and Ra Hoor Khuit, lent their names to the three chapters of the Book of the Law.
Nuit he correctly identified as the Egyptian sky goddess.
Hadit or Had is not the name of any Egyptian deity; the winged solar disk in question is identified in the
hieroglyphs of the stele as Behut-t (Horus Behdety), a form of Horus the Elder worshipped in the western
69 The Book of the Law #I-7.
70 See pages #22, #399, and #665 in Crowley’s Confessions. Concerning Horus the Younger/Harpocrates, see Ions, op. cit. , pages
#68 and #72.
- 51 -
Nile Delta at Behdet. 71 [The curious term “Hadit” is actually Arabic, and means “a divinely inspired
utterance”.]
As for Ra Hoor Khuit, whom Crowley incorrectly identifies as Horus the Younger, 72 the hieroglyphs on
the stele title the figure Ra-Harakhti. Ra-Harakhti (“Ra-Horus of the Two Horizons”) was a form of Horus
the Elder identified with Ra, especially in his aspects of Atum and Xepera. 73
Ra-Harakhti was a rival “final judgment” god to Osiris in addition to being a solar deity, which explains
his presence on the funerary stele. He is also noteworthy for having defended Set in the Osirian-mythos trial
between Set and Horus the Younger. [At one point in the debate, according to the legend, Ra-Harakhti was
insulted and retired to his house in a huff. The proceedings resumed only after Hathor had cheered the
grouchy god with a striptease. 74 ]
The Book of the Law and the “Stele of Revealing”, consequently, are not documents of the Osiris/Isis/
Horus the Younger triad or cult. They reflect the more ancient solar/light cults of Ra and Horus the Elder -
the “Opposite Self” of Set.
And Aleister Crowley received the Book of the Law, and my Opposite Self declared him
Magus of the Aeon.
Crowley did not acknowledge the title of Magus (9)=[2] (according to the A.'.A.'. system) until 1915-16,
although the Book of the Law appears to confirm him thus in 1904. 75 My commentary on the Book of the
Law appears as Appendix #5.
But HarWer, my Opposite Self, is a strange and fitful presence. I, Set, am my Self distinct
from the Order of the Cosmos, yet am ordered in and of my Self. HarWer I was when I was
once part of the Cosmos and could achieve identity only by becoming what the Cosmic order
was not. By HarWer I cancelled the imbalance, leaving a Void in which true creation could
take form as Set.
Here is recounted the phenomenon of the separation of the Set-entity from the Universal order. It is
interesting to compare this statement with the “revolt” of Lucifer and his subsequent metamorphosis into
Satan. [See in particular Book I of Milton’s Paradise Lost and the Statement of Satan ArchDaimon in the
Diabolicon.]
But, as I have said, I cannot destroy the Cosmic inertia without having to assume its place.
And so HarWer must exist while Set exists.
Ostensibly this is a restatement of the previously-discussed “Satanic paradox”. Contained here,
however, is the comment that the preservation of the HarWer entity is necessary for the continued existence
and independence of the Set-entity. HarWer thus acts as a sort of “buffer” between Set and the Universal
law that seeks to include all existential phenomena within itself.
It might also be hypothesized that the HarWer entity is a sort of link between Set and the objective
universe which enables him to act upon it, although he does not directly participate in it.
This passage may also be considered from the standpoint of physics. If Set is a being that displaces
space, then he must consist of matter. Matter may be formed by the application of energy within a zero-
mass environment, the result being equal quantities of matter and antimatter. 76 While both the matter unit
and the antimatter unit may theoretically be transformed into energy [the E=mc2 equation], neither can be
destroyed unless they are brought together. Should such a reunion occur, the result would be an explosion
releasing many hundreds of times as much energy as a hydrogen fusion bomb of the same size. The matter
71 Ions, op. cit. , pages #67-68.
72 Crowley, Aleister, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law. Montreal: 93 Publishing, 1974, page
#268.
73 Ions, op. cit. , pages #45, 51, and #70.
74 Budge, From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt, pages #446-447.
75 The Book of the Law #I-15. See also Crowley’s comments concerning this verse in Magical and Philosophical Commentaries,
pages #102-103.
76 Alfven, Hannes, Worlds-Antiworlds: Antimatter in Cosmology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman Co., 1966, pages #25-38.
[Published on the authority of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, this book discusses the theory of the development of
the metagalactic system originated by Dr. O. Klein, former Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Stockholm.]
- 52 -
and antimatter would return to zero mass, and the energy required for the initial separation would be
recreated.77
If Set is not matter or antimatter, he may be an energy-form of either. This is necessarily pure
speculation, because detection of material energy - let alone distinguishing it from antimaterial energy - at a
great distance is a young science. Such a hypothesis, however, would explain the existence of Set in a form
undetected by the human sense-range within the electromagnetic spectrum.
The Aeon of HarWer endured until the Equinox of the common year 1966, when HarWer
and Set were fused in one composite being. And so commenced the time of Set-HarWer -
known as the Age of Satan - which was to bridge the expiring Aeon of HarWer and the
forthcoming Aeon of Set.
Anton LaVey announced the founding of the Church of Satan on Walpurgisnacht (April 30) 1966, a
short time after the Vernal Equinox (approximately March 21). Simultaneously he announced the beginning
of what he termed the Age of Satan.
In his Satanic Rituals he defines this concept in terms of Hans Hörbiger’s Welteislehre or Doctrine of
Eternal Ice, in which the history of the Universe consists of alternating cycles of fire and ice. 78 The “Wel”, as
it was termed, gained popularity in Nazi Germany because of Adolf Hitler’s enthusiasm for Hörbiger, whom
he called the “German Copernicus”.
Anton LaVey, however, offers the theory in a social, not a cosmological context. The key number, he
suggests, is nine - the number of the Devil because it always returns to itself when subjected to basic
mathematical calculations. [For example: 9x3=27 and 2+7=9. 92=81 and 8+1=9.]
History, says Anton, is divided into “Epochs” of 13,122 [adds to 9] years. Each Epoch is divided into
nine “Ages” [1,458 years: adds to 18 and 1+8=9], and each Age consists of nine “Eras” [162 years: adds again
to 9]. An Era is divided into nine 18-year “Workings”. A Working consists of nine years of “action” followed
by nine years of “reaction”, with the midpoint year being a “zenith of intensity” and the beginning and
ending years being “Working Years”. The initial Working Year sees the generation of the Working, while the
final one is witness to its ultimate product. 79
Whether or not there is any external basis for this theory of social evolution, the history of the Church of
Satan itself adhered to it. At the midpoint of the mid-year of the Working begun in mid-1966, the Church
/>
went through the crisis which resulted in its transformation into the Temple of Set. Strictly speaking, the
Temple is not so much a “reaction” to the doctrines or design of the Church as it is an “evolutionary
succession” to them.
And what of the final Working Year (1983)? At the Wewelsburg Castle in Westphalia, Germany in
October of 1982 was celebrated the Wewelsburg Working, resulting in the reconstitution of the Order of the
Trapezoid, a creature of both the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set.
The “fusing of HarWer and Set as one composite being” evidently does not refer to a physical reunion of
the two entities, else there would have been some spectacular fireworks and neither Set nor HarWer would
have survived. Some sort of mental link or unified purpose seems to be implied. The use of the Age of Satan
as a “bridge” between the two Æons seems appropriate. During the Æon of Horus there was a revival of
various forms of primeval life-worship, as well as a reaction against the death-worship monotheist cults.
During the Age of Satan this “purge” reached a climax, with all external gods being denied and man as “just
another animal” being deified. 80 Only in an atmosphere free from subconscious mental programming could
the Temple of Set be reestablished in an authentic form, uncorrupted by the Osirian distortions.
Again Set pointedly uses the phrase “common year” when referring to the Christian (“Anno Domini”)
dating system; his repugnance is evident.
77 Ibid. , page #29.
78 Pauwels, Louis and Bergier, Jacques, The Morning of the Magicians. New York: Stein and Day, 1960, pages #223-245.
79 LaVey, Anton Szandor, The Satanic Rituals. New York: Avon Books, 1972, pages #219-220.
80 LaVey, The Satanic Bible, pages #23-25.
- 53 -
Truth there was in the words of my Opposite Self, but a truth ever tinged with the
inconsistency and irrationality of which I have spoken. And so the Book of the Law was
confusion to all who came upon it, and the creative brilliance of the Magus Aleister Crowley
was ever flawed by mindless destructiveness. He himself could never understand this, for he
perceived HarWer as a unified Self. And so he was perplexed by a mystery he could not
identify.
HarWer, as an entity possessing characteristics of both the non-conscious universe and the
independently-conscious Set, is necessarily inconsistent and irrational from the perspective of either Set or
the objective universe. HarWer is not a true synthesis in the Hegelian sense. Rather he is the antithesis that
enables Set to emerge - not as a synthesis, but as an entirely distinct and separate being. [This is a
restatement and refinement of the sequence cited in the Diabolicon.]
The Book of the Law is extremely emotional, internally inconsistent, rambling, and in general quite
confusing to those who have read it. Nonetheless it conveys an atmosphere of authenticity [or at least the
glamor of mystery].
Why would a god make such mistakes and present such a profile? The composition of HarWer explains
this. The Great Horus is not a foolish or childish neter, but rather one who is caught between the Scylla of
Set and the Charibdis of the objective universe: perpetually attracted to and rejecting of both.
Crowley’s disciples have debated the Book of the Law vigorously for the years of its existence, and no
two of them have been able to reach a consensus upon it. Crowley himself remained at odds with the text,
speculating upon it for the rest of his life.
As for his “creative brilliance” and “mindless destructiveness”, no one familiar with the writings and
career of Aleister Crowley will deny either quality. Indeed he acknowledged both of them in his own diaries
and publications, yet without resolving to address [or even to fault] his negative qualities. Had he succeeded
in overcoming them, he could well have been a respected, rather than an infamous figure in his own time.
