aleister's heir: so...
 
Notifications
Clear all

aleister's heir: solution to the riddle of liber al  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/01/2008 11:19 pm  

written samhane 2007.

To whom it may concern,

A simple search on a web browser will reveal many attempted solutions to the so called "riddle" in liber legis (chapter 2, verse 76 of The Book Of The Law).

Here is the riddle again, along with Aleister's comment:

Liber AL:

75.
Aye! listen to the numbers & the words:

76.
4 6 3 8 A B K 2 4 A L G M O R 3 Y X 24 89 R P S T O V A L. What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever. There cometh one to follow thee: he shall expound it. But remember, o chosen one, to be me; to follow the love of Nu in the star-lit heaven; to look forth upon men, to tell them this glad word.

Comment:

75.
This passage following appears to be a Qabalistic test (on he regular pattern) of any person who may claim to be the Magical Heir of The Beast. Be ye well assured all that the solution, when it is found, will be unquestionable. It will be marked by the most sublime simplicity, and carry immediate conviction. (The above paragraph was written previous to the communication of Charles Stansfeld Jones with regard to the 'numbers and the words' which constitute the Key to the cipher of this Book. See the Appendix to these comment. I prefer to leave my remark as it originally stood, in order to mark my attitude at the time of writing).

76.
It is the prophet, the 'forth-speaker' who is never to know this mystery. But that does not prevent it from lying within the comprehension of the Beast, kept secret by him in order to prove any one who should claim sonship.

With all suitable fan-fare (that is: none), I have decided to explicitly state to the Thelemite community the solution to the riddle this Samhane of 2007. I must emphasise that it is not I who has solved this riddle.

After stating the solution explicity, I shall draw your attention to clues within the Book of The Law and Aleister's writings that point to this solution. The solution carries immediate conviction through the context of the riddle itself, but it may help some people to see these background signs too. After this, I shall state the identity of the person who revealed the solution.

The solution to the riddle is that the numbers and words mean nothing what so ever.

So there you have it.

Here are some reminders whilst you ponder:

1. Chapter 1, verse 46 states that "Nothing is a secret key of this law."

2. " Be ye well assured all that the solution, when it is found, will be unquestionable. It will be marked by the most sublime simplicity, and carry immediate conviction." If you attempt to explain this using Qabalistic analysis, inevitably there will be the possibility of the solution being open to questions of interpretation, and no Qabalistic analysis will ever be sublimely simple. Aleister only said that the "passage following APPEARS to be a Qabalistic test". In fact, the solution is not a Qabalistic test at all; and in fact there is nothing in it at all to imply Qabalistic intent. Another proof that 'nothing' is the only simple solution is that the character that is commonly represented as a 'G' is actually a strange drawing like a capital C with lines attatched to the ends. It should be obvious that no simple explanation will be able to provide clear meaning to this because of its sheer irregularity, and the injunction not to 'change so much as the style of a letter' means that it shouldn't just be interpreted as a 'G' - it is quite clearly NOT a 'G' ! Also, at the end of the book Aleister writes "Paste the sheets from right to left and from top to bottom: then behold!" Anybody trying to do so with an open mind will behold nothing at all but misarranged handwriting; an Aleistarian sense of humour coming through there, perhaps.

3. Aleister said "But that does not prevent it from lying within the comprehension of the Beast, kept secret by him". This is a clear indication that Aleister did know the solution (else why bother adding this clause in at all ?). When we combine this with the text of the riddle itself ("What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever.") we have the clear assertion that Aleister does know the solution, but doesn't know what it means, nor will he ever know what it means. That is another way of saying that Aleister knows that it doesn't mean anything at all.

4. The Comment to The Book Of The Law contains the following statements: "The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading. Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire. Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence." This mysterious advert only makes sense if the book is somehow not what it seems. If the riddle means nothing, the clear implication is that the Book of the Law is something other than what it seems. The Comment fits perfectly with the fact.

The name of the person who revealed this is encoded in the following cipher: uejrrwjxkoyq.

I have delivered this message to a number of forums and thelemic organisations all at the same time. For those who do not delete the message, and for those who present it to the world, I will submit the key to this cipher and thereby reveal the name of the heir on the festival of Imbolc, the second of February 2008.

Happy Samhane to you all. 02-Nov-2007


Quote
wulfram
(@wulfram)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 137
18/01/2008 12:49 am  

Well, I await with bated breath... It's not every day that one is presented with a revelation of such magnitude.


ReplyQuote
priestofal
(@priestofal)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 147
18/01/2008 4:39 am  

93, forthspeaker1

So, if the cipher has NOT a solution, then wouldn't that mean that the one who discovered it is NOT the heir. And what of all the other people who have NOT discovered it; have they NOT by NOT finding it also proven themselves to be NOT the heir? It's brilliant, really. Everybody who ever tried to solve it, threw in the towel, and said something like, "This can NOT be done!" has, ipso-facto, "solved" the cipher. The distinction (I might be willing to grant) of the "solver" here is that he has "solved" (interpreted) other elements of text that do NOT presumably exist as ciphers, which is a good thing since NOT solving a cipher is NOT a solution but a recognition of futility. Fortunately, we are given a fresh cipher at the end to make up for our loss!

OK, I get it. You are saying that the cipher is NOT a cipher, that it is a meaningless string of numbers and letters, that it "meaneth" NOTHING. I do not believe that this is obvious; it is merely cute. For me to say that this is so is no less a statement of sublime simplicity than to say that it is NOT so. Each is a sublimely simple statement as to what may in fact be true, because, at this level, it is the truth itself that is sublime. At this level, as well, I may appeal to other elements of text (or the interpretations you've provided) without requiring that my "proof" rest upon them, so let's get to it --

75.
Aye! listen to the numbers & the words:

I guess there are still some words in there even though the cipher means NOTHING.

The solution to the riddle is that the numbers and words mean nothing what so ever.

It is illogical to call something a riddle that has no solution. The statement should read something like "There is no solution to the string of numbers and letters in 2:76 because that string does not constitute a riddle. The riddle of 2:76 consists only of the statement "What meaneth this?" That riddle I claim is now solved."

1. Chapter 1, verse 46 states that "Nothing is a secret key of this law."

It does not say that "Nothing is a secret key of this cipher."

2. " Be ye well assured all that the solution, when it is found, will be unquestionable. It will be marked by the most sublime simplicity, and carry immediate conviction." If you attempt to explain this using Qabalistic analysis, inevitably there will be the possibility of the solution being open to questions of interpretation, and no Qabalistic analysis will ever be sublimely simple.

Sure it can be. [I'll add a bit of correction here: it can be sure, or at least surer, in terms of a test.] Use the obvious letters and the two explicit, graphical keys appearing elsewhere in the text to draw out a person's entire birth date (numbers) and birth name (words) and there will be no question of interpretation; it will rather be one of identification. If the birth name discovered happens to be the birth name of the person who discovered it, then, given the small number of people who ever even pick up the Book, the solution might appear (at least to him) darn nigh unquestionable.

Another proof that 'nothing' is the only simple solution is that the character that is commonly represented as a 'G' is actually a strange drawing like a capital C with lines attatched to the ends. It should be obvious that no simple explanation will be able to provide clear meaning to this because of its sheer irregularity, and the injunction not to 'change so much as the style of a letter' means that it shouldn't just be interpreted as a 'G' - it is quite clearly NOT a 'G' !

I rather like it that the G is written so as to appear that it is being penetrated by the number 11, which is significant in that 'G' in EQ-11 (which was developed from the line-drawn key) equals 11. The possible import in terms of the cipher should be obvious.

Also, at the end of the book Aleister writes "Paste the sheets from right to left and from top to bottom: then behold!" Anybody trying to do so with an open mind will behold nothing at all but misarranged handwriting...

If I past the sheets (including the title page) from right to left and from top to bottom in the most concise manner possible, then I shall behold something that looks like the number 11.

3. Aleister said "But that does not prevent it from lying within the comprehension of the Beast, kept secret by him". This is a clear indication that Aleister did know the solution (else why bother adding this clause in at all ?). When we combine this with the text of the riddle itself ("What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever.") we have the clear assertion that Aleister does know the solution, but doesn't know what it means, nor will he ever know what it means.

Where to begin? First of all, it was explicitly stated in A.C.s commentary (and in the text essentially) that the forth-speaker (A.C.) was not to know the solution, but that, for the Beast, this was not necessarily so. An easy solution to this conundrum is not that the forth-speaker does know the solution when it has been expressly stated that he does not, but, rather that the Beast is the spiritual and even reincarnational aspect of the forth-speaker. It makes no sense to say that A.C does know the solution but that he doesn't know what it means. If he knows the solution, then, if the solution means nothing (as you say), then he knows that it means nothing.

That is another way of saying that Aleister knows that it doesn't mean anything at all.

To say that one doesn't know what something means is not the same as saying that one knows that something has no meaning.

4. The Comment to The Book Of The Law contains the following statements: "The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading. Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire. Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence." This mysterious advert only makes sense if the book is somehow not what it seems.

No -- it makes sense if the Book is a dangerous book. If you decide to read it, then you are possibly doing so because you are assuming that the Book is not what it seems -- a dangerous book. If you can suggest that the book is a less dangerous book because the cipher is not what it seems, then perhaps you are saying something. But you would also be saying something if you were to say that the book is a more dangerous book because the cipher is really a cipher.

The name of the person who revealed this is encoded in the following cipher: uejrrwjxkoyq.

The name of the person who has replied to you in all of the above is NOT encoded in the following: 2:76. (Ha! Beat you to it!)

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/01/2008 4:38 pm  

In an absolute sense, the answer is correct. The more I think about it, the more I like it. It made me laugh at least. Very Robert Anthon Wilson. Or somewhat Douglas Adams. A glad word indeed.


ReplyQuote
priestofal
(@priestofal)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 147
18/01/2008 6:01 pm  

Actually, it made me laugh, too. Then suddenly I got worried and had to get all my ducks in a row (or try). But if a guru is one who makes you laugh, then perhaps he's a pretty decent guru. This still doesn't make what was said true, though, per what I've suggested.

I want to mention -- I don't get how the cipher necessarily represents, in the context of 2:76, what is called the glad word. It is suggested that A.C. share the glad word (which appears to be about following the love of Nu) and this is offered as a kind of "in the meantime" statement, since A.C. is not to know the meaning of the cipher.

So, are people who are trying to solve the cipher always going on about the glad word? That seems a point that people are assuming, which I imagine is what leads to all the chasing after qabalistic content.

The point is that A.C. knew what the glad word was WITHOUT having solved the cipher, else he would have surely failed in not having promulgated a solution.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/01/2008 1:51 am  
"priestofal" wrote:
It is suggested that A.C. share the glad word (which appears to be about following the love of Nu) and this is offered as a kind of "in the meantime" statement, since A.C. is not to know the meaning of the cipher.

I thought it was a reference for the one whom reveals the word to spread it.

As for the supposed "revelation," that was actually the first thought that occurred to me when reading the 'code'.

Beyond that fleeting thought I have not given it much attention.

Success is thy proof.


ReplyQuote
priestofal
(@priestofal)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 147
19/01/2008 3:40 am  

Thanks for your thoughts, Uni_Verse... I should probably give it a rest, at least until I get riled up again ( -- every two months or so!).


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/01/2008 4:04 am  

93

WOW, yet ANOTHER solution! (damn I hate these threads!) I propose a moderation, of sorts, on these ever recurring solution threads: let there be NONE! Its all just pointless. People are never going to agree on a single answer anyway. C'mon....when are you people gonna learn. Although I will be checking back to see who's name it is in the cipher....just so I can have someone to laugh at! 😉 😕

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
priestofal
(@priestofal)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 147
19/01/2008 5:44 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
C'mon....when are you people gonna learn. Although I will be checking back to see who's name it is in the cipher....just so I can have someone to laugh at! 😉 😕

I'll take a stab --

uejrrwjxkoyq

davidbersson

If it is DB, I'll step forward with my cipher solution. Someone has to put a stop to this!... er, I mean keep the ball rolling. 😆


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/01/2008 5:05 pm  
"priestofal" wrote:
"N.O.X" wrote:
C'mon....when are you people gonna learn. Although I will be checking back to see who's name it is in the cipher....just so I can have someone to laugh at! 😉 😕

I'll take a stab --

uejrrwjxkoyq

davidbersson

If it is DB, I'll step forward with my cipher solution. Someone has to put a stop to this!... er, I mean keep the ball rolling. 😆

Not to be an apologist but I knew DB and this is something he would never claim. He often wrote about the Magickal Child who would find the solution though.

I believe when the solution is found that it will be so profound that nobody can deny it. But will that person be the heir? I wonder where people get that concept. Even Achad was never really Crowley's "heir" in that sense and he discovered the "key of it all". There are no prophecies of some "heir" who will come and lead the Thelemic community etc. simply someone who will reveal the meaning of the cypher... if there really is a meaning.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
19/01/2008 9:16 pm  
"forthspeaker1" wrote:
The solution to the riddle is that the numbers and words mean nothing what so ever.
[...]
Here are some reminders whilst you ponder:
1. Chapter 1, verse 46 states that "Nothing is a secret key of this law."
2. " Be ye well assured all that the solution, when it is found, will be unquestionable. It will be marked by the most sublime simplicity, and carry immediate conviction." If you attempt to explain this using Qabalistic analysis, inevitably there will be the possibility of the solution being open to questions of interpretation, and no Qabalistic analysis will ever be sublimely simple. Aleister only said that the "passage following APPEARS to be a Qabalistic test". In fact, the solution is not a Qabalistic test at all; and in fact there is nothing in it at all to imply Qabalistic intent. Another proof that 'nothing' is the only simple solution is that the character that is commonly represented as a 'G' is actually a strange drawing like a capital C with lines attatched to the ends. It should be obvious that no simple explanation will be able to provide clear meaning to this because of its sheer irregularity, and the injunction not to 'change so much as the style of a letter' means that it shouldn't just be interpreted as a 'G' - it is quite clearly NOT a 'G' ! Also, at the end of the book Aleister writes "Paste the sheets from right to left and from top to bottom: then behold!" Anybody trying to do so with an open mind will behold nothing at all but misarranged handwriting; an Aleistarian sense of humour coming through there, perhaps.
3. Aleister said "But that does not prevent it from lying within the comprehension of the Beast, kept secret by him". This is a clear indication that Aleister did know the solution (else why bother adding this clause in at all ?). When we combine this with the text of the riddle itself ("What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever.") we have the clear assertion that Aleister does know the solution, but doesn't know what it means, nor will he ever know what it means. That is another way of saying that Aleister knows that it doesn't mean anything at all.
4. The Comment to The Book Of The Law contains the following statements: "The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading. Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire. Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence." This mysterious advert only makes sense if the book is somehow not what it seems. If the riddle means nothing, the clear implication is that the Book of the Law is something other than what it seems. The Comment fits perfectly with the fact.

None of the four reminders do in any way suggest that NOTHING is the answer. It COULD be so, but there is no proof, so why bother thinking about it? Since when means "Aleister doesn't know the meaning" equals "Aleister knows it has no meaning"? Since when the order to burn the book means "this book means something different"? And for that matter, since when this would lead to "the key to the riddle is NOTHING?" I simply cannot follow this line of conclusion - or better, I can follow it but cannot take it seriously. I myself have come up with far better solutions, and I read about half a dozen others that are even better than those. In short: This solution does not carry immediate conviction at all, and I am only interested in the revelation of the "Author's" identity in so far as I'd like to know who would make such a fuzz about such non-sense?

Just my humble opinion, of course...
Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
priestofal
(@priestofal)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 147
19/01/2008 10:42 pm  
"uranus" wrote:
Not to be an apologist but I knew DB and this is something he would never claim. He often wrote about the Magickal Child who would find the solution though.

Well, that takes a load off my mind! I was worried that I made a promise I wouldn't want to keep.

Look, I really want to say this, to get this out there (I blame this on my newly progressing Sun into Aries, which seems to be putting a fire in my belly). I want people's imaginations to at least roam over the possibility and, perhaps by doing so, save themselves a lot of time and trouble (which isn't to say that there can't be many secrets in the cipher worthy of consideration).

Aleister Crowley, subject to all the laws related to the process, gets to reincarnate, and he gets to reincarnate according to whatever lessons are most appropriate to him. He gets to reincarnate as a man, simply as a man, not as an avatar-man, a buddha-man, a master-magician man, though all of these (as in anybody, really) may lie in him as potential or they will be manifested in him to some greater or lesser degree.

Aleister Crowley, even in a return of his spirit to earth, needn't be a god or at least not a god as being distinct from any other human on earth.

That's the first hurdle toward understanding what I'm getting at.

The second hurdle is to deduce that whoever is the reincarnation of Aleister Crowley will most likely, at some point in his life, discover himself to be so. We're approaching 2012. People are waking up. Reincarnation is a big topic. It's very interesting times we live in, etc, etc. Might we not assume, given what his interests were as Aleister, that the reincarnation of Aleister would be one who was/is able to come to some awareness of who he was (he was surely able, apparently, to do it as Aleister!)? How many of those who were not even occultists in their most recent past-lives are coming to this kind of awareness (provided that it is not all some big joke to begin with)?

The third hurdle is to understand Aleister Crowley in relation to the cipher.

