the Author of the B...
 
Notifications
Clear all

the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man.  

  RSS

wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
02/01/2015 7:53 pm  

"proving to the student that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man.":

[All underlining added by me.]

"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 [...] 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." Source: 'The New and Old Commentaries to Liber AL vel Legis, The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley [...] (Part I, comment to Chapter I)' – http://hermetic.com/legis/new-comment/

In what that is quoted from Aleister Crowley below, he lists numerous "name-coincidences of the Qabalah", and is open to the possibility that "he made out the "name-coincidences of the Qabalah"" in the period March 23rd—April 8th 1904, that is, before what he described as the three days of the writing of The Book of the Law, namely April 8, 9, and 10 in 1904. The possibility, to which Aleister Crowley was himself open, of him making up The Book of the Law's "name-coincidences of the Qabalah", before what he described as the three days of the writing of it, contradicts what that is stated in the quote above from an introduction to Crowley's commentaries to The Book of the Law, where the "Qabalah" contained in the said book, is described as "proving to the student that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man."

"During the period March 23rd—April 8th, whatever else may have happened, it is at least certain that work was continued to some extent, that the inscriptions of the stele were translated for Fra. P., and that he paraphrased the latter in verse. For we find him using, or prepared to use, the same in the text of Liber Legis. Perhaps then, perhaps later, he made out the "name-coincidences of the Qabalah" to which we must now direct the reader's attention.
The MS. is a mere fragmentary sketch.

Ch = 8 = Ch I Th = 418 = Abrahadabra = RA-HVVR (Ra-Hoor).
Also 8 is the great symbol I adore.
  (This may be because of its likeness to Infinity  or because of its (old G.'. D.'.) attribution to Daath, P. being then a rationalist; or for some other reason.) 
So is 0.
0 = A in the Book of Thoth (The Tarot).
A = 111 with all its great meanings, Sun = 6.
Now 666 = My name.
  = the number of the stele.
  = the number of the Beast.  (See Apocalypse.)
  = the number of the Sun.
The Beast A Ch I H A = 666 in full.  (The usual spelling is ChIVA.)
(A = 111 Ch = 418 I = 20 H = 6 A = 111.)
HRV-RA-HA.
211 + 201 + 6 = 418.
(This name occurs only in L. Legis, and is a test of that book rather than of the stele.)
ANKH-P-N-KHONS"h"V-T = 666.
(We trust the addition of the termination T will be found justified.)
Bes-n-maut B I Sh-NA-MAVT . = 888
Ta-Nich TA-NICh. . = Ch x A.

Nuteru NVThIRV = 666.
Montu MVNTV = 111.
Aiwass AIVAS = 78, the influence or messenger, or the Book T.
Ta-Nich TA-NICh = 78.  Alternatively, Sh for Ch gives 370, O Sh, Creation.

So much we extract from volumes filled with minute calculations, of which the bulk is no longer intelligible even to Fra. P." Source: The Equinox I (7) (March 1912), The Temple of Solomon the King (Continued), The Priest, page 383 and 384 – http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox/i/vii/eqi07027.html


Quote
soz
 soz
(@soz)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 93
02/01/2015 8:44 pm  

Perhaps there are qabalistic insights to be had in the book that are beyond those listed in the last quote in the post; if so, does this resolve the apparent contradiction that you cite?


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
02/01/2015 9:22 pm  
"soz" wrote:
Perhaps there are qabalistic insights to be had in the book that are beyond those listed in the last quote in the post; if so, does this resolve the apparent contradiction that you cite?

No. Aleister Crowley preparing the "Qabalah" contained within The Book of the Law, before what he described as the three days of the writing of it, namely April 8, 9, and 10 in 1904, does not leave the said "Qabalah" with a quality sufficient for fulfilling "... the necessity of proving to the student that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man." Source: 'The New and Old Commentaries to Liber AL vel Legis, The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley [...] (Part I, comment to Chapter I)' – http://hermetic.com/legis/new-comment/


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 155
02/01/2015 9:35 pm  

The point is that the Book came first and the Qabala later, so that at the time of writing Al, Crowley ws not aware of the name values or their significance, thus proving the point. This is why he says that the author of Al "is", not "was" etc etc, since the author was not Crowley but Aiwass. The rest of the post is, I fear, just Muddying the waters.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
02/01/2015 9:50 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"proving to the student that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man."

Even if Crowley hadn't worked out the Qabalistic values ahead of time, I'm not sure that Qabalistic noodling actually qualifies as "knowledge" in the sense that's implied here. If we can find amazing number coincidences in Moby Dick, does that suggest that Herman Melville was "possessed of knowledge" beyond any other man, or does it just indicate that people can take virtually any text and noodle around with numerology to somewhat interesting effect?


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 155
03/01/2015 1:06 am  

Los Alamos - Hiroshima - Nagasaki. The first three occasions when humanity created significant amounts of element 93.

I am the warrior lord of the forties...

The periodic tale of the elements provides the basis of an inter-species numerology. The properties of element 93 are universal, not culture specific.

Reminds me, Mr Barter if you around. One day early in 1989, Feb or March, Gerald Suster told me to "watch out for 9th November this year". It stuck in my memory right up until the day itself, when the Berlin Wall came down and the people of the 80s finally stopped cowering before the threat of nuclear weapons, go for freedom regardless and be abased no more. Any idea how he got that date? He never said anything like it in my hearing before or after, so it's not like he was throwing random dates around hoping one would stick.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
03/01/2015 2:29 am  
"Los" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"proving to the student that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man."

