14 November (Nuit) Liber CCXX, 1:7-9
-
7. Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat.
8. The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs.
9. Worship then the Khabs, and behold my light shed over you! -
Without trying to analyze to much....
It FEELS to me, like after the first few verses, Nuit has used up most of her language. "Every number is infinite", so what else? Oh, Aiwass will have to speak for me. And he almost seems to contradict her, with his "a" is in "b" not "b" is in "a" bit.
“Khabs in the Khu” has always been a bit inscrutable to me.
Regardless of what “khabs” and “khu” mean, is the message is to worship the element in the context, and not the context? Does this mean on some level that the way to Nuit is through the highly personal? That to behold the light of Nuit, we must look deep within, and marvel at the star inside us?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"**7. Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat.
- The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs.
- Worship then the Khabs, and behold my light shed over you!**"
These words are the meditation. What is received is from "the voice of the silence," the HGA. And the setup, the imagery, the concept serving as diving board for the communion is mindfulness of the Khabs - that the Khabs is in the Khu and that, by worshipping the inner Light itself, we receive the promised answering Light of Nuit.
This shall be my "posture" for the day. (Few verses in Liber L. are more practical.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"These words are the meditation. ... (Few verses in Liber L. are more practical.)"
Well, I've been reading Thomas Cleary's translation of The Secret of the Golden Flower, and so under that influence, I see vv 8 and 9 as describing the meditation practices in that work. In a few words, they are attempts to withdraw the attention from the sense perceptions, thoughts, etc., that one normally attends to (the Khu), and to center the attention on (worship) the essence of mind itself (the Khabs).
[As an aside, for what it's worth, Cleary argues that the popular Wilhelm-Baynes version of this book is an inaccurate translation of a corrupted manuscript, and is therefore unreliable. I'm not qualified to judge, of course.]