means is “Here Aiwass, speaking as Nuit, appeals,” etc. Aiwass, being an Ipsissimus, can of course speak in name of Infinite Space.

The fact that Children is with C capital indicates a hidden technical meaning in the verse. Those Children are rather gig Children! They are Giants, Titans, Gargantuas or Pantagruels of legend—in short, they are Babes of the Abyss. This si the “Grade”, or rather, the “Going” in which the Veil is Rent and the mind receives the first impact of the Infinite. In this sense, therefore, Nuit is appealing to 666 to become the Hierophant of the Greater Mysteries—that is to say, the Magus of the Aeon, the Initiator of the Masters of the Temple. Obviously, He must be in Chokhmah.
AL I.6: "Be thou Hadit, my secret centre, my heart & my tongue!"
6. 666 as Artist.

I am the Point of View (as of the artist) from which Nuit may be seen by all; for I am Her inmost thought, her sense, and her Voice.

The recipient of this knowledge is to identify himself with Hadit, and thus fully express the thoughts of her heart in her very language.


Nuit formulates me as Hadit, especially in the three centres of consciousness of her Being. IN this way, for this purpose, I became the complement of Her.

These centres are those of Love, Life and language. Duality is the condition of all three. It will appear later how it is that None and Two are identical; they are distinct in our minds only because those minds are conscious, and therefore think of "two" as their own state. But the unconscious mind thinks Nothing, and is Nothing. Yet it is

the same mind.

Nuith selects three centres of Her Body to become "Two" with Hadit; for she asks me to declare Her in these three. Infinite freedom, all-embracing, for physical Love; boundless continuity for Life; and the silent rhythm of the Stars for Language. These three conceptions are Her gift to us.

Aleister Crowley is being ‘chosen’, and the choice is specifically declared: He is to be Hadit, that is, simultaneously Kether (the centre), Chokhmah (the tongue) and Binah (the ancient Egyptians believed that the heart was the seat of intelligence).

In short, in order to do the job for which he was chosen—Nuit’s Helpmeet—he must reach the highest Initiations possible to man. Which, of course, he did.

AL I.7: "Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat."

7. Mine H.G.A. Aiwass: HisNature and Office, AL his Word.

Mine Angel sayeth Her song into mine ear. He is Aiwass, who is the Word of the Law as also its mode of action. He serveth Silence through his speech, which stilleth evil sounds, not known nor fused into one tune.

Aiwass -- see Introduction. He is 78, Mezla, the "influence" from the Highest Crown, and the number of cards in the Tarot, Rota, the all-embracing Wheel.

Hoor-paar-Kraat -- see II. 8.

Aiwass is called the minister of Hoor-paar-Kraat, the God of Silence; for his word is the Speech of the Silence.
Aiwass is the name given by Ouarda the Seer as that of the Intelligence Communicating. See note to Title.

Hoor-paar-Kraat or Harpocrates, the "Babe in the Egg of Blue", is not merely the God of Silence in a conventional sense. He represents the Higher Self, the Holy Guardian Angel. The connexion is with the symbolism of the Dwarf in Mythology. He contains everything in Himself, but is unmanifested. See II:8.

He is the First Letter of the Alphabet, Aleph, whose number is One, and his card in the Tarot is The Fool, numbered Zero. Aleph is attributed to the "Element" (in the old classification of things) of Air. Now as "One" or Aleph he represents the Male Principle, the First Cause, and the free breath of Life, the sound of the vowel A being made with the open throat and mouth.

As Zero he represents the female Principle, the fertile Mother. (An old name for the card is Mat, from the Italian 'Matto', fool, but earlier also from Maut, the Egyptian Vulture-Mother-Goddess). Fertile, for the 'Egg of Blue' is the Uterus, and in the Macrocosm the Body of Nuith, and it contains the Unborn Babe, helpless yet protected and nourished against the crocodiles and tigers shown on the card, just as the womb is sealed during gestation. He sits on a lotus, the yonI. which floats on the 'Nile', the amniotic fluid.

