"faux" commentary to Liber Legis
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Yup!
BTW AFAIK Crowley never called it Class A. AFAIK it was a certain person in the present generation who first labelled it as such and started pushing that side of the matter."If it is true that Crowley didnt designate this as Class A and someone else did, the entire argument is moot as I was talking abotu the designations Crowley gave by definition forbid criticism even of the style of a letter.
"BTW, I don't really agree with what you said. A Class A label means that the content is to be treated as unquestioned. Whether or not something is Class A in the first place is another matter - it's silly not to be able to question that. "Class A" is a label adopted to position how we are to regard particular content."
Indeed - quite a different subject. It seems quite annoying that someone would do that. Let me guess, followers of Motta?
As you say, let the plague begin!
65 & 210,
111-418 -
The issue of Class-A-dom asside, I recall reading Crowley somewhere state that this Comment was the comment that the Priest was commanded to produce in III:39-40. [Sorry, I don't remember where I read this.] Do you think that's the case? If not, do you think there is such a comment?
-
I'm sorry, but my only real answer to that is:
@Hypatie said
"The Comment is a third of the Book itself,"
No, it's a few sentences. And BTW it's not even part of The Book of the Law and was never claimed to be.
"and it is the core belief of Thelema that there must be as many readings of the Book as there are readers;"
Please note that this is an interpretation you are putting on the text. (BTW, I'm pretty close to agreeing with you on your point - not entirely, but close - I just wanted to be sure you realized that you were doing the very thing to which you are objecting, i.e., interpreting Liber L.
"for, according to the divine Law of Thelema, every living being in the universe has a Will of their own, which is absolutely single."
I agree with the part in bold, but your syllogism is flawed. The logic flow.
"That is why, logically, discussions upon the contents of the Book are forbidden, for they may tempt gone-wild egos to try to establish a dogmatic meaning of the Book"
Bullshit. That's the result if one consents to dogmatic interpretation. The only way to realistically avoid dogmatic interpretation is to have and encourage ongoing discussion and debate."And, however, "class A" material is undiscussable."
False. I have no idea where you have gotten that idea. That's not the definition of Class A material.
"That is also why, though I love this forum, and especially Jim's posts, I will now keep away from it, and urge every sincere Thelemite to do the same : for Jim has clearly tilted: how else would he like to become a centre of pestilence?!!!"
You are, of course, welcome to come and go as you wish.
As for the last part, though - I'd delight in being labelled a centre of pestilence in this regard. Decades ago I wanted to openly found a Guild of Centers of Pestilence - for the sole purpose of studying and discussing Liber L. It's essential to Thelema's health that we do so!
-
@gmugmble said
"The issue of Class-A-dom asside, I recall reading Crowley somewhere state that this Comment was the comment that the Priest was commanded to produce in III:39-40. [Sorry, I don't remember where I read this.] Do you think that's the case? If not, do you think there is such a comment?"
I think it is true that he thought so.
-
Jim's post of two posts up expresses all of my thoughts on the subject exactly.
I think it is funny when people reach the "Comment" and then take it as some sort of Law, neverminding what was written inside the actual book of Liber L. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. also "thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay. If it is your Will to study and discuss Liber L, how could some other say nay?
I think some people need to be reminded also of Liber OZ:
*
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.*As for being a centre of Pestilence, sign me up!
I think this brings up the point of, what does it mean to be a centre of pestilence? When they venture forth in discovery of their true will and step off of malkuth, malkuth tries to hold them down? When they speak of it's word, they will be labeled a heretic? That all aside, the whole comment is complete balderdash anyways because of the aforementioned points I mentioned.
-
Looks to me like the comment does exactly what it intends to.
As it is the one statement most easily developed into a dogma so the dogmatist latches on to it and thereby condemns himself to silence about the actual contents of the Book.
It's like damage limitation. Maybe Crowley intended that those so inclined could be as dogmatic as they like about the Comment, but by being so they would be prevented from applying that dogmatic mindset to the Book itself.
Could it also be intended to separate the Kings from the Slaves?
As far as the centre of pestilence thing goes I could apply an over-used quote from Paradise Lost but I've lived on this earth for more than 30 years without quoting Paradise Lost so I'm not going to start now!
-
93
FWIW, the Toronto Lodge of Aspirants to Light will be releasing in December the latest edition of our publication, The Solstice which will feature my first piece entitled "Embracing your Pestilence."
93, 93/93
-
@Draco Magnus said
"FWIW, the Toronto Lodge of Aspirants to Light will be releasing in December the latest edition of our publication, The Solstice which will feature my first piece entitled "Embracing your Pestilence.""
Oh, I am so looking forward to that!
-
Some additional reading...
65 & 210,
111-418 -
Good links. Additionally, to make my position clearer, here is an excerpt from the intro page I've had up most of a decade (mentioned since some people seem to think I've only recently become a walking epidemic):
"Something I consider fundamental to the religious philosophy of Thelema is that each person must, ultimately, draw his or her own conclusions as to the meaning of our scriptures. Yes, there is a level where Aleister Crowley’s reporting of the more or less “objective” meaning of the verses must be considered, because he was the channel through whom the transmission passed, the individual whose mind and vocabulary and imagery formed the menstruum for its manifestation. In short, he was the only witness! There are passages which, therefore, no one alive or dead could understand except Aleister Crowley. Furthermore, as the one person for whom the Book was most personally written — the one whose entire life was devoted to its understanding and explication — Crowley’s understanding of these verses must rank well ahead of anyone else’s. His commentaries must be regarded as the first and most important.
At the same time, the essence of these verses — the real meaning behind the words — is of Neshamah (super-consciousness). Their interpretation requires direct intuitive perception, which can only come from the individual reader. And, like the best of poetry, the ultimate meaning of these words is to be found in their impact on the soul of the reader, independent of the Author’s original intention.
It is, therefore, a commonplace “rule” that Thelemites do not tell each other what this Book means. The authority for this often paranoid avoidance of discussing The Book of the Law rests in the so-called Class A Comment which Crowley appended decades later. It advises against the study of the Book, its discussion — even against keeping it on hand and intact after the first reading.
Despite this, Crowley regularly insisted that newcomers “study often” The Book of the Law. He even ritualistically sealed these instructions in ceremonies written, or at least substantially rewritten, after “The Comment” was penned.
I must confess that I have never been at all sure that this Comment was at all Class A. I shall not review the historic details here, for they are lengthy and readily obtainable; but I will remark that it is abundantly clear that all-too-human grief and despair were the sponsors of its dour tether.
[...]
There is no human field that can prosper and progress if its caring and capable students are unable to exchange views with each other.
The virtue of the usual social prohibitions against discussing Liber Legis is that they resist sectarianism, philosophical tyranny, and distortion. Its condemnation is that it stultifies all sincere exchange of views and creates a ridiculous atmosphere of knee-jerk distrust."
-
@Hypatie said
"Ouch!
Above statements are very serious!
The Comment is a third of the Book itself, and it is the core belief of Thelema that there must be as many readings of the Book as there are readers; for, according to the divine Law of Thelema, every living being in the universe has a Will of their own, which is absolutely single.
That is why, logically, discussions upon the contents of the Book are forbidden, for they may tempt gone-wild egos to try to establish a dogmatic meaning of the Book, which would be a blasphemy against the Law itself - And, however, "class A" material is undiscussable.
That is also why, though I love this forum, and especially Jim's posts, I will now keep away from it, and urge every sincere Thelemite to do the same : for Jim has clearly tilted: how else would he like to become a centre of pestilence?!!!
What a sad evening!"If the Comment is part of The Book of the Law, aren't you violating it by discussing it?
-
@Wilder said
"
@Hypatie said
"Ouch!
Above statements are very serious!
The Comment is a third of the Book itself, and it is the core belief of Thelema that there must be as many readings of the Book as there are readers; for, according to the divine Law of Thelema, every living being in the universe has a Will of their own, which is absolutely single.
That is why, logically, discussions upon the contents of the Book are forbidden, for they may tempt gone-wild egos to try to establish a dogmatic meaning of the Book, which would be a blasphemy against the Law itself - And, however, "class A" material is undiscussable.
That is also why, though I love this forum, and especially Jim's posts, I will now keep away from it, and urge every sincere Thelemite to do the same : for Jim has clearly tilted: how else would he like to become a centre of pestilence?!!!
What a sad evening!"If the Comment is part of The Book of the Law, aren't you violating it by discussing it?"
As mentioned about five times above and elsewhere, the Comment is NOT part of the Book of the Law and was added over two decades later.
Jim: I like that blurb you quoted of yourself. It seems people often fall into one of two extreme categories: (a) there is no interpretation of Liber AL and anyone who does is a centre of pestilence and (b) everyone can interpret how they want. I like how you take the middle ground and say that studying Crowley's commentaries are important (something I often seen neglected) but that in the end we can - we must - bring in our own personal interpretation.
65 & 210,
111-418 -
@Anne-Claire said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I regard the Class A label as faux. It has every mark of being simply an emotional outburst."@Hypatie said
"Jim has clearly tilted"
What strikes me the most, in this argument, is that Hypatie makes a dogmatic *ex cathedra *statement ("the divine origin of the Comment cannot be questioned"), with the idea of preserving the anti-dogmatism of Thelema. Rather bizarre!
Jim has the right to call the Comment a faux (which is, nevertheless, a very violent assertion - it is a French word meaning "a fake", and even "an hoax"), as long as he does not impose this point-of-view to somebody else.
I do think that tradition must not be restriction.
On the other hand, it was AC's certitude that this Comment was an inspired writing. So that I cannot understand on which authority Jim is basing his opinion.
His violent assertion about the comment seems to imply that he considers himself as having spiritually attain a point from which he can judge AC's statements from above - In which case, dear Jim would be making what my little cousin would call a Lord Voldemort-like complex.
And, if he does not consider himself thus, then his opinions about AC's emotional state, or about AC's being wrong, or false, are, of course, not to be considered seriously-(I mean, the profane seeing the drawings of a japanese Zen master in a museum use to exclaim : " It's quite easy to do! This man is dull!") for the temptation to take his own level as an example to judge AC's motivations would be too strong. Maybe he could explain this to me?
Personnaly, I do consider the Comment from the "orthodox" point of view, and would never venture to discuss the contents of the Book, though I read, study and meditate it every day for myself.
But, let's imagine for a second that Jim is right, and that AC has consciously written this Comment, as a kind of safeguard. What surprises me is that nobody in this thread has asked whether he, as a Magus, could have had good reasons for that, just like when you don't let children play with matches.
Anyway, it is not my point-of-view.
But, as Voltaire once put it: "I do not agree with the things you are saying, but I will fight for you to have the right to say them", pinching my nose if need be"How can you assume that people that have put forth the view that Crowley wrote the comment as a safeguard have NOT asked the reason for it? There are many reasons - the most obvious of which is to weed out the people who are naturally dogmatic in the first place, also the gullible (destroy the book, etc.), and people who dont get the actual message of the book (Do what thou wilt, not do what comments tell you to do).
65 & 210,
111-418 -
@Anne-Claire said
"His violent assertion about the comment seems to imply that he considers himself as having spiritually attain a point from which he can judge AC's statements from above - In which case, dear Jim would be making what my little cousin would call a Lord Voldemort-like complex."
I made no such claim. But each of us has to bring common sense to all such assertions, just as we do (say) in making our original decision about whether to accept The Book of the Law.
I reject it. Period. I don't care how much I favor (even revere) the author. Crowley wrote at least a couple of stupid things. I don't know of a prolific author who hasn't. I hear that you disagree. I have no problem with that.
"But, let's imagine for a second that Jim is right, and that AC has consciously written this Comment, as a kind of safeguard. What surprises me is that nobody in this thread has asked whether he, as a Magus, could have had good reasons for that, just like when you don't let children play with matches."
Actually, there have been several suggestions in this thread of possible value in this text aside from any consideration of its accuracy in the simple sense.
"Anyway, it is not my point-of-view."
And I hope you realize I've standing up for your right to have and discuss your p.o.v. just as you're doing. (I'm fond of that Voltaire quote, too.)
-
@Anne-Claire said
"On the other hand, it was AC's certitude that this Comment was an inspired writing. So that I cannot understand on which authority Jim is basing his opinion."
Interesting stuff. Where did AC display his certitude about the (presumably divine) inspiration of the Comment? I'd like to check that out.
Thx,
z -
@Anne-Claire said
"Dear Jim, on no account at all is the prophet's person the matter here!"
Oh, I disagree completely. That's my whole point: This wasn't the utterance of the Prophet. This was the emotional spillage of the man Aleister Crowley.
That is surely the crux of our disagreement. I also have a copy of a grocery shopping list in Crowley's handwriting, but that's not a Class A document either.
""I am a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite.""
But this particular set of sentences (the comment) is pure Crowleyanity. Again, that's also part of my basic point. It ain't Thelema - it's Crowleyanity.
I'll ignore most of your personal comments in order to try to keep this somewhat on topic (other than to say that you really don't understand either my psyche or my views on Crowley, though, in that vacuum, you made some understandable speculations).
"Of course, it may be that you need to assert yourself as a teacher"
Issue settled long ago. I have no axe to grind on that point.
"call the prophet a liar!!!"
Well, that was settled a long time ago, too. He was an admitted liar, when that was what the job required. His words, not mine. But I don't think that's relevant to the discussion either.
""AC could not distinguish a divine inspiration from an "emotional outburst", whereas I, Jim Eshelman, I can!""
Nobody can see their own bullshit quite as well as others can see it. I think this applies, in greater or lesser measure, to all of us.
"a basset suddenly seized by rabies"
It's the word "suddenly" to which I object. I've been teaching and writing the same thing about this Comment for decades.
"So, you think instead of feeling - In magical terms, you always use the Sword, because you can't use the Cup, still less the Wand..."
You only know me through this forum. Given that narrow window, I see why you might have that opinion. The Sword is the proper medium for an educational discussion environment, such as this forum.
"to restrict the Book of the Law -the most amazing, powerful tool ever given to humankind"
You are confusing the comment with The Book of the Law. The comment is not part of The Book of the Law. Even Crowley never regarded the comment as part of The Book of the Law. My remarks have been about the comment, not The Book of the Law.
"I think you were wrong writing that, and I needed to say why"
Cool.
-
@Anne-Claire said
"... to restrict the Book of the Law -the most amazing, powerful tool ever given to humankind, restoring the link between Gods and men, taking us back to the Way of the Gods after the Osirian Dark Night- down to a text to be discussed, debated, analyzed / to restrict Thelemites down to hairs-splitting talmudists, down to finicky confucianists, down to anatomy students dissecting a corpse..."
You are saying that discussing the Book of the Law is restriction
I think you are confused. It is the opposite. Prohibiting the discussion of the Book of the Law IS restriction, therefore a sin.
-
Anne-Claire: The problem with Christianity is that is all about dogma. Thelema is not.
Dogma: the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted. Rejection of dogma is considered heresy in certain religions.
BTW, I'm happy being "heretic"...