|
Correspondence from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Gerald Yorke and Albert H. Handel
Aeon of Truth and Justice.
26 April 1948
Dear Yorke and Handel,
Further to mine of April 22nd dealing with the religio-scientific aspect of the problem of the Beast.
I have suggested that the Beast has reference to Alalus rather then either to the Lion or the Lamb—for Alalus it was who became Man.
Revelation, Chapter XVII, v.8 says: "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition; and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."
Now it is obvious that Alalus, the primitive ape-man, was, and is not, yet still is inasfar as humanity partakes still of some of his qualities and imperfections. He did, as it were, ascend out of the bottomless pit, for he evolved from the spermatic logoi originally planted in the aether at the beginning of time, and this aether is the limitation of the bottomless Void which is the negation of the Plenum. He also may be said to gave gone into perdition, since that intermediate species was not to survive.
Liber Legis, Ch.II v.19 likewise says: "Is a God to live in a dog? [Note that "dog" is reverse of "God".] No! but the highest are of us." Highest what? Highest of the brute beasts, or brute animals, viz: the anthropoid apes.
Maurice Bucke, in Cosmic Consciousness, shows a diagram of those qualities we received from pre-human sources. It will be seen there that the later ones came from the dog and anthropoid ape, or rather the reverse, for the former was the higher and chosen vehicle.
Edmond Szekely in Cosmos, Man and Society says (after discussing the "Successive stages in Evolution of the Dominant Species" and "Transformation of Ancestral Arboreal Life into Biped Terricolous Life):
APPEARANCE OF VERTICAL POSITION
With the appearance of the vertical position (biped) we find two very important changes: progressive disappearance of the pineal bone in man and progressive appearance of the hymen in women.
This was noted in my long record of 1943, but I now suggest the following explanation of the great mystery.
At the point of natural evolution—according to the Great Purpose—when the body of a certain anthropoid ape was fit for it, the logos descended into its flesh; that is, into the flesh of an animal incapable of speech., Alalus, not talking. The development of the power to utter the "Word" must have taken a very long time and much bitter struggle; but when it came, true man lived on earth, and the "link" died out and is now "missing"—or in perdition.
At this same point mentioned above, however, the first anthropoid female ape had formed a hymen, and thus become true virgin. This unusual "affliction" may have worried her. She therefore "sat" upon the beast "Alalus", received from him the Logos-bestial seed, and in this sense became the Great Whore who received into her "cup" the result of fornication in the animal kingdom. It is in this sense, also, that the Logos did not abhor the virgin womb. But, in a sense, she became the "mother of God". It was only after many, many centuries that Jesus, as the first-fruit of them that slept, realized that God was his Father, and that he was one with Him, and then, even, was not the time for these further disclosures, so we are given only the Mystery of the Blessed Virgin and of the Incarnation in the form in which the church has transmitted them.
Liber Legis says: "All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little." A.C. for example, is not to be blamed if he did not understand some parts of Liber Legis and of Revelation. It was not his job to understand. He did, however, claim to have taken upon himself the sins of the whole world. In this noble task he may well have succeeded. But that is a Mystery not yet fully plain.
There is nothing particularly qabalistic or vague about what I have tried to point out to you above—so far as I can see. Please, therefore, give me an honest, straightforward opinion of what I have written, and don't merely argue that you can't understand what I'm talking about because of my lack of clarity on Qabalah—which neither of you have had so much chance to study as I have and for the non-understanding of which you are in no sense to blame. That will come with study of what I have written lately, or it won't. It's up to you—not to me to write you special personal treatises of explanation.
I might add, that the above attempted explanation of certain mysteries is not at present for publication. You will see how much is involved and at stake. That sort of thing would have to be presented with great care either to "science" or "religion".
Yours in Unity and Love,
Achad.
|