In his absolute innocence and ignorance he is "The Fool"; he is the 'Saviour', being the Son who shall trample on the crocodiles and tigers, and avenge his father Osiris. Thus we see him as the "Great Fool" of Celtic legend, the "Pure Fool" of Act I of "Parsifal", and, generally speaking, the insane person whose words have always been taken f

or oracles.

But to be 'Saviour' he must be born and grow to manhood; thus Parsifal acquires the Sacred Lance, emblem of virility. He usually wears the 'Coat of many colours' like Joseph the 'dreamer'; so he is also now the Green Man of spring festivals. But his 'folly' is now not innocence but inspiration of wine; he drinks from the Graal, offered to him by the Priestess.

So we see him fully armed as Bacchus Diphues, male and female in one, bearing the Thyrsus-rod, and a cluster of grapes or a wineskin, while a tiger leaps up by his side. This form is suggested in the Taro card, where 'The fool' is shown with a long wand and carrying a sack; his coat is motley. Tigers and Crocodiles follow him, thus linking this image with that of Harpocrates.

Almost identical symbols are those of the secret God of the Templars, the bi-sexual Baphomet, and of Zeus Arrhenothelus, equally bi-sexual, the Father-Mother of All in One Person. (He is shown in this full form in the Tarot Trump XV, "the Devil".) Now Zeus being lord of Air, we are reminded that Aleph is the letter of Air.

As Air we find the "Wandering Fool" pure wanton Breath, yet creative. Wind was supposed of old to impregnate the Vulture, which therefore was chosen to symbolize the Mother-Goddess.

He is the Wandering Knight or Prince of Fairy Tales who marries the King's Daughter. This legend is derived from certain customs among exogamic tribes, for which see "The Golden Bough".

Thus one Europa, Semele and others claimed that Zeus -- Air<

It seems as if this great division, which has wrought such appalling havoc upon the Earth, were originally no more than a distinction adopted for convenience. It is indeed the task of this Book to reduce Theology to the interplay of the Dyad Nuith and Hadith, these being themselves conceived as complementary, as Two equivalent to Naught, "divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union.">> -- had enjoyed them in the form of a beast, bird, or what not; while later Mary attributed her condition to the agency of a Spirit -- Spiritus, breath, or air -- in the shape of a dove.

Simple-minded readers must not think for one moment that A.C. is here “admitting the historical existence of the Virgin Mary”; on the contrary, he is obviously putting her on the same footing with Europa, Semele and others. The Virgin Birth, like the Dying God, is a much older myth than Christianity; and the Virgin was usually seeded by a God under the form of a Beast. Far form being original, Christian Theology is a pot-pourri of stolen goods.

But the "Small Person" of Hindu mysticism, the Dwarf insane yet crafty of many legends in many lands, is also this same "Holy Ghost", or Silent Self of a man, or his Holy Guardian Angel.

He is almost the "Unconscious" of Freud, unknown, unaccountable, the silent Spirit, blowing "whither it listeth, but thou canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth". It commands with absolute authority when it appears at all, despite conscious reason and judgment.

Aiwass is then, as this verse 7 states, the "minister" of this Hoor-paar-Kraat, that is of the Saviour of the World in the larger sense, and of mine own "Silent Self" in the lesser. A "minister" is one who performs a service, in this case evidently that of revealing; He was the intelligible medium between the Babe God -- the New Aeon about to be born -- and myself. This Book of the Law is the Voice of his Mother, His Father, and Himself. But on His appearing, He assumes the active form twin to Harpocrates, that of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. The Concealed Child becomes the Conquering Child, the armed Horus avenging his father Osiris. So also our own Silent Self, helpless and witless, hidden within us, will spring forth, if we have craft to loose him to the Light, spring lustily forward with his cry of Battle, the Word of our True Wills.

This is the Task of the Adept, to have the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel, to become aware of his nature (the Adept’s) and his purpose (the Adept’s), fulfilling them.

The Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel produces this result. It is not “the Angel’s nature’ or “the Angel’s purpose” that are to be done by the Adept! For instance, Aiwass was the Holy Guardian Angel of A.C.; but Aiwass goes on doing His job, that of being minister of Hoor-paar-kraat, while A.C.—now 666—does His. Suum cuique.