Ironically it is Crowley’s notoriety that has accounted for much of his posthumous popularity. [Then
there is the question whether a “reformed” Aleister Crowley would have remained “the” Aleister Crowley.
Perhaps not. His split personality was essential to his function as Magus of the Æon of Horus, per the
constitution of Horus himself.]
Crowley’s “perception of HarWer as a unified Self” presumably refers to his ignorance of the distinction
between the original Horus and the later Osirian corruption. The Osirian Horus was a unified personality
(Osiris’ son) who fought Set (recast as Osiris’ evil brother). 81 Horus the Elder was complementary to Set, not
antagonistic towards him, and so these two original gods were often shown with a single body. 82
The god identified by Crowley as Horus the Younger was in fact Horus the Elder. This accounts for the
“surprising” inconsistency of Crowley’s patron, as well as Crowley’s oft-expressed bewilderment at such
behavior.
Inclusion here of the word “perplexed” is significant in a particularly poignant sense. According to The
Great Beast, the definitive biography of Crowley by John Symonds, the aging Magus spent his last years in
near-poverty, sick from heroin addiction and visited only infrequently by friends. He fought death, tears in
his eyes as he sank into his final coma; and his last words were “I am perplexed …” 83
81 Ions, op. cit. , pages #72-78. The Osirian legends on this subject are treated comprehensively in J. Gwyn Griffith’s The Conflict
of Horus and Seth (Chicago: Argonaut Publishers, 1969).
82 Te Velde, op. cit. , pages #68-72.
83 Symonds, The Great Beast, page #400.
- 54 -
And I, Set, spoke too in the Book of the Law - “Aye! listen to the numbers and the words -
“What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not, nor shalt thou know ever. There cometh
one to follow thee: he shall expound it.”
These are verses #75 and #76 from the second chapter of the Book of the Law. The strange handwriting
is that of Aleister Crowley, from his original manuscript of the document. Verse #47 of the third chapter
states:
This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the
Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and in their position to one another: in these are
mysteries no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not,
who shall discover the Key of it all. 84
Significantly, all printed texts of the Book of the Law show “24” and “89” without the top and bottom
lines that suggest their sum as integers. Only the Crowley handwriting indicates this. Verse #47 continues:
Then this line drawn is a key: then this circle squared in its failure is a key also.
Again the figures are shown only on the handwritten manuscript. The line in question progresses
through squares of a grid. The “failing circle” is located in one of the squares. If “each number becomes the
corresponding letter”, then the sum of the multiplied coordinates of the line [3+6+9+16+20+30+35=119]
less the multiplied coordinate of the “failing circle” [28] = 91 = 10 or X, the year in which the Æon of Set was
manifest and the Temple of Set revived.
Crowley, in defiance of #III-47, believed the “one” to be Charles Stansfeld Jones of Vancouver. After
Jones’ disavowal of the Æon of Horus and its Beast, however, Crowley reverse
d his earlier opinion and
expelled Jones from the A.'.A. '.85
In his “New Comment” to the Book of the Law ca. 1920 CE, Crowley describes verses #II-75 & #II-76 as
being a “Qabalistic test”, identifying the person who may claim to be the Beast’s Magical Heir. Moreover the
solution will be conspicuous for the simplicity of its method, and its message will carry self-evident
conviction.
Crowley’s use of the term “Qabala” differs in key respects from conventional interpretations of the
“Hebrew” Cabala. For example:
Qabala is an instrument for interpreting symbols whose meaning has become obscure,
forgotten, or misunderstood by establishing a necessary connection between the essence of forms,
sounds, simple ideas (such as number) and their spiritual, moral, or intellectual equivalents. You
might as well object to interpreting ancient art by consideration of beauty as determined by
physiological facts. 86
The “New Comment” continues with a word of doubt expressed concerning Jones’ announced
attainment of the grade of Magister Templi (8)=[3], inasmuch as Jones had not advanced sequentially
through all of the lesser grades. Should it become evident that Jones had wrongfully assumed the (8)=[3],
said Crowley, he would be destroyed as a “Black Brother”. Crowley defines this term thus:
To attain the Grade of Magister Templi, he [the Adeptus Exemptus] must perform two tasks:
the emancipation from thought by putting each idea against its opposite and refusing to prefer
84 The Book of the Law #III-47.
85 Symonds, op. cit. , pages #226 and #351-352.
86 Crowley, 777. New York: Samuel Weiser, 1970, page #125.
- 55 -
either, and the consecration of himself as a pure vehicle for the influence of the order to which he
aspires. He must then decide upon the critical adventure of our Order: the absolute abandonment
of himself and his attainments …
Should he fail, by will or weakness, to make his self-annihilation absolute, he is nonetheless
thrust forward into the Abyss; but instead of being received and reconstructed in the Third Order
The Temple of Set II Page 12
