|
Correspondence from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Aleister Crowley
Post Office Box 365 Vancouver, B.C., Canada
August 6, 1936
Care Frater 666
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law!
Your letter of July 28th., returning the copy of QNA [Liber QNA vel Namen Dei sub figura CLI], arrived this morning. I am glad if it proved suggestive, and will let you have a revised copy on completion. Thanks for hint about spelling of Canaan. It is strange to me that this word ONA has not been more prominently featured; perhaps it is mentioned in complete edition of Zohar, but have not come across any reference to it in books at my disposal.
About the Memorandum: There are two good reasons why I cannot accept your offer, although I appreciate it, one being a complete lack of funds, and the other our mutual agreement which I have no desire to break.
I note what you say about the need for playing parts upon the siege; my long letter of yesterday's date will have indicated my deeply considered opinion that my part can best be played from behind the scenes, rather than on the open stage. This, to my way of thinking, and in view of the whole trend of events, is really important at this juncture. (I should far prefer that even such marks as that of the rubber stamp of the Secretary do not appear on outer envelopes sent to the above P.O. Box; for I have sacrificed a good deal for the sake of dropping into the background from which my best work can be done without friction.)
I do not know just what the effect of your publication of Liber AL may have on this plan; that will depend to some extent of what has been said in reference to me in your commentary; if anything. But, in any event, the reference might be expected to indicate events in the past; such as the discovery of the Key years ago, etc.
There seem to be three possible references to me in Liber AL: One in the first chapter which indicates a "beholding" only, and not necessarily a revelation of that which is beheld. Verse 56 of that chapter does however indicate a possible task such as that mentioned in letter yesterday, of showing how all words are sacred and all prophets true, in some sense and degree, a task therefore of a synthetical nature, which is possibly the second half of an equation to be left unattacked by you. Second, in the second chapter, verse 76. Here there is question of some one expounding something, but there is no indication that this task is mine (expect the reference to "one") and certainly there is at present nothing for me to expound in this connection. The third possible reference occurs in Chapter III, and has to do with the discovery of something; there is no reference to the need for giving out this discovery, although, as a matter of fact there can be little doubt that the discovery was made, and so much as necessary at the time given directly to you to make use of. It now appears, however, that there may be another aspect of that discovery, which has been withheld, in line with the statement that the rituals shall be half known and half concealed, and that this is part of the key of them.
Now, since this subject has again been referred to, your letter of July 22nd suggests that my "position in respect to the Aeon of Horus is to be considered of supreme importance at this juncture." Well and good: I am inclined to think it is a hidden position, and intended so to be. You also say: "I regard the curious experiences through which you have passed as the necessary training for your full assumption of your office." I agree, if interpreted as above. But, otherwise, or in any event: What office do you suppose me to hold in this affair? And what do you suppose its functions to be? Please answer these questions specifically (a) as to what you had in mind when writing on July 22nd., and (b) whether what I have said in my letters of yesterday and today throws any further light on the matter, and in any way modifies your previous views.
Thanks for the promise of a set of proofs of the book; that will help considerably to make things clearer for me.
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours fraternally,
P.S. To avoid possible confusion of thought; the word and formula referred to yesterday is quite other than the ONA name and number just commented upon.
|