"faux" commentary to Liber Legis
-
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"...
-
I wrote an apology for discussing the book of law after I read the Tunis Comment on the thelema.org website and was referred to this thread.
To study a book, is to ask why, which evokes because and destroys will. To discuss it with others, is to discuss again to follow the same pattern.
I firmly believe that on my path there are forces guiding me, and so may be guiding others. I believe that as long as I remain in motion, it's easier to be guided, and my will to be fulfilled.
To read the book of law, and compare it to life experiences and truths, will open up the knowledge. It's all right there in the book. While I don't understand the ceremonial part of the book, and parts of the other Crowley books I've read, I have learned to understand certain truths, on my path to discover the truth.
I can understand the need to discuss it, however to define the truth, is to defile the truth. I believe that the truth in the Book of Law needs to be self realized, either by self work, or by guidance from those already initiated into the mystery.
To do so in any other way, is to invite misinterpretation and self delusion. To me this is the same as giving your will over to another, or becoming someone else's will.
-
@Anne-Claire said
"Several places but, according to me, the most clear and straightforward is to be found in Magick without Tears, letter 50."
I believe you're referring to this quote: "In Paris, in a mood of blank despair about it all, out came the Comment. Easy, yes; inspired, yes; it is, as printed, the exact wording required."
I don't follow how a quote such as this can mean that the Comment is a Class A document and beyond questionableness. It seems more of an earnest scholarly work, which can sometimes be "inspired" to a degree, and would fall into Class B, if not Class C - which is merely suggestive. He might have felt it was the right thing, but there is no designation that he truly classed it as a Class A.
-
93
Dear Anne Claire,
I have re-read letter 50.
I think you are mistaken, and for the following reasons. It is my belief that Crowley wanted to preserve Liber Legis the way it was given, free from any future perversions of interpretation and change. We can say that this will be the case as long as the English language continues to be spoken. The Book of the Law will remain in its unaltered state for a long time.
I don't think he meant to stifle thought and interpretation as this book is a source of illumination, and different for everyone. But to be so paranoid of listening to what another has to say about it , fearing that somehow your truth would get lost, is ridiculous.
I don't think anyone claims that their interpretation is the only one, and those who do share their own comments, are helping us learn how to use Gematria, Qabalah in general, and so forth. This can help us find a richer, deeper understanding so that we may pursue our own research.
I hope this helps you, dear French sister.
93, 93/93
-
@Michaeljwjr said
" To study a book, is to ask why, which evokes because and destroys will. To discuss it with others, is to discuss again to follow the same pattern. "
I like this comment but I don't agree with it. I think it depends on a couple of things.
First, that discussing the Book of the Law is just a mental exercise because REASON by itself is incapable of understanding the text. It is a mystery that has to be experienced to be understood by each person.
Second, I think it is very important that the book can be discussed without treating it as a "sacred cow". Otherwise, this creates a veil that is not intended to be there. It separates the divine from the human (something we saw a lot in the past Aeon). Each person has to decide if the book makes sense. If the book "talks" to them. Presenting the Book of the Law as "kneel down and adore it" before the world is nonsense. That is not Thelema.
Third, I think I understand your statement. Something like "trust the forces guiding you" or something of the sort.
I do like that. I think this is what works best, and most people have a lot of problem achieving this attitude and mental state.
Once the decision is made, you just go. There may be some small "whys" along the way, but these "whys" are very superficial. You know you want to get from point "A" to point "B". That shouldn't be questioned because you know it. It comes from the very center of your being, it is your Will, *however you can ask what is the best way to get there. *The only point of Scientific Illuminism is to train your mind and body in a "sicentific" way to endure the ordeals of the path. It will necessarily take you to ask "why" and I think this questioning is healthy. I don't think Crowley wanted an army of mindless automatons.
@Michaeljwjr said
" I firmly believe that on my path there are forces guiding me, and so may be guiding others. I believe that as long as I remain in motion, it's easier to be guided, and my will to be fulfilled. "
Thanks for sharing this!
-
@Michaeljwjr said
"I wrote an apology for discussing the book of law after I read the Tunis Comment on the thelema.org website and was referred to this thread. "
Personally I think you are silly for doing this.
"To study a book, is to ask why, which evokes because and destroys will. To discuss it with others, is to discuss again to follow the same pattern. "
Really? Where did you get THAT idea? Perhaps from studying Liber AL, you little hypocrite...?
"To read the book of law, and compare it to life experiences and truths, will open up the knowledge. It's all right there in the book."
Really, I thought it destroys will...
"While I don't understand the ceremonial part of the book, and parts of the other Crowley books I've read, I have learned to understand certain truths, on my path to discover the truth. "
Sounds good enough to me...
"I can understand the need to discuss it, however to define the truth, is to defile the truth. I believe that the truth in the Book of Law needs to be self realized, either by self work, or by guidance from those already initiated into the mystery. "
I have a hard time believing anyone is disagreeing with you on this point.
"To do so in any other way, is to invite misinterpretation and self delusion. To me this is the same as giving your will over to another, or becoming someone else's will."
Well, lets agree to disagree. To study other people's perspectives, especially on Liber AL, does NOT give up your own will, you are merely broadening the base of your pyramid - that is, you are sympathizing with more point-of-views than normal and so you may function more effectively. In considering others commentaries (especially Crowley), you dont need to accept waht they say as true or even remotely right, but some comments can resonate, help explain obscure parts of Liber AL, etc....
65 & 210,
111-418