"Low men" and Kings
-
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418 -
@aum418 said
"Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2)."
Exactly! Those chapters speak with quite complementary voices.
I think - to be brief - you are confusing three different things.
(1) The essential nature of beings.
(2) Practices assigned for a relatively few Thelemic aspirants.
(3) The advice on how to regard personality manifestations.No (2) is in there because I'm not completely sure that it fits in with the rest. I can't separate the end of v. 22 from v. 23 following. The practice (though a good point of view in general) is an active instruction for those who are to "be the chief of all," a subset of the "few and secret" that are already Nuit's servants.
But "making no difference" in the mystical level doesn't mean one must be undiscriminating in practical life. One must have the resources (including common sense) to execute one's function.
Then (without going line by line) the other verses you site are substantially references to personalities. I have the greatest respect for every star, and I have no respect (and little admiration) for people at the personality level. I'm quite willing to blow them the fuck away - while honoring, even venerating, the stars whose current imperfect tool they are.
-
^nice response.
On perhaps a simpler level I always noticed that these things are in two very different books/manifestations. 2 has to do with action which very much requires placing values and differences on people and things. 1 has to do with essence in which all things are the same.
I do think that getting mired in false compassion and pity will waste your time and keep you from moving on yourself. It's also a kind of arrogance. Recently I've been talking to some people who claim to be occultists, but I can't even argue with them anymore--they refuse to accept even basic ideas which go against their egos. So screw them, I give up--and its not my responsibility to drag anyone else up with me (at least at this point).
I know a lot of people who spend a lot of time trying to "save" others who don't want to save themselves. Its a stupid pursuit.
Thats my simple little answer.
I also wonder if the admonitions to show no pity, etc. may be applied to our culture's tendency to see shame as a virtue. It seems to me that especially in America but the the whole Western World a tendency to say "I don't deserve this" even if you have earned something is applauded. This is hypocritical and arrogant. We hear more about "social responsibility" these days than individual achievement and frankly it enrages me.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@aum418 said
"Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2)."Exactly! Those chapters speak with quite complementary voices.
I think - to be brief - you are confusing three different things.
(1) The essential nature of beings."
Doesnt Liber AL state the essential nature of beings is that each is a "star" and also in ch.2 that a King shall ever be a King and the slaves shall serve?
"(2) Practices assigned for a relatively few Thelemic aspirants."
I disagree. The part about Bind nothing! refers to all people, except that only those few who succeed are named "chief of all."
"But "making no difference" in the mystical level doesn't mean one must be undiscriminating in practical life. One must have the resources (including common sense) to execute one's function. "
I agree - one shouldn't mix the planes - but this is different. Are you saying this dichotomy exists only in practical life but not in the essential nature of things? What is practical about it?
"Then (without going line by line) the other verses you site are substantially references to personalities. I have the greatest respect for every star, and I have no respect (and little admiration) for people at the personality level. I'm quite willing to blow them the {shag} away - while honoring, even venerating, the stars whose current imperfect tool they are."
What do you mean? It seems like the statements about hte difference between master & slave applies to all people.
65 & 210,
111-418 -
@aum418 said
"Doesnt Liber AL state the essential nature of beings is that each is a "star" and also in ch.2 that a King shall ever be a King and the slaves shall serve?"
Meaning? (I'm not getting your point.)
"Are you saying this dichotomy exists only in practical life but not in the essential nature of things? What is practical about it?"
"Practical," referring to what can be practiced, refers to Action - that is, Assiah. (Or, in the more common sense, it simply means the necessary steps to get something done.) Duality (in the way usually understood) only exists in Assiah and Yetzirah, so I suppose that applies to your use of "dichotomy" - although paradox exists in Briah.
"
"Then (without going line by line) the other verses you site are substantially references to personalities. I have the greatest respect for every star, and I have no respect (and little admiration) for people at the personality level. I'm quite willing to blow them the {shag} away - while honoring, even venerating, the stars whose current imperfect tool they are."What do you mean? It seems like the statements about hte difference between master & slave applies to all people."
