Understanding The Book of the Law
-
(my "analysis" was mostly tongue-in-cheek)
Seriously, though, if you google "the key of it all" and "thelema" or some other related word combos, you'll find oodles of people with their pet theory for this, as well as the mystery of II:76.
Although there are a lot of little glimmers many of the theories present, I've yet to read something comprehensive and convincing. Mostly they seem to revert to endless gematria and numerology.
-
"...for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine."
Once, while reading the book, this line came off to me as sounding extremely sarcastic, as if to quip "if by some straaange chaaance these letters, by their shape, and their position to one another (the basic qualities of written words) happen to be saying something... well, it don't exactly require divination, fool."
-
Love it.
-
I need to be directed to some sort of a beginers guide. A lot of the material presented here is to indepth for me at this time. I'm grappling with some of the violent passages in chapter three, and I can clearly see from some of your posts that this isn't uncommon and a discussion of this must be available.
One other question: As anyone linked tBotL to Objectivism?
-
Dallas64, 93,
Crowley's own commentaries are published. One more recent student has posted his own meditations on the subject at:
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"And the words intersected are: shape, to, Beast, try, I, say, of, a. Which unscrambled, reveal:
I try to say a shape of Beast."
It is obviously a secret magical formula:
Say, to Beast of a Shape: "I try!"
Much more Thelemic if you ask me.
-
The key of the letters passed through is that they enumerate to 418.
All three symbols referenced in that passage are specific references to 418. -
N.O.X.; read: X in a circle, id est the Circle Squared.
-
X marks the spot is a pretty good way of writing my post off as irrelevant. Which is what I was asking for, in all honesty, diving in with a "cryptic 'is' statement" and trying to sound clever 
-
[ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTE]
Please bring this fully back on topic as a serious topic, attempting to meaningfully respond to the original post; or stop posting.
Spitballs and masturbation generally are not allowed in this classroom while class is in session.
-
Fair enough. All apologies.
-
" Evidently the grid was not present in 1912 when the Book of the Law was first published commercially, so it must have been added by Aleister Crowley years after the book was received."
In the interests of getting back on topic (after having derailed it), if the 1912 copy of the BOTL didn't have the graph, does anyone know if there is anywhere, online or otherwise, where I might find the 1912 printout? At the very least it'd be interesting to know precisely what elements weren't present before 1912.
-
It's in The Equinox.
-
Does it include a printout of the handwritten copy?
-
@Al Ha-Shema said
"Does it include a printout of the handwritten copy?"
The print-out of the original was first published in Equinox No. 7, which would be Vernal Equinox 1912. It was very tiny size.
The first fully public publication of the typeset text of CCXX was in Eqjuinox No. 10, Fall Equinox 1913.