Even if Crowley hadn't worked out the Qabalistic values ahead of time, I'm not sure that Qabalistic noodling actually qualifies as "knowledge" in the sense that's implied here. If we can find amazing number coincidences in Moby Dick, does that suggest that Herman Melville was "possessed of knowledge" beyond any other man, or does it just indicate that people can take virtually any text and noodle around with numerology to somewhat interesting effect?

Well, Los, the Nuit and Hadit "cosmology" contained within The Book of the Law, certainly does not qualify as knowledge, according to the following quote from Erwin in « Reply #85 on: March 24, 2008, 12:23:17 pm » in the thread 'The Cairo Working':

"Erwin" wrote:
Presuming that you're talking about Nuit and Hadit, this "cosmology" simply isn't true. It's a metaphor, and word-picture, and these things aren't "knowledge". Now, it's possible to read other things into the book that you may want to class as knowledge, the idea of existence being a "division" of nothing being a prime example, but the fact is we don't know anything like enough about the origins of existence to be able to conclude that this is true. Our ideas about origins are hypotheses at best, so I wouldn't even put them in the "knowledge" bucket, and I certainly wouldn't argue that similarities to some of them in The Book of the Law are any evidence of its "truth".

ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
03/01/2015 2:30 am  
"steve_wilson" wrote:
Los Alamos - Hiroshima - Nagasaki. The first three occasions when humanity created significant amounts of element 93.

I am the warrior lord of the forties...

The periodic tale of the elements provides the basis of an inter-species numerology. The properties of element 93 are universal, not culture specific.

Exactly. Like all so-called "predictions" or claims to fore knowledge, this is really a *post* diction. You look back at the known facts after events have already happened, and then you read those facts *back* into a text to make them "fit." We could do the similar kinds of things with probably any text, including the Bible and Moby Dick.

There's nothing resembling "knowledge" conveyed by the words "I am the warrior lord of the forties," and certainly nothing that comes even remotely close to "knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man."


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
03/01/2015 2:32 am  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Well, Los, the Nuit and Hadit "cosmology" contained within The Book of the Law, certainly does not qualify as knowledge

Of course it's not knowledge, in the sense of being *actual* factually correct statements about the universe. It's a set of symbols.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
03/01/2015 4:43 am  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"During the period March 23rd—April 8th, whatever else may have happened, it is at least certain that work was continued to some extent, that the inscriptions of the stele were translated for Fra. P., and that he paraphrased the latter in verse. For we find him using, or prepared to use, the same in the text of Liber Legis. Perhaps then, perhaps later, he made out the "name-coincidences of the Qabalah" to which we must now direct the reader's attention.
The MS. is a mere fragmentary sketch.

Ch = 8 = Ch I Th = 418 = Abrahadabra = RA-HVVR (Ra-Hoor).
Also 8 is the great symbol I adore.
  (This may be because of its likeness to Infinity  or because of its (old G.'. D.'.) attribution to Daath, P. being then a rationalist; or for some other reason.) 
So is 0.
0 = A in the Book of Thoth (The Tarot).
A = 111 with all its great meanings, Sun = 6.
Now 666 = My name.
  = the number of the stele.
  = the number of the Beast.  (See Apocalypse.)
  = the number of the Sun.
The Beast A Ch I H A = 666 in full.  (The usual spelling is ChIVA.)
(A = 111 Ch = 418 I = 20 H = 6 A = 111.)
HRV-RA-HA.
211 + 201 + 6 = 418.
(This name occurs only in L. Legis, and is a test of that book rather than of the stele.)
ANKH-P-N-KHONS"h"V-T = 666.
(We trust the addition of the termination T will be found justified.)
Bes-n-maut B I Sh-NA-MAVT . = 888
Ta-Nich TA-NICh. . = Ch x A.

Nuteru NVThIRV = 666.
Montu MVNTV = 111.
Aiwass AIVAS = 78, the influence or messenger, or the Book T.
Ta-Nich TA-NICh = 78.  Alternatively, Sh for Ch gives 370, O Sh, Creation.

Dwtw

Yet another lame attempt to catch Crowley out on one of his allegedly misleading statements; it appears you have failed to look at what you're actually quoting.

This section of the 'name-coincidences' is primarily involved with names gotten from the Stele of Revealing, which of course AC was working with for several days before April 8. Also, the word Abrahadabra was known to him before that date, and had appeared in earlier writings. and he called himself Chiao Khan once he got to Egypt, referring to the Beast.

The only names on the list that are not from the Stele are Heru-Ra-Ha and Aiwass. Although AC mentions that HRH does not appear on the Stele, that does not mean he was unaware of the name prior to April 8. The same holds true for Aiwass, about whom AC says elsewhere that Rose told him the name before April 8.

In short, AC could very easily, and probably did, write out most of these 'name-coincidences' prior to April 8. The sole mention of Liber Legis could have come after.

In fact, ALL of it could have come after, which AC makes explicit. So even if I hadn't bothered to point all this out, you could have easily read for yourself that AC was uncertain of precisely when this was written, and since the possibility exists that some, if not all, of it was written after April 8, then your entire speculation was abortive from the start.

This type of stuff seems to flow from your keyboard on a regular basis, to clog up the message boards with material that borders on trolling. I do believe this will be the last post of yours I ever read. Consider it part of my vulgar New Year's resolution 🙂

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 155
03/01/2015 10:24 am  
"Los" wrote:
"steve_wilson" wrote:
Los Alamos - Hiroshima - Nagasaki. The first three occasions when humanity created significant amounts of element 93.

I am the warrior lord of the forties...

The periodic tale of the elements provides the basis of an inter-species numerology. The properties of element 93 are universal, not culture specific.

Exactly. Like all so-called "predictions" or claims to fore knowledge, this is really a *post* diction. You look back at the known facts after events have already happened, and then you read those facts *back* into a text to make them "fit." We could do the similar kinds of things with probably any text, including the Bible and Moby Dick.

There's nothing resembling "knowledge" conveyed by the words "I am the warrior lord of the forties," and certainly nothing that comes even remotely close to "knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man."

Well, it doesn't say "warrior lord of the fifties" now does it? It's a shame when someone with severe wand envy can't handle being wrong.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
03/01/2015 12:42 pm  
"steve_wilson" wrote:
Reminds me, Mr Barter if you around.

Adsum!

"steve_wilson" wrote:
One day early in 1989, Feb or March, Gerald Suster told me to "watch out for 9th November this year". It stuck in my memory right up until the day itself, when the Berlin Wall came down and the people of the 80s finally stopped cowering before the threat of nuclear weapons, go for freedom regardless and be abased no more. Any idea how he got that date? He never said anything like it in my hearing before or after, so it's not like he was throwing random dates around hoping one would stick.

I believe I might have mentioned this before, Steve, but Gerald got that “prediction” from me – I told him that I had had a premonition for many years in connection with Liber AL III:46 that there would be a significant world-altering event on or immediately around the 11th of November (the thelemically significant eleventh of the eleventh at the end of the Eighties), and after I mentioned it to him he too also agreed with me that he felt there to be something in it.  As a matter of fact, I was so sure of something happening in the air that I arranged some time in advance two meetings of the London (Caliphornian) O.TO. (of which at the time I was the BeNu Oasis-Master and Gerald the Secretary) in quick succession, which were held on the 7th and 11th November (the 7th had some astrological relevance relating to that year’s Samhain, I think: I would have to look it up, now: the magickal records for these dates are there, though, which I could provide as back-up if I haven‘t done so already.  It was also immediately around this exact time that I was “inspired” to set down what became the origins of my “Blue Magick” essay and conceptualisation.) 

The 9th November conveniently landed slap bang in the middle point between these four days.  I claim no direct responsibility, however. ;D

I should maybe point out in closing here that I am not normally intuitively psychic, although like many other magicians from time to time I’m sure, I’ve had the siddhi of making correct prophesies regarding e.g. the repeated (run of) fall of dice & turn of cards.  Although never when I seem to have had a bet on, unfortunately enough!

Trusting this fully answers your enquiry,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
03/01/2015 5:04 pm  
"steve_wilson" wrote:
Well, it doesn't say "warrior lord of the fifties" now does it?

No, it doesn't. It also doesn't say, "There will be a huge world war -- the second in this century -- that will take place between 1939 and 1945, and it will finally end with the dropping of the first atomic bombs."

Now, if it said *that*, it would be an example of the Book containing "knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man" because that would be actual knowledge. But it doesn't say that: the phrase it does say, "warrior lord of the forties," is extremely vague and could mean lots of things. For example, there's no indication that it refers to years on the Gregorian calendar. People read that *back* into the verse now that they *already* know how things turned out. That's what makes it postdiction.

It's not that the author was "possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man." It's that the author wrote vaguely enough that future events could be read into a handful of passages of the text.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
03/01/2015 8:46 pm  
"threefold31" wrote:
This type of stuff seems to flow from your keyboard on a regular basis, to clog up the message boards with material that borders on trolling.

I tend to agree with this post and I've also noticed that wellreadwellbred has started more than a dozen completely new threads (often overlapping in content) to little effect and with no apparent purpose. Odd...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
04/01/2015 3:59 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
... has started more than a dozen completely new threads (often overlapping in content) to little effect and with no apparent purpose. Odd...

As I remember, Wellread was once upon a time very active here. Then he (she? - not sure) disaapeared; whether by choice or banishment I cannot remember. After his (her?) departure, someone made the comment that "Wellreadwellbred was the "greatest troll of all time."  Then, not too long ago, he (she?) reappeared and has been exceedingly (over?)active in recent times.

Not so "odd" when you consider the historical facts. There's no accusation here - just the facts m'am!


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
04/01/2015 10:27 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
... if it was proven beyond doubt that Crowley made up everything in his accounts concerning the origins of all of the Holy Books of Thelema, you can be assured that I would not consider this as a valid argument against their nature as Holy Books within Crowley's Thelema. That is, if Aleister Crowley decided that certain books should be the Holy Books of Thelema, then I accept that he intended the said books to have this nature within the said Thelema, that is, within his Thelema. ...

Source: Re: Crowley and the Holy Books « Reply #36 on: December 20, 2014, 10:00:54 pm »http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31.msg87136#msg87136

As already clarified by me earlier – as demonstrated by the quote from me above at the beginning of this post – I do not consider it as a valid argument against the holy nature of The Book of the Law, as the core Holy Book of Thelema, even if it was hypothetically proven beyond doubt, that Crowley made up everything in his accounts concerning its origins.

In the OP to this thread, I quote from 'The New and Old Commentaries to Liber AL vel Legis, The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley [...] (Part I, comment to Chapter I)', (source: http://hermetic.com/legis/new-comment/). In this quote it is stated that "I have decided to transfer to an Appendix [...] all considerations drawn from" the "Qabalah", "which is interspersed with the more straightforward matter of this Book." And that this was done "because [...] of the necessity of proving to the student that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man."

In The New Comment to AL II,13: "for why? Because thou wast the knower, and me.", Crowley writes the following:

"The alternative is that the verse contains some Qabalistic proof of the authority of Aiwaz to lay down the law in so autocratic a manner.", and that this verse and the preceding verse "are sufficient in themselves to demonstrate the praeter-human qualities of the Author of this Book."