Only to personalities, not to beings. The difference between servant and slave is entirely in the attitude to the thing necessary to do. That is, slavery exists only in the physical and personality realms, not the more substantial ones.
-
I figure ch 1 tells us where we have come from ch 2 tells us where we are and gh 3 tells us where we are going.
Than is we can read libel Al as descriptive rather than perscriptive.
each chapter is a description of an Aeon. that is not a prescribed law for any particular individual to obey.
much like newtons physics explain nature but no book on newton defines a command to any individual or particular object etc. The laws must be discovered and applied in each case. And Relativity then quatum physics ar. analogous to changes in aeons.
Likewise liber Al describes the three aeons and the general character of each but one must apply those to each individual event and person.
Our primary concern is with Chapter three but aeons build one on the other such that as the cosmos consists of layers of aeons so too does the micro-cosm.
Thus chapters 1 and 2 are as necessary to the third as are newton and Einsteins physics to quantum mechanics
-
@Froclown said
"each chapter is a description of an Aeon. that is not a prescribed law for any particular individual to obey."
While I can see the vague and general equation of Nuit and Hadit to Isis and Osiris, respectively, I think it is, at best... well, vague and general.
More to the point, I quite disagree with your statement that I've quoted. Chapters 1 and 2 are as descriptive of the current Aeon as is Chapter 3. (Heck, the three most important sentences of the whole Book are in Chapter 1! - in vv. 3, 40, and 57.
-
And perhaps the most important elements or systems in the human body are those that form from our most ancient DNA that we share with lizards and amoebas?
The most fundamental elements of our technology are the simple machines discovered in the stone age. Hell our most advances travel machines are powered by liquid dinosaurs.
Thus Nuit teaches what we are in substance Hadit teaches what we do in motion and Ra-Hoor-Kuit teaches us to unite substance with motion to a focused goal. The union is represented in ABRAHADABRA.
Thus we have the method of thelema which is scientific self observation to discover ones eternal common in substance as well as the principle of motion that stirs oneself to motion then to unite these two in love under WILL.
Aleph Lamed
The ox and tho goad
Nuit = 0 = fool = Aleph = ox
Hadit = Lamed = goad
Thus we have the aeon of Isis who is in Binna and as such the inert substance that is goaded by chockmah. In this aeon we learn what we are in substance as part of nature. Then in Osiris we discover the principle of motion the sun and we turn to it. We are goaded. we learn what we are capable of doing and our gods represent this force that drives us on. The Gods defy death become more than inert substance more than nature. God animates the substance.
Now is a new Aeon were this animative force is internalized as TRUE WILL and the duality created by ill worship of hadit (for I am the worshiper) is transcended. The God out there becomes the HGA and unties with the flesh.
Thus the flesh of man is anointed with the divine life force and as anointed ones we are all "christs"
-
@Froclown said
"Hadit = Lamed"
"the aeon of Isis who is in Binna"
Well, not Binah in the Aeon of Isis! - She was Malkuth-Yesod, the object of worship within earth and lunar religions.
In any case, I continue to be in awe of the way that words so often comment upon themselves.
-
I don't have any fancy "devils tricks" to equate Hadit to lamed.
But Lamed is the goad and Hadit is the principle of spirit that stirs inanimate substance to life. and thus Hadit Goads Nuit to action.
as far as Malkuth vs Binah it seems to me that Binah is the mother and Malkuth the daughter. That is Malkuth is the outer manifestation of Binah. As the pagans do not believe the idol is the God but is a manifest appearance of the God, so to is the world of Malkuth (nature) the manifestation of Isis in Binah.
-
yes Nuit is inert matter
Golems are made of inert passive clay that is goaded by the spirit in the form of the name of God that is infused into it.
nuit is the clay and hadit the spirit
ox and goad
The point anyway is that being that Thelema is not a demand or a calling to be a king but a description of different possible ways of thinking.
