"faux" commentary to Liber Legis
-
@Anne-Claire said
"Dear Kuniggety, if you had read, in letter 50, the sentence just after the one you quoted, I believe you would not have written this post
"I did read the whole paragraph
It is my belief that the following words are only an elucidation of Crowley on how/why he came about writing the Comment. And, no where in there, do I see him claiming that the Comment is "beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization". -
@Anne-Claire said
"
@Draco Magnus said
" 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."No, it is a matter of "sense of sacredness", of "relationship with the Divine" "
Wow! Has it occurred to you that something can be held sacred AND be discussed?
Welcome to the New Aeon!
-
I agree that it is forbidden to discuss and study the Book.
In the light that, you can never reveal the meaning of the Book, you can only seek it out on a personal level.
You should also burn it...
In the fire of your spiritual furnace.However, one might say that is my Thelema.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"I agree that it is forbidden to discuss and study the Book.
In the light that, you can never reveal the meaning of the Book, you can only seek it out on a personal level.
You should also burn it...
In the fire of your spiritual furnace.However, one might say that is my Thelema."
Nice! Thanks Uni_Verse.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Well as there is to be no discussion on the Book of Law, we can discuss the comment.
*Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.*
These are not from A.C. These lines are from The priest of the princes, Ankh-f-n-khonsu as is the entire comment.
Why should someone who discusses the contents of this Book be shunned as a centre of pestilence? Because if you understand the truth, you don't defile it by defining it. If you are defiling something, you are acting as a pestilence, spreading the defilement.
This is my assessment of the comment, and the reason I choose not to discuss the book anymore, instead, heading the comment form Ankh-f-n-khonsu and appealing to his writings when I have a question, or learning the technical knowledge I need to further define for myself what I need to know.
I am still personally stuck on learning the meaning 'Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law' and how 'Love is the law, love under will' correspond to each other. But this mystery I am confident in learning myself, as if I'm given the answer then I don't have the joy of experiencing the answer.
*Love is the law, love under will. *
-
@Michaeljwjr said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Well as there is to be no discussion on the Book of Law"
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself in those two lines, don't you? If it is thy will to be a sheep and listen to Crowley (Ankh-f-n-khonsu was one of his past lives), then so be it, but realize that it is in absolute opposition to the teachings of Thelema, which is summed up by the line in which you opened your post.
-
@kuniggety said
"
@Michaeljwjr said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.Well as there is to be no discussion on the Book of Law"
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself in those two lines, don't you? If it is thy will to be a sheep and listen to Crowley (Ankh-f-n-khonsu was one of his past lives), then so be it, but realize that it is in absolute opposition to the teachings of Thelema, which is summed up by the line in which you opened your post."
*Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
Love is the law, love under will. *
We have different interpretations of those two lines.
-
You have a different interpretation than me of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"? I view this as "The whole of the law is defined by one's true will". Listening to Crowley's comment is going "The whole of the law is defined by one's true will... and whatever stipulations that Crowley decides to write at some point". Hell, Crowley didn't even follow the Tunis Comment, making plenty of references to Liber L after 1925, when the Tunis Comment was written. You want to know why? It's completely UNthelemic.
-
@Anne-Claire said
"
@kuniggety said
" Hell, Crowley didn't even follow the Tunis Comment, making plenty of references to Liber L after 1925, when the Tunis Comment was written. You want to know why? It's completely UNthelemic."No, the Comment itself confers a special statute to him as a prophet. It is so short, I don't know how you managed to miss "by appeal to my writings"
"Making reference to, is not the same as study of, and discussion of. You can argue the point that you can refer to the Book of Law to prove a point, as long as you are not making the logical connection of the reference between the point being made, and the referenced source.
For example:
1:39
1:40
1:44
1:57Have a special connection for me. I would never presume to try and convince someone else of the connection that I've made, and thus is the point of the comment. Appeal to the writings, use it as a reference, but do not spend time trying to figure out why something was said, use your own judgment to realize what was said.
As to what a Thelemite is this is something I should have taken my own advice on, and figured out for myself, by appealing to the writings.
Thank you for the opportunity for the personal growth I've had form this thread.
Michael
-
@Anne-Claire said
"
No, the Comment itself confers a special statute to him as a prophet. It is so short, I don't know how you managed to miss "by appeal to my writings""Technically, it's signed by Ankh-f-n-khonsu, a long dead priest. Ooooh, the dilemna
-
"Technically, it's signed by Ankh-f-n-khonsu, a long dead priest. Ooooh, the dilemna Very Happy"
Nice catch.
-
Just because I haven't seen this brought up, I wanted to post something I read in Liber ABA (Magick) in the Editor's Introduction:
Liber ABA, Editor's Introduction, pg. lxxxii-lxxxiii
Crowley had little to say about Part IV, but it is clear that after over twenty years of exhorting his students to study The Book of Law, he did not at first know what to make of a Comment that forbade such study. But it eventually led him back to his own original thesis concerning revelation, nowhere as lucidly outlined as in Part I of Book 4. He carried this thesis to its inexorable conclusion the transcendence of logic. In Eight lectures on Yoga Crowley sought to reconcile what years earlier, he had symbolized as the Soldier and the Hunchback (! and ?) revelation and interpretation:
It is no use discussing the results of Yoga, whether that Yoga be the type recommended by Lao-tzu, or Patanjali, or St. Ignatius Loyola, because for our first postulate we have: that these subjects are incapable of discussion. To argue about them only causes us to fall into the pit of Because, and there to perish with the dogs of Reason. The only use, therefore, of describing our experiences is to enable students to get some sort of idea of the sort of thing that is going to happen to them when they attain success in the practices of Yoga.... [W]hat operated the conversion of St. Paul was the Vision on the road to Damascus. It is particularly significant that he disappeared into the Desert of Arabia for three years before coming forward as the Apostle to the Gentiles. St. Paul was a learned Rabbi; he was the favorite pupil of the best expositor of the Hebrew Law, and in the single moment of his Vision all his arguments were shattered at a single stroke! We are not told that St. Paul said anything at the time, but went quietly on his journey. That is the great lesson: not to discuss the results. Those of you who possess a copy of The Equinox of the Gods [Book 4, Part IV] may have been very much surprised at the extraordinary injunction in the Comment: the prohibition of all discussion of the Book. I myself did not fully understand that injunction; I do so now.
**I hand typed this so any errors are on my part. *
-
Uni_Verse wrote:
"I agree that it is forbidden to discuss and study the Book. In the light that, you can never reveal the meaning of the Book, you can only seek it out on a personal level."
To Mega Therion Wrote:
"It is no use discussing the results of Yoga, whether that Yoga be the type recommended by Lao-tzu, or Patanjali, or St. Ignatius Loyola, because for our first postulate we have: that these subjects are incapable of discussion. To argue about them only causes us to fall into the pit of Because, and there to perish with the dogs of Reason."
Here Master Therion seems to be making a distinction between discussion and arguement: arguement being superfluos, and discussion being impossible. This seems to confirm what Uni_Verse wrote, yes?
(sorry that my comments arn't brilliant, I'm just attempting to get some outside perspective: I've found in my personal studies of serial killers and fascist dictators, that many of the worst folks in history were actually quite intelligent and well read, but the problem was that they had no external feedback, no intelligent sounding-boards, to steer them away from the most insane and diabolical interpretations of profound and transgressive literature: for example, Nietzsche...)
-
@Ambrosios666 said
"I've found in my personal studies of serial killers and fascist dictators, that many of the worst folks in history were actually quite intelligent and well read, but the problem was that they had no external feedback, no intelligent sounding-boards, to steer them away from the most insane and diabolical interpretations of profound and transgressive literature: for example, Nietzsche...)"
This can be interpreted as a claim that Nietzsche was a serial killer or a fascist dictator! I'm sure you meant that his "profound and transgressive literature" was misinterpreted by those killers and dictators.Sorry for the off-topic chuckle. Now back to my letter-by-letter commentary on Motta's commentary on Crowley's commentary on the Book of the Law... That's useful, right?
(there's no "crickets chirping" emoticon, is there?)Steve
-
@Ambrosios666 said
"Uni_Verse wrote:
"I agree that it is forbidden to discuss and study the Book. In the light that, you can never reveal the meaning of the Book, you can only seek it out on a personal level."
To Mega Therion Wrote:
"It is no use discussing the results of Yoga, whether that Yoga be the type recommended by Lao-tzu, or Patanjali, or St. Ignatius Loyola, because for our first postulate we have: that these subjects are incapable of discussion. To argue about them only causes us to fall into the pit of Because, and there to perish with the dogs of Reason."
Here Master Therion seems to be making a distinction between discussion and arguement: arguement being superfluos, and discussion being impossible. This seems to confirm what Uni_Verse wrote, yes?
"There is a difference, but both are to be avoided. The answers are all there available to you if you learn all you need to understand the meaning. If you don't absolutely know something you're encouraged to study that aspect, and then keep going on with your studying and discernment.
Everytime you ask someone why, you get because, and are trapped by reason. The Book of Law is meant to be learned by personal exploration and discermemt, by appealing to the work, instead of appealing to other peoples work.
-
Anne-Claire wrote:
"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.
"Zeph:
"Interesting stuff. Where did AC display his certitude about the (presumably divine) inspiration of the Comment? I'd like to check that out. "
Me too!
BTW, there is an on-going thread of discussion on this very issue of whether the Comment was truly a Class A document [which it's not] and to whom this classification was derived.
See: cornelius93.com/Blog.html
**
Review 11-24-2007 thru 11-27-2007** -
I am following your logic flow of taking Crowley's opinions on the matter and running with them. Where I miss the logic jump is where Crowley's thoughts on the matter turn into Thelemic Law. You may gain insight into some musings of the old man, wise that they may be, but there is still a jump between that and Thelemic Law.
-
@kuniggety said
"@Michael:
I am following your logic flow of taking Crowley's opinions on the matter and running with them. Where I miss the logic jump is where Crowley's thoughts on the matter turn into Thelemic Law. You may gain insight into some musings of the old man, wise that they may be, but there is still a jump between that and Thelemic Law."
Other than the Book of Law, and the Comment, what else is Thelemic Law?
-
Well the reply I was going to write I deleted, because I just realized the truth of the statement, and point. Discussing whether or not you should strictly adhere to the comment, and book of law, doesn't matter. Either you do, or you don't. We have been trapped in the pit of reason by discussing the because of both sides.
You can either learn by discovery, or be given the answers. Whatever gets you to your true will.