Correspondence from Gerald Yorke to Charles Stansfeld Jones

 

 

 

 

 

18 May 1948

 

 

Dear Jones,

 

Your 14/5/48. Germer [Karl Germer] takes about a month to answer a letter. It may well be however that he in this instance is deliberately silent.

     

Now for your test question as to the interpretation of AL II 23.[1] To me there is a plain straightforward meaning as follows.

     

Aiwass has just mentioned God at the end of the previous verse. This word 'God' brings to mind one point about the nature of Hadit not previously mentioned. As any centre of the Cosmos, Hadit is alone. He is neither God nor dog, but himself a unique point. This is an attempt to get away from theogony, and is an interpretation meant to be in keeping with modern science, where there is no God. Hadit is an element in nature comparable to a negative electron. Each such electron is indistinguishable from any other, yet is determined diversely by its relation with various positive complementary electrons. My scientific knowledge is however of the popular variety, and I do not know if my analogy is correct.

     

The verse is introductory to and explanatory of the next verse, in which it is important to realise Hadit as the core in every star, whether they be friendly hermits, Kings or low men.

     

The main point is to get away from theogony, i.e. thinking of shakta as a male, shakti as a female God. You are dealing with an ultimate principle—a bad expression—the neti neti (not this, not this) of the Hindus, the Cloud of Unknowing of the Christians, with the point as opposed to the circumference of a circle. There is no question of Gods and theogonies.

     

A.C. interpreted the plain sense of the verse as above. As far as I know he did not attempt to find a cryptic meaning. You can find one, you can even find several, in accordance with the theory you want to prove qabalistically. That is my quarrel with the qabala; you can always make it fit a preconceived opinion. I now give you a possible interpretation in accordance with your revelation, which I gather that for which you ask me, and hope that you can read my Hebrew as well as my plain handwriting.

 

I=Yod=

10

= Phallus

AM=MA=

41

= Yoni, mother, my God or ALL

AL=AL

31

= The Law, etc.

ONE=AChD=

13

= Unity, etc.

 

95

= The Great stone in which is hidden

19 or the Feminine Glyph.

 

You can interpret the above as follow: the conjunction of Lingam and Yoni leads to an understanding of the Law and of Unity, and it all adds up to the Great (or Philosopher's) Stone, in which through the IX° is five times concealed the Feminine Glyph (MA) (Heh with point).

     

"There is no God where I am".

     

The conjunction or joining together of the lingam and the yoni does not produce God, but MA (Heh with point). "MA-ION (no I am) where there is God".

     

I do not trust these cryptic qabalistic interpretation, as you can by a bit of twisting always find that for which you are looking. Nevertheless I look forward to seeing your answer, and will not reveal it to others without your permission.

 

Yours,

 

Gerald Yorke.

 

 

1—"I am alone: there is no God where I am."

 

 

[293]