|
Correspondence from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Gerald Yorke and Albert H. Handel
AEON OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE
22 May 1948
To my Two Witnesses Yorke and Handel.
Fellow Stars,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law!
Further to mine of May 20 stating that the case rests. I heard from Saturnus [Karl Germer] yesterday and sent him a brief reply. There is nothing further I can do for him at present. To avoid further confusion, however, there are a few points which should be placed on record.
Saturnus says: "Your last letter . . . induces me to give you a brief analysis of your tragic case for your enlightenment". He then proceeds at some length to do so. He informs me (among other things) that "The Book of the Law, issued as it is from planes far transcending any that can be called rational or intellectual, is the most potent, almost explosive, danger for anybody to interpret any of its verses from those planes."
Since I have spent the last two months in trying to show that there is, as stated in Liber Legis, a factor infinite and unknown; and that wherever it came from, the Book does indicate the presence of something far beyond the rational or intellectual, this is really no news to me—or to you. My letter of May 7th, alone, shows this with startling clarity, once a test series has been formulated and offered for mathematical calculation. On this point Saturnus and I are in real agreement, but he does not seem the man to admit it.
Saturnus then falls back on his mysterious references to the "Comment"—which he says was given to A.C. in 1925—and continues to the effect that I matured in what he calls the "pre-Comment" phase. This is all bunk. I know exactly why A.C. decided to make a brief comment instead of a long one. It was to avoid a difficulty on which I have all the correspondence. In this A.C. was to some extent right, but I am convinces that he did not correctly interpret Liber Legis in this respect, for he tried to do over what he had already successfully done. Thus he erred.
To avoid the further confusion which Saturnus may make on this subject—for he had already confused Handel on this point long ago—I will now briefly interpret Liber Legis to the best of my ability.
Liber Legis, Chapter III, v.39 says:
Now what happened? A.C. did produce a "book" to say how he came "hither", at least to some extent, in The Equinox Volume I Number vii. But he greatly improved upon this in his publication The Equinox of the Gods in 1936. It was a real book.
He did fulfil the instruction about reproduction of MS. in The Equinox vii (Vol. I), but on a minute scale. He greatly improved upon this in The Equinox of the Gods.
But he also fulfilled the instruction in regard to the Comment. He did this quickly. Hadit made secure his pen. It was published as the COMMENT in The Equinox Vol. I, Number vii.
This is the brief "comment", written entirely by A.C. himself without any of my interpretations added, which should have appeared (again) in The Equinox of the Gods. It was brief and exactly to the point. A.C.'s further commentaries were laboured. They might, as intended, well have formed an appendix to be published later, but did not belong in the BOOK which fulfilled instructions of Chapter III, 39-40.
Liber Legis itself testifies to what I say above, in a way which simply does not apply to any "comment" of 1925 or later which Saturnus tries to introduce so mysteriously.
Chapter III v.63 says: "The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and its comment; and he understands it not".
A.C. says in The Equinox of the Gods, his official Book: "Parzival had also the name Achad . . . He took it (Parzival) for his Name on Entering the Gnosis where he understood it—this Book—not. That is, he understood that this Book was, so to speak, a vesture or veil upon the idea of "not" . . ."
Now if the "fool" mentioned in L.L. [Liber Legis] is "Parzival" (on A.C.'s own official admission), how could Parzival have read its comment" before understanding it "not", if the comment referred to was not the one published in The Equinox I. vii. which was the ONLY ONE EXTANT AT THAT TIME?
I leave it to you to decide whose interpretation is correct.
Yours in Unity and Love,
Achad.
|