Aleister Crowley
Section
The Book Of The Law (Liber AL vel Legis)
The Old and New Commentaries to Liber AL
vel Legis (The Book Of The Law) Chapter I
by Aleister Crowley
Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter III
Most of the text below has been entered
by Frater H.B., except for the text of Liber AL (entered
by Frater Ebony and proofread by many others), The Old
Comment and portions of the New Comment omitted by L. Wilkenson
in his abridgement. This text of Liber 220 has been restored
by comparison with an early surviving typescript of the
work, except for Chapter II, the portion not covered by
the typescript available at this time.
The Old Comment has been restored by BH, except for Chapter
II, from the TS. In that portion, the Old Comment has been
restored from less reliable sources and may need further
revision to Crowley's text. The New Comment to Chapter II
also needs further revision and expansion beyond the Wilkenson
abridgement.
Some verses of Liber AL have were not
individually commented by Crowley in this text. Some have
only a New Comment, and not an Old one. Crowley's footnotes
have been moved up into the text and enclosed in double
angle brackets: <<Crowley
note>>.
Again, for the comment to Chapter II, these may be in need
of further correction to the original.
All other notes are enclosed in curly brackets, with attribution
of origin: {WEH NOTE: ...} if no attribution of origin is
given, the content of the curly brackets is an interpolation
of a gap in the TS. These gaps were intended to be filled
by hand-written symbols and foreign letters not available
on the typewriter used to prepare the TS. They are in a variety
of hands, sometimes missing altogether. The accuracy of these
interpolations is very high, but not certain.
L I B E R A L vel L E G I S
sub figura CCXX
as delivered by
(LXXVIII) XCIII unto DCLXVI
with a commentary by
T H E B E A S T
----
In the first edition this Book is called L. L is the sacred
letter in the Holy Twelve-fold Table which forms the triangle
that stabilizes the Universe. See "Liber 418".
L is the letter of Libra, Balance, and 'Justice' in the Taro.
This title should probably be "AL", "El",
as the 'L' was heard of the Voice of Aiwaz, not seen. "AL" is
the true name of the Book, for these letters, and their number
31, form the Master Key to its Mysteries.
In order that the ethical and philosophical comment should
be "understanded of the common people", without
interruption, I have decided to transfer to an Appendix {WEH
NOTE: The Appendix has not yet been recovered.} all considerations
drawn from the numerical system of cipher which is interspersed
with the more straightforward matter of this Book. In that
Appendix will be found an account of the character of this
cipher, called "Qabalah", and the mysteries thus
indicated; because of the impracticability of communicating
them in verbal form, and of the necessity of proving to the
student that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge
beyond any yet acquired by man.
The First Chapter
AL I,1: "Had! The manifestation of Nuit."
The Old Comment
1. Compare II.1, the complement of this verse. In Nu is Had
concealed; by Had is Nu manifested. Nu being 56 and Had
9, their conjunction results in 65, Adonai, the Holy Guardian
Angel. Also Hoor, who combines the force of the Sun with
that of Mars. Adonai is primarily Solar, but 65 is a number
sacred to Mars.
See the "Sepher Sephiroth" ,and "The Wake
World" in "Know Om Pax" for further details
on 65.
Note moreover, the sixty-five pages of the MS. of Liber
Legis.
Or, counting NV 56, Had 10, we get 66, which is (1-11).
Had is further the centre of the Key-Word ABRAHADABRA.
The New Comment
The theogony of our Law is entirely scientific, Nuit is Matter,
Hadit is Motion, in their full physical sense.<<The
Proton and the Electron, in a metaphysical sense, suggest
close analogies.>> They are the Tao and Teh of Chinese
Philosophy; or, to put it very simply, the Noun and Verb
in grammar. Our central Truth -- beyond other philosophies
-- is that these two infinities cannot exist apart. This
extensive subject must be studied in our other writings,
notably "Berashith", my own Magical Diaries,
especially those of 1919, 1920 and 1921, and "The
Book of Wisdom or Folly". See also "The Soldier
and the Hunchback". Further information concerning
Nuit and Hadit is given in the course of this Book; but
I must here mention that the Brother mentioned in connexion
with the "Wizard Amalantrah" etc. (Samuel bar
Aiwaz) identifies them with ANU and ADAD the supreme Mother
and Father deities of the Sumerians. Taken in connexion
with the AIWAZ identification, this is very striking indeed.
It is also to be considered that Nu is connected with North,
while Had is Sad, Set, Satan, Sat (equals "Being" in
Sanskrit), South. He is then the Sun, one point concentring
Space, as also is any other star. The word ABRAHADABRA is
from Abrasax, Father Sun, which adds to 365. For the North-South
antithesis see Fabre d'Olivet's "Hermeneutic Interpretation
of the Origin of the Social State in Man". Note "Sax" also
as a Rock, or Stone, whence the symbol of the Cubical Stone,
the Mountain Abiegnus, and so forth. Nu is also reflected
in Naus, Ship, etc., and that whole symbolism of Hollow Space
which is familiar to all. There is also a question of identifying
Nu with On, Noah, Oannes, Jonah, John, Dianus, Diana, and
so on. But these identifications are all partial only, different
facets of the Diamond Truth. We may neglect all these questions,
and remain in the simplicity of this Her own Book.
AL I,2: "The unveiling of the company of heaven."
The Old Comment
2. This book is a new revelation, or unveiling of the hold
ones.
The New Comment
This explains the general theme of this revelation: gives
the Dramatis Personae, so to speak.
It is cosmographically, the conception of the two Ultimate
Ideas; Space, and That which occupies Space.
It will however appear later that these two ideas may be
resolved into one, that of Matter; with Space, its 'Condition'
or 'form', included therein. This leaves the idea of 'Motion'
for Hadit, whose interplay with Nuit makes the Universe.
Time should perhaps be considered as a particular kind or
dimension of Space.<<In "Berashith" all qualities
soever are considered as so many dimensions. I see no reason,
19 years later, for receding from this view.>>
Further, this verse is to be taken with the next. The 'company
of heaven' is Mankind, and its 'unveiling' is the assertion
of the independent godhead of every man and every woman!
Further, as Khabs (see verse 8) is "Star", there
is a further meaning; this Book is to reveal the Secret Self
of a man, i.e. to initiate him.
AL I,3: "Every man and every woman is a star."
The New Comment
This thesis is fully treated in "The Book of Wisdom
or Folly". Its main statement is that each human being
is an Element of the Cosmos, self-determined and supreme,
co-equal with all other Gods.
From this the Law "Do what thou wilt" follows
logically. One star influences another by attraction, of
course; but these are incidents of self-predestined orbits.
There is, however, a mystery of the planets, revolving about
a star of whom they are parts; but I shall not discuss it
fully in this place.
Man is the Middle Kingdom. The Great Kingdom is Heaven,
with each star as an unit; the Little Kingdom is the Molecule,
with each Electron as an unit. (The Ratio of these three
is regularly geometrical, each being 10 to the 22 times greater
in size than its neighbour.)
See "The Book of the Great Auk" for the demonstration
that each 'star' is the Centre of the Universe to itself,
and that a 'star' simple, original, absolute, can add to
its omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence without ceasing
to be itself; that its one way to do this is to gain experience,
and that therefore it enters into combinations in which its
true Nature is for awhile disguised, even from itself. Analogously,
an atom of carbon may pass through myriad Proteus-phases,
appearing in Chalk, Chloroform, Sugar, Sap, Brain and Blood,
not recognizable as "itself" the black amorphous
solid, but recoverable as such, unchanged by its adventures.
This theory is the only one which explains "why" the
Absolute limited itself, and why It does not recognize Itself
during its cycle of incarnations. It disposes of "Evil" and
the Origin of Evil; without denying Reality to "Evil",
or insulting our daily observation and our common sense.
I here quote (with one or two elucidatory insertions) the
original note originally made by Me on this subject.
May 14, 1919, 6.30 p.m.
All elements must at one time have been separate -- that
would be the case with great heat. Now when atoms get to
the sun, when we get to the sun, we get that immense, extreme
heat, and all the elements are themselves again. Imagine
that each atom of each element possesses the memory of all
his adventures in combination. By the way, that atom, fortified
with that memory, would not be the same atom; yet it is,
because it has gained nothing from anywhere except this memory.
