Serpent Vs. the Dove

Michaeljwjr

The reason I say vs. is that to me I see the path of the snake as a path of earthly pleasure, and the path of the dove as the denial of that pleasure.

Also further evidence is the 3:51-3:55:

With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.
I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.
Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!

The path of the dove, is encompassed by most of the organized religions which seem to teach denial of the pleasure of life for the promise of a life hereafter. The Book of Law seems to me to say enjoy each and everything that life has to offer, and then continue that pleasure afterwards.

I admit I am not so versed in all the religions and backgrounds that have gone into most of the Crowley books. I'm currently trying to find a book on learning hebrew, and still learning to meditate and the Qabalah. But I do recognize something that seems true to me.

Jim Eshelman

@Michaeljwjr said

"The reason I say vs. is that to me I see the path of the snake as a path of earthly pleasure, and the path of the dove as the denial of that pleasure. "

Not the usual interpretation. (Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it isn't the usual interpretation.)

By a purely planetary perspective, the dove is Venus - pure and divine love - and the serpent is Mars - animal expressions of love.

But by the deeper interpretation handed down, the dove is the "descending ecstasy" and is, therefore, the sexual expression; while the serpent is the rising kundalini which is devoted to Nuit.

"The path of the dove, is encompassed by most of the organized religions which seem to teach denial of the pleasure of life for the promise of a life hereafter."

It's important, at least, that you understand that the dove is a nearly universal symbol for just the opposite - for ecstasy!

redd fezz

http://www.marcofolio.net/images/stories/fun/other/word_illusion/good_evil.jpg

Malaclypse

@Jim Eshelman said

"And - this is perhaps the most important part! - please note that the Book does not tell us that one is better than the other. It only says we must choose, and choose well. And it specifically says that each is love. Each is “lawful” - but not necessarily for each of us in each situation."

What does it, in this context, mean in that case that "He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God."? That he has crossed the Abyss and no longer has to choose because he's one with The Man?

Jim Eshelman

@Malaclypse said

"What does it, in this context, mean in that case that "He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God."? That he has crossed the Abyss and no longer has to choose because he's one with The Man?"

I think not... after all, it says he has chosen!

My thoughts on this from an old diary entry:

“Choose ye well!” There is a qabalistic mystery here, I am sure of it! These words say more than they seem to say on the surface. Of course, “ye” is again YH, Yod-Heh — we are to choose Yod-Heh, a true uniting of “self and other.” But my mind continues to be drawn to “well.” Is it so simple as enumerating it in Hebrew, VHLL = 71? Should it be rendered in another language? Does it refer to “a well?” I truly do not yet know. 71 is a dark and haunting number. Oh my gosh! 71 is the value of YNVH, “dove.” Is this to be taken so literally?

“ye well” is 15 + 71 = 86. {...}

I leave this without full satisfaction, but do note that the sentence can validly be read, “Choose YH, the Dove,” where YH, Yah, is expressive of Chokmah and True Will.

We are next told that AC himself has chosen. Good. Fine. Nice to know. However, the most useful part of this sentence, to most of us, is that since AC has already chosen, the instruction to “choose ye well!” must apply only to the rest of us! AC’s choices, we are told, were made based on his knowledge of the law of Peh, the Tower, the House of God. (Note: dove, serpent, Tower = 3 reciprocal paths, Daleth, Teth, and Peh = 93.) I do not know that it is necessary that the rest of us understand the part that may be private to AC; but, then, why not try? Peh, 80, corresponds to YSVD, Yesod; so it is clear what force is being employed. In Latin, 80 is both anima amore, “spirit of love,” and cor Nus, “heart of Nu.” There may also be some clues at 95, since this is the word Peh spelled in plenitude, and also MADIM, Madim, Mars; and turris, “tower.” AC’s knowledge of Peh up until that time was primarily from the H.O.G.D. 27th Path ritual, wherein some answers may be hidden (the ritual deals a lot with kundalini). The tarot card speech deals primarily with the descent of Divine Consciousness into the structure of human existence, the “fortress” of human ego.

A.C., in his O.C., elects (as though for all of us) “the serpent love, the awakening of the Kundalini.” He adds that, “The further mystery is of Peh and unsuited to the grade in which this comment is written.” (He was, at that time, referring to a secret of S.S. IX° O.T.O.)

Soror Meral, putting the stops as she will, read this, “Hé my prophet hath chosen.” She reads it as a clue to what is yet to come, the attribution of Heh (Hé) to The Star. I am agnostic yet skeptical. For one thing, on April 8, 1904 e.v., AC had not yet chosen Heh! I do not think it matters much to me either way whether this is a valid interpretation.

Michaeljwjr

@Jim Eshelman said

"Not the usual interpretation. (Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it isn't the usual interpretation.)"

Thank you for not dismissing my interpretation. My knowledge is again limited, I have read The Book of Thoth, 777, and most of Magick Book 4 Parts I-IV.

I have also read several books by Ted Andrews that actually opened my understanding of the Qabalah, and now that I'm going back through Magick, more is making sense to me.

That being said, my sense intuition has always been strong in regards to religious matters.

I have often asked myself, if Buddha, Jesus, and Mohamed were prophets of the Dove(I previously called this force Light), then who have been the prophets of the serpent(previously to me I knew as Dark). The more I think of this the more it makes sense to me.

I have emailed the Toronto Temple in the hopes that I will be able to enter into education to have more opened and explained to me, but for now I simply study as my inspiration and intuition take me. At the moment my Will knows what it wants, it's a matter of quieting all other voices in my head.

I firmly believe in the choice between Serpent and Dove. The more I read through the Book of Law, over and over, the more I feel it.

gmugmble

Oh, no! Somebody stop me! The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible not only has a long article on "Serpent" (which I knew), but it has a nice entry on "Dove" as well.
Okay, I'll stop myself, but if somebody pokes me too hard, I just might respond by quoting some of the more interesting passages.

@Michaeljwjr said

"I have often asked myself, if Buddha, Jesus, and Mohamed were prophets of the Dove (I previously called this force Light), then who have been the prophets of the serpent (previously to me I knew as Dark). "

For the record, the New Testament associates the serpent with Christ (John 3:14-15). The dove is the Holy Spirit (John 1:32). (I guess the poor Father doesn't get an animal.) And it's an old chestnut that the Hebrew words for Christ (meshiach) and serpent (nehesh) have the same value in gematria (358).

Michaeljwjr

@gmugmble said

"For the record, the New Testament associates the serpent with Christ (John 3:14-15). The dove is the Holy Spirit (John 1:32). (I guess the poor Father doesn't get an animal.) And it's an old chestnut that the Hebrew words for Christ (meshiach) and serpent (nehesh) have the same value in gematria (358)."

Thank you Gmugmble. While I value and thank you for the knowledge of the Gemetria(I know very little) I can still make an inference between the rules associated with each.

The Book of Law is literally a faxed copy of a spiritual work. The bible has been perverted through mistranslation, and misinterpretation. One of the remarkable facts about the Book of Law is that it is in a language that I directly understand, and have access to the original copy(at least pictures of the original). this helps make a more direct interpretation.

One of the mysteries I have yet to solve compeltely, and that is explained to my satisfaction, is that if there was one all powerful force that governed our lives, why would that one force need for us to choose them and find them?

The only concept that makes sense to me, is that there are at least 2 opposing sides (hence my personal theory) which I now consider the force of Experience all the pleasure of physical life, and the side of denying all the pleasure of physical life.

Jim Eshelman

@Michaeljwjr said

"The only concept that makes sense to me, is that there are at least 2 opposing sides (hence my personal theory) which I now consider the force of Experience all the pleasure of physical life, and the side of denying all the pleasure of physical life."

In time, other concepts will make sense to you also.

The particular kind of Good vs. Evil dualism you keep emphasizing is called the Manichaean Heresy: a belief that there are two equal and opposed principles (or deities) in the universe, one Good (Light/Spirit) and one Evil (Darkness/Matter), and that the world unfolds through their conflict.

The "experience pleasure vs. deny pleasure" is really just a variation of the same polarity (and a rough approximation of the Greek debates between Epicureans and Stoics, but with less nuance). Also, a given religion commonly will have a mixture of these two, and much variation between the extremes.

I suggest you Google this term and do some extensive reading. There are numerous, huge philosophical problems with the Manichaean postulates.

OTOH I am happy to see that you seem to view life as a continuing field of choices to be made, with real consequences resulting from your choices.

Malaclypse

@Jim Eshelman said

"“Choose ye well!” There is a qabalistic mystery here, I am sure of it! These words say more than they seem to say on the surface. Of course, “ye” is again YH, Yod-Heh — we are to choose Yod-Heh, a true uniting of “self and other.” But my mind continues to be drawn to “well.” Is it so simple as enumerating it in Hebrew, VHLL = 71? Should it be rendered in another language? Does it refer to “a well?” I truly do not yet know. 71 is a dark and haunting number. Oh my gosh! 71 is the value of YNVH, “dove.” Is this to be taken so literally?"

Thanks for the extensive answer, Jim! I found the part above most interesting. It makes me wonder if the entire book can be Qabalistically interpreted, letter by letter, like the Torah. Has any thorough research like that been made?

Malaclypse

@Michaeljwjr said

"The only concept that makes sense to me, is that there are at least 2 opposing sides (hence my personal theory) which I now consider the force of Experience all the pleasure of physical life, and the side of denying all the pleasure of physical life."

Your question in this thread gave me reason to look into C. 3 of the good book. Have you looked closer into the verses about the seeming defamation of the other religions? I am not very well versed in this material myself, but I found it interesting to note the following:

I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.

Here is where I begin my little theory. Someone with more knowledge, please elaborate further if there is something to this, but the fourfold part made me think of the 4 as the pronounced evil, nonexistent part of the trinity (I think I got this from Pistis Sophia), which I have interpreted as the Hermetic Silence; the emphasis of not taking so much pride in one's work so as to destroy it, but cutting one's "offspring's" umbilical and allow it to grow on its own, or something to that effect. This is the threshold where the worshiper's worship will turn sour, in other words.

With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.

Jesus more or less said he was the force of Air, who had come with swords to turn a son against his father, a daughter against her mother. The Hawk - which is only literally expressed in this verse and not the following - I interpret as the cherub of Air (I know it's an eagle, but can't there be a connection here anyway?), so I get a vague sense of this being the completion of Jesus' teaching.

I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.

The only thing I know about the Islam religion is that they put special emphasis on not portraying the face of God, so in blinding Mohammed, Ra-Hoor-Khuit in fact merely adds to Mohammed's doctrine. Here and no further, in this case as well, is my vague interpretation.

With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.

Well, Anatta is the statement that the universe doesn't exist, but is mere illusion, according to the Buddhists, so tearing out the flesh of the yogi shouldn't be a problem for them at all, but once the body is gone, there is no going back into incarnated form. In order for the Work to have any meaning, there must be a sacrifice.

I don't know the names in verse 54, so no comment there, but this line of reasoning sort of gives me the interpretation that this simply signifies the end of the Work in four major adaptations, namely as concerning the Elements, in order to state the completion of the world incarnate.
I'm fairly certain these guesses will be trampled upon as mainly faulty, but am I on the right track at least?

Jim Eshelman

@Malaclypse said

"Thanks for the extensive answer, Jim! I found the part above most interesting. It makes me wonder if the entire book can be Qabalistically interpreted, letter by letter, like the Torah. Has any thorough research like that been made?"

