"If the ritual be not ever unto me..."
-
I'm a little confused by this, verse 52 of Liber Legis -
"52. If this be not aright; if ye confound the space-marks, saying: They are one or saying They are many; if the ritual be not ever unto me: then expect the direful judgments of Ra Hoor Khuit."I read Jim's short comment on it and his quotation of AC's much longer comment on it, but I am still missing something - on a practical level, how could the ritual ever be not unto Nuit?
-
You are correct on the level of pure existence.
In the world of self-conscious experience, however, it's easy. Determine in your mind that something is NOT Nuit, and then love it.
Or, conversely, determine in your mind that something IS Nuit, and then love it poorly...
See what happens.
-
@Ash said
"...on a practical level, how could the ritual ever be not unto Nuit?"
it happens if the division is not for love's sake.
see in Liber Aleph or Magick Without Tears passages on Black Brothers for a description of this when it takes its extreme form.
-
clearly that verse is best understood in light of Crowely's essay on Ontology Bereshith.
It wans against the perspective of duality (There are many) and Advaitist monism (There is one), as Crowley insisted strongly upon his 0=2 ontology which relates to the highest levels of Buddhism, where Duality and non-duality are transcended. Important key to this realization for Crowley is that non-duality is not the Hindu all is one, the bramah consciousness, rather it is the 0 which occurs only when all dualistic awareness is annihilated, when each element finds it's complementary opposite and is UNITED. This is LOVE the uniting of opposites in order to totally annihilate a positive projection of manifestation. (All Conscious manifestations are actually relations between the parts which are in dis-union, the cracks in NUIT manifest light)
Basically that passage is clearly stating that both the perspective of duality and that of monist non-duality are mental traps, that NUIT transcends both, she is NONE, thus she is neither many nor one.