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

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 43 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9238

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    “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

    #88975

    soz
    Participant

    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?

    #88976

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant
    "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/

    #88977

    steve_wilson
    Participant

    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.

    #88978

    Los
    Participant
    "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?

    #88979

    steve_wilson
    Participant

    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.

    #88980

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant
    "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”.
    #88981

    Los
    Participant
    "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.”

    #88982

    Los
    Participant
    "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.

    #88983

    threefold31
    Participant
    "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

    #88984

    steve_wilson
    Participant
    "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.

    #88985

    jamie barter
    Participant
    "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

    #88986

    Los
    Participant
    "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.

    #88987

    lashtal
    Keymaster
    "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…

    #88988

    Shiva
    Participant
    "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!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 43 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.