11

Q&A and discussion on the Hermetic Qabbalah

Moderator: Moderators - Public

11

Postby Coagvla » Sat May 09, 2015 7:59 am

I have just been reading the old G.'.D.'. Knowledge Lectures again for the first time in many years and I'd forgotten how evil they thought the number 11 was. Obviously 11 is really important to us and am wondering if people know why Crowley moved away from the qliphothic associations and made the number so holy. Is this an old aeon New Jason change

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
User avatar
Coagvla
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:51 am
Location: Australia

Re: 11

Postby Jim Eshelman » Sat May 09, 2015 8:36 am

Possibly, the correct interpretation is that AC didn't make the change - that the text of Liber L. dictated the change. But that's not the full picture, since we find a discussion by him in "An Essay Upon Number," which we wrote in August 1901. It's the essay in Equinox No. 5 where he was trying to analyze his way to the perfect number to express the Great Work.

In Part I, "The Universe As It Is," he summarized 11 as, "The Hendecad, the accursed shells, that only exist without the divine Tree. 1+1=2, in its evil sense of not being 1."

So, as you can see, he started with the G.D. perspective he had learned. (He was a relatively new G.D. 5=6 at the time, just to put this in perspective.)

We then go on to Part II, "The Universe As We Seek to Make It."

Here, we immediately find a very different perspective because, by the third paragraph, he's discussing ABRAHADABRA and so many of its characteristics. It's not clear how much of this was in the original, and how much was in the editing for publication in Eqx 5 a decade later (at least some parenthetical notes are clearly from later editing), but we can find a summary of his Part II view of 11 a few pages in, when he starts summarizing "the numbers which seemed to me to bear upon the problem." Of 11, he wrote:

"The great magical number, as uniting the antitheses of 5 and 6 etc. AVD the magic force itself."

That's the evolution he had already worked his way through, and probably reflects his mental space on the matter two and a half years later when Liber Legis was dictated. It affirmed some of his thoughts on number and blew some others (including some of the basic premises with which he began the 1901 inquiry) out of the water.
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in L.V.X.,
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" - CCXX 3:42
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Lost His Marbles
 
Posts: 9577
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: 11

Postby Coagvla » Sat May 09, 2015 10:39 pm

Cheers Jim, that makes a lot of sense and was along the lines of what I was thinking. Also in my continued rereading of the old GD material I get the impression that there is quite a lot that the old GD crew considered evil, or perhaps it is better to say we're scared of, that Crowley dared to explore for the sake of completeness and wholeness, and with direction and validation from Aiwass, that gives us the beautiful A.'.A.'. (And I think the number 11 is a perfect example of this)

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
User avatar
Coagvla
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:51 am
Location: Australia


Return to Qabbalah

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests