Skip to content

College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema

  • A∴A∴
  • College of Thelema
  • Temple of Thelema
  • Publications
  • Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Collapse

15 April - (Earth) Liber LXV, 1:11

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Meditation of the Day Archive
4 Posts 3 Posters 291 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    Jim Eshelman
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    11. Nor is it fitting for the cobbler to prate of the Royal matter. O cobbler! mend me this shoe, that I may walk. O king! if I be thy son, let us speak of the Embassy to the King thy Brother.

    R H 3 Replies Last reply
    0
  • R Offline
    R Offline
    RobertAllen
    replied to Jim Eshelman on last edited by
    #2

    11. Nor is it fitting for the cobbler to prate of the Royal matter. O cobbler! mend me this shoe, that I may walk. O king! if I be thy son, let us speak of the Embassy to the King thy Brother.

    EDIT: on more thought I decided I didn't initially grasp the structure of the passage, so I deleted my previous thoughts.

    EDIT 2:
    Cobblers and kings—those who mend shoes and those who wear the crowns. So, to be clear, the reference here is not the king, Kether, otherwise the reference to the second king—the first kings brother—would be disturbing.

    What I think I am missing here is who specifically the speaker is speaking to, and what makes them a king? Is this the scribe? Then who is the cobbler? If cobbler and king are just instances of people with different 'true wills' then why isn't the speaker equally the son of the cobbler, as mush as that of the king? Perhaps he is.

    The value of walking is perhaps a reference to the sandal strap, the Ankh.

    Brothers? "As brothers fight ye"?

    The references to Kings in the Book of the Law was not very helpful, imho.

    The command not to debate the images in the previous selection may have something to do with the current injunction to the cobbler not to make idle talk about Royal matters.

    The more I think about this passage the more questions I seem to have. 😡

    Love and Will

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • H Offline
    H Offline
    Herr Meow
    replied to Jim Eshelman on last edited by
    #3

    I've long seen in this an injunction to keep the various parts of the psyche focused on the tasks pertinent to their particular nature. The King is the Neschamah, the cobbler may be the Ruach or the Nepesch. The Ruach receives the impulse of True Will from the Neschamah and organizes, builds and modifies structures, and generally arranges for the task of carrying out the True Will in the outer world, the Nephesch and the guph then do the leg-work. Confusion of duties or station causes the whole structure to break down.

    The same holds for groups of people. Each to their own according to their Will. Some love building boats, while others love planning ship routes. It would be stupid to promote to manager a software developer who's True Will is very much encompassed in the act of writing code (the results of this stupidity can be seen all over the software industry). A cobbler is just as important as a King - in an ideal world, both serve in accordance with their True Will.

    The bit about the Embassy has always mystified me. Perhaps it relates to direct communication, Neschamah to Neschamah, between "Kings" (ie: Adepts)?

    -HM

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • R Offline
    R Offline
    RobertAllen
    replied to Jim Eshelman on last edited by
    #4

    Anyone know of a downloadable Crowley commentary for LXV that is not serialized?

    Love and Will

    1 Reply Last reply
    0

  • Login

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups