The Law is for All

Chapter III * Verses 19-20 161 But 718 is expressed openly; its nature is described sufficiently and unambiguously; and it meant nothing to anybody in the world, either then or for seventeen years after. And now the meaning falls so pat, so natural, so self-justified, so evidently the unique value of the “x” of the equation, that it is impossible to quibble. The law of probabilities excludes all theories but one. The simple Truth is what I have always asserted. There is a Being called Aiwaz, an intelligence discarnate, who wrote this Book of the Law, using my ears and hand. His mind is certainly superior to my own in knowledge and in power, for He has dominated me and taught me ever since. But that apart, the proof of any discarnate intelligence, even of the lowest order, has never before been established. And lack of that proof is the flaw in all the religions of the past; man could not be certain of the existence of “God,” because though he knew many powers independent of muscle, he knew of no conscious­ ness independent of nerve. 20. Why? Because of the fall of Because, that he is not there again. Commentary: There is here a perception of the profound law which opposes thought to action. We act, when we act aright, upon the instructive wisdom inherited from the ages. Our ances­ tors survived because they were able to adapt themselves to their environment; their rivals failed to breed, and so “good” qualities are transmitted, while “bad” are sterile. Thus the race-thought, subconscious, tells a man that he must have a son, cost what it may. Rome was founded on the rape of the Sabine women. Would a reasoner have advocated that rape? Was it “justice” or “mercy” or “morality” or “Christianity”? There is much on the ethics of this point in Chapter II of this Book. Thomas Henry Huxley in his essay Evolution and Ethics pointed out the antithesis between these two ideas; and concluded that Evolution was bound to beat Ethics in the long run. He was apparently unable to see, or unwilling to admit, that his argument proved Ethics (as understood by Victorians) to be