Therefore, by the lapse of time and by virtue of memory,
a thing (although originally an Infinite Perfection) could
become something more than itself; and thus a real development
is possible. One can then see a reason for any element deciding
to go through this series of incarnations (god, that was
a magnificent conception!) because so, and only so, can he
go; and he suffers the lapse of memory of His own Reality
of Perfection which he has during these incarnations, because
he knows he will come through unchanged.
Therefore you have an infinite number of gods, individual
and equal though diverse, each one supreme and utterly indestructible.
This is also the only explanation of how a being could create
a world in which war, evil, "etc". exist. Evil
is only an appearance because, like "good", it
cannot affect the substance itself, but only multiply its
combinations. This is something the same as mystic monism,
but the objection to that theory is that God has to create
things which are all parts of himself, so that their interplay
is false. If we presuppose many elements, their interplay
is natural. It is no objection to this theory to ask who
made the elements -- the elements are at least there; and
God, when you look for him, is not there. Theism is "obscurum
per obscurius". A male star is built up from the centre
outwards, a female star from the circumference inwards. This
is what is meant when we say that woman has no soul. It explains
fully the difference between the sexes.
{WEH NOTE: Although Crowley evidently felt that this characterization
was true simply, it should be noted that this comment is
not CLASS A. The idea of center outwards and circumference
inwards may actually have described the impression received
by a male of the Victorian age in regard to men and women.
Certainly every male mystic has the state here described
as "circumference inward", "...no soul" and "female" at
the time of reception --- vide Liber LXV. Equally, every
woman who acts positively from awareness of her identity
would qualify for "center outwards", "soul" and "male" in
this sense. What Crowley identified as sex-linked may better
be considered as modality linked, with the sexual linkage
as much an accident of culture as anything else.}
AL I,4: "Every number is infinite; there is no difference."
The New Comment
This is a great and holy mystery. Although each star has
its own number, each number is equal and supreme. Every
man and every woman is not only a part of God, but the
Ultimate God. "The Centre is everywhere and the circumference
nowhere". The old definition of God takes new meaning
for us. Each one of us is the One God. This can only be
understood by the initiate; one must acquire certain high
states of consciousness to appreciate it.
I have tried to put it simply in the note to the last verse.
I may add that in the Trance called by me the "Star-Sponge" --
see note to v. 59 -- this apprehension of the Universe is
seen as an astral Vision. It began as "Nothingness with
Sparkles" in 1916 E.V. by Lake Pasquaney in New Hampshire,
U.S.A. and developed into fullness on various subsequent
occasions. Each 'Star' is connected directly with every other
star, and the Space being Without Limit (Ain Soph) the Body
of Nuith, any one star is as much the Centre as any other.
Each man instinctively feels that he is the Centre of the
Cosmos, and philosophers have jeered at his presumption.
But it was he that was precisely right. The yokel is no more
'petty' than the King, nor the earth than the Sun. Each simple
elemental Self is supreme, Very God of Very God. Ay, in this
Book is Truth almost insufferably splendid, for Man has veiled
himself too long from his own glory: he fears the abyss,
the ageless Absolute. But Truth shall make him free!
It must be understood from the beginning that this book
contains the keys of all the knowledge necessary for the
operation of the Magical Formulae of the world during the
Aeon which it initiates. In this very early verse is already
given a Master Key to mathematics and metaphysics. On applying
this to current problems of thought, it will be discovered
that the long-fast doors fly open at a touch.
Let use briefly examine the implications of this statement.
It should not occasion surprise to find that the Book of
the Law not only anticipates the conclusion of the greatest
modern mathematicians like Poincare, but goes beyond them.
It was necessary that this should be the case, so that the
book might be, beyond question, the expression of a mind
possessed of superior powers to any incarnated mind soever.
It may clarify the subject if we venture to paraphrase the
text. The first statement "Every number is infinite" is,
on the face of it, a contradiction in terms. But that is
only because of the accepted idea of a number as not being
a thing in itself but merely a term in series homogeneous
in character. All orthodox mathematical argument is based
on definitions involving this conception. For example, it
is fundamental to admit the identity of 2 plus 1 with 1 plus
2. The Book of the Law presents an altogether different conception
of the nature of number.
Mathematical ideas involve what is called a continuum, which
is, superficially at least, of a different character to the
physical continuum. For instance, in the physical continuum,
the eye can distinguish between the lengths of one-inch stick
and a two-inch stick, but not between these which measure
respectively one thousand miles and one thousand miles and
on inch, though the difference in each case is equally an
inch. The inch difference is either perceptible or not perceptible,
according to the conditions. Similarly, the eye can distinguish
either the one-inch or the two-inch stick from one of an
inch and a half. But we cannot continue this process indefinitely
-- we can always reach a point where the extremes are distinguishable
from each other but their mean from neither of the extremes.
Thus, in the physical continuum, if we have three terms,
A, B, and C, A appears equal to B, and B to C, yet C appears
greater than A. Our reason tells us that this conclusion
is an absurdity, that we have been deceived by the grossness
of our perceptions. It is useless for us to invent instruments
which increase the accuracy of our observations, for though
they enable us to distinguish between the three terms of
our series, and to restore the theoretical Hierarchy, we
can always continue the process of division until we arrive
at another series: A', B', C', where A' and C' are distinguishable
from each other, but where neither is distinguishable from
B'.
On the above grounds, modern thinkers have endeavoured to
create a distinction between the mathematical and the physical
continuum, yet it should surely be obvious that the defect
in our organs of sense, which is responsible for the difficulty,
shows that our method of observation debars us from appreciating
the true nature of things by this method of observation.
However, in the case of the mathematical continuum, its
character is such that we can continue indefinitely the process
of division between any two mathematical expressions so-ever,
without interfering in any way with the regularity of the
process, or creating a condition in which two terms become
indistinguishable from each other. The mathematical continuum,
moreover, is not merely a question of series of integral
numbers, but of other types of numbers, which, like integers,
express relations between existing ideas, yet are not measurable
in terms of that series. Such numbers are themselves parts
of a continuum of their own, which interpenetrates the series
of integers without touching it, at least necessarily.
For example: the tangents of angles made by the separation
of two lines from coincidence to perpendicularity, increases
constantly from zero to infinity. But almost the only integral
value is found at the angle of 45 degrees where it is unity.
It may be said that there is an infinite number of such
series, each possessing the same property of infinite divisibility.
The ninety tangents of angles differing by one degree between
zero and ninety may be multiplied sixty fold by taking the
minute instead of the degree as the co-efficient of the progression,
and these again sixty fold by introducing the second to divide
the minute. So on ad infinitum.
All these considerations depend upon the assumption that
every number is no more than a statement of relation. The
new conception, indicated by the Book of the Law, is of course
in no way contradictory of the orthodox view; but it adds
to it in the most practically important manner. A statistician
computing the birth-rate of the eighteenth century makes
no special mention of the birth of Napoleon. This does not
invalidate his results; but it demonstrates how exceedingly
limited is their scope even with regard to their own object,
for the birth of Napoleon had more influence on the death-rate
than another other phenomenon included in his calculations.
A short digression is necessary. There may be some who are
still unaware of the fact, but the mathematical and physical
sciences are in no sense concerned with absolute truth, but
only with the relations between observed phenomena and the
observer. The statement that the acceleration of falling
bodies is thirty-two feet per second, is only the roughest
of approximation at the best. In the first place, it applies
to earth. As most people know, in the Moon the rate is only
one-sixth as great. But, even on earth, it differs in a marked
manner between the poles and the equator, and not only so,
but it is affected by so small a matter as the neighborhood
of a mountain.
It is similarly inaccurate to speak of "repeating" an
experiment. The exact conditions never recur. One cannot
boil water twice over. The water is not the same, and the
observer is not the same. When a man says that he is sitting
still, he forgets that he is whirling through space with
vertiginous rapidity.
It is possibly such considerations that led earlier thinkers
to admit that there was no expectation of finding truth in
anything but mathematics, and they rashly supposed that the
apparent ineluctability of her laws constitutes a guarantee
of their coherence with truth. But mathematics is entirely
a matter of convention, no less so than the rules of Chess
or Baccarat. When we say that "two straight lines cannot
enclose a space", we mean no more than we are unable
to think of them as doing so. The truth of the statement
depends, consequently, on that of the hypothesis that our
minds bear witness to truth. Yet the insane man may be unable
to think that he is not the victim of mysterious persecution.
