Runes, Maanantai, etc.
-
You sound like someone else that used to be on the list. Or maybe all of the people, who come to prove everyone else's view is wrong, sound alike.
No. Can't remember...Froward, is that you? Sounding more together,yet with the same attitude of being right and finding everyone else wrong?
If you are not Froward, then, excuse me for asking, please.Thanks,
chrys333 -
@Maanantai said
"That's a mighty good explanation of why the word 'runes' was used there. Poetry. It must be poetry!"
I think that is a pretty good explanation. Of course, I am a little bias in my opinion.
Funny enough ( I was not even aware of this until looking it up) according to the dictionary.com the second definition of "runes" is : a poem or incantation of mysterious significance, especially, a magic charm.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@h2h said
"You, on the other hand, state that 1) AC’s fidelity to the Stele is not important and 2) what is important is his fidelity to the instructions of Aiwaz. "Actually, my point was that Aiwass' infidelity to the stele is important only to the extent that it shows a departure."
Let's return to this thought about "fidelity to Aiwaz"...
First, I would be interested to hear the significance of this “departure” from the Stele. If you mean Liber Legis is introducing new truths for humanity, I do not agree. The more I study AC’s writings, the more I see correspondences with truths stated before his time. But if you mean these truths are being paraphrased and expressed in new forms in and through the English language, I agree (although it is a self-evident observation).
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that Aiwaz represents something to do with alphabet.
Jim – I understand that you were one of the potential candidates to succeed Grady McMurtry. Do you know anything about HB’s choice for his magickal name? Or why Grady picked Hymenaeus Alpha?
I trust you can see where I’m going with this thought…
-
@Maanantai said
"That's if you take the Finnish source of the word. The High German version, runa, means 'secret discussion'."
Which, in my opinion, fits perfectly with the idea of it being poetry. As only the poet really knows the 'secret' of what is being 'discussed'.
-
@Maanantai said
"Erm, I rather feel that one should ask the poet what the poet knows, not some occultist or weird grimoire. But to keep to the topic: what runes are reffered to there?"
Each letter, each word, each sentence, each chapter, the book.
To give an example... the meditation of the day section, where Jim normally interprets the passages of The Book of the Law in the light of the HGA.
Where, the book would become a 'rune' or the 'secret discussion' between the aspirant and his/her HGA.
Keeping in mind, this statement from the "Experieinces" thread in the Magick section :
@KRVB MMShCh said
"
To each of these hypothetical people is attributed a different definition for the idea of bird or window...thus the occurance of that symbol in reality is going to translate differently for each individual - & is thus subjective.
"It brings me to my general feeling on the interpretation of The Book of the Law as a whole. In that, Hadit is not meant to be an Egyptian god, but rather the expression of a 'rune' to Crowley. The fact that there is "truth" to this 'rune' is evident in that it has come to posses significant meaning to many people, my self included (which would be the most important aspect from my perspective).
Of course, that is taking a broad view
-
(edit was to fix quotation marks)
@Maanantai said
"
Feel free to think so, but I don't see any textual evidence for that assumption. The word 'runes' most likely refers to the previous line, where the symbols of hadit and nuit are treated in this fashion:- I am the secret Serpent coiled about to spring: in my coiling there is joy. If I lift up my head, I and my Nuit are one. If I droop down mine head, and shoot forth venom, then is rapture of the earth, and I and the earth are one.
Now, who misunderstand these runes shall make a great miss. Etc. An instruction on Kundalini.
"If you consider the runes to miss an instruction on Kundalini, there are many references that I would consider pertinent instruction on Kundalini, so the statement (once again in my opinion) could still hold that 'definition' and still apply to more than just that line.
And, on one level, I certainly agree with that interpretation. Though I firmly believe in the Word of sin being Restriction. So I tend to allow my meditations upon The Book of the Law to go where they please. Creating layers upon layers of meaning, which is one of the reasons I am so drawn to the Book.
Another thing I keep in mind is that "every number is infinite." Add to it to the instruction that values are to be found for the letters, each letter in turn a number. Each letter being infinite, makes each word infinite, and thereby each sentence, paragraph, chapter, book etcetera.
For my current meditation on the line, I attempted to 'restrict' my interpretation to the thread of the discussion.
Once again, that is just me.
-
Maanantai said ask the poet what the poet knows not some weird occultist or grimoire. I'm not sure who he is referring to in the later, but the former, the poet, being Crowley, said himself in the commentary II that the runes mean the entire BOTL. So is Crowley the simpleton you are referring to? Is that not textural evidence enough? To quote the poet again, "Nothing is incompatible with the terms of the verse." There is no "miss" because we are immune. It's when you imagine there to be error that you miss.
-
@h2h said
"Jim – I understand that you were one of the potential candidates to succeed Grady McMurtry. Do you know anything about HB’s choice for his magical name? Or why Grady picked Hymenaeus Alpha?
I trust you can see where I’m going with this thought…"
No, I haven't the foggiest idea where you're going. (Or, rather, I hope I don't.)
Yes, I now some things about HB's choice of a name, was there when he picked and for the days after. However (since I presume you will next ask me to tell what I know), I'll say now that I'm not talking.
I will add that there were predictable jokes about it the next day (all in good humor). I began to refer to the "Beta Testing" phase of the O.T.O. One of the other Ninth Degrees referred to the new king as "The Grand Master-Beta."
Grady was given his name by Crowley. The story as made public by him in various ways is that Crowley asked Grady his True Will. Grady, a young U.S. soldier on duty in WW II, answered, "To get laid." Crowley then wrote a sophisticated Qabalistic explanation of this name, which he offered to Grady (the letter was published in a late 70s, or early 80s issue of The O.T.O. Newsletter). Grady's contemporaries from Agape Lodge at that time told me that the word then circulated was that Crowley's real intent in the name for Grady was the idea of "Marrying Fool."
-
@Maanantai said
"1. Either the 'numbers' line refers to the whole book or it refers to the context "
Why can't it be both?
@Maanantai said
"2. If it refers to the context, there is no reason to assume the rest of the book can't be perfectly read in context"
I see the context of the chapter ( and in turn every line in it) as being (bold added by me):
@The Book of the Law, Chap 1, v 1 said
"1. Had! The manifestation of Nuit."
@Maanantai said
"3. If it refers to the whole book, discussion about the book becomes utter nonsense"
We can still discuss our own personal interpretations.
@Maanantai said
"I'd be really happy to find out why some people think they can quote a part of a magical grimoire in moralistic stances. Because that's essentially what happened here."
I am merely pointing out my own view point and the train of thought which lead to its conclusion (as best as I can).
-
@Maanantai said
"Simple: because if it refers to the whole book, that includes this line. If it includes this line, there is no difference to the context. Hence: 'numbers' here either is contextual, or it refers to the whole book."
Considering how each word in the English language has more than one meaning (ie, definition), I do not understand your instance on there being only one interpretation.
@Maanantai said
"That makes me happy you're not one of my book reviewers. Do you feel the context of 'little red riding hood' is 'once upon a time a girl strolled through the forest..'? "
Are you trying to imply that 'Little Red Riding Hood' did not take place in a forest? If she never went into the forest, she would have never made it to Grandmas house and would have never met the big bag wolf. So, without the context of the forest, there is no 'Little Red Riding Hood.'
@Maanantai said
"Nonsensical, since all of them are of equal value.
"How does that prevent a discussion? We can still gain insights and a greater understanding by hearing the ideas of others and sharing our own. No one has to be 'right' or 'wrong.'
-
@Maanantai said
"And why exactly is the word 'runes' used, there?"
I think it discloses that a secret meaning is hidden in the words, only accessible by the trained, the initiated, and the intuitive.
