Required Acceptance of the Law?
-
As far as I know, they're all going to require acceptable of the BotL. It is the word of the new Aeon and the AA is a spiritual brotherhood bent on the illumination of mankind... with the BotL being the guiding word. If I may, I will take you down a train of thought. How do you view the words of the struggle in Chapter III, as an external struggle....or an internal struggle? What parts do you have a hard time accepting?
-
Just a thought, but remember you don't necessarily need an AA branch right off. You could also consider other Thelemic orders which *may *- I have no idea about what's out there - be more lenient towards acceptance of Liber L.
-
"I suspect I am a figment of my own imagination but I need to know."
With the right practice you will go from suspection to knowing.
What kind of thelemic practice do you feel drawn to? Some variant of a more or less traditional A.´.A.´., Typhonian or something else?Beside Thelema, what are you interested in?
-
@Middleman said
"After 15 years of relative solitude and relentless study I am finally ready to begin trekking a serious path with a single tradition. I feel strongly drawn to Thelema for many reasons, mostly because it seems more integral and intelligent, more holistic and humorous.
I strongly suspect that Liber AL vel Legis is inspired yet I have reservations about taking an oath of allegiance to it's principles. I'm having a difficult time accepting certain parts of III.
I can accept AC as a prophet but there are many, right? I value realizing the essential principles of transmutative process above all else. I wake up in the morning and piss paradox. I want to wrap my mind around Thelema and Agape.I'm beginning to see the different similarities between Samadhi, Jhanas, Satori, Nirvana, 'Awakening', 'Enlightenment', 'Liberation', 3 bodies, 4 worlds, 5 elements, 7 Planets, 8 circuits, the Ennead, 10 spheres, 12 constellations, 22 paths, 36 decans, Nu/Had/Hor, K+COTHGA, 'Crossing The Abyss', 'Babe of the Abyss', etc.
All these years of studying maps and I'm still not sure where I am.
More than being powerful or peaceful, I seek direct contact with being.
I suspect I am a figment of my own imagination but I need to know.I am so ready for some personal guidance at this point, I've done all my homework on the different lineage histories, does anyone know which branch of the A.'.A.'. is the least dogmatic about the BOTL?"
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.Can you pledge allegiance to that? Can you view the rest of the Book, rest of the Holy Books, as commentary and supporting structure for 'Do what thou wilt'? Is that a bit less controversial?
Most Thelemites will quote Liber AL when it suits their purposes and then say 'well each has their own interpretation' when it doesnt suit their purposes... so, I wouldnt worry too much about it. What really matters is adhering to your best understnading of Thelemic principles in your own life... in action, speech, and thought.
IAO131
-
Most people, including Crowley for many years, have no idea what Liber Legis means. Sure, people have notions about what they think it means, (and that is what they swear on) but not an understanding of it itself. I am not sure that it is even meant to be understood in the conventional way we think about knowledge vs. something that trains the mind. So I wouldn't worry to much about that.
The Comment says not to discuss it and that those who do will be shunned as centres of pestilence. I am surprised how many people disregard this and the injunction to refer matters to the writings of Crowley. Of course that is not surprising, when Gems doesn't even include it.
-
Well I just read The Law Is For Everyone and though it's far more than I can presently comprehend, I am high just from reading it, I have a better appreciation for the 'nu' formula.
Couldn't the 'crossing of the abyss' be considered an Osirian resurrection? How is it different?
Just when I thought I had a grasp of the fundamental principles of Magic, Khaled Khan comes along and knocks all the books out of my arms.
-
@nderabloodredsky said
"The Comment says not to discuss it and that those who do will be shunned as centres of pestilence. I am surprised how many people disregard this and the injunction to refer matters to the writings of Crowley. Of course that is not surprising, when Gems doesn't even include it."
Similarly, we don't include it in any copies we publish or circulate. It's not part of Liber Legis per se.
Also, I place no significance on it whatsoever beyond the level of "this could be smart advice in many situations."