Here we have something presented that falls between a statement to the the effect that "Death is forbidden, o man, unto thee" (which is a lie only if one fails to take eternal life and/or reincarnation into account) and a statement to the effect that "There cometh one to follow thee." Now -- a thought experiment -- the reincarnation of Aleister Crowley, drawn, as seems likely he would be, to the study of Thelema, comes across the cipher. He, regardless of his motivation, whether it is out of fear or desire toward the possibility of proving who he was, proceeds to attempt to solve it. What solution for him, for the reincarnation of Aleister, would be the one that would strike the hardest? What, for him, would constitute a result of sublime simplicity and one offering immediate conviction (not to mention one that follows upon a regular pattern)? What result, indeed, would be most worthy to express the power of Aiwass?

I declare that it would be simply a statement of who he is, his identity, thus tying him intimately to the cipher.

Now, the above is on the assumption that Aiwass would have had no desire to keep the poor reincarnation of Aleister out of the loop. Perhaps the cipher is meant for someone else. Perhaps the cipher is meant for all. But who, I wonder, seeing that the cipher, in the Book, was plopped down in the midst of an ecstatic paean to one man, would that other likely be?

I offer this merely to suggest that I would like to see solutions, if they are to be presented, that are founded on names, on the concept of a direct identification of the "one who cannot die" also being the "one who comes after". I believe that this is truly the way to pursue this, if, indeed, it should be pursued. It has the added benefit that no-one who offers a solution will be able to hide behind anonymity, and that, I believe, involves a particular genius on the part of Aiwass.

If this has silenced anybody else, as it has silenced me (in that one particular), then I will call my words a success.

In closing,

in EQ-11 --

4 6 3 8 A B K 2 4 A L G M O R 3 Y X [ ] R P S T O V A L

= Edward Alexander Crowley,

a name.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 439
20/01/2008 12:59 am  
"priestofal" wrote:
In closing,

in EQ-11 --

4 6 3 8 A B K 2 4 A L G M O R 3 Y X [ ] R P S T O V A L

= Edward Alexander Crowley,

a name.

Ordinal gematria is such an easy game that anyone can play, and few play better, or know more about the subject than I do. Using the system of your choosing, I can go two better:

Edith Rose Crowley = 208 = ABKALGMORYXRPSTOVAL.

Rose, 'Ouarda', 'The Scarlet Woman' Crowley = 351 = 143 + 208.

On a more serious note, there are still some very serious efforts being made to recognize, and utilize all of the ciphers in TBOTL: Never say never ever! 😉


ReplyQuote
priestofal
(@priestofal)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 147
20/01/2008 2:14 am  

Well, I hope you don't take that as a solution. It was merely a suggestion, an "in support of" (and a support for EQ-11, amongst others I have tried to make). It didn't even need to be there as part of my argument.

24 + 89 = centre = prince = bending = pleasure = service = garments [these are all the 113 words that appear in Liber AL]; they may help to explain why the equivalent of "Edward Alexander Crowley" is apart from these two numbers.

Ordinal gematria may be an easy game, but so is drawing from existing letters. Less easy may be the requirement that one draw from a gematria that has its roots in the book [EQ-11] and in a not-too-off-the-wall interpretation of the circle-squared key. There is something approaching the possibility of having "street-cred" here if all these elements can be used.

I'd simply like to see others dilute my interpretation as quickly as possible. Bonus points if, in EQ-11, your name equals that of Edward Alexander Crowley.

Even seeing something like this done using other forms of gematria would be interesting and enlightening.

I wouldn't be too thrilled at being first to have a public go at it, however. My point was more to stave off possibly useless reflections rather than to actually try to prove anything... the cipher is much more interesting as something that fails to disprove.

Best.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/01/2008 10:58 am  

Yes.
The more i think about it, the more i warm to the solution.

What i particularly like is that i always knew that the solution must be a single word: "to look forth upon men, to tell them this glad word." I also always knew that "Nothing is a secret key of this law.". Put the two together and it is a pretty good bet that this is it.

Just as N.O.X. said: stuff solutions to the riddle! And if the solution is nothing then thats another way of saying there aint any solutions. so im happy either way!

Never was happy with all those complicated gemutria trys. too much room for interpretation.

so, its been solved. lets get over it and do someit intresting!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
20/01/2008 3:11 pm  

You know what, forthspeaker1? I actually don't care what your solution is. Not because it's unlikely to be the correct one, not because it's unimportant, but because you've posted this claim everywhere - for obvious bemusement and self-aggrandisement.

I'm locking this thread now and I'm going to ask that you submit all future posts to IanRons or me for pre-moderation. And if, as a result, LAShTAL.COM finds itself to be the only site on the web that doesn't carry your proclamation? Well, that's a burden that I'm prepared to bear.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Share: