Serpent Vs. the Dove

Jim Eshelman

"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

Uni_Verse

My first impression with the Serpent/Dove, is that there is direct involvement ( the serpent who slithers on its belly, touching the ground) and the more detached kind of love.

One might say, manifestation/principle.

But, I also wonder if it could be a reference to the Tree of Life. The serpent winds up along the Tree, while the Dove flies down from the top. How, the perspective of Love changes the "higher" our perspective goes.

Michaeljwjr

It has been awhile since I've been able to post here however I was able to go to the library today so I can add something I've been thinking about.

Purely from a physical sense of the universe, I've come to understand that the most present, constant force, will always be cold, and darkness.

Light takes fuel, it must be maintained, warmth(fire) follows the same. Darkness just is. It's always. Light needs to strengthen, to maintain existence, however darkness, doesn't. It just needs to wait for the light to go away.

Between the serpent and the dove, I just reread my copy of the Gospel of Thomas today, and noticed a huge opposame between the Book of Law, and the Gospel of Thomas.

It seems that though they both appear to want the same end, how you go about doing it seems to directly contradict one another.

damian blackthorn

I believe the Serpent and the Dove,are actions.Remember Crowley came from a puritannical up bringing.The Serpent being Evil or a representation thereof ,The Dove being a representation of the Divine [good]. Choose ye well.As High Magicians we learn to use both.But in the end.who are we individually,what have we chosen The Serpent or the Dove. AGAPE 93/93 93 Frater Nocturnus

Michaeljwjr

My question, is that if you are to choose between the serpent, and the dove... what is the winged serpent?

damian blackthorn

for some reason wajet comes to mind

SetiDraconis

sorry got to say im a serpant for sure...but I dont see it as a evil force but one of wisdom but defently of a "Reptailian Draconian" current as I see it.

This reminds me of the policatcal qusition of are you are Hawk aggrssive[Right wing] or Dove passive nature[left wing]

damian blackthorn

i agree