"faux" commentary to Liber Legis
-
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.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"
@Michaeljwjr said
"
Other than the Book of Law, and the Comment, what else is Thelemic Law?
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
The Book itself is not even Law, it is just a book... about the Law.
"I'm not really sure what you mean...
-
@Michaeljwjr said
"
You can either learn by discovery, or be given the answers. Whatever gets you to your true will.
"I like to think of it as being given questions. As I do not have any answers
EDIT(As I did not see the post till after op):
@Metzareph said
"
I'm not really sure what you mean...
"Taking the line "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" in a literal context "Do what thou wilt" would be the whole of "the law".
the law = "Do what thou wilt"
Making the Book of the Law, instead "Book of Do what thou wilt." So there is no "law" there is just "Do what thou wilt."
You do not have to do anything besides your Will. Want to burn the book ? Do it. Talk about it? Do it. Ignore it ? Do it.
Do what ever your WILL is.
Even Ankh-f-n-khonsu opens up the comment with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." .
That help? :X
-
@Uni_Verse said
"
Taking the line "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" in a literal context "Do what thou wilt" would be the whole of "the law".the law = "Do what thou wilt"
Making the Book of the Law, instead "Book of Do what thou wilt." So there is no "law" there is just "Do what thou wilt."
You do not have to do anything besides your Will. Want to burn the book ? Do it. Talk about it? Do it. Ignore it ? Do it.
Do what ever your WILL is.
Even Ankh-f-n-khonsu opens up the comment with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." .
That help? :X"
...yes, it does, thanks! -
@Michaeljwjr said
"You can either learn by discovery, or be given the answers. Whatever gets you to your true will."
There's a point at which "learning by discovery" can mean "reinventing the wheel." There's a point at which "being given the answers" (or the questions!) can mean "making progress by standing on the shoulders of giants."
The negative aspects of each extreme seem to be the "qlippoth" of the positive aspects.
Personally, I think that there hasn't been nearly enough "shoulder climbing." Hey, maybe after a few decades of trying it, the next generation of Thelemites may conclude it was a dismal failure, a Pitfall of Because, or whatever. But it's part of my Will to give it a try; that much I'm pretty sure.
Steve
-
@Metzareph said
"This is fascinating Rey, thanks!"
De nada, brother. It was an interesting can o' wyrms to see opened up. I think it really does us justice to question what is historical fact from the Beast himself and what has been fabricated through his predecessors!
Pax Profunda, J.
-
@King of the Wolves said
"I think it really does us justice to question what is historical fact from the Beast himself and what has been fabricated through his predecessors!"
Predecessors? The people who came before him?
-
Something else that might help explain my position:
do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, seems to mean to me that Do your will shall be the whole of the law, but it seems like something else needs to be done first. The difference between that, and Love IS the law, love under will.
Which has caused me to figure out why Thelema is not Love, under will's direction.
This mystery has actually been quite inspiring to read further and learn more. I'm sure someone might have a neat answer, but I'm content to explore myself.
-
93!
Hmm, I lost what's being debated here.. Whether the comment is class A or if class A should be taken as irrefutable law written by <i>the prophet</i> therefore absolute truth and divine for all? "Is God to live in a dog? No!" From what was stated by Cornelius93 Class A means that it is considered "received" and should not be edited a single letter; & nor the excessive, punctuations marks; by those who <b>DO have the authority</b> to do so otherwise by their degree and Will to keep the curriculum current; & applicable to modern times. This is because (damn it all ya want..) there appears to be keys or code discernable only to "one who will come after." The reason (the pit sucks) for the restriction (sin, no fun..) of class A is to prevent the wisdom from getting lost by someone who can't understand it yet (hates the pen)...
Crowley wrote that the study is forbidden meaning it's taboo just like he says in chapter 50 of <i>Magick Without Tears</i> "All heresiarchs are smelt in advance for the rats that they are." Sorry but Thelemites are heretics beyond a doubt! It's a test to see if you fear facing your Will or just a classic disclaimer like "do not try this at home" knowing that there is he that Will do so "at his own risk and peril" because it is the ordeals he must go through if he understands that love is the law, love under will.
-
@Asraiya said
"Sorry but Thelemites are heretics beyond a doubt!"
I would hope to install quite a lot of doubt into that!
I think that's a bad rap we've been given.Stubborn adherance to an anti-orthodox position is as unsceptical and doctrinally entrenched as its opposite. Sometimes the orthodox opinion happens to be right. Sometimes it doesn't. A heresy doesn't allow for the first of those two possibilities.
-
93
I agree! I was just going off the sarcastic tone of AC's in the chapter of <i>Magick Without Tears</i> referred to by others previous to me.. That and what's proclaimed by those attending the Gnostic Mass which would likely be called complete heresy by the Christian conservative right wing:
THERE IS NO PART OF ME NOT A PART OF THE GODS!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Stubborn adherance to an anti-orthodox position is as unsceptical and doctrinally entrenched as its opposite. Sometimes the orthodox opinion happens to be right. Sometimes it doesn't. A heresy doesn't allow for the first of those two possibilities."
Thanks Jim!
I sometimes call myself heretic but only when certain subjects come up. The word is "loaded" and it causes a strong emotional reaction... if you happen to be far-right Christian, or far-right anything...In any case, I totally agree with your point that sticking to one side of an argument without paying attention to what is being said, just because it is the "opposite", makes you stiff, obtuse and dull.