-
@Maanantai said
"What a weird interpretation of thelema you have. I have 'studied' the BOTL for quite some years and I am convinced most thelemites are simply unable to read even the most basic English sentences. One must be pretty warped, in my opinion, to read 'change not as much as the style' as some sort of comment about TBOTL"
Well, it was Crowley's understanding, and, yeah, I guess some people would call him "pretty warped." It's the long-accepted meaning and, to my eye, is the most obvious.
The first reference is extremely specific about the applicability of this category of instruction to Liber L.: "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book."
Chapter I continues in 1:54 with the verse under discussion: "Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein."
The message appears again in 2:54: "The stops as thou wilt; the letters? change them not in style or value!" Crowley understood this to mean (and I concur) that he could arrange punctuation as he chose, gut the letters themselves were to be reproduced invariably and with complete fidelity.
In 3:47 it gets quite specific again in its reference to The Book itself: "This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another; in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine."
"Other than that, you don't seem to have given the system you've been practicing for so many years a whole lot of thought."
If I were a Christian, I would forgive you for your obvious ignorance. Since I'm not a Christian, I'll simply confirm that you really don't have your facts right about me.
"Why would you, it made you 'happy', right? Just to live in the shade of someone elses work."
Since I get (roughly) equally accused by some folks for taking way too many liberties with the foundations of Thelema, then I must be hitting somewhere near the right balance.
"There are only 4 basic modes in regards to existence: and the crux of the matter here, as always, is whether we should live in Crowley's shadow or rather become Crowleys of our own."
That's pretty either-or. I'm initially suspicious of such absolute dualisms. However, to make my position clear, I unapologetically affirm that Liber Legis is the sole foundation of Thelema. I hold that Aleister Crowley was the only first-person witness to the transmission of The Book and, additionallty, was specified as Nuit's prophet for hte purpose of receiving and propagating this Book. The Book itself also says he won't understand everything in it. From these facts I conclude that he is the first and best source of understanding of The Book, but not the only one or a perfect one. I further hold that each person has to form his or her own assessment of the work, first in terms of whether to accept or reject it, and, secondly, to find personal understanding of the text by his or her own relationship to the text, which often is in Neshamic language that doesn't render easily into the literal (Ruach-based) written word.
That's just about the Law itself. Whether or not one "lives in Crowley's shadow," I think, comes from what is next: Whether one tries to live out Crowley's True Will, or finds and does their own. Liber L. remains the context for the whole, in any case.
-
@Maanantai said
"What I'm trying to imply is that the first line of any work isn't 'the context of the entire work' because its the first line. Really not that hard to comprehend."
I disagree (obviously). To go back to The Book of the Law as an example...
The company of heaven is in Nuit.
Each number is in Nuit.
Or rather, each is in turn a manifestation of Nuit.Nuit precedes and follows each line, she literally is the context of the Book, let alone chapter.
Just as, the path 'Little Red Riding Hood' travels down is in the forest.
The cottage she goes to is in the forest.
The wolf is inside the cottage, which is in the forest.'Little Red Riding Hood' entering the forest precedes all the events which occur within the forest, thus making them dependent on her entrance and continued presence inside the forest.
@Maanantai said
"Why would I want to hear the ideas of others if they have the same value as my own?"
As I said before, to leave open the possibility to gain a greater insight and understanding of your own idea.
@Maanantai said
"I don't have any reason then to change my own ideas, because the whole concept of a 'better idea' became impossible.
"First, I consider nothing to be impossible. Worst case scenario is that it is highly improbable.
So, while the concept of someone having a 'better idea' than you is improbable (from your own perspective; generally speaking). I think you can still derive a 'better idea' on your own perspective.
Take the series of posts between your self and I in this thread. I do not make these posts in an attempt to prove you wrong or to force you to change your view point. It is, essentially, an exercise to help me develop a better understanding of my own ideas and their expression. Each 'refutation' giving me an opportunity to refine my awareness.
-
@Maanantai said
"
@Nudor said
"Start by giving us your interpretation of III:46."Quite an easy one, really. This verse refers to the book itself. 'The Eighties' are the comment. They are 'abased' as in 'not part of the book' and people who take that shit serious 'cower before him'.
That neither Crowley nor anyone else solved that simple riddle does give me some credit, even though I don't think it's worth any fuss. It just shows how 99% of of all people are incapable of analytical or creative thought."
Please explain what you mean by, "'The Eighties' are the comment."
-
@h2h said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@h2h said
"You, on the other hand, state that 1) AC’s fidelity to the Stele is not important and 2) what is important is his fidelity to the instructions of Aiwaz. "Actually, my point was that Aiwass' infidelity to the stele is important only to the extent that it shows a departure."
First, I would be interested to hear the significance of this “departure” from the Stele."
The facet I meant when writing this was that the deities mentioned in Liber L. are not those listed on the stele. The latter were Egyptian deities worshipped thousands of years ago. The former are, at best, Egyptoid (Egyptian-like and possibly Egyptian-influenced in their formulation) but, at root, new expressions of deity.
"If you mean Liber Legis is introducing new truths for humanity, I do not agree. The more I study AC’s writings, the more I see correspondences with truths stated before his time."
I agree. The motto I chose for Black Pearl was, "Find the New in the Old - Find the Old in the New."
I've never aligned with those who use the Thelemic dispensation as a reason to discard everything they don't like from before it. The core spiritual truths have been expressed down through time, and much that is central to Thelema can be found (expressed differently) in many ancient systems. What the new articulation does is give this new expression including the expression of concepts not previously expressible.
I see Liber L. and Crowley's prophetic role much as the concept is stated in Baha'i: There is central spiritual Truth that is eternal, God sends a prophet to articulate it, and then with the passage of time and change of culture and change of humanity the earlier meaning is lost so another prophet is sent to restate the same thing.
Except, with Liber L., we also have the threshold of a new aeon. It's not just a rearticulation in the same framework, but now needs to speak to a humanity opening into an entirely new threshold of consciousness.
-
@Maanantai said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Please explain what you mean by, "'The Eighties' are the comment.""If you continue the numeration of the book, the comment starts exactly at number 80. Thus, 'I am the warrior lord of the forties (place where statement is made), the eighties cower before me & are abased""
By continuous numeration do you mean to number the 220 verses consecutively from 1-220 instead of reinitializing them at each chapter start? If so, then verse 80 is Cap. II, v. 14, which makes no allusion to the commentary.
If this isn't what you mean, then could you provide a more exacting explanation?
"That's my take on it. Better explanations welcome, but I have not heard any so far."
If you're interested, here's my simpler one for verse 2:46 (verse 191 of the entire Book, which is the Kether verse of the 20th decanate of verses):
I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased. I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay. Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!
Heru-Ra-Ha identifies Himself as "I am," the great Name of Unity and the crown.
The physical prophecies seem unusually acute here. Horus is a solar war-force. He corresponds to atomic power. As Nuit and Hadit, the Circumference and theCenter, imply subatomic particles, so is their Child the product of their union, the Atom, the Kether of a given World (whether the physical universe or human consciousness; it is all the same). Verse 49 (yet to come) can be understood to refer to the four fundamental forces, and Horus is surely all of these (strong force, weak force, gravitation, and elctromagnetism). Therefore, in the physical universe, He is atomic power. As such He was definitely "the warrior Lord of the Forties" (the 1940s) and also that before which "the Eighties" - the Chernobyl and Reagan years - did "cower" and were "abased."
But within each of us, this Atom is the Atman or Yechidah. Here, again and clearly, is the voice of the Holy Guardian Angel. In this sense, what does the first sentence mean? I don't know; but I have a good guess. 40 is Mem, a Path especially associated with Adepthood. 80 is Peh, the highest path of the First Order, of those who are not Adepts. Horus, the HGA, to the Adept is "the warrior Lord," the source of strength and light (open the way, in fact, to Geburah); but to those outside the Veil of Paroketh, he is the blasting terror of Mars unleashed, before which the psyche cowers and is abased. Mem is peace and stillness, Harpocrates, wherein is strength; Peh is the severity of the shattered tower, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, of whom it is written,
Mine eyes have seen the Glory
Of the coming of the Lord.
He is trampling out the vintage
Where the grapes of wrath are stored.
He hath loosed the fearful lightning
Of his terrible swift sord,
His truth is marching on.And,
The Lord is a god of war and vengeance. "Lord of Armies" [YHVH TzBAVTh] is His Name.
Together, Harpocrates and Ra-Hoor-Khuit are Heru-Ra-Ha, even as Mem + Peh = 4= + 80 = that wonderful number 120.
The rest is all clear on its own. This is Horus, the image of the Holy Guardian Angel, speaking at his best and clearest. The promises are the natural consequences of the K&C of the HGA and, before that, of the knowing and doing of the True Will.
-
@Maanantai said
"
"If this isn't what you mean, then could you provide a more exacting explanation?"This comment was made in chapter III. If you count on at the end of the chapter and go to the comment the comment starts at number 80. "
Ah, you mean the short comment that, decades later, was appended to some copies of Liber Legis.
Thanks for the explanation. Personally, I have a hard time accepting it since that text isn't part of The Book of the Law. I'm also still a little unclear how you're counting, since Chapter III ends with verse 75, not (as your explanation would seem to require) verse 79.
-
@Maanantai said
"
"Thanks for the explanation. Personally, I have a hard time accepting it since that text isn't part of The Book of the Law. "Fine with me, but then let's not stick it in every time. "
Agreed. I don't. In fact, I don't even take it very seriously as a comment (particularly disagreeing that it's Class A as some label it).
"
"I'm also still a little unclear how you're counting, since Chapter III ends with verse 75, not (as your explanation would seem to require) verse 79."
"Thanks for the explanation on your renumbering. To me, this violates the entire structure of the book since the 220-verse structure unfurls as a Qabalistically confirmable map of 22 sets of 10. Nonetheless, you've made a clever observation.
-
Maanantai: It seems very arbitrary in the sense that your placing it there to give weight to your own concept. This still doesn't answer or fit with the Book of the Law and it's 220 verses. It's not the "books" of the law.
But even so, you admit the 80's is a reference to The Tower, which contradicts your earlier statement that it referred to "the comment." For if you go that route, then 40 is the Hanged Man, not the verses of the 40's.
It seems that you are just here to argue and read your own words (hear yourself speak) and completely ignore the comments of others. And sometimes even your own comments (thus your contradiction).
One example being you praise your simplicity, yet have accused me for example as being a "simpleton." Which is it?
The forum is for the discussion of ideas yet you hold this to be "nonsensical, since all of them are of equal value." And, "I don't have any reason to change my own ideas, because the whole concept of a "better idea" becomes impossible."
Then why are you here? Because if you believed and acted with what you write, you wouldn't be.
I conclude that you have some "bone to pick" with Jim on a personal level, and Thelemites in general. Out of all those volumes you have written "that exceed and are "better" than Crowley's work" most be some coherent train of thought the explains your issues with Thelema.
State them, and maybe we can have a real discussion. If you think it's possible.
-
@Maanantai said
"Nonsense. For that matter, the fact that both 'fourties' and 'eighties' is plural isn't supportive of Jim's interpretation and speaks in favor of mine."
That's backwards. Almost the only time in English that we use that form of these words is to describe a decade within a given century. I understand that you don't like the idea that atomic power was the warrior lord of the 1940s and the force before which the world of the 1980s cowered and was abased, but it actually was.
"I don't think the 'Mem and Pe' interpretation is very good."
You're entitled
It's not my favorite of all my interpretations of CCXX passages. But the book is substantially a Qabalistic instruction, especially when unusual wording emerges, so it seems at least a natural line of analysis.