Why is Aiwass thus spelt, when Aiwaz is the natural transliteration of OIVZ{NOTE: This word is not certain.}? Perhaps because he was not content with identifying Himself with Thelema, Agape, etc. by the number 93, but wished to express his nature by six letters (Six being the number of the Sun, the God-Man, etc.) whose value in Greek should be A=1, I=10, F=6, A=1, S=200, S=200: total 418, the number of Abrahadabra, the Magical Formula of the new Aeon! Note that I and V are the letters of the Father and the Son, also of the Virgin and the Bull, (See "Liber 418") protected on either side by the letter of AIR, and followed by the letter of Fire twice over.

AL I.8: "The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs."
8-9. Nature of Mankind.

The essence of a Man and Woman – each being a Star or sovereign God poised in Space by its own act – is clothed in thoughts and deeds as is its Nature, hidden by them.

This essence is all-worthy; adore it, and the light of all that may be shall be shed upon you.
Here begins the text.

Khabs is the secret Light or L.V.X.; the Khu is the magical entity of a man.

I find later (Sun in Virgo, An VII) that Khabs means star. In which chase cf. v.5.

The doctrine here taught is that that Light is innermost, essential man. Intra (not Extra) Nobis Regnum Dei.

We are not to regard ourselves as base beings, without whose sphere is Light or "God". Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a "Dark Star", and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil'. (This will be understood better in the Light of "The Hermit of Esopus Island", q.v.) The Doctrine is evidently of supreme importance, from its position as the first 'revelation' of Aiwass.

This 'star' or 'Inmost Light' is the original, individual, eternal essence. The Khu is the magical garment which it weaves for itself, a 'form' for its Being Beyond Form, by use of which it can gain experience through self-consciousness, as explained in the note to verses 2 and 3. This Khu is the first veil, far subtler than mind or body, and truer; for its symbolic shape depends on the nature of its Star.

Why are we told that the Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs? Did we then suppose the converse? I think that we are warned against the idea of a Pleroma, a flame of which we are Sparks, and to which we return when we 'attain'. That would indeed be to make the whole curse of separate existence ridiculous, a senseless and inexcusable folly. It would throw us back on the dilemma of Manichaeism. The idea of incarnations "perfecting" a thing originally perfect by definition is imbecile. The only sane solution is as given previously, to suppose that the Perfect enjoys experience of (apparent) Imperfection. (There are deeper resolutions of this problem appropriate to the highest grades of initiation; but the above should suffice the average intelligence.)

When A.C. says, above, “Did we then suppose the converse?” he is speaking with his tongue in his cheek. He knows perfectly well that all religions, without one single solitasry exception, suppose the converse. He, himself, had once supposed the converse.

This central mystery reveald by Aiwass was the darkest secret of most Initiatic Schools. All religions start as Methods of Theurgy; as Method degenerates into Routine, Blind Faith becomes more virtuous than Experience, and Dogma is born. Then God is put on a pedestal, where He, or She, or It, is less uncomfortably present when you indulge your basest appetites such as Preaching and Saving Souls.

The formidable nature of the Book of the Law becomes apparent when we see that this “Dark Mystery” is the first and simplest of its revelations. No wonder organized religions everywhere fought it! No wonder “Initiatic Orders” which had only this “Awful Truth”—“Osiris is a Black God”—to mask their financial and political maneuvers clamored that Aleister Crowley was a very wicked man.
AL I.9: "Worship then the Khabs, and behold my light shed over you!"


That Khabs is declared to be the light of Nu. It being worshipped in the centre, the light also fills the circumference, so that all is light.


We are to pay attention to this Inmost Light; then comes the answering Light of Infinite Space. Note that the Light of Space is what men call Darkness; its nature is utterly incomprehensible to our uninitiated minds. It is the 'veils' mentioned previously in this comment that obstruct the relation between Nuit and Hadit.

