|
Correspondence from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Frank Bennett
C. STANSFELD JONES COLLEGIUM AD SPIRITUM SANCTUM Publication Department P.O. Box 141, Chicago, Ill.
March 8, 1926
Dear Brother Bennett
I was glad to get your letter of January 10th enclosing eighteen dollars in payment for the two copies of The Anatomy [The Anatomy of the Body of God]—also to hear that you liked the way the book was produced. I am sending you a copy of the new Autograph Edition of Q.B.L.—the price is $10.00 as before, but as I generally make you some allowance $7.00 will be O.K.
Your remarks about The Anatomy were quite a surprise to me; I certainly did not consciously use any of your ideas and have not the slightest idea where the old notes you sent me have got to so for the moment have been unable to check them up.
The intuition of the folding of the Tree into a sphere was one of the outstanding features of my illuminations of 1916 and 1917. The idea for the reversal of the Path came in 1922, but the geometrical working did not enter my conscious mind until April 14, 1923 and I arrived at the beginning of my conclusions by the method mentioned on pages 37 and 38.
It is very curious that you should have had similar ideas, but I think it often happens that such conceptions (especially if partaking of truth) filter through into several minds about the same time. This has been noticed in regard to several great inventions. I am much interested in what you say; your plan from what you mention in your letter does not seem to be the same as mine.
Neither in my first sketch (fig xxii) nor in my later and improved working does Malkuth appear in Yesod. You mention that in your working "Malkuth exactly where Yesod is in the first". This, of course, makes a radical difference. There are many possible alternatives but the only satisfactory one I have discovered so far is for Malkuth to expand about its own centre and, as a substance, eat up the form of the ever expanding tree.
Only by developing the six-fold Snow-flake (which you do not suggest that you did) do we arrive at the mode of transition from the plane surface to the solid, and it will be found that a triangular prism is the only logical one. You cannot fit four-sided prisms together so as to give any satisfactory solid and the suggestion of the dodecahedron is of great importance. Also in the four-sided plan you don't solve the problem of the "appearance" of the pairs of opposites, you are just as much bound by the inflexible law of the "four" as ever before.
Perhaps a careful study of The Anatomy will open up fresh vistas for you (and others, I hope) for it is only a preliminary sketch.
With very best wished and fraternal greetings,
Yours fraternally,
Frater Achad
|