We find that no reason for believing him. It is useless to
reply that mathematical truths receive universal consent,
because they do not. It is a matter of elaborate and tedious
training to persuade even the few people when we teach of
the truth of the simplest theorems in Geometry. There are
very few people living who are convinced -- or even aware
-- of the more recondite results of analysis. It is no reply
to this criticism to say that all men can be convinced if
they are sufficiently trained, for who is to guarantee that
such training does not warp the mind?
But when we have brushed away these preliminary objections,
we find that the nature of the statement itself is not, and
cannot be, more than a statement of correspondences between
our ideas. In the example chosen, we have five ideas; those
of duality, of straightness, of a line, of enclosing, and
of space. None of these are more than ideas. Each one is
meaningless until it is defined as corresponding in a certain
manner to certain other ideas. We cannot define any word
soever, except by identifying it with two or more equally
undefined words. To define it by a single word would evidently
constitute a tautology.
We are thus forced to the conclusion that all investigation
may be stigmatized as obscurum per obscurium. Logically,
our position is even worse. We define A as BC, where B is
DE, and C is FG. Not only does the process increase the number
of our unknown quantities in Geometrical progression at every
step, but we must ultimately arrive at a point where the
definition of Z involves the term A. Not only is all argument
confined within a vicious circle, but so is the definition
of the terms on which any argument must be based.
It might be supposed that the above chain of reasoning made
all conclusions impossible. But this is only true when we
investigate the ultimate validity of our propositions. We
can rely on water boiling at 100 degrees Centigrade,<<In
revising this comment, I note with amusement that it had
escaped me that 100 degrees C. is by definition the temperature
at which water boils! I have seen it boil at about 84 degrees
C. on the Baltoro Glacier, and determined my height above
sea-level by observing the boiling point so often that I
had quite forgotten the original conditions of Celsius.>> although,
for mathematical accuracy, water never boils twice running
at precisely the same temperature, and although, logically,
the term water is an incomprehensible mystery.
To return to our so-called axiom; Two straight lines cannot
enclose a space. It has been one of the most important discoveries
of modern mathematics, that this statement, even if we assume
the definition of the various terms employed, is strictly
relative, not absolute; and that common sense is impotent
to confirm it as in the case of the boiling water. For Bolyai,
Lobatschewsky, and Riemann have shown conclusively that a
consistent system of geometry can be erected on any arbitrary
axiom soever. If one chooses to assume that the sum of the
interior angles of a triangle is either greater than or less
than two right angles, instead of equal to them, we can construct
two new systems of Geometry, each perfectly consistent with
itself, and we possess no means soever of deciding which
of the three represents truth.
I may illustrate this point by a simple analogy. We are
accustomed to assert that we go from France to China, a form
of expression which assumes that those countries are stationary,
while we are mobile. But the fact might be equally well expressed
by saying that France left us and China came to us. In either
case there is no implication of absolute motion, for the
course of the earth through space is not taken into account.
We implicitly refer to a standard of repose which, in point
of fact, we know not to exist. When I say that the chair
in which I am sitting has remained stationary for the last
hour, I mean only "stationary in respect to myself and
my house". In reality, the earth's rotation has carried
it over one thousand miles, and the earth's course some seventy
thousand miles, from its previous position. All that we can
expect of any statement is that it should be coherent with
regard to a series of assumption which we know perfectly
well to be false and arbitrary.
It is commonly imagined, by those who have not examined
the nature of the evidence, that our experience furnishes
a criterion by which we may determine which of the possible
symbolic representations of Nature is the true one. They
suppose that Euclidian Geometry is in conformity with Nature
because the actual measurements of the interior angles of
a triangle tell us that their sum is in fact equal to two
right angles, just as Euclid tells us that theoretical considerations
declare to be the case. They forget that the instruments
which we use for our measurements are themselves conceived
of as in conformity with the principles of Euclidian Geometry.
In other words, them measure ten yards with a piece of wood
about which they really known nothing but that its length
is one-tenth of the ten yards in question.
The fallacy should be obvious. The most ordinary reflection
should make it clear that our results depend upon all sorts
of condition. If we inquire, "What is the length of
the thread of quicksilver in a thermometer?", we can
only reply that it depends on the temperature of the instrument.
In fact, we judge temperature by the difference of the coefficients
of expansion due to heat of the two substances, glass and
mercury.
Again, the divisions of the scale of the thermometer depend
upon the temperature of boiling water, which is not a fixed
thing. It depends on the pressure of the earth's atmosphere,
which varies (according to time and place) to the extent
of over twenty per cent. Most people who talk of "scientific
accuracy" are quite ignorant of elementary facts of
this kind.
It will be said, however, that having defined a yard as
the length of a certain bar deposited in the Mint in London,
under given conditions of temperature and pressure, we are
at least in a position to measure the length of other objects
by comparison, directly or indirectly, with that standard.
In a rough and ready way, that is more or less the case.
But if it should occur that the length of things in general
were halved or doubled, we could not possibly be aware of
the other so-called laws of Nature. We have no means so-ever
of determining even so simple a matter as to whether one
of two events happens before or after the other.
Let us take an instance. It is well known that the light
of the sun requires some eight minutes to reach the earth.
Simultaneous <<Simultaneity, closely considered, possesses
no meaning soever. See A.A.Eddington, "Space, Time and
Gravitation", 61.>> {WEH NOTE: SIC. This is page
51 in Eddington, op. cit. 1920 edition, 1959 reprint: "The
denial of absolute simultaneity is a natural complement to
the denial of absolute motion ..."} phenomena in the
two bodies would therefore appear to be separated in time
to that extent; and, from a mathematical standpoint, the
same discrepancy theoretically exists, even if we suppose
the two bodies in question to be only a few yards one more
remote than the other. Recent consideration of these facts
has show the impossibility of determining the fact of priority,
so that it may be just as reasonable to assert that a dagger-thrust
is caused by a wound as vice versa. Lewis Carroll has an
amusing parable to this effect in "Through the Looking-Glass",
which work, by the way, with its predecessor, is packed with
examples of philosophical paradox. <<If I strike a
billiard ball, and it moves, both my will and its motion
have causes long antecedent to the act. I may consider both
my Work and its reaction as twin effects of the eternal Universe.
The moved arm and ball are part of a state of the Cosmos
which resulted necessarily from its momentarily previous
state, and so, back for ever. Thus, my Magical Work is only
on of the cause-effects necessarily concomitant with the
cause-effects which set the ball in motion. I may therefore
regard the act of striking as a cause-effect of my original
Will to move the ball, though necessarily previous to its
motion. But the case of Magical work is not quite analogous.
For I am such that I am compelled to perform Magick in order
to make my Will to prevail; so that the cause of my doing
the Work is also he cause of the ball's motion, and there
is no reason why one should precede the other, See Book 4,
Part III, for a full discussion. (Since writing the above,
I have been introduced to "Space, Time and Gravitation",
where similar arguments are adduced.)>>
We may now return to our text "Every number is infinite".
The fact that every number is a term in a mathematical continuum
is no more an adequate definition than if we were to describe
a picture as Number So-and-So in the catalogue. Every number
is a thing in itself,<<I regret to find myself in disagreement
with the Hon. Bertrand Russell with regard to the conception
of the nature of Number.>> possessing an infinite number
of properties peculiar to itself.
Let us consider, for a moment, the numbers 8 and 9. 8 is
the number of cubes measuring one inch each way in a cube
which measures two inches each way; while 9 is the number
of squares measuring one inch each way in a square measuring
three inches each way. There is a sort of reciprocal correspondence
between them in this respect.
By adding one to eight, we obtain nine, so that we might
define unity as that which has the property of transforming
a three-dimensional expansion of two into a two-dimensional
expansion of three. But if we add unity to nine, unity appears
as that which has the power of transforming the two-dimensional
expansion of three aforesaid into a mere oblong measuring
5 by 2. Unity thus appears as in possession of two totally
different properties. Are we then to conclude that it is
not the same unity? How are we to describe unity, how know
it? Only by experiment can we discover the nature of its
action on any given number. In certain minor respects, this
action exhibits regularity. We know, for example, that it
uniformly transforms an odd number into an even one, and
vice versa, but that is practically the limit of what we
can predict as to its action.
We can go further, and state that any number soever possesses
this infinite variety of powers to transform any other number,
even by the primitive process of addition. We observe also
how the manipulation of any two numbers can be arranged so
that the result is incommensurable with either, or even so
that ideas are created of a character totally incompatible
with our original conception of numbers as a series of positive
integers. We obtain unreal and irrational expressions, ideas
of a wholly different order, by a very simple juxtaposition
of such apparently comprehensible and commonplace entities
as integers.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from these various
considerations. It is that the nature of every number is
a thing peculiar to itself, a thing inscrutable and infinite,
a thing inexpressible, even if we could understand it.
In other words, a number is a soul, in the proper sense
of the term, an unique and necessary element in the totality
of existence.
We may not turn to the second phrase of the text: "there
is no difference". It must strike the student immediately
that this is, on the face of it, a point blank contradiction
of all that has been said above. What have we done but insist
upon the essential difference between any tow numbers, and
show that even their sequential relation is little more than
arbitrary, being indeed rather a convenient way of regarding
them for the purpose of coordinating them with out understanding
than anything else? On a similar principle, we number public
vehicles or telephones without implication even of necessary
sequence. The appellation denotes nothing beyond membership
of a certain class of objects, and is indeed expressly chosen
to avoid being entangled in considerations of any characteristics
of the individual so designated except that cursory designation.
when it is said that there is no difference between numbers
(for in this sense I think we must understand the phrase),
we must examine the meaning of the word 'difference'. Difference
is the denial of identity in the first place, but the word
is not properly applied to discriminate between objects which
have no similarity. One does not ask, "What is the difference
between a yard and a minute?" in practical life. We
do ask the difference between two things of the same kind.
The Book of the Law is trying to emphasize the doctrine that
each number is unique and absolute. Its relations with other
numbers are therefore in the nature of illusion. They are
the forms of presentation under which we perceive their semblances;
and it is to the last degree important to realize that these
semblances only indicate the nature of the realities behind
them in the same way in which the degrees on a thermoetric
scale indicate heat. It is quite unphilosophical to say that
50 degrees Centigrade is hotter than 40 degrees. Degrees
of temperature are simply conventions invented by ourselves
to describe physical states of a totally different order;
and, while the heat of a body may be regarded as an inherent
property of its own, our measure of that heat in no way concerns
it.
We use instruments of science to inform us of the nature
of the various objects which we wish to study; but our observations
never reveal the thing as it is in itself. They only enable
us to compare unfamiliar with familiar experiences. The use
of an instrument necessarily implies the imposition of alien
conventions. To take the simplest example: when we say that
we see a thing, we only mean that our consciousness is modified
by its existence according to a particular arrangement of
lenses and other optical instruments, which exist in our
eyes and not in the object perceived. So also, the fact that
the sum of 2 and 1 is three, affords us but a single statement
of relations symptomatic of the presentation to us of those
numbers.
We have, therefore, no means soever of determining the difference
between any two numbers, except in respect of a particular
and very limited relation. Furthermore, in view of the infinity
of every number, it seems not unlikely that the apparent
differences observed by us would tend to disappear with the
disappearance of the arbitrary conditions which we attach
to them to facilitate, as we think, our examination. We may
also observe that each number, being absolute, is the centre
of its universe, so that all other numbers, so far as they
are related to it, are its appanages. Each number is, therefore,
the totality of the universe, and there cannot be any difference
between one infinite universe and another. The triangle ABC
may look very different from the standpoints of A, B, and
C respectively; each view is true, absolutely; yet it is
the same triangle.
The above interpretation of the text is of a revolutionary
character, from the point of view of science and mathematics.
Investigation of the lines here laid down will lead to the
solution of these grave problems which have so long baffled
the greatest minds of the world, on account of the initial
error of attaching them on lines which involve self-contradiction.
The attempt to discover the nature of things by a study of
the relations between them is precisely parallel with the
ambition to obtain a finite value of Pi. Nobody wishes to
deny the practical value of the limited investigations which
have so long preoccupied the human mind. But it is only quite
recently that even the best thinkers have begun to recognize
that their work was only significant within a certain order.
It will soon be admitted on all hands that the study of the
nature of things in themselves is a work for which the human
reason is incompetent; for the nature of reason is such that
it must always formulate itself in proportions which merely
assert a positive or negative relation between a subject
and a predicate. Men will thus be led to the development
of a faculty, superior to reason, whose apprehension is independent
of the hieroglyphic representations of which reason so vainly
makes use.<<See "Eleusis", A. Crowley Collected
Works, Vol. III, Epilogue.>> {This then will} be the
foundation of the true spiritual science which is the proper
tendency of the evolution of man. This Science will clarify,
without superseding, the old; but it will free men from the
bondage of mind, little by little, just as the old science
has freed them from the bondage of matter.
This science is the proper and particular study of initiates,
and its principia are formulated in the Book of the Law.
This Book may therefore be regarded as indicating a complete
revolution in human affairs, for it advances mankind in the
most radical manner. The road of attainment to self-realisation
is made open as never before has been done in the history
of the planet.
AL I,5: "Help me, o warrior lord of Thebes, in my unveiling
before the Children of men!"
The Old Comment
5. Nu, to unveil herself, needs a mortal intermediary, in
the first instance.
It is to be supposed that ankh-f-n-khonsu, the warrior lord
of Thebes, priest of Men Tu, is in some subtle manner identical
with either Aiwass or the Beast.
The New Comment
Here Nuit appeals, simply and directly, recognizing the separate
function of each Star of her Body. Though all is One, each
part of that One has its own special work, each Star its
particular Orbit.
In addressing me as warrior lord of Thebes, it appears as
if She perceived a certain continuity or identity of myself
with Ankh-f-n-khonsu, whose Stele is the Link with Antiquity
of this Revelation. See Equinox I, VII, pp. 363-400a, for
the account of this event.
The unveiling is the Proclamation of the Truth previously
explained, that the Body of Nuith occupies Infinite Space,
so that every Star thereof is Whole in itself, an independent
and absolute Unit. They differ as Carbon and Calcium differ,
but each is a simple "immortal" Substance, or at
least a form of some simpler Substance. Each soul is thus
absolute, and 'good' or 'evil' are merely terms descriptive
of relations between destructible combinations. Thus Quinine
is 'good' for a malarial patient, but 'evil' for the germ
of the disease. Heat is 'bad' for ice-cream and 'good' for
coffee. The indivisible essence of things, their 'souls',
are indifferent to all conditions soever, for none can in
any way affect them.
AL I,6: "Be thou Hadit, my secret centre, my heart & my
tongue!"
The Old Comment
6. The recipient of this knowledge is to identify himself
with Hadit, and thus fully express the thoughts of her
heart in her very language.
The New Comment
Nuit formulates me as Hadit, especially in the three centres
of consciousness of her Being. IN this way, for this purpose,
I became the complement of Her.
These centres are those of Love, Life and language. Duality
is the condition of all three. It will appear later how it
is that None and Two are identical; they are distinct in
our minds only because those minds are conscious, and therefore
think of "two" as their own state. But the unconscious
mind thinks Nothing, and is Nothing. Yet it is the same mind.
Nuith selects three centres of Her Body to become "Two" with
Hadit; for she asks me to declare Her in these three. Infinite
freedom, all-embracing, for physical Love; boundless continuity
for Life; and the silent rhythm of the Stars for Language.
These three conceptions are Her gift to us.
AL I,7: "Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister
of Hoor-paar-kraat."
The Old Comment
7. Aiwass -- see Introduction. He is 78, Mezla, the "influence" from
the Highest Crown, and the number of cards in the Tarot,
Rota, the all-embracing Wheel.
Hoor-paar-Kraat -- see II, 8.
Aiwass is called the minister of Hoor-paar-Kraat, the God
of Silence; for his word is the Speech of the Silence.
The New Comment
Aiwass is the name given by Ouarda the Seer as that of the
Intelligence Communicating. See note to Title.
Hoor-paar-Kraat or Harpocrates, the "Babe in the Egg
of Blue", is not merely the God of Silence in a conventional
sense. He represents the Higher Self, the Holy Guardian Angel.
The connexion is with the symbolism of the Dwarf in Mythology.
He contains everything in Himself, but is unmanifested. See
II:8.
He is the First Letter of the Alphabet, Aleph, whose number
is One, and his card in the Tarot is The Fool, numbered Zero.
Aleph is attributed to the "Element" (in the old
classification of things) of Air.
Now as "One" or Aleph he represents the Male Principle,
the First Cause, and the free breath of Life, the sound of
the vowel A being made with the open throat and mouth.
As Zero he represents the female Principle, the fertile
Mother. (An old name for the card is Mat, from the Italian
'Matto', fool, but earlier also from Maut, the Egyptian Vulture-Mother-Goddess).
Fertile, for the 'Egg of Blue' is the Uterus, and in the
Macrocosm the Body of Nuith, and it contains the Unborn Babe,
helpless yet protected and nourished against the crocodiles
and tigers shown on the card, just as the womb is sealed
during gestation. He sits on a lotus, the yoni, which floats
on the 'Nile', the amniotic fluid.
In his absolute innocence and ignorance he is "The
Fool"; he is the 'Saviour', being the Son who shall
trample on the crocodiles and tigers, and avenge his father
Osiris. Thus we see him as the "Great Fool" of
Celtic legend, the "Pure Fool" of Act I of "Parsifal",
and, generally speaking, the insane person whose words have
always been taken for oracles.
But to be 'Saviour' he must be born and grow to manhood;
thus Parsifal acquires the Sacred Lance, emblem of virility.
He usually wears the 'Coat of many colours' like Joseph the
'dreamer'; so he is also now the Green Man of spring festivals.
But his 'folly' is now not innocence but inspiration of wine;
he drinks from the Graal, offered to him by the Priestess.
So we see him fully armed as Bacchus Diphues, male and female
in one, bearing the Thyrsus-rod, and a cluster of grapes
or a wineskin, while a tiger leaps up by his side. This form
is suggested in the Taro card, where 'The fool' is shown
with a long wand and carrying a sack; his coat is motley.
Tigers and Crocodiles follow him, thus linking this image
with that of Harpocrates.
Almost identical symbols are those of the secret God of
the Templars, the bi-sexual Baphomet, and of Zeus Arrhenothelus,
equally bi-sexual, the Father-Mother of All in One Person.
(He is shown in this full form in the Tarot Trump XV, "the
Devil".) Now Zeus being lord of Air, we are reminded
that Aleph is the letter of Air.
As Air we find the "Wandering Fool" pure wanton
Breath, yet creative. Wind was supposed of old to impregnate
the Vulture, which therefore was chosen to symbolize the
Mother-Goddess.
He is the Wandering Knight or Prince of Fairy Tales who
marries the King's Daughter. This legend is derived from
certain customs among exogamic tribes, for which see "The
Golden Bough".
Thus one Europa, Semele and others claimed that Zeus --
Air<<Zeus obtained Air for his kingdom in the partition
with Hades, who took Fire, and Poseidon, who took Water.
Shu is the Egyptian God of the Firmament. There is a great
difficulty here, etymologically. Zeus is connected with IAO,
Abrasax, and the Dental Sibilant Gods of the Great Mysteries,
with the South and Hadit, Ada, Set, Saturn, Adonai, Attis,
Adonis; he is even the "Jesus", slain with the
Lance, whose blood is collected in a Cup. Yet he is also
to be identified with the opposite party of the North and
Nuit, with the "John" slain with the Sword, whose
flesh is placed upon a Disk, in the Lesser Mysteries, baptizing
with Water as "Jesus" with Fire, with On, Oannes,
Noah, and the like.
It seems as if this great division, which has wrought such
appalling havoc upon the Earth, were originally no more than
a distinction adopted for convenience. It is indeed the task
of this Book to reduce Theology to the interplay of the Dyad
Nuith and Hadith, these being themselves conceived as complementary,
as Two equivalent to Naught, "divided for lvoe's sake,
for the chance of union.">> -- had enjoyed them
in the form of a beast, bird, or what not; while later Mary
attributed her condition to the agency of a Spirit -- Spiritus,
breath, or air -- in the shape of a dove.
But the "Small Person" of Hindu mysticism, the
Dwarf insane yet crafty of many legends in many lands, is
also this same "Holy Ghost", or Silent Self of
a man, or his Holy Guardian Angel.
He is almost the "Unconscious" of Freud, unknown,
unaccountable, the silent Spirit, blowing "whither it
listeth, but thou canst not tell whence it cometh or whither
it goeth". It commands with absolute authority when
it appears at all, despite conscious reason and judgment.
Aiwass is then, as this verse 7 states, the "minister" of
this Hoor-paar-Kraat, that is of the Saviour of the World
in the larger sense, and of mine own "Silent Self" in
the lesser. A "minister" is one who performs a
service, in this case evidently that of revealing; He was
the intelligible medium between the Babe God -- the New Aeon
about to be born -- and myself. This Book of the Law is the
Voice of his Mother, His Father, and Himself. But on His
appearing, He assumes the active form twin to Harpocrates,
that of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. The Concealed Child becomes the Conquering
Child, the armed Horus avenging his father Osiris. So also
our own Silent Self, helpless and witless, hidden within
us, will spring forth, if we have craft to loose him to the
Light, spring lustily forward with his cry of Battle, the
Word of our True Wills.
This is the Task of the Adept, to have the Knowledge and
Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel, to become aware
of his nature and his purpose, fulfilling them.
Why is Aiwass thus spelt, when Aiwaz is the natural transliteration
of OIVZ{WEH NOTE: This word is not certain.}? Perhaps because
he was not content with identifying Himself with Thelema,
Agape, etc. by the number 93, but wished to express his nature
by six letters (Six being the number of the Sun, the God-Man,
etc.) whose value in Greek should be A=1, I=10, F=6, A=1,
S=200, S=200: total 418, the number of Abrahadabra, the Magical
Formula of the new Aeon! Note that I and V are the letters
of the Father and the Son, also of the Virgin and the Bull,
(See "Liber 418") protected on either side by the
letter of AIR, and followed by the letter of Fire twice over.
AL I,8: "The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the
Khabs."
The Old Comment
8. Here beings the text.
Khabs is the secret Light or L.V.X.; the Khu is the magical
entity of a man.
I find later (Sun in Virgo, An VII) that Khabs means star.
In which chase cf. v.5.
The doctrine here taught is that that Light is innermost,
essential man. Intra (not Extra) Nobis Regnum Dei.
The New Comment
We are not to regard ourselves as base beings, without whose
sphere is Light or "God". Our minds and bodies
are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a "Dark
Star", and the Great Work for him is to make his veils
transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is
really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty,
but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The
Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution
of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when
things are muddled, they become 'evil'. (This will be understood
better in the Light of "The Hermit of Esopus Island",
q.v.) The Doctrine is evidently of supreme importance,
from its position as the first 'revelation' of Aiwass.
This 'star' or 'Inmost Light' is the original, individual,
eternal essence. The Khu is the magical garment which it
weaves for itself, a 'form' for its Being Beyond Form, by
use of which it can gain experience through self-consciousness,
as explained in the note to verses 2 and 3. This Khu is the
first veil, far subtler than mind or body, and truer; for
its symbolic shape depends on the nature of its Star.
Why are we told that the Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu
in the Khabs? Did we then suppose the converse? I think that
we are warned against the idea of a Pleroma, a flame of which
we are Sparks, and to which we return when we 'attain'. That
would indeed be to make the whole curse of separate existence
ridiculous, a senseless and inexcusable folly. It would throw
us back on the dilemma of Manichaeism. The idea of incarnations "perfecting" a
thing originally perfect by definition is imbecile. The only
sane solution is as given previously, to suppose that the
Perfect enjoys experience of (apparent) Imperfection. (There
are deeper resolutions of this problem appropriate to the
highest grades of initiation; but the above should suffice
the average intelligence.)
AL I,9: "Worship then the Khabs, and behold my light
shed over you!"
The Old Comment
9. That Khabs is declared to be the light of Nu. It being
worshipped in the centre, the light also fills the circumference,
so that all is light.
The New Comment
We are to pay attention to this Inmost Light; then comes
the answering Light of Infinite Space. Note that the Light
of Space is what men call Darkness; its nature is utterly
incomprehensible to our uninitiated minds. It is the 'veils'
mentioned previously in this comment that obstruct the
relation between Nuit and Hadit.
We are not to worship the Khu, to fall in love with our
Magical Image. To do this -- we have all done it -- is to
forget our Truth. If we adore Form, it becomes opaque to
Being, and may soon prove false to itself. The Khu in each
of us includes the Cosmos as he knows it. To me, even another
Khabs is only part of my Khu. Our own Khabs is our one sole
Truth.
AL I,10: "Let my servants be few & secret: they
shall rule the many & the known."
The Old Comment
10. This is the rule of Thelema, that its adepts shall be
invisible rulers. This, it may be remarked, has always
been the case.
The New Comment
The nature of magical power is quite incomprehensible to
the vulgar. The prophet Ezekiel besieging a tile in order
to destroy Jerusalem, and the adventure of Hosea with Gomer,
seem as absurd to the 'practical' man as do the researches
of any other scientific man until the Sunday Newspapers
have furnished him with a plausible explanation which explains
nothing. ("Book 4", Part III, must be read in
this connexion.)
"My servants"; not those of the Lord of the Aeon. "The
Law is for all"; there can be no secrecy about that.
The verse refers to specially chosen 'servants'; perhaps
those who, worshipping the Khabs, have beheld Her light shed
over them. Such persons indeed consummate the marriage of
Nuit and Hadit in themselves; in that case they are aware
of certain Ways to Power.
There is also a mystical sense in this verse. We are to
organize our minds thoroughly, appointing few and secret
chiefs, serving Nuit, to discipline the varied departments
of the conscious thought.
AL I,11: "These are fools that men adore; both their
Gods & their men are fools."
The Old Comment
11. "The many and the known" both among Gods and
men, are revered; this is folly.
The New Comment
It is a fact of meditation that everything which becomes
manifest is instantly recognized as unreal. All perfect
unveiling solves, wholly or in part, the equation "Something
equals 0/0." (See comment on verse 28.) Adeptship
is little more than ability to perceive this 0/0 phase
of "Something" in respect of larger and larger "Somethings".
A verse with so sacred a number as 11 is likely to mean
very deep things. Probably much concerning the function of
The Fool is concealed in it.
It has been shewn in a previous note that the principal
Gods, and men, that men have adored, are in one way or another
represented in the Tarot card "The Fool". The statement
in the text is, superficially, either a platitude or a petulance;
neither sounds like the tone of Nuit. A third alternative?
Can we have "phrased" it carelessly, or punctuated
it incorrectly? Or is there a Qabalistic puzzle or a mystic
submeaning concealed? The subject changes instantly, as it
seems. I prefer to suggest that these "fools" are "Silent
selves", impotent babes unborn; then verse 12 continues "Come
forth!", that is, bring your Holy Guardian Angel from
the womb of your subconsciousness. Then, "take your
fill of love"; that is, do your True Will, whose mode
of fulfilment is love, as explained later in this chapter.
AL I,12: "Come forth, o children, under the stars, & take
your fill of love!"
The Old Comment
12. The Key of the worship of Nu. The uniting of consciousness
with infinite space by the exercise of love, pastoral or
pagan love. But vide infra.
The New Comment
The whole doctrine of 'love' is discussed in the Book "Aleph
(Wisdom or Folly)" and should be studied therein. But
note further how this Verse agrees with the comment above,
how every Star is to come forth from its veils, that it may
revel with the whole World of Stars. This is again also a
call to unite or 'love', thus formulating the Equation 1
(-1) = 0<<The Hon. Bertrand Russell might prefer to
write this: 1 (-1) = 0. For Initiates of the IXth degree
of O.T.O. it could be expressed: Phi K - T = 0, where Phi
- K = 0, and Phi and K are both positive integers.>>,
which is the general magical formula in our Cosmos.
"Come forth" -- from what are you hiding? "under
the stars", that is, openly. Also, let love be 'under'
or 'unto' the Body of Nuith. But above all, be open! What
is this shame? Is Love Hideous, that men should cover him
with lies? Is Love so sacred that others must not intrude?
Nay, 'under the stars', at night, what eye but theirs may
see? Or, if one see, should not your worship wake the cloisters
of his soul to echo sanctity for that so lovely a deed and
gracious you have done?
AL I,13: "I am above you and in you. My ecstasy is
in yours. My joy is to see your joy."
The Old Comment
13. This doctrine implies some mystic bond which I imagine
is only to be understood by experience; this human ecstasy
and that divine ecstasy interact. A similar doctrine is
found in the Bhagavad Gita.
The New Comment
Note that Space is omnipresent.<<Perhaps I should have
defined the word "Space". The task is far from
easy. Space (including Time) is one of the conditions necessary
to the illusion of duality. But when Nuith says "I am
Infinite Space and the Infinite Stars thereof" (verse
22) there must be some other meaning. May I define it as "totality
of the possibilities of giving Form to Being", and thus
equivalent to "Matter", which manifests "Motion"?
This at least suits the verse under present discussion; for
the Feminine Idea is to take delight in enabling the Masculine
Idea to express itself by its means. There should be no difficulty
for the student of modern mathematical philosophy in conceiving
Matter and Space as identical. He may find it less easy to
assent to a personification capable of speech. But I shall
not resent the interpretation of Her speech as being the
rhetorical device of AIWAZ. Devotion to Her, Knowledge of
Her, may perfectly well be understood as the process of extending
the human consciousness to apprehend the supra-rational idea
thus presented. It was obviously necessary, from a practical
point of view, to phrase this Book in terms of common parlance,
concealing the more recondite Arcana in in the numerical
and literal cipher. When, then, I say "Space is omnipresent",
it is almost the equivalent of "Anything is always liable
to happen.">> The cause of 'sorrow' is the 'imaginary'
solutions of continuity in this substance. Ecstasy is produced
by the resolution of these illusions. Observe well that to
beings in a state of strain or sorrow the "Great Work" is
bound to appear in the guise of a relief or joy. But this
is not to assert Samadhi, that unity with the universe which
brings relief and joy by "love", as an "absolute
good". It is only good relatively to our present condition
as beings divided by Illusion from Nuit. When one returns
to the 'simple' state, one soon begins to think out a new
route through the Universe, and devise new combinations in
the Great Game called Seeing Life.
In Nature few elements are lone wolves. Most of them are
being thrown in and out of combination constantly; on suns
this occurs with lordly vehemence.
Note that Nuith, although She is Infinite Space, speaks
as an individual might do, often enough. This is not that
She is 'talking down to our level'; it is a fact. In the
Cosmos almost any aggregation can think and act as an Ego.
For instance, the cells of our bodies are each units, diverse
in composition and character, living each a life of its own.
Yet we think and act for them, and say "I". The
stars are the cells of Her Body. Each one of us is such a
cell; not less itself but more because of its secret function
in Her.
It should be evident that Nuith obtains the satisfaction
of Her Nature when the parts of Her Body fulfil their own
Nature. The sacrament of live is not only so from the point
of view of the celebrants, but from that of the divinity
invoked.
It is said that for every step one takes towards one's Holy
Guardian Angel, He takes two towards his client.
What do I mean by "beings divided by Illusion from
Nuith", in the first paragraph? This, that we are limited
mentally, that we realize only an infinitesimal fraction
of the possible forms of expression. We can hardly even imagine
ourselves as living on another planet, or in the Sun; much
less as apprehending the Universe by means of a totally different
set of senses. Yet most of us who are not mere placental
amnoites possess an instinct which persistently regrets our
incapacities. It is bad enough to be dependent on scientific
instruments for our knowledge of all but the grossest of
the wonders and splendours of the Universe; but worse that
we are aware of an infinite variety of order of phenomena,
such as electricity, magnetism, chemical action, and a host
of others, which we can explore only by indirect means, interpret
only by obviously inadequate symbols, and understand only
in terms of arbitrary relations with our animal-sense-perceptions.
We know theoretically that every object must react to every
other object; and it is evident that each type of reaction
may be as overwhelmingly interesting as those which happen
to affect us. What unimaginable rapture to be able to observe
magnetic fields or molecular movements as directly as we
do the Ocean and the Ant-heap! It is the task of the Initiate
to adapt himself to the Totality of Existence, and to develop
in himself the means of apprehending it wholly and fully.
AL I,14: "Above, the gemmed azure is
The naked splendour of Nuit;
She bends in ecstasy to kiss
The secret ardours of Hadit.
The winged globe,the starry blue,
Are mine, O Ankh-af-na-khonsu!"
The Old Comment
14. This verse is a direct translation of the first section
of the stele. It conceals a certain secret ritual of the
highest rank, connected with the two previous verses.
The New Comment
This is a poetic description of the symbolism of the Stele.
It is suitable fore such minds as approach Truth in this
manner rather than by way of Science or Philosophy.
It contains a Formula of Magick Art, connected with the
Stele. Also, less ineffably, it boasts the consummation of
the marriage of Hadit and Nuit in the priest. That is, he
has freed Hadit, in the core of his Star, from the illusion-veils
of the Khu, so that the two Infinities become one, and none;
and create, in the manner shortly to be described, a new
Finite.
This Finite will evidently be an expression of the particular
mood of its Father and Mother at the moment of its conception.
Obviously, this "Child" cannot add to the Universe;
it is therefore inevitably twin (Horus and Harpocrates, Osiris
and Typhon, Jesus and Barabbas) in Nature, formed of equal
and opposite elements. When the Operation is mystical in
character, the "Child" does not appear at all in
this manifested form as Two, but as Naught. In the consciousness
of the Adept, this is called Samadhi. He has united himself
with, and lost himself in, Nuit. When the "Child" appears
as Two, it is Magick, as the other is Mysticism. This is
the essential difference between these Arts.
AL I,15: "Now ye shall know that the chosen priest & apostle
of infinite space is the prince-priest the Beast; and in
his woman called the Scarlet Woman is all power given. They
shall gather my children into their fold: they shall bring
the glory of the stars into the hearts of men."
The Old Comment
15. The authority of the Beast rests upon this verse; but
it is to be taken in conjunction with certain later verses
which I shall leave to the research of students to interpret.
I am inclined, however, to believe that "the Beast" and "the
Scarlet Woman" do not denote persons, but are titles
of office, that of Hierophant and High Priestess ( Vau
and Gimel ), else it would be difficult to understand the
next verse.
The New Comment
The definition of "infinite space" offered in the
Comment on verse 13 is useful here. My Work is in great part
to insist upon the infinite possibilities of human development.
Man has too slavishly acquiesced in his limitations. Science
itself has shewn itself almost as intolerant as Religion
toward certain lines of research. Indeed, every element of
society has added its energy to the opposition which bars
each pioneer with undiscriminating stupidity. Darwin, Pasteur,
Lister, and Jenner met with the same ferocious cowardice
as Shelly and Luther; they were assailed on every ground
from Religion and Morality upwards; every falsehood that
malice could invent was circulated about them. In short,
they were treated then as I am being treated now; and I am
resolute to prosecute my Work now as they were resolute then.
That which is beneath is like that which is above. The Beast
and the Scarlet Woman are avatars of Tao and Teh, Shiva and
Sakti. This Law is then an exact image of the Great Law of
the Cosmos; this is an assurance of its Perfection.
It is necessary to say here that The` Beast appears to be
a definite individual; to wit, the man Aleister Crowley.
But the Scarlet Woman is an officer replaceable as need arises.
Thus to this present date of writing, Anno XVI, Sun in Sagittarius,
there have been several holders of the title.
1. Rose Edith Crowley nee Kelly, my wife. Put me in touch
with Aiwas; see Equinox 1, 7, "The Temple of Solomon
the King." Failed as elsewhere is on record.
2. A doubtful case. Mary d'Este Sturges nee Dempsey. Put
me in touch with Abuldiz; hence helped with Book 4. Failed
from personal jealousies.
3. Jeanne Robert Foster nee Oliver. Bore the "child" to
whom this Book refers later. Failed from respectability.
4. Roddie Minor. Brought me in touch with Amalantrah. Failed
from indifference to the Work.
5. A doubtful case, Marie Rohling nee Lavroff. Helped to
inspire Liber CXI. Failed from indecision.
6. A doubtful case, Bertha Almira Prykryl nee Bruce. Delayed
assumption of duties, hence made way for No. 7.
7. Lea Hersig. Assisted me in actual initiation; still at
my side, An XVII, Sol in Sagittarius. (P.S. & An XIX,
Sol in Aries).
"Prince-priest" is an unusual word, and not in
tone with other references to me. I suspect therefore a secret
cipher of some sort. For one thing, it is an anagram of PRINCEPS
ITER, not bad for Alastor the Wanderer, or PRINCIPS ERIT,
he shall be the chief (see verse 23). But such Qabalah is
hardly to be considered serious. The recurrence of the letters
PRI is however curious and may be significant. The combination
PR in most Aryan Languages gives the idea of "Before." P
and R are the letters of Mars and Sol respectively. Now Mars
is referred to the number 5, and Sol to the number 6; both
to the idea "Force and Fire", though in different
ways. Now "Force and Fire" is the attribute of
Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Lord of the Aeon; and 5 and 6 are mystically
mated to represent the Accomplishment of the Great Work in
Abrahadabra, the Word of the Aeon. (See, for this Word, infra
Qabalistic Appendix). The termination ST is the coronal combination
XXXI which we shall notice often enough later on.
The Beast, besides 666 correspondences, is by English sound,
the Magus (Beth, Mercury, etc.) of this ST. S has in the
Tarot the card numbered XX, which represents the Stele of
Revealing, and is called the Judgment; i.e., the ending of
an Aeon. T has the card numbered XI and is called Strength.
It is the card of Leo and represents Babalon and the Beast
conjoined.
"Their fold"; not only a sheepfold, but as if
it were written "their embrace".
AL I,16: "For he is ever a sun, and she a moon. But
to him is the winged secret flame, and to her the stooping
starlight."
The Old Comment
15. In II, 16, we find that HAD is to be taken as 11 (see
II, 16, comment). Then Hadit = 421, Nuit = 466.
421 - 3 (the moon) = 418
466 + 200 (sun) = 666
These are the two great numbers of the Qabalistic system
that enabled me to interpret the signs leading to this revelation.
The winged secret flame is Hadit; the stooping starlight
is Nuit; these are their true natures, and their functions
in the supreme ritual referred to above.
The New Comment
The sun and moon, in their occult sense, are secondary representatives
of this original duality which is a phase of the Qabalistic
Zero. Other correspondences are Yun {SIC, s.b. "Yang" ?WEH}
and Yin, Yod and He, etc. But most such dualities have
been conceived in very gross and unphilosophical forms.
Of course, it is impossible to grasp this subject properly
by reason; only the understanding developed by meditation
and spiritual experience avails. Initiation is pantomorphously
progressive.
Note that the Secret Divine Letter ShT which is the key
of this book is by shape the Sun united with the Moon C =
Sh, O = t CO = Sht. {WEH NOTE: Elsewhere Crowley calls this
sign "the secret sigil of the Beast" and it is
depicted by a crescent attached to the left side of a circle.
Sometimes the circle is dotted. Sometimes the Greek lower
case letters sigma-theta are written connectively for this
(vide. Liber MCCLXIV, value 209, first edition, OTONL-6 and
note 28).}
AL I,17: "But ye are not so chosen."
The Old Comment
17. "Ye" refers to the other worshippers of Nuit,
who must seek out their own election.
The New Comment
That is, there is a special incarnation of Nuit and Hadit
for the Beast and the Scarlet Woman, as opposed to the
general truth that every man and woman are images of these
ineffable Beings.
Note that a woman, having no soul of her own, can be used
always as a 'Form' for any Being. This explains why Nuit
can incarnate at will in successive women, careless of the
physical limits of life. {WEH NOTE: Crowley's opinion regarding
the soul-less state of women refers to a matter of expression.
He believed it more generally, but probably based it on Victorian
male conceptions of "unliberated women". The Comment
to this and the previous verse may say more about the defensive
insecurity of Crowley the man than the verses of Liber AL.
In Chapter I Comment, remember that all this is a male mind
trying to contemplate the revelations of a goddess. Square
peg and round hole problems may arise.}
I feel a certain necessity to explain that an 'avatar' implies
rather a release from the limits of personality than anything
else. The Scarlet Woman and I are peculiarly representative
of Nuit and Hadit by virtue of our attainments in making
our consciousness omniform as They re. It must not be supposed
that our original individualities can claim any special prerogatives
as such.
AL I,18: "Burn upon their brows, o splendrous serpent!"
The Old Comment
18. The serpent is the symbol of divinity and royalty. It
is also a symbol of Hadit, invoked upon them.
The New Comment
For the images in this and the next verse see the Stele of
Revealing, to which they allude.
The Serpent is the Uraeus, with the powers of Life and Death,
wise, ecstatic, immortal; winged and hooded, that he may
go as a god swiftly and silently. It refers in this place
especially to Hadit.
AL I,19: "O azure-lidded woman, bend upon them!"
The Old Comment
19. Nuit herself will overshadow them.
The New Comment
These two verses 18, 19, seem to be interpolated by Aiwaz,
invoking the Gods to The Beast and The Scarlet Woman, perhaps
as a formal Consecration.
AL I,20: The key of the rituals is in the secret word which
I have given unto him.
The Old Comment
20. This word is perhaps ABRAHADABRA, the sacred word of
11 letters.
The New Comment
For this word see Appendix {WEH NOTE: The Appendix has not
yet been recovered. Kenneth Grant, in his "Magical
and Philosophical Commentaries ..." pp. 105-108 has
a lengthy extension here. The providence of the extension
is not definitely known to be Crowley at this writing,
hence cannot be included here.}. ABRAHADABRA is "The
key of the rituals" because it expresses the Magical
Formulae of uniting various complementary ideas; especially
the Five of the Microcosm with the Six of the Macrocosm.
AL I,21: "With the God & the Adorer I am nothing:
they do not see me. They are as upon the earth; I am Heaven,
and there is no other God than me, and my lord Hadit."
The Old Comment
21. Refers to the actual picture on the stele. Nuit is a
conception immeasurably beyond all men have even thought
of the Divine. thus she is not the mere star-goddess, but
a far higher thing, dimly veiled by that unutterable glory.
This knowledge is also to be attained by adepts; the outer
cannot reach to it.
The New Comment
The importance of this verse lies in the assertion of the
metaphysical entity of Our Lady, Her incomprehensibility
to normal sense.
The Method of invoking Nuit is given in Liber XI (see Equinox
I, VII). Note the initials of God and Adorer GA, the Earth.
Note that Heaven is not a place where Gods Live; Nuit is
Heaven, itself. And "Heaven" is of course "a
place wherein one may fulfil oneself", conformably to
the definition of Nuit as Space previously offered.
AL I,22: "Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name
Nuit, and to him by a secret name which I will give him when
at last he knoweth me. Since I am Infinite Space, and the
Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also thus. Bind nothing! Let
there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any
other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."
The Old Comment
22. A promise -- not yet fulfilled. P.S. since (An V) fulfilled)
A charge to destroy the faculty of discriminating between
illusions.
The New Comment
We have here a further conception of the cosmographical scheme.
Nuit is All that which exists, and the condition of that
existence. Hadit is the Principle which causes modifications
in this Being. This explains how one may call Nuit Matter,
and Hadit Motion, in the highest physico-philosophical
sense of those terms.
We are asked to axquiesce in this Law of Nature. That is,
we are not to oppose resistance to the perfect fluidity of
the "Becoming" of Nature. Similarly, we are not
to attach more importance to any one momentary appearance
than to any other.
For, the moment we do so, we confirm illusion of Duality.
We assert Imperfection as absolute instead of as a device
of Perfection for self-appreciation.
The Secret name was revealed in the Sahara desert -- see
Liber 418, 12 Aethyr, Equinox I, V, Suppl. pp. 82-87.
This question of making "no difference" as ordained
is to regard the whole of the non-Ego or universe apparently
external to the Self as a single phenomenon; Samadhi on any
one thing becomes therefore Samadhi on The Whole. The mystic
who "availeth in this" can then perform his Great
Work of "love under will" in a single operation
instead of being obliged to unite himself with the non-Ego
piecemeal. But see also the Comment on verse 4, above.
Notice the word "hurt", from he French "heurter",
meaning to knock against an obstacle. There is thus a strictly
technical accuracy in the choice of the term.
AL I,23: "But whoso availeth in this, let him be the
chief of all!"
The Old Comment
23. The chief, then, is he who has destroyed this sense of
duality.
The New Comment
This chief is of course no more or less than others. The
limitations of our dualistic language obscure the meaning
of these loftier Words. Chieftainship is to be understood
as one of the illusions; but, in respect of that plane,
a fact. The facts of Nature are perfectly true in so far
as their mutual relation is concerned; their invalidity
refers only to their total relation with the philosophical
canon of Truth.
The word "all" is not to be taken as elliptical
for "all men"; it means that such an one is completely
master of his universe. For when one has become indifferent
to phenomena, and accepts any one of them as necessary, indeed
as an essential part of the whole, he has made himself Lord
of the Whole as such. In fact, it is obvious on quite rational
grounds that this must be the case. My discrimination between
artichokes and arsenic puts me at the mercy of a million
circumstances, from my cook to my wife.
AL I,24: "I am Nuit, and my word is six and fifty."
The Old Comment
24. Nu = 6 + 50 = 56.
The New Comment
One must observe the special significance of these numbers,
not only conjoined, but separate. For 6, Vau, is the Bull;
and 50, Nun, the Scorpion. But 6 is also the number of
the Sun, our Star. The N of Nu is therefore the Dragon
-- "Infinite Space" -- and V is "the Infinite
Stars" thereof. The ITH is the honorific termination
representing Her fulfilment of Creative Force. "I" being
the Inmost Force, and "Th" its Extension.
The Dragon in current symbolism refers to the North or Hollow
of Heaven; thus to the Womb of Space, which is the container
and breeder of all that exists.
Liber Aleph should be consulted for further information
as to the magical import of Scorpio and Taurus.
AL I,25: "Divide, add, multiply, and understand."
The Old Comment
25. Dividing 6/50 = 0.12.
0, the circumference, Nuit.
., the centre, Hadit.
1, the Unity proceeding, Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
2, the Coptic H, whose shape closely resembles the Arabic
figure 2, the breath of Life, inspired and expired. Human
consciousness, Thoth.
Adding 50 + 6 = 56, Nu, and
Concentrating 5 + 6 = 11, Abrahadabra, etc.
Multiplying 50 x 6 = Shin, and Ruach Elohim, the Holy Spirit.
I am inclined to believe that there is a further mystery
concealed in this verse, possibly those of 418 and 666 again.
The New Comment
See Qabalistic Appendix. {WEH NOTE: Appendix not yet recovered.
K. Grant, op. cit., adds several paragraphs here which
appear to come from Crowley. This is not provided in this
text for lack of certainty of the providence.}
AL I,26: "Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous
one: Who am I, and what shall be the sign? So she answered
him, bending down, a lambent flame of blue, all-touching,
all penetrant, her lovely hands upon the black earth, & her
lithe body arched for love, and her soft feet not hurting
the little flowers: Thou knowest! And the sign shall be my
ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence,
the omnipresence of my body."
The Old Comment
26. The prophet demanding a sign of his mission, it is promised;
a Samadhi upon the Infinite.
This promise was later fulfilled -- see "The Temple
of Solomon the King", which proposes to deal with the
matter in its due season. (P.S. It did so, vide Equinox I.)
The New Comment
In the MSS., the last 5 words of this verse do not occur.
The original reading is 'the unfragmentary non-atomic fact
of my universality'.
This phrase was totally beyond the comprehension of the
scribe, and he said mentally -- with characteristic self-conceit
-- "People will never be able to understand this." Aiwass
then replied,
"Write this in whiter words. But go forth on."
He was willing that the phrase should be replaced by an
equivalent, but did not wish the dictation to be interrupted
by a discussion at the moment. it was therefore altered (a
little later) to "the omnipresence of my body."
It is extremely interesting to note that in the light of
the cosmic theory explained in the notes to verse 3 and 4,
the original phrase of Aiwass was exquisitely and exactly
appropriate to his meaning.
It take this opportunity of quoting from Professor Eddington,
Op. Cit., a passage which should make it perfectly clear
that the "mystical", "irrational", "paradoxical" conception
of Nuit expressed in this chapter has a parallel in the sober
calculations of a perfectly orthodox astronomer in the undeniably
practical University -- a poor thing, but mine own -- of
Cambridge:
"Whenever there is matter there is action and therefore
curvature; and it is interesting to notice that in ordinary
matter the curvature of the space-time world is by no means
insignificant. for example, in water of ordinary density
the curvature is the same as that of space in the form of
a sphere of radius 570,000,000 kilometers. The result is
even more surprising if expressed in time unites; the radius
is about half-an-hour.
"It is difficult to picture quite what this means;
but at least we can predict that a Globe of water 570,000,000
km. radius would have extraordinary properties. Presumably
there must be an upper limit to the possible size of a globe
of water. So far as I can make out a homogeneous mass of
water of about this size (and no larger) could exist. It
would have no centre, and no boundry, every point of it being
in the same position with respect to the whole mass as every
other point of it -- like points ion the surface of a sphere
with respect to the surface. Any ray of light after travelling
for an hour or two would come back to the starting |
