"faux" commentary to Liber Legis
-
@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.
-
@Jim said
"Predecessors? The people who came before him?"
You can always tell when the little one [my 13 mos. old son] has kept me up at night for long hours -- I loose the ability to discern the meaning of 'pre'fixes. HA!
I do mean the successors!
-
What I thought was interesting in reading Jerry's blog is the notion that the Tunis comment might actually refer to the manuscript, rather than the typescript.
Dan
-
"What I thought was interesting in reading Jerry's blog is the notion that the Tunis comment might actually refer to the manuscript, rather than the typescript. "
Hmm.... could well be! Did you send Jerry a post inquiring into that mystery of myteries?!
-
"I loose the ability to discern the meaning of 'pre'fixes. HA! "
Ahem... I do me lose my ability. Yes, I must definitely aim for a solid 5 hours this evening, if at all possible -- new molars are a trial by fire, my friends.
-
@King of the Wolves said
"Did you send Jerry a post inquiring into that mystery of myteries?!
"Somebody did. He pointed out that in the first edition of Liber L. (and in most subsequent editions) the comment immediately follows the manuscript.
It raises some interesting possibilities. For one, the actual content of the book, the words themselves, would not be off limits. Only discussions about the reproduction of Crowley's actual scrawl would be forbidden.
Dan