A simple solution for verse 76 (no qabalah).
-
NICE!
-
NICE!
-
That's really cool Alrah! What do you make of the numbers, though?
[Edit] Oh, I understand - nevermind
-
@Alrah said
"
"In the greatest symbolism of all, however, the symbolism beyond all planetary and Zodiacal considerations, this card is the feminine complement of the Fool, for the letters Aleph Lamed constitute the secret key of the Book of the Law, and this is the basis of a complete qabalistic system of greater depth and sublimity than any other... She is the Goddess Ma'at; she bears upon her nemyss the ostrich feathers of the twofold truth... more than this, she is the complete forumla of the Dyad [ed. the two Monads of Love and Will of the Law]."Although he wrote the Book of Thoth towards his latter years, Crowley kept silent upon the nature of this system, and for all the noodling and knoodling people have done since his death, there has not been the slightest inkling of this New system (new tree, new balance, new understanding for the New Aeon). Instead - there has been mere been adaptation upon the already existing Hebrew system of the Old Aeon. It is my hope that the recent bowel movement of my solution above will result in unclogging some of the creative energies of our community towards finding the system that Crowley referred to."
I don't at all think he was referring to a new Tree etc. at all - although "new understanding," of course, is implied. Also, I don't think it's unexplored or undocumented at all. It has always seemed to me that what he describes here was quite substantially developed by him in many of his writings, especially remarks (including footnotes) throughout Magick in Theory & Practice and, especially, the New Comment on Liber Legis.
-
As I said above, I think this information is mostly in the New Comment, plus scattered here and there throughout MTP.
-
We obviously disagree on this.
-
I don't see disagreement as a problem. Often it's a quite profitable (dynamic, creative) solution
And if your position is that the one pattern on which every aspect of the work is based needs to be altered or significantly redesigned, then no attempt at resolution is likely to be profitable.
I'm also not clear why you are ignoring the very considerable development of the Aleph-Lamed relationship, and its philosophical and practical implications, in the sources cited.
Nonetheless, as mentioned above, I don't see disagreement as, per se, a problem.
-
I quite agree with most of the interpretation weaknesses you cited. But that's what they are - errors of interpretation rather than errors in the pattern itself. I stand with you (as far as I can tell) on the philosophy reframing.
I'm not going to have time in the foreseeable future to completely reread Crowley's commentaries, MTP, and similar references to dig things out, which is why I referred you to them for your own digging.
I don't know about the 2006 letter you mentioned. Doesn't ring any bells.
To answer your question, yes, I do think that the Tree of Life is the foundation of the "deep and sublime" system Crowley was referencing - that the differences he meant were in our understanding of some of its components.
-
@Alrah said
"The address was a verbal one in which Bill... well it's summed up here by Tim Maroney:
im.maroney.org/Essays/Facts_and_Phallacies.html "I don't have time to read but, now that I see what you're talking about I'll just say that I won't be held accountable for his view or, for that matter, for the O.T.O.'s particular doctrine on the matter. This site has nothing to do with them per se, so there is no reason to believe that their views are our views.
"Any physical and mundane 'tree' can be the basis of a deep and sublime system, Jim."
In theory. But we do have one framework on which every minutest aspect of training and practice rests, and on which every incremental step of the A.'.A.'. system (to pick just one example) rests; and, perhaps more importantly, it has never failed us. Unmder those circumstances, I have no reason to uproot or disrupt the single most useful theoretical and practical device we have.
"If peeps keep using the old one then they will keep running across the old Aeon thinking and methodologies that poison things - perhaps not consciously but as magicians we have to consider the effect on the unconscious as well."
The same is true of the greater part of the mystical and magical lore that people might study. (Maybe all of it, in fact.) There's no salvation from undeveloped discrimination other than to develop discrimination.
"We can't guard against the crap of thousands of years that will float to the surface while we admire the pearls. It's too big a job. That's why it 'out with the old' and 'in with the new'."
I disagree completely. As in the motto I chose for Black Pearl, we need to "Seek the new in the old - and seek the old in the new."
-
@Alrah said
"There should be women teaching Thelema to their children and material developed and 'out there' to help them do that. Instead - I am 1 of 3 women in total on this forum. If the philosophy was fundementally right it would fundementally be taken up by women and taught to their kids instead of being left to when they were older when it's complications around what you call the 'weaknesses of interpretation' can be explained. ...."
the night is still young...I mean, this Aeon of ours, this Child, is still young
- it's only in its beginnings.
at least that's how I feel.
there is a lot more to come: the next - more inner layer, that corresponding to Horus-principle - to be unfolded. I mean - visible and manifested collectively, as characteristic of humanity in toto. -
Verse 2:76 is perhaps the most cryptic part of the text of Liber Al, and I am still waiting for the day when it is "solved" and we can all forget about it! I have always wondered why Crowley's soluton has never appeared in print, for he actually wrote a letter to Frater Achad regarding "Liber 31" and said that "Your Key opens the Palace. ccxx has unfolded like a flower. All solved, even 2:76 and 3:47"
Is this delusionon Crowley's part? since Liber Al itself says regarding that verse: "Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever. There cometh one to follow thee: he shall expound it."
Also in 3:47: "in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine.Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all"
When Crowley said "All solved, even 2:76" he must have been fooling even himself, since it contradicts what Liber Al says!
And the search goes on.