A thelemite may be a king or a slave depending on his True WILL the difference between a Thelemite and a non-thelemite is that the thelemite is not spiritually defeated as a slave of as a king because kings are kings and slaves serve.
when slaves are made kings they are as unhappy as kings dethroned.
-
@Froclown said
"A thelemite may be a king or a slave depending on his True WILL the difference between a Thelemite and a non-thelemite is that the thelemite is not spiritually defeated as a slave of as a king because kings are kings and slaves serve.
when slaves are made kings they are as unhappy as kings dethroned."
Gad, you're so much into this conventional and Old Aeon ideas of king and slave. You're missing the whole point.
Service is the fundamental type of mindful action, as well as the essence of True Will. Kings (which, in Liber L., means adepts) are the purest servants - and (so promises The Book), even the slaves shall serve! Slaves aren't defeated - they're just slaves! None shall be cast down nor lifted up because there's no up or down, no place to cast to or from which to lift up - all are who they are - whoever that may be.
(Still, a beggar cannot hide his poverty.)
-
Do what I say or else means you are coersed to not do what you WILL dictates.
If it is you WILL to serve me then I can drop the or else and just ask you politely.
Thus and coersion by force or by trickery is a violation of another's WILL.
thus the salves serve as a personal choice therefore they are not slaves
however those who want to be bossed around because they refuse to accept their own WILL are weak and you might as well kick them arround and put them to use.
hell kill them if they interfel with you WILL they are just in the way anyhow.
The spiritually weak and down trodden have no place in the new aeon, leave tham be and the will most likely kill themselves and spare us of their wretched company.
-
@Froclown said
"If it is you WILL to serve me then I can drop the or else and just ask you politely... thus the salves serve as a personal choice therefore they are not slaves "
Precisely! And "the slaves shall serve".
"however those who want to be bossed around because they refuse to accept their own WILL are weak and you might as well kick them arround and put them to use. "
Obviously put them to use! (And who is to say that isn't exactly consistent with their Wills, i.e., selecting the position where they want to be put to a particular use.) The biggest, deepest gripes of employees aren't usually that they are worked to hard, but rather some variation of the complaint that they aren't allowed to really work - to really contribute, serve, use their skills, etc. People, as a whole, want to contribute and want direction to help them do so.
"hell kill them if they interfel with you WILL they are just in the way anyhow."
That's as un-Thelemic a statement as I have ever heard or read in my life.
"The spiritually weak and down trodden have no place in the new aeon, leave tham be and the will most likely kill themselves and spare us of their wretched company."
Everyone has a place in the New Aeon - it subsumes every dust mote, and certainly all living things.
Changing the subjects... Liber Legis uses the word "slave" four times and not always with the same inferred meaning. Note the following:
1:26 - "Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one..." The word describes the relationship of the highest officer of the Aeon to Nuit.
2:49 - "I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen." the "slaves that perish" are apparently a particular variety of slave (showing us syntactically that the word has a broader general meaning in the Book). And even this - per the remainder of verse 49 - is only true in the phenomenal world of the elements, not in the essential (or quintessential) level characterized by Hadit. ("This is of the 4: there is a fifth who is invisible, & therein am I as a babe in an egg.")
2:54 - "Nor shall they who cry aloud their folly that thou meanest nought avail; thou shall reveal it: thou availest: they are the slaves of because: They are not of me." Apparently "the slaves of because" are a special variety of slave, hence the modifying phrase.
2:58 - "Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever; the slaves shall serve." etc. The verse more or less under discussion.
-
I think I agree with Froclown in a milder sense.
I thought the "slaves" (in those last three instances) referred to those who do not wish to work on themselves/see anything--those who will never know or have any Will at all.
(also called, the cows, the cabbages, the masses, "the sleeping ones", in other circles
you know who i'm talking about--99% of the world population? ).The slaves shall serve because they have no (conscious) will, and don't want to have one, so any will at all can move them in the desired direction. Maybe before working on ourselves every one of us is a slave until we know our own will. I am a slave in many ways. I wish to not be a slave so I am Working on myself. I believe I am capable of this and will succeed because I can put effort (will?) into work. Some people will never do this. They will be slaves forever.
Maybe I'm deluded, but when I first read the Book thats what I got out of it. You all have probably put more thought into it than me--but doesn't this make any sense?
-
@SophiaLux said
"I thought the "slaves" (in those last three instances) referred to those who do not wish to work on themselves/see anything--those who will never know or have any Will at all. "
Soror Meral used to regularly ask those working under her, "What are you a slave to?" We're all probably a slave to something (usually several somethings), and a major part of working on oneself is to identify and address these things.
"The slaves shall serve because they have no (conscious) will, and don't want to have one, so any will at all can move them in the desired direction."
This is the crux of the point I want to make on this. I think the usual (simplest) way of reading this is misleading because it arises out of Old Aeon social models of kings and slaves.
Polarizing kings against slaves because the latter serve entiely misses the point that service is the essence of kingship. To miss this point is to assert the historic position of ruling kings over ruled (dominated) slaves, and I have no reason to believe Liber Legis is recommending anything of the kind - it's against its essential message.
Not only does that approach miss that kingship is service, it misses a more important point: Saying that the slaves shall serve doesn't promise to keep them down in the mushroom farms; rather, it is a promise of success, of liberation - real liberation! Those who are slaves shall become servants. That is, those who work against their conscious choice, as if in violation of (apparent) will, shall, instead, work (the same work!) consistent with their conscious choice - their personality choices in alignment with True Will.
In some senses, the kings and the slaves are equal - properly enacted, each role is a role of service.
Since "king" throughout Liber Legis surely refers to Adepts per se, it may actually be that "slaves" refer to "Men of Earth" (pre-adepts) per se - anyone who has not attained to the Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Historically I've been hesitant to suggest this, because I think many who embrace it would interpret it in terms of old-school ideas about slaves - which isn't at all what I mean.
"Maybe before working on ourselves every one of us is a slave until we know our own will."
Yes, I'm sure of it. (And, for that matter, we're still slaves for a long time after starting to work on ourselves because not all 'masters' are dislodged quickly.)
"Maybe I'm deluded, but when I first read the Book thats what I got out of it."
Actually, that's way better than what I got out of it on my first reading!**
-
[a response of mine to a similar thread elsewhere]
Crowley addresses the external dealing of Kings and slaves, in chapter 46 of MWT on "Selfishness": "You should treat everybody as a King of the same order as yourself. Of course, nine people out of ten won't stand for it, not for a minute; the mere fact of your treating them decently frightens them; their sense of inferiority is exacerbated and intensified; they insist on groveling. That places them. They force you to treat them as the mongrel curs they are; and so everybody is happy!"
Despite the cheekiness of the statement, it does explain the relationship of King and slave. That is, in the external philosophy of Thelema, the slave enslaves themselves to the King. The attitude of the King should be to continue to treat this other person as a King, otherwise he is supporting the wretched & weak character both in the individual at hand, an in society at large (and by extension the weak character in one's self). Promotion of the slave to a King is given here:
"See! he has summoned us to the Imperial dais. The night falls; it is a great orgy of worship and bliss. // The night falls like a spangled cloak from the shoulders of a prince upon a slave. // He rises a free man! // Cast thou, O prophet, the cloak upon these slaves! // A great night, and scarce fires therein; but freedom for the slave that its glory shall encompass." Lapidus Lazuli VI:21-25
The spangled cloak imagery echoes Legis II:62 "...the kisses of the stars rain hard upon thy body" which is described in Book 4 as a meme of "consecration".
-
@jw said
"Crowley addresses the external dealing of Kings and slaves, in chapter 46 of MWT on "Selfishness": "You should treat everybody as a King of the same order as yourself. Of course, nine people out of ten won't stand for it, not for a minute; the mere fact of your treating them decently frightens them; their sense of inferiority is exacerbated and intensified; they insist on groveling. That places them. They force you to treat them as the mongrel curs they are; and so everybody is happy!""
I love that quote!