We are not to worship the Khu, to fall in love with our Magical Image. To do this -- we have all done it -- is to forget our Truth. If we adore Form, it becomes opaque to Being, and may soon prove false to itself. The Khu in each of us includes the Cosmos as he knows it. To me, even another Khabs is only part of my Khu. Our own Khabs

is our one sole Truth.
AL I.10: "Let my servants be few & secret: they shall rule the many & the known."
10. Masters of Mankind defined.

Those who adore and love all things alike, for that they are of Truth, are yet but few, and are not known of men. Yet being free of fear and lust their power controls the many1 whose souls are subject to limit, the limit of knowledge,

which is always two, and can be counted.
This is the rule of Thelema, that its adepts shall be invisible rulers. This, it may be remarked, has always been the case.
The nature of magical power is quite incomprehensible to the vulgar. The prophet Ezekiel besieging a tile in order to destroy Jerusalem, and the adventure of Hosea with Gomer, seem as absurd to the 'practical' man as do the researches of any other scientific man until the Sunday Newspapers have furnished him with a plausible explanation which explains nothing. ("Book 4", Part III. must be read in this connexion.)

"My servants"; not those of the Lord of the Aeon. "The Law is for all"; there can be no secrecy about that. The verse refers to specially chosen 'servants'; perhaps those who, worshipping the Khabs, have beheld Her light shed over them. Such persons indeed consummate the marriage of Nuit and Hadit in themselves; in that case they are aware of certain Ways to Power.

There is also a mystical sense in this verse. We are to organize our minds thoroughly, appointing few and secret chiefs, serving Nuit, to discipline the varied departments of the conscious thought.
AL I.11: "These are fools that men adore; both their Gods & their men are fools."
11. The Secret of Government.

Men adore Naught, although they deem Naught God and Man; thus the Pure Fool rules them, and saves them from base knowledge which is false.

"The many and the known" both among Gods and men, are revered; this is folly.
It is a fact of meditation that everything which becomes manifest is instantly recognized as unreal. All perfect unveiling solves, wholly or in part, the equation "Something equals 0/0." (See comment on verse 28.) Adeptship is little more than ability to perceive this 0/0 phase of "Something" in respect of larger and larger "Somethings".

A verse with so sacred a number as 11 is likely to mean very deep things. Probably much concerning the function of The Fool is concealed in it.

It has been shewn in a previous note that the principal Gods, and men, that men have adored, are in one way or another represented in the Tarot card "The Fool". The statement in the text is, superficially, either a platitude or a petulance; neither sounds like the tone of Nuit. A third alternative? Can we have "phrased" it carelessly, or punctuated it incorrectly? Or is there a Qabalistic puzzle or a mystic submeaning concealed? The subject changes instantly, as it seems. I prefer to suggest that these "fools" are "Silent selves", impotent babes unborn; then verse 12 continues "Come forth!", that is, bring your Holy Guardian Angel from the womb of your subconsciousness. Then, “take your fill of love”; that is, do your True Will, whose mode of fulfillment is love, as explained later in this chapter.

This verse establishes uncompromisingly that all Gods—G capital, that is to say, ‘true Gods’—and all men deified by legend or deceit—that is to say, ‘false gods’—are fools. How come? It is a key. Distinction is clearly made between the two types: one are Gods; the other is men. The key is that both types are adored, which, as verses 7-9 established, is wrong. Wrong for Aspirants, of course.

The ‘Gods’ are fools—that is, they reached the Plane of Consciousness of the Fool of the Tarot. The ‘men’ are also fools—the common, abundant variety.

Technically, an Initiate can be called a God only after crossing the Abyss. However, Masters of the Temple do not becomae known, therefore can not be adored. It is Those of the Grade following, the Magi, who become known. It is the Curse of Their Grade the They must speak Truth—so that the Falsehood contained in the Truth may enslave the souls of men. See Liber I vel Magi. Their Sphere of Consciousness, Chokhmah, receives the Influx from the Crown through the Path of Aleph, The Fool.