Thorough? Probably not thorough enough. But I've done quite a lot, and I'm hardly the ony one.

Aum418

@Malaclypse said

", but I found it interesting to note the following:

I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.

Here is where I begin my little theory. Someone with more knowledge, please elaborate further if there is something to this, but the fourfold part made me think of the 4 as the pronounced evil, nonexistent part of the trinity (I think I got this from Pistis Sophia), which I have interpreted as the Hermetic Silence; the emphasis of not taking so much pride in one's work so as to destroy it, but cutting one's "offspring's" umbilical and allow it to grow on its own, or something to that effect. This is the threshold where the worshiper's worship will turn sour, in other words."

Sure. Or it could be "Do what thou wilt" like Crowley himself says (which is a blasphemy because it makes each person their own God).

"Jesus more or less said he was the force of Air"

Where did he say this?

", who had come with swords to turn a son against his father, a daughter against her mother. "

Is this in the Bible somewhere or just in Gospel of Thomas, line 16?

"The Hawk - which is only literally expressed in this verse and not the following - I interpret as the cherub of Air (I know it's an eagle, but can't there be a connection here anyway?), so I get a vague sense of this being the completion of Jesus' teaching."

Thats a pretty vague attributino and a pretty over generalization conclusion, but whatever.

"52. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.

The only thing I know about the Islam religion is that they put special emphasis on not portraying the face of God"

If this is all you know about Islam, cant you realize you shouldnt even comment?

", so in blinding Mohammed, Ra-Hoor-Khuit in fact merely adds to Mohammed's doctrine. Here and no further, in this case as well, is my vague interpretation."

Islam has nothing about Mohammed being blind. Mohammed is different than Allah and you pretty clearly conflate the two here.

"Well, Anatta is the statement that the universe doesn't exist, but is mere illusion, according to the Buddhists"

Actually this has NOTHING to do with Anatta. This shows your complete lack of understanding of Buddhism (along with your obviousl ack of knowledge of the systems mentioned above like Islam). Anatta means an (not) - atta/atman (self) - the doctrine is that there is no permanent self and this doctrne is taken differently by the Theravadin and Mahayana follower.

" In order for the Work to have any meaning, there must be a sacrifice."

I dont even know what youre talking about here.

"I don't know the names in verse 54, so no comment there, but this line of reasoning sort of gives me the interpretation that this simply signifies the end of the Work in four major adaptations, namely as concerning the Elements, in order to state the completion of the world incarnate."

How about taking the 2 minutes it takes to read Crowley's own comments on this verse?

"I'm fairly certain these guesses will be trampled upon as mainly faulty, but am I on the right track at least? "

You are on the right track in thinking your guesses will be trampled, yes.

Michaeljwjr: As for there being two conflicting forces, I would say you are right but you MUST understand that they are not 'separate' they are not 'distinct' they are not 'opposite' except in your mind, essentially - they are complementary opposites. Heraclitus knew this, and Lao Tze knew this (see chapter 2 of Tao Teh Ching which explains this notion succinctly).

65 & 210,
111-418

Malaclypse

@aum418 said

"
@Malaclypse said
"Jesus more or less said he was the force of Air"

Where did he say this?"

I don't know, because I haven't read the Bible. I read somewhere that he had come with swords for the reason given below, which I take to mean the instrument of Air.

@aum418 said

"
"52. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.

The only thing I know about the Islam religion is that they put special emphasis on not portraying the face of God"

If this is all you know about Islam, cant you realize you shouldnt even comment?"

Why shouldn't I comment? It led you to answer and point me in another direction, so I learned something, which is a good thing imo.

@aum418 said

"
", so in blinding Mohammed, Ra-Hoor-Khuit in fact merely adds to Mohammed's doctrine. Here and no further, in this case as well, is my vague interpretation."

Islam has nothing about Mohammed being blind. Mohammed is different than Allah and you pretty clearly conflate the two here."

No, both that and the Jesus verse are about the prophets and not the gods, and therefore it seems more practical to me to judge them by the formers' connections to the latter.

@aum418 said

"
" In order for the Work to have any meaning, there must be a sacrifice."

I dont even know what youre talking about here."

I mean that all religions are ways to transcend from state A to state B, and therefore not the absolute truth in themselves. This is the same reason why Siddharta chose not to go with Shakyamuni in the Hesse novel. And this is what my theory boiled down to: that, if I was correct in any of my assumptions - which it seems I wasn't, but was hoping that you or any more knowledgeable person than me answering would put more effort into aiding with corrections than shunning the errors of - these verses were about the built-in flaws of any religious system, viz. that they have to state something in order to get out of everything into enlightenment.

@aum418 said

"How about taking the 2 minutes it takes to read Crowley's own comments on this verse?"

That sounds like an excellent idea, but I don't have the comment. Do you have a URL to it?

Aum418

"
That sounds like an excellent idea, but I don't have the comment. Do you have a URL to it?"

My bad - I had assuemd people knew about this stuff.

Everyone on here who has not read these commentaries really should. There is an absrud amount of bullshit on these forums, especially in the form of "dont you know its against the Law to discuss it?" Its absolutely ridiculous. Also, someone asked if you needed to be in CoT or ToT to be a Thelemite? I simply cannot fathom how people could remotely come CLOSE to drawing this conclusion. OBVIOUSLY some study is needed or this kind of nonsense will crop up quickly...

Please read these commentaries, reference them, etc... I see no reason why we shouldnt read the author's (or at least the scribe's) opinion on this text.

65 & 210,
111-418

Malaclypse

Thanks aum! I'll do my research, but don't be surprised if I come up with more of my theories; it's an excellent way to learn so that, for one thing, you won't, in the end, have to put up with ignorance.

Jim Eshelman

@Malaclypse said

"I don't know, because I haven't read the Bible. I read somewhere that he had come with swords for the reason given below, which I take to mean the instrument of Air."

You possibly mean Matt. 10:34; but there is also Matt. 26:52 which, by your symbolic logic, is not too different from Liber L.'s position against "Because." You approach of interpreting the passages in terms of the symbolism of magical implements is also very interesting when viewing John 18:11.

"
@aum418 said
"How about taking the 2 minutes it takes to read Crowley's own comments on this verse?"

That sounds like an excellent idea, but I don't have the comment. Do you have a URL to it?"

Jumping in with a recommendation: You should own one! Nearly the first book every Thelemite should acquire is one of the versions of Crowley's commentaries on The Book of the Law. College of Thelema recommends either the Regardie edited version of The Law is For All (usually available used through various online sources) or the Grant-edited edition (very expensive and rare these days, but beautiful!) of The Magical & Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law. Both of these are complete. Barring the availability of those, the substantially reduced version of The Law is For All (the non-Regardie issue) is usually the best that can be found. Go buy a book!

Aum418

@Malaclypse said

"Thanks aum! I'll do my research, but don't be surprised if I come up with more of my theories; it's an excellent way to learn so that, for one thing, you won't, in the end, have to put up with ignorance."

I hope you do!

Have fun with those.

65 & 210,
111-418

Malaclypse

@Jim Eshelman said

"Go buy a book! "

Yes, I shall! It was good for me to have this little "bout", because I didn't think it through enough, which is detrimental to my path. Thanks again guys!

luxinhominefactum

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

on another plane entirely, "choose ye well" can be viewed as yet another injunction to act in harmony with your will.

as far as the curses in chapter three go, i echo the "read the commentaries!!!" suggestion above. in addition to the commentaries mentioned here, i'm a big personal fan of marcelo motta's "commentaries of AL," which include crowley's "new" comment and motta's own ideas.

Love is the law, love under will
LIHF