Djeridensis Working
-
93,
So, as I've mentioned, I'm currently in the process of re-reading the old and new comments to Liber Al, and also reading for the first time "The Comment Called D," or, "The Djeridensis Working."
I have two questions. First, can anyone shed some light onto the writing of this comment? I've searched around online but no one seems to be discussing it except to say it happened in some small town with a difficult to pronounce name, and it was never published. Anything else?
Also, I'm a little confused about some of Crowley's comments regarding the distinction between Kings and dogs. He says,
"Unless one is active, one is damned and dead: and this is the curse on all slaves, on all those who yield to what they meet, that they are condemned to suffer the constraint of their Wills. The world becomes a prison for the self instead of a playground; and in a little the prison gates become the seal of the tomb.
It must be born in mind that all such beings are not real in any proper sense of the word. They are not stars at all. So far as they think of themselves as “I” they may be said to possess a point-of-view, but unless this is strong enough to persist through all Events, it is not truly a self but a phantom of Self thrown on a screen by the light of the events about it. The slave souls are in fact details of our device for looking at nature. They help us observe how a given set of events affects this or that conscious mind. They save our time by telling us what they feel and think. We may learn from them how to guide our own course. "
(emphasis added)I mean... what? Maybe I'm not as well read as I thought, but I had been under the impression that "every man and every woman is a star" was a pretty important part of Liber Al, and he seems to be canceling that out.
Or am I misreading it, or simply missing some important piece to the puzzle?
Love=Law
- C
-
93 ThatNarrowFellow,
You may have touched upon the "mystery of the planets" as mentioned in the commentary to I:3 in The Law is for All:
"[...]There is however a mystery of the planets, revolving about a star of whom they are parts[...]"
There is a direct implication here that some "are not stars at all", but simply the Khu of one's Khabs...a "point-of-view" that can "save our time by telling us what they feel and think. We may learn from them how to guide our own course."
Echoing this in the comment to I:9 Crowley says:"To me, even another Khabs is only part of my Khu."
93 93/93
616
-
93,
I think 616's point about everyone else's star being part of one's own Khu is pertinent.
Also, they are not stars becuase they have not found their True Self. They have not identified with Hadit. They are identified with the 4 elements instead of the quintessence which is beyond death and therefore 'they' are not stars - they are not one with or identified with their starry nature. Therefore they are 'filthy' and not 'righteous.' "He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still. 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." We have no reticence to stamp down those aspects which deny us our natural Kingship. " If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him. Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!"
IAO131
-
93,
"Also, they are not stars becuase they have not found their True Self."
This was my original assumption, what threw me off was that Crowley goes on for some time regarding how they will die and cease to be. If these "slave souls" were at one point stars, or points of existence, then it doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the cosmology that they could cease.
I guess there are two conceptions here. One is that the slave souls are stars that have fallen into ego-thinking, or are unenlightened, or whatever. The second is that these slave souls are parts of my Khu, so to speak, and have no real existence of their own, and will, if ignored or "stamped down," simply fizzle out.
The first conception I have no problem with, but if the second is also true, I find it deeply confusing. It asks us to accept either
1.) That certain stars can conceivably fall from kingship and eventually cease to exist (this seems unlikely given Thelemic cosmology as I understand it.)
2.) That certain people are not people at all, but parts of my khu, what, projected? onto the surrounded environment. This I maybe could get on board with, but it's likely impossible to determine which is which. If my partner just a part of my Khu, or my mother?
If anyone with more experience of this doctrine would care to enlighten me I'd appreciate it. Clearly I'm missing something...
Love=Law
- C
-
I think the point is rather that every man and every woman is truly this starry nature, beyond time and space, "unique and self-existent, an individual essence incorruptible; I also am one Soul; I am identical with All and None. I am in All and all in me; I am, apart from all and lord of all, and one with all." (Liber V vel Reguli)
Insofar as we identify with temporal things, we are not our True Selves. "I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen. (This is of the 4: there is a fifth who is invisible, & therein am I as a babe in an egg. )"
This damning is "of the 4"... the 4 elements... "the slaves that perish"... but there is a fifth Quintessence wherein Hadit abides.
IAO131
-
It is not that they have 'fallen from grace' or whatnot...they never identified with their Khabs in the first place. They never consciously identified with their own Star, or as 418 said, they failed to identify themselves with Had.
A planet does not move by it's own Will but rather that of its neighboring star...its course is set by the gravity exherted upon it by one who has identified themselves with Had...who has discovered their Will & is acting on It.616
-
@KRVB MMShCh said
"It is not that they have 'fallen from grace' or whatnot...they never identified with their Khabs in the first place. They never consciously identified with their own Star, or as 418 said, they failed to identify themselves with Had.
A planet does not move by it's own Will but rather that of its neighboring star...its course is set by the gravity exherted upon it by one who has identified themselves with Had...who has discovered their Will & is acting on It.616"
Indeed, the metaphor 'fallen from grace' or 'original sin' or the 'Fall' from the Tree of Life/Genesis are all "Old Aeon" metaphors. The metaphor now is the ever-shining sun, covered over by the inconsequential clouds of ignorance. The difference is something needing to be 'fixed' and something to just be cleaned off to rest in its natural splendor
IAO131
-
I think, when he says, "they are not stars" he means they are not shining with their own inner light. Instead, they are looking towards others in order to define who they are.
So, they have no Will, therefore they cannot be one with Hadit. Or rather, they have surrendered their Will to something else. Their movement, their going, being only a reflection of the change that occurred in that something else. As opposed to a 'star' burning bright, changing of their own Will.
ADDEDNUM:
You mention it not being published(but obviously, you read it) ; where did you read it (curiosity)?
-
@Uni_Verse said
"ADDEDNUM:
You mention it not being published(but obviously, you read it) ; where did you read it (curiosity)?"
93,
My understanding is that it was never published in his lifetime, and has been, until recently, difficult to find.
It's fairly easy to find online. The version I read was at Eidolons of Ash, here:
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ashami.com/eidolons/The_Djeridensis_Working">www.ashami.com/eidolons/The_Djeridensis_Working</a><!-- w -->Love=Law
- C