-
@Middleman said
"Couldn't the 'crossing of the abyss' be considered an Osirian resurrection? How is it different?"
An "Osirian resurrection" restores the ego (however much changed) as the point of view. It is a Ruach-based restoration. It is point-centric.
Crossing the abyss "destroys the ego" which (in aftermath) primarilyt means that it is no longer the level of identification. It isn't point-centric but rather global.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@nderabloodredsky said
"The Comment says not to discuss it and that those who do will be shunned as centres of pestilence. I am surprised how many people disregard this and the injunction to refer matters to the writings of Crowley. Of course that is not surprising, when Gems doesn't even include it."Similarly, we don't include it in any copies we publish or circulate. It's not part of Liber Legis per se.
Also, I place no significance on it whatsoever beyond the level of "this could be smart advice in many situations.""
I agree in theory but not in practice; the key to the above statement is "per se".
Editions or publications should include The Comment for the following reasons:
1.) As a warning. Liber Legis, communicated directly from across the Abyss, cannot be understood correctly except under certain circumstances, and is very powerful, and therefor potentially very dangerous, both to the individual, to the Thelemic movement, and the community in general:
a.) "Beware lest you interpret them either in the Light or in the darkness, for only in L.U.X. may they be understood." -Crowley, referring to Class A material, Liber LXI Vel Cause. This suggests a prerequisite of a High Adept.
b.) The Comment itself explicitly states: "Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire."
c.) The historical record: the horrors caused by the misuse and abuse of other inspired documents.
2.) Liber Legis orders that the Comment be written by the Wisdom of the Chief of the Gods. Ch. I vs. 36.
3.) Preserves and protects Liber Legis from revisionism and the dissemination of personal interpretations. (This has been unfortunately ignored.)
4.) Crowley regarded The Comment as "the really inspired message, cutting as it does all the difficulties with a single keen stroke." -The Equinox of the GodsMy attitude towards this is one of respect, similar to that shown to fire, guns, swords or anything else that has great life preserving or life taking power. I am not suggesting that one must be an Adept to take on Liber Legis, but that it should be done carefully and ideally with proper guidance and instruction. To continue to use the weapons analogy, a 10 year old is often instructed carefully and precisely in the proper use of the weapon, but it would be irresponsible to just hand over a gun with no supervision. I also think it is wrong if one takes the opposite extreme and denies one the experienece of learning to use weapons- the very use of it makes the man or woman. Same with Liber Legis, the correct use of it may bring us to the next stage, to Godhead, or to our own destruction.
In any case, it is irresponsible not to include a document of such importance within any publication containing Liber Legis, one that contains such dire warnings, such direct references to it in Liber Legis, especially coupled with Crowley's own estimation of it.
-
@nderabloodredsky said
"In any case, it is irresponsible not to include a document of such importance within any publication containing Liber Legis"
You misunderstand me. I do not regard it has having much importance at all. The only importance I give it is as convenient, sometimes-relevant advice on the same level as, "Really, don't spill water on your keyboard if you can help it." But in terms of it being a divine or even enlightened statement, I credit it with no particular significance.
Crowley just had a really bad day!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@nderabloodredsky said
"In any case, it is irresponsible not to include a document of such importance within any publication containing Liber Legis"You misunderstand me. I do not regard it has having much importance at all. The only importance I give it is as convenient, sometimes-relevant advice on the same level as, "Really, don't spill water on your keyboard if you can help it." But in terms of it being a divine or even enlightened statement, I credit it with no particular significance.
Crowley just had a really bad day!"
How do you support that argument?
How do you negate Crowley's statement above, number 4?
How do you compare "Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire" with "Really, don't spill water on your keyboard if you can help it"?? -
@nderabloodredsky said
"How do you support that argument? "
I've been over this many times in other threads of this forum.
"How do you negate Crowley's statement above, number 4?"
I simply disagree with him. The fact that he gave it unusual importance doesn't mean that it, in fact, deserved it.
"How do you compare "Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire" with "Really, don't spill water on your keyboard if you can help it"??"
You're right - the second sentence you quote is much more important and sensible. The first one is just a silly scare tactic birthed from a morose mind at the time of a personal tragedy.
-
@Middleman said
"Fear is the word of Restriction. DCLXVI is the terror that sayeth: "Fear not.""
Agreed.
But their is fear, and then there is respect. I don't fear fire, guns or other tools, but I respect them.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@nderabloodredsky said
"How do you support that argument? "I've been over this many times in other threads of this forum.
"How do you negate Crowley's statement above, number 4?"
I simply disagree with him. The fact that he gave it unusual importance doesn't mean that it, in fact, deserved it.
"How do you compare "Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire" with "Really, don't spill water on your keyboard if you can help it"??"
You're right - the second sentence you quote is much more important and sensible. The first one is just a silly scare tactic birthed from a morose mind at the time of a personal tragedy."
O.K. I will suspend my judgement and look for the older threads. I agree there is no point in repeating yourself if the answers are just a search away. Thanks.
-
As has been pointed out many times, the "short commentary" was written primarily to stop Norman Mudd from boring Crowley to death by sending him reams of Cabalistic analysis of Liber Al. Crowley himself hardly failed to discuss the book after writing the comment.
-
really what does it mean to accept the book of the law.
Ch. 1) The other exists, we are all part of the continuous whole and Self has the ability to unite with the Other, in an egoless Samadhi. (just accept this as an acceptable hypothesis, something worth attempting to experience)
Ch 2) The self exists, each self has its own perspective awareness, and each self has its own unique relationship to all other points, which are also self-aware and those which are not self aware. The Realization here is that all points of perspective are valid expressions of the cosmic continuous whole derived from Nuit. (accept than you have a self awareness and so do others, and each is unique and yet all are intrinsically correct)
Ch 3) That the action of the self needs no regulation from moral codes and guides, that we can not universalize moral codes, but rather the dynamic tension between Nuit and Hadit, creates a subject specific orbit of expression or WILL. That as Hadit and nuit relate a child is born, and grown with each experience. The SELF. That this self is two fold the active loud voice of the conscious mind, and the silent inner mind that guide with subtle cues, emotional states, dream images, etc. That to grow we must also grow balanced, so that both aspects of the inner child are fulfilled by our actions. (be willing to accept that every experience is a learning exercise and be willing to accept that if you try to learn from your past experiences, (successes and failures) you can better predict and design actions, behaviors, and personality characteristic than will promote more success and less failures in the future)
This is all accepting the book of the law really amounts to in essence.
- the world exists and I am one with it
- I exist as part of the world, and so does everyone else
- I can choose to learn from my own mistakes and grow in my own way, without imposed restrictions so called, "for my own good"
What is good for me is to be left to act freely and learn my own powers and limits in my own right.
-
@sethur said
"As has been pointed out many times, the "short commentary" was written primarily to stop Norman Mudd from boring Crowley to death by sending him reams of Cabalistic analysis of Liber Al. Crowley himself hardly failed to discuss the book after writing the comment."
Ouch - I'm not so sure about that. I doubt anything Crowley did or said, especially in a context like Liber AL, is quite so throwaway. Generally speaking (not absolutely invariably of course, but generally, as a rule of thumb), there's usually at least two meanings to everything he says (an overt and common meaning, perhaps intellectual, and an initiated meaning that only becomes apparent if you're of an appropriate "Grade" of understanding yourself).
The Comment is, I think, quite subtle. As I see it, it's meant to "catch" people at different levels of development, and provide a challenge to their undertsanding of "Do what thou wilt".
For example "it is wise ..." might be absolutely appropriate for, say, a committed Christian who should happen to read the book. It's like it presents a little conundrum for them ("Hmm, what the hell does he mean by that? Why should I do what he says?") Some will ignore the conundrum and just obey the command. But should they?
Same for the rest of the Comment. Horses for courses.
It's a bit like that bit in Life of Brian when Brian tells the crowd "you're all individuals", and they shout back, as one man "We're all individuals!"