In The New Comment to AL III,19: "That stele they shall call the Abomination of Desolation; count well its name, & it shall be to you as 718.", Crowley writes the following:

"The reference appears to be to the old prophecies of 'Daniel' and 'John'. The first Qabalistic allusion is yet (An XIV {?} in {?} ) undiscovered.

An XVII Sol in Libra. I think it proper to insert here the account of the true meaning of this verse, though it more properly belongs to the Appendix. But the circumstances are so striking that it is well worth the while of the lay reader to become acquainted with the nature of the reasoning which attests the praeterhuman character of the Author of this Book."

In the quotes above from Aleister Crowley's The New Comment to verse II,13 and verse III,19, the Qabalah contained in The Book of the Law, is directly or indirectly alluded to, as being in support of the claimed praeter-human nature "of the Author of this Book."

No matter if the Qabalah contained in The Book of the Law, is in support of the claimed praeter-human nature "of the Author of this Book.", reality – well, at least the reality where convincing evidence is of any value – is not in support of the existence of praeter-human entities, as there is no convincing evidence for the existence of praeter-human entities.

That is, what I just quoted above from Aleister Crowley's The New Comment to verse II,13, and verse III,19, in The Book of the Law, concerning that the Qabalah contained within it, is in support of the claimed praeter-human nature "of the Author of this Book." – statements from Aleister Crowley which are in line with "the necessity of proving to the student that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man."* – is not supported by convincing evidence, but, one is, of course free to treat Thelema as something faith based.

* Source: 'The New and Old Commentaries to Liber AL vel Legis, The Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley [...] (Part I, comment to Chapter I)' – http://hermetic.com/legis/new-comment/


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 447
04/01/2015 10:40 pm  
"Los" wrote:
No, it doesn't. It also doesn't say, "There will be a huge world war -- the second in this century -- that will take place between 1939 and 1945, and it will finally end with the dropping of the first atomic bombs."

No, but it certainly implies it, and only using five words.

But it doesn't say that: the phrase it does say, "warrior lord of the forties," is extremely vague and could mean lots of things.

Could mean lots of things? Like what?

After observing you express countless criticisms of one sort or another, and most of them consisting of sound arguments, I can't believe you would attempt denying the significance of the phrase 'warrior lord of the forties' to WWII or the Cold War. To deny the obvious meaning of the phrase makes your position look indefensible. You would be better off giving Aiwass or Crowley credit for making a lucky guess, and admitting it's a remarkable coincidence. The problem with doing that is, once 'the forties' are acknowledged as referring to WWII, it places the 'war-engine' promised by Ra-Hoor-Khut in the same period, and sets up the prediction of the atomic bomb. Given your options, it looks like you might have to squirm in your seat on this one.

For example, there's no indication that it refers to years on the Gregorian calendar.

The Julian calendar was all but obsolete by the 20th century; as far as it affects the meaning of 'the forties,' the calendar could be Gregorian or Julian and the 1940s be correctly referred to as 'the forties.' I am hard-pressed to think of any other calendars that are viable substitutes for that period or any other.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
04/01/2015 11:31 pm  
"herupakraath" wrote:
... the significance of the phrase 'warrior lord of the forties' to WWII or the Cold War.

The "Cold War" lasted for decades. True, it started in the late 40's and pretty much ran down in the 80's. I don't know about the Cold War, but ww2 certainy always seemed to fit the bill, even if it was viewed in hindsight.

... it looks like you might have to squirm in your seat on this one.

;D What an optimist you are. I doubt if Los squirms much in his seat.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
05/01/2015 2:52 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
I am hard-pressed to think of any other calendars that are viable substitutes for that period or any other.

I meant that there’s nothing that indicates the phrase “the Forties” is necessarily anything to do with calendars or years at all. It could be a reference to Qabalistic riddles, to measurements on a variety of tools or scales, to numbers that people or groups use to identify themselves, to…lots of things.

The only reason that you think it’s so “obvious” that “the Forties” refers to a decade is that you’re looking back with the knowledge of what’s already happened and reading your knowledge *into* the phrase.

This is exactly why it’s not a “prophecy” at all: absolutely anything that in some way involves something warlike and a forty-something number could count as a “hit.” This is why a prophecy -- if it is to be confirmed as an actual prophecy -- has to be *specific*, not some vague phrase that could potentially be fulfilled by lots of different events. There’s not even anything in the phrase “warrior lord of the Forties” that suggests it’s meant to be a prophecy at all: if we lived in a universe where no really major events synched up with the phrase, Thelemites would just treat it like a Qabalistic puzzle and not even make the claim that it’s a “prophecy.”

I mean, think about what you’re saying. You’re saying that there’s a superhuman magical being who decided to show off his knowledge of the future, and rather than just saying, “There will be two global wars in the twentieth century, the second of which will span the years 1938 and 1945 and end with the use of a new weapon that harnesses the power of the atom, producing a destructive force the world has never before seen,” this magical being decides that the *best* way to show off his knowledge of the future is to rattle off some vague phrases that could be interpreted in lots of different ways and potentially applied to all sorts of things to produce a "hit."

That's not a very intelligent way for a supposedly "preterhuman intelligence" to act. If there really were a superbeing with foreknowledge of the future and a desire to demonstrate that foreknowledge, why would it demonstrate it in a way that appears indistinguishable from a postdiction?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
05/01/2015 3:01 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
once 'the forties' are acknowledged as referring to WWII, it places the 'war-engine' promised by Ra-Hoor-Khut in the same period, and sets up the prediction of the atomic bomb.

See? You're doing it again here. Nothing in the Book of the Law states that the "war engine" spoken of early in Chapter III has anything to do with the later passage about the "Forties." You're just reading all of this back *into* vague phrases once you *already know* the events that come after the writing of the Book. That's why it's called *post*diction (rather than prediction).

Again, suppose you're a supernatural being with knowledge that an atomic bomb will be invented and will be used at the end of a huge global conflict that spans the years 1938 to 1945. Suppose also that you intend to dictate a book that contains this information and that therefore proves that you have foreknowledge of the future. Why would you not simply say that directly? Why would you choose to make it vague like all phony prophecies are?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
05/01/2015 4:13 pm  

Although the "forties" interpretation was hindsight in my case, the "eighties" outcome remained in my future for a long time. That is, I started Thelemic interaction in the early "sixties."

I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased.

Note: Abased means "laid low," and other similar definitions.

So what was to be laid low? Not much, it turned out. There was nothing that compared to the forties=ww2 equation. I know. I was there. I watched for "it" with an open eye. So did a lot of you.

Sure, you can poke around in the history books, or maybe even your own memory, and come up with some weak examples of how the "prophecy" fulfilled itself. But major abasement? No. And so the whole sentence is relegated back into the "mysteries."


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
05/01/2015 5:03 pm  

But major abasement? No.

hmm, Shiva... allow me to draw your attention to this...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/25-photos-of-80s-hairstyles-so-bad-theyre-actually-good


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
05/01/2015 5:53 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
... allow me to draw your attention to this... (various hair styles are shown)

😮  Absolutely shocking  😮

The only thing is, most of these hair pics depict rising hairs. So? should the line read ...

... the Eighties arise before me, & are elevated.

[/align:4mdovkx9]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/01/2015 10:49 am  

Is it worth pointing out that there's nothing in the verse that says it's a prophecy at all?

"I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased. I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay. Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!"

Not 'I will be the warrior Lord of the Forties...'

The WWII and atomic 'interpretation' may be pleasing in an 'oooh, spooky' sort of way but it doesn't really stand up.

I suspect a qabalistic/numeric interpretation of Forties and Eighties, but what it might be I don't know. It's the capitalisation of those two words that leads some to think of them as referring to decades, but capitalisation could indicate another significance in the words to show they are demanding special attention, as happens elsewhere in the book.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
06/01/2015 5:03 pm  
"annolumina" wrote:
Is it worth pointing out that there's nothing in the verse that says it's a prophecy at all?

“I am the warrior Lord of the Forties […]

Not 'I will be the warrior Lord of the Forties...'

You’re right that there’s no reason to think that it’s a prophecy, but I don’t think that changing the tense would make it read like any more of a prophecy. If it were intended to be an actual, confirmable prediction of the future, it would contain a specific prediction that could only be fulfilled by a single occurrence. It's still just as vague if you change the tense.

As coincidence would have it, Matt Dillahunty recently released a video about the flaws of prophecy claims. It’s well worth a watch if you’re interested in the issue and have half an hour to spare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiS4WP48fmY


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 155
06/01/2015 7:00 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Although the "forties" interpretation was hindsight in my case, the "eighties" outcome remained in my future for a long time. That is, I started Thelemic interaction in the early "sixties."

I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased.

Note: Abased means "laid low," and other similar definitions.

So what was to be laid low? Not much, it turned out. There was nothing that compared to the forties=ww2 equation. I know. I was there. I watched for "it" with an open eye. So did a lot of you.

Sure, you can poke around in the history books, or maybe even your own memory, and come up with some weak examples of how the "prophecy" fulfilled itself. But major abasement? No. And so the whole sentence is relegated back into the "mysteries."

AFAIC the domination of international politics by the nuclear issue fits the bill. There was also the massive growth of the peace movement. In the UK, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was virtually a spent force by 1980, yet in 1981 (perhaps spurred by the murder of John Lennon) their annual march attracted a quarter of a million people.  Greenham Common became the focus of the anti-nukes movement here and was constant, national news.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
07/01/2015 4:18 pm  

If you want to stretch it then "duck and cover" is an abasement of sorts.  You all know about "duck and cover"?  The 80s arm race made a lot of people build their own bunkers.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
07/01/2015 9:18 pm  
"steve_wilson" wrote:
AFAIC the domination of international politics by the nuclear issue fits the bill. There was also the massive growth of the peace movement. In the UK, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was virtually a spent force by 1980, yet in 1981 (perhaps spurred by the murder of John Lennon) their annual march attracted a quarter of a million people.

Like I said in Reply #20, above: "Sure, you can poke around in the history books, or maybe even your own memory, and come up with some weak examples of how the "prophecy" fulfilled itself. But major abasement? No."

Compare a warrior lord's wrath of the '40's unleashed upon the whole globe with the minor ripples of the '80's that you cited, and there's hardly a comparison. Again, abased means "laid low;" not littles ripples in selected countries. Sorry, it (the abasement) didn't happen.

However, I hav'a som'a secret files stored in'a my'a basement, if you'a wann'a look'a. 😮

As far as I can tell the 40's an'a the 80's refer to the fifth and the ninth decades of a person's life ... any person ... Ages 40-49 and 80-87. In one's 40's, one can get really revved up and aggressive, and in one's 80's, one certainly gets abased, whether they like it or not.


ReplyQuote
k4n3
 k4n3
(@k4n3)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 27
08/01/2015 1:41 pm  

It seems true that "I am the warrior Lord of the Forties" cannot be interpreted with absolute certainty as a reference to WW2, if we just look at from a single literal perspective.

But if we assume that Aiwass is/was a preater-human being with "knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man", was an Ipsissimus of the A.'.A.'., Crowley's HGA, and so on, such being's motives and thinking might also be beyond comprehension of regular people, hence his choosing of "vague" words to convey his knowledge was done because perhaps they are to be interpreted in many ways, also perhaps in connection with the rest of the Book, that holds many more enigmas and secrets.