The ‘men’, in order to become adored, must be sufficiently powerful, magically speaking , to impress the consciousness of a sufficient num,ber of weaker fools. No hard task for a Magician, but one that only a “Black Brother” would undertake. Now, although both cases result in enslavement, there is a difference in motivation and in effect. The Magus must speak, though He like it not: the ‘Black Brother’ ought to shut up (in order to become a Magister Templi), but he will not. The Magus fulfills the Law; the ‘Black Brother’ rebels against it. The enslavement produced the Magus is in harmony with the Racial True Will; it is the kind of ‘bondage’ that leads to freedom’ (See Liber Aleph, Chapters 36-39). The enslavement produced by the ‘Black Brother’ should ever become sufficiently powerful to ‘supersede’ the Magus of the Aeon in which he lives (which fortunately is absurd, although they are always trying), mankind ight very well go the way of the dinosaur and other extinct species. Which is not about to happen, by any means. We are at War, certainly, and under atomic threat, certainly. Better this than the Stagnation that certain well-intentioned fools would call ‘Peace’!
From the point of view of the Aspirant, what is the fundamental difference between the formula of the fools and that of the Gods? The Gods crossed the Abyss; they are Perfect. See verse 45: “The Perfect the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none!” That is, they are the “Fool of God”—Zero.

With a true God you achieve Samadhi, Union; with a false god, ‘one of the “fools”, a ‘Black Brother’, you are enticed or ordered or coerced to pactuate. There is no Union involved, no Spiritual Experience. The pact functions only on the emotional and intellectual levels, and you give with out receiving, since the ‘Black Brother’ is, deep down, afraid of you. He—or she—will cheat you, and play with you, and brag to you bout it—and yet, all the time, you will sense his or her fear. With a God, fear is all on your side. With a ‘Black Brother’, their fear is mutual—and usually his—or hers—is much bigger than yours, since he—or she—knows much better than you do what it is that he or she fears. Therefore, it is written: “all fools despise!” A true God needs no adoration, and will not be affected by your scorn. A ‘Black Brother’ will shrivel without one, and foam when faced with the other. (Exceptions to this rule pertain neither to the Grade for which this commentary is being written, nor to this verse. See Chapter Two, verse 79. See, also, Liber CLXXV.)

Aspirants must be on guard, constantly, because the ‘Black Brethren’ imitate the Magi, and may be mistaken for them by sloppy thinkers. Because of the confusion of their vehicles, and their spiritual pride, on reaching Samadhi with a spiritual current the ‘Black brethren’ think that they are the re-incarnation of the Magus who originated that particular current. They set out to do another man’s job, instead of discovering their own Will, and doing it. As a result, all their words “are skew-wise”. But the unwary may spend centuries following a false master—as the Roman Church, for instance, has proved.

AL I.12: "Come forth, o children, under the stars, & take your fill of love!"

12. The Nature of an Act: its virtue.

All acts are in truth acts of Love. Fulfil all Loves that may be, to the full. Be this in Light, before all Stars, that all may see and rejoice.

The Key of the worship of Nu. The uniting of consciousness with infinite space by the exercise of love, pastoral or pagan love. But vide infra.
The whole doctrine of 'love' is discussed in the Book "Aleph (Wisdom or Folly)" and should be studied therein. But note further how this Verse agrees with the comment above, how every Star is to come forth from its veils, that it may revel with the whole World of Stars. This is again also a call to unite or 'love', thus formulating the Equation 1 (-1) = 0<>, which is the general magical formula in our Cosmos.
"Come forth" -- from what are you hiding? "under the stars", that is, openly. Also, let love be 'under' or 'unto' the Body of Nuith. But above all, be open! What is this shame? Is Love Hideous, that men should cover him with lies? Is Love so sacred that others must not intrude? Nay, 'under the stars', at night, what eye but theirs may see? Or, if one see, should not your worship wake the cloisters of his soul to echo sanctity for that so lovely a deed and gracious you have done?

The above paragraph will sound a little naïve to most readers born after the Forties. You must not forget that the Commentaries were written in the Twenties. At that time, if a pair of lovers were merely to embrace and kiss a ta street corner, this would be a cause for scandal.

Nor should you think that Crowley is necessarily advising you to copulate at midnight in the middle of Main Street. If you do, in most communities you are likely to interrupt or disturb traffic, thereby interfering with the will of others. Certain Operations are possible, at least at present, only ‘under laboratory conditions’. But to make love under a starry sky on a grassy lawn in a public park is not only possible but, at least in this writer’s experience, delicious.

To watch others ‘doing it’, of course, is not as much fun, but it can be enormously instructive if the others have better technique than you do. If you can swallow your pride and fear and watch attentively, you may become a finer man—or woman—by it.

There is, of course, a technical sense in this verse, which varies according to the Grade of the reader. For instance, the numeration of ‘love’ is 111, which is Aleph, The Fool, and which is also a number of Binah, since its sum is 3. And ‘fill’ is 76, which sums 13, which is Unity, among other things (ACHD), but also Death int he Tarot. And so forth. Such sub-meanings may mislead, and their perusal or pursuit is better left ‘to the right Ingenium of the Practicus’—if to investigate them be his Will.
AL I.13: "I am above you and in you. My ecstasy is in yours. My joy is to see your joy."
13. Nuit expressed in an Eidolon.

Nuit is formed into an Image of a Woman, that She may be the symbol of all ways of going in Love.

Her relation to Mankind.

She is our Goal and our own heart’s essence of Will.

Her Mother-Joy as Nature.

She is Nature, who is glad of the birth of all that cometh forth.

This doctrine implies some mystic bond which I imagine is only to be understood by experience; this human ecstasy and that divine ecstasy interact. A similar doctrine is found in the Bhagavad Gita.
Note that Space is omnipresent.<> The cause of 'sorrow' is the 'imaginary' solutions of continuity in this substance. Ecstasy is produced by the resolution of these illusions. Observe well that to beings in a state of strain or sorrow the "Great Work" is bound to appear in the guise of a relief or joy. But this is not to assert SamadhI. that unity with the universe which brings relief and joy by "love", as an "absolute good". It is only good relatively to our present condition as beings divided by Illusion from Nuit. When one returns to the 'simple' state, one soon begins to think out a new route through the Universe, and devise new combinations in the Great Game called Seeing Life.

In Nature few elements are lone wolves. Most of them are being thrown in and out of combination constantly; on suns this occurs with lordly vehemence.

Note that Nuith, although She is Infinite Space, speaks as an individual might do, often enough. This is not that She is 'talking down to our level'; it is a fact. In the Cosmos almost any aggregation can think and act as an Ego. For instance, the cells of our bodies are each units, diverse in composition and character, living each a life of its own. Yet we think and act for them, and say "I". The stars are the cells of Her Body. Each one of us is such a cell; not less itself but more because of its secret function in Her.

It should be evident that Nuith obtains the satisfaction of Her Nature when the parts of Her Body fulfill their own Nature. The sacrament of live is not only so from the point of view of the celebrants, but from that of the divinity invoked. It is said that for every step one takes towards one's Holy Guardian Angel, He takes two towards his client.

What do I mean by "beings divided by Illusion from Nuith", in the first paragraph? This, that we are limited mentally, that we realize only an infinitesimal fraction of the possible forms of expression. We can hardly even imagine ourselves as living on another planet, or in the Sun; much less as apprehending the Universe by means of a totally different set of senses. Yet most of us who are not mere placental amnoites possess an instinct which persistently regrets our incapacities. It is bad enough to be dependent on scientific instruments for our knowledge of all but the grossest of the wonders and splendours of the Universe; but worse that we are aware of an infinite variety of order of phenomena, such as electricity, magnetism, chemical action, and a host of others, which we can explore only by indirect means, interpret only by obviously inadequate symbols, and understand only in terms of arbitrary relations with our animal-sense-perceptions. We know theoretically that every object must react to every other object; and it is evident that each type of reaction may be as overwhelmingly interesting as those which happen to affect us. What unimaginable rapture to be able to observe magnetic fields or molecular movements as directly as we do the Ocean and the Ant-heap! It is the task of the Initiate to adapt himself to the Totality of Existence, and to develop in himself the means of apprehending it wholly and fully.

The link between Nuit and us human beings, insofar as we are incarnated stars, is in the Sahashara Cakkram. See Liber V.

AL I.14: "Above, the gemmed azure is

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   22

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page