From my perspective, the first part of the phrase "I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased" might refer to the WW2 where hundreds of millions of people were killed during WW2. The second part of this sentence might refer to the eighties of the 20th century when the communism was abolished in the central Europe. The events that led to the above, in comparison to WW2, were almost peaceful and characterized by minimal bloodshed, and when viewed from the perspective of a warlike being ("a god of War and of Vengeance") could be described as "cowering" and "abased". But as Los pointed out it is just a postdiction, and at the moment, we cannot say for sure if we are right in this interpretation.

As for the other words from the Book, quoted in this thread, like for example "enginery of war", if we look at them from the qabbalistic point of view, by way of Greek Gematria ("I am becoming gradually more inclined to look for Greek Qabalah as a Key to this Book." - A.C.) it can be rendered in the following ways:

1. mechane polemikon = 1082 = agoretys, "the gift or power of speaking, eloquence".

2. to mechanema polemios = 1623 = oi dyo prophetai, "those two prophets" [Re. 11.10]; pais soy nedys, "the child of thy bowels" [CCXX I.55].

From such point of view "enginery of war" might perhaps mean "the power of speaking and eloquence" employed by both the Beast and the second Beast (mentioned also in the Revelations) as a means of warring against the powers of the old aeon and the establishment of the new one.

Just a food for thought.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
08/01/2015 3:28 pm  
"k4n3" wrote:
... WW2 where hundreds of millions of people were killed during WW2.

Um. Don't get carried away, please. Wikipedia tells us "World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 3% of the 1939 world population." Well, that's a lot of people, but not "hundreds of millions."


ReplyQuote
k4n3
 k4n3
(@k4n3)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 27
08/01/2015 4:43 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"k4n3" wrote:
... WW2 where hundreds of millions of people were killed during WW2.

Um. Don't get carried away, please. Wikipedia tells us "World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 3% of the 1939 world population." Well, that's a lot of people, but not "hundreds of millions."

You are right, I haven't checked the precise numbers. Just replace hundreds with tens.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
08/01/2015 5:49 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
As far as I can tell the 40's an'a the 80's refer to the fifth and the ninth decades of a person's life ... any person ... Ages 40-49 and 80-87. In one's 40's, one can get really revved up and aggressive, and in one's 80's, one certainly gets abased, whether they like it or not.

I prefer Shakespeare’s 'Seven Ages of Man', as spoken by Jacques in As You Like It (II, vii), correlated by some with the seven ancient planets; in which case the “Forties” would seem to relate to a crossover maybe between Mars or Jupiter, the “Eighties” to Saturn.  For those unfamiliar with it and disinclined to google, the relevant verses are:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.

[...] Then, a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden, and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth.

And then, the justice,
In fair round belly, with a good capon lined,
With eyes severe, and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws, and modern instances,
And so he plays his part. […]

Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything

But I don’t think Aiwass or RHK was particularly referring to that, myself.  A nice idea though, Shiva!

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
08/01/2015 9:17 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
A nice idea though ...

Yeah!  But rather whimsical. Many folks even don't get as a far as their 80's before they're abased.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
15/01/2015 4:58 am  
"annolumina" wrote:
Is it worth pointing out that there's nothing in the verse that says it's a prophecy at all?

"I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased. I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay. Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!"

Not 'I will be the warrior Lord of the Forties...'

Dwtw

Exactly. There no indication that this is a prophecy at all. Which defuses the whole rant that Los made about 'if a entity of superior intelligence wants to show off, why give vague prophecies?' That's a separate issue from post diction, which folks are wont to do when it comes to this verse.

RHK is clearly speaking in the present tense in this verse. "I am the warrior Lord" "The Eighties cower before me" not 'will be the warrior', or 'will cower before me'.

That being said, it is quite interesting that the Forties saw the biggest war of all time. And though Shiva lived through it and saw nothing as monumental, (since there wasn't anything), the fact is that Terrorism reared its head in the Eighties - a totally new kind of warrior lord fighting on a scale that was more dispersed and unpredictable, and thus in some ways more frightening, making people 'cower'. I'm pretty sure few people 'cowered' in the face of WW2 in the same way as they did in the face of terrorism.

The other sense that the Eighties 'cowered' was before the threat of nuclear war and 'Star Wars'. The Russians finally gave up, being outspent and outgunned by the military-industrial complex of the USA in that decade, and European Communism finally fell before the decade was out.

So i think there was a lot of 'cowering' going on in the Eighties, and there is no reason to think that a warrior Lord would present himself in the same way four decades apart. The warfare was simply of a different kind. But again, that doesn't mean all this was being predicted by Ra Hoor Khuit through the voice of Aiwass. What may in some cases be post diction is in other cases simply aligning the verbiage from Liber AL with what actually happened, so that the verses might speak on that level, but they may also refer to other levels, like the decades of a person's life, or in qabalah by the sum of all the numbers from 40-49 and 80-89.

The passage is surely an intriguing one. I don't think it's a prophecy per se, but it resonates well on the level of human history, just as it might resonate with personal history and/or the realm of the Ruach. But it is well to consider the larger scale implication of the Aeon of Horus. If Ra Hoor is a god of War and of Vengeance as he claims, then shortly after his message, warfare was unleashed on the earth at a level never before seen, (and many of these battles were allegedly precipitated by the various publications of The Book of the Law, as Crowley claimed).

Did Ra Hoor Khuit prophesy WW2 and the atomic bomb? I don't think so, not in so many words. But he talked a lot about war-engines and blood baths, and we've had plenty of those in the last century, unlike any that came before. So what you really have are instantiations of a general current of energy being unleashed in 1904. You can't say that RHK predicted WW2, but you also can't deny that the decade of the Forties was ruled over by a warrior Lord.

Litlluw
RLG

edit:
The sum of the 'Forties', i.e. the numbers from 40 to 49 inclusive, is 445.
445 = the sum of the 12 single Hebrew letters, which symbolize the 12 signs of the Zodiac, among other things.

The sum of the 'Eighties', i.e., the numbers from 80 to 89 inclusive, is 845.
845 = Neptune spelled in Hebrew, NPTUNf as per Sepher Sephiroth.
It gives its name to the 93rd chemical element, as noted earlier in this thread.

The combination of these might indicate the cycle of Neptune through all of the Zodiac, a period of about 165 years, and 165 = NEMO.

Specifically, Neptune's orbital period requires 89,666 Neptunian solar days.


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
15/01/2015 9:07 am  

To me, its totally not a prophecy at all.
It's about the personal struggle in defining your True Will, once your on the path it carries you on, uninhibited.

I think its pretty clear in that regard?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/01/2015 10:39 am  
"Los" wrote:
I mean, think about what you’re saying. You’re saying that there’s a superhuman magical being who decided to show off his knowledge of the future, and rather than just saying, “There will be two global wars in the twentieth century, the second of which will span the years 1938 and 1945 and end with the use of a new weapon that harnesses the power of the atom, producing a destructive force the world has never before seen,” this magical being decides that the *best* way to show off his knowledge of the future is to rattle off some vague phrases that could be interpreted in lots of different ways and potentially applied to all sorts of things to produce a "hit."

That's not a very intelligent way for a supposedly "preterhuman intelligence" to act. If there really were a superbeing with foreknowledge of the future and a desire to demonstrate that foreknowledge, why would it demonstrate it in a way that appears indistinguishable from a postdiction?

But the "gods" etc toy with us lesser beings in the same way that we put wheels in our hamster's cages and drop them tidbits.  Theoretically speaking that is.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 330
15/01/2015 4:16 pm  

The present tense is used here, in v.46 of ch.2 of L, because the Awareness of Aiwass comprehends all points in time.  Whereas we proceed in a direct linear fashion through time, perceiving moments and their events coming and going, the Supernal Mind, being omnipresent, exists outside time and sees all points in time as taking place simultaneously.  Aiwass was well aware of the events predicted.  One day the full significance of the end of the Cold War will be clear.  Yet this global political climate, which resulted from the various circumstances initiated by the nations waging the Cold War, led to an even graver threat.

P.S.  It is worth noting that the global shake-up of WWII could not have seemed possible to one mired in the utopian mindset of 1904.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
21/01/2015 4:15 am  

Dwtw

To finish a short exegesis on this topic, Ra Hoor Khuit contrasts the Forties and the Eighties. The Hebrew letters that equal 40 and 80 are Mem and Peh, connected to the element of Water and the planet Mars, thus the Hanged Man and Tower in the Tarot, "the Destruction of the world by Water and by Fire". Also, the numbers 40 and 80 are antigrams in Trigrammaton qabalah. So with such polarities in mind, it is instructive to look at these two terms through the lens of both Hebrew and Greek gematria.

As I noted before, the 'Forties' can indicate the numbers from 40 - 49 inclusive, which sum to 445, the same as the 12 Hebrew single letters. Theses are all attributed to the Zodiac, and this leads on to the 12 Tarot cards connected to these letters. So to say one is the 'warrior Lord of the Forties' can mean that one is the warrior Lord among this group of 12 zodiacal trumps. This being the case, there are only two sensible candidates - the Emperor and the Chariot.

The Emperor can certainly lead armies, but more often than not he is absent from the battlefield and is a figurehead, whereas the Charioteer is strictly a military figure, in full armor. Indeed, from the earliest tarots, Trump VII the Chariot was the symbol of victory in War, in contrast with its predecessor trump VI, named for Love. So it would seem that the Charioteer is the Warriror Lord, and this is strengthened by the fact that the letter of the Chariot trump is Chet, which is 418 when spelled in full, which equals Abrahadabra, which is the 'reward of Ra Hoor Khut', the warrior lord.

We may then consider 'the Eighties' to be the sum of the numbers from 80-89 inclusive, equaling 845. With this we look to the Greek qabalah, and there find the word NEKROUS, meaning 'dead'. This word can be used in two senses, literal and metaphorical; someone who is physically dead, or someone who is spiritually dead. In fact, the word is used in both these senses in the famous quote from Matthew 8:22, where Jesus says "Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead".

The remaining terms of interest are 'cower' and 'abased'. Both indicate a lowering; to cower literally means to crouch down (in fear or shame), and abase means to humble or lower someone in esteem or position.

Thus we can reinterpret the sentence to mean something like "I am the Charioteer of the Tarot, and the spiritually dead shrink away before me, and are brought low".

Of the Charioteer, Crowley says in the Book of Thoth that "The vizor of his helmet is lowered, for no man may look upon his face and live." The spiritually dead would surely cower in fear before such a figure, and be at least humbled (if not humiliated) by his presence. But the spiritually alive would be awed by his presence, uplifted by his power, and recognize that he bears the Holy Grail.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
21/01/2015 1:08 pm  
"threefold31" wrote:
Of the Charioteer, Crowley says in the Book of Thoth that "The vizor of his helmet is lowered, for no man may look upon his face and live." The spiritually dead would surely cower in fear before such a figure, and be at least humbled (if not humiliated) by his presence. But the spiritually alive would be awed by his presence, uplifted by his power, and recognize that he bears the Holy Grail.

An interesting line of thought, along with Shiva’s speculation that it might refer to stages in life. 

It would also tie in with A.C.’s comment that at the reception (or the alleged reception ;D) he had the impression that Aiwass’s eyes seemed veiled lest they might destroy what they saw.

N joy


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 447
21/01/2015 3:52 pm  
"threefold31" wrote:
"annolumina" wrote:
Is it worth pointing out that there's nothing in the verse that says it's a prophecy at all?

"I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased. I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay. Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!"

Not 'I will be the warrior Lord of the Forties...'

Dwtw

Exactly. There no indication that this is a prophecy at all.

For the sake of comparison, do you think the last phrase in verse III:12, after a child, predicts the death of Crowley's first child? The statement offers no time frame, whereas verse III:46 does.

To interpret the words Forties and Eighties as being related to something other than decades in the 20th century is quite a stretch in light of the fact the subject matter of verse III:46 is war. The fact the two words are capitalized indicates the words express decades, which would not be the case if the words are a reference to periods within the human lifespan.

The argument about present and future tense is also worthless given that any interpretation of Forties & Eighties places them in the future.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
21/01/2015 4:27 pm  
"herupakraath" wrote:
The argument about present and future tense is also worthless given that any interpretation of Forties & Eighties places them in the future.

Well, not quite any. It might refer to latitude for example - as in 'the Roaring Forties' or something else entirely. It's not my opinion that it does I'm just objecting to 'any'.

OK


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
21/01/2015 5:28 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
"threefold31" wrote:
Of the Charioteer, Crowley says in the Book of Thoth that "The vizor of his helmet is lowered, for no man may look upon his face and live." The spiritually dead would surely cower in fear before such a figure, and be at least humbled (if not humiliated) by his presence. But the spiritually alive would be awed by his presence, uplifted by his power, and recognize that he bears the Holy Grail.

An interesting line of thought, along with Shiva’s speculation that it might refer to stages in life. 

It would also tie in with A.C.’s comment that at the reception (or the alleged reception ;D) he had the impression that Aiwass’s eyes seemed veiled lest they might destroy what they saw.

N joy

In case anyone was thinking of being pedantick & pointing out, I was referring to the imagery there (rather than say specifically to Aiwass instead of the warrior Lord Ra Hoor Khuit as Charioteer.)  There is also the similar parallel with the contention in the Bible that one could not see the face of YHVH and live (only his hind parts, they were alright apparently); references to the “headless” or “faceless” one of Kether in the cabbala; etc.

"david" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I mean, think about what you’re saying. You’re saying that there’s a superhuman magical being who decided to show off his knowledge of the future, and rather than just saying, “There will be two global wars in the twentieth century, the second of which will span the years 1938 and 1945 and end with the use of a new weapon that harnesses the power of the atom, producing a destructive force the world has never before seen,” this magical being decides that the *best* way to show off his knowledge of the future is to rattle off some vague phrases that could be interpreted in lots of different ways and potentially applied to all sorts of things to produce a "hit."

That's not a very intelligent way for a supposedly "preterhuman intelligence" to act. If there really were a superbeing with foreknowledge of the future and a desire to demonstrate that foreknowledge, why would it demonstrate it in a way that appears indistinguishable from a postdiction?

But the "gods" etc toy with us lesser beings in the same way that we put wheels in our hamster's cages and drop them tidbits.  Theoretically speaking that is.

Yes.  But Shakespeare put the same sort of idea more poetically though:

"As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport ..." (King Lear IV, i)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
26/01/2015 2:14 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
For the sake of comparison, do you think the last phrase in verse III:12, after a child, predicts the death of Crowley's first child? The statement offers no time frame, whereas verse III:46 does.

To interpret the words Forties and Eighties as being related to something other than decades in the 20th century is quite a stretch in light of the fact the subject matter of verse III:46 is war. The fact the two words are capitalized indicates the words express decades, which would not be the case if the words are a reference to periods within the human lifespan.

The argument about present and future tense is also worthless given that any interpretation of Forties & Eighties places them in the future.

Dwtw

The speculations I posted certainly do not rule out that Forties and Eighties refer to decades of the 20th Century. But that interpretation is not necessarily required of the verse. Considering that all verses should have at least four levels of meaning, corresponding to the four ordeals mentioned in chapter three, I have no problem with the terms referring to decades as well as groups of numbers and/or a couple of other things. Our natural tendency is to think of decades, since the words are capitalized, and this tendency is proven out by what happened in world history.

If RHK exists in a timeless realm, then for him to say "I am the warrior Lord of the Forties" is equivalent to him saying that for us he "will be" that warrior, since the 1940s are yet to happen (in 1904). Nevertheless, a true prophecy has to predict the future and do so unequivocally. This is where the verse is open to interpretation. It may or may not have been a prophecy per se, but also there is no doubt that the Forties saw a huge war.

In terms of strict prophecy, I think we are on firmer ground with the description of what will happen to the Scarlet Woman if she doesn't follow through on the work. That prophecy, albeit given in poetic terminology, pretty much describes what befell Rose Crowley. As for her child with A.C., she did die, and the death of a child was mentioned in III:12, so it's quite possible to see that reference as a prophecy. A purist will disagreee and claim RHK did not specifically say "your daughter will be dead within X amount of time", and there is no counterargument for that. But that just points out the fact that Liber AL does not contain prophecies of that nature.

For example, when RHK says that "the Eighties cower before me and are abased", i.e., laid low, it could well be taken as a prophecy of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. 80 is the value of Hebrew Peh, attributed to the tarot trump of the Tower, thus the 'eighties' could be seen as 'the 80's', i.e, the two towers. As in the case of the Forties, one may quibble that the destruction of those towers was not technically prophesied with day and date, but also one can not dispute that those two towers were literally 'abased'.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Share: