Discussing the Book of the Law
-
"The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.My own studies in Thelema indicate that many things simply reverse their apparent meaning when they're worked on patiently, and in depth. "
No kidding.
The passive voice of the first line is pretty funny. To a person who just follows orders unquestioningly (which is a lot of us a lot of the time!), passive voice carries authority. But, on inspection, the obvious question that passive voice always raises is.... "by whom?"
That's the first step of beginning to "disregard" the "authority" of the forbidding phantom. And the penalty of making your own decisions? Facing your own consequences. Ergo, "Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril." And they are indeed dire, because the consequences of our decisions are big. It's called being a grown up in the aeon of horus.
That leaves, the wisdom destroy the copy after the first reading.
Again, passive voice. Also, "wisdom" is pretty arbitrary. What's wise in one set of circumstances isn't necessarily wise in another, or using a different rubric for wisdom. I could say that it's wise to hit the nearest person over the head with the book after the 23rd reading. If in the time and place of the 23rd reading, you happen to be the victim of a pickpocket, then I would say that advice is pretty spot on.
Finally, the centres of pestilence. Those who discuss the book are going to discuss it with other people who also want to discuss it. Those that don't want to discuss it will ignore, change the subject, or shun those who insist on discussing it. That's kind of how conversational topics work.
So, in the end, the Tunis comment pretty much says nothing. At least, nothing of meaning to someone who is guided by "Do what thou wilt"
-
At some point I began to wonder what Crowley would have made of someone who accepted the Book of the Law literally, and who defended its every assertion with unthinking fanaticism. I would like to think he would roll his eyes and denounce that person as being a whack job.
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.The above quote seems to invoke a curse. And yet, there is something in this injunction to not discuss the Book that works for me. I've not destroyed the book, and I don't intend to. It's just that, if you have ever lived among a more or less homogeneous group of people, you understand the danger of that group to reinforce collective illusions and myths. One of my theater mentors was fond of saying that 'certainty leads to violence.'
A curious historical fact that I think I probably already knew on some level, but only just began to appreciate in more depth, has to do with the origins of the most materialistic and literal brand of fundamentalist Christianity. I am referring to the variety that currently predicts the immanent advent of something called the Rapture. This is when every true Christian will disappear from the face of the earth to meet the Lord Jesus in the air, a kind of second coming, part 1. The rest of us will be forced to suffer the trials of the end days. The originator of this doctrine was John Nelson Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, the same sect that tormented Crowley during his first sixteen years or so on this planet. These are probably the most dangerous Christians alive at the moment. I made a piece for the Baltimore Theater Project a few years back that explored the dynamic between religion and politics in the US. Their attitude to Radical Islam, is 'bring it on!'
Having cited the Christians as an example of bad belief, I can still imagine the possibility of committing to a course of action for which I do not have a good reason. But in all honesty, this would only be possible if I had a meta-reason to justify the action, like when Leopold Bloom in James Joyce's Ulysses contemplates experimenting with S&M sex practices. His rationale is summed up in a simple: "try anything once."
The notion of discussing the book is very challenging to me. I have always taken great solace in the fact that my relationship with it is a personal one that is beyond any comment or assessment from outside. I'm not sure what one would ever hope to gain by discussing it. I mean, how could you keep your objectivity if your intention was to 'figure' stuff out with the help of others?
I don't think I am just asking the same question Atzilut asked. Rather, I simply don't see how discussion can really lead anywhere healthy. Admittedly, I am curious to hear what other have to say about the book, but the idea that I am going to engage in a group process, and this is going to lead to insight, well that's a bit of a stretch, imho. It's not exactly the same thing as trying to fix the economy or bringing peace to the Middle East where you would expect and appreciate input from other interested parties.
love and will
-
Robert, 93,
"The study of this Book is forbidden....... be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
The above quote seems to invoke a curse"
Yes, perhaps. "Deem not too eagerly to catch the promises; fear not to undergo the curses."
As for discussion about the text, I think the Book requires people to move up (or outwards) to a whole new level of both comprehension and dialogue. We need to begin by uncompromisingly extending our concept of the fundamental difference between viewpoints. That's partly an intellectual or conceptual shift, and partly a basic shift in the conventional (consensual, quotidian, etc.) nature of consciousness. It's one of the things that has to happen, and is gradually coming out, in this Aeon. Nurturing Hadit within and moving into that ability to accept the differences is a requisite transformation for which the Book calls.
As I said in the earlier thread under Magick, I believe we have to go beyond a kind of rationalist-fundamentalist perspective, whereby some people insist the Book can be known and understood within the frameworks of familiar discourse. Those who won't at least try this are the people I tend to shun as being personally pestilential.
93 93/93,
Edward -
@RobertAllen said
"It's just that, if you have ever lived among a more or less homogeneous group of people, you understand the danger of that group to reinforce collective illusions and myths."
On the other hand, studying something in isolation can lead to you developing your own personal illusions and myths.
A while ago I remember someone on some forum or other who was from a non-English speaking country who was studying Liber Al. I think they were working on a translation into their native tongue. Anyway, they were struggling with some passages where their English failed them and could only get help by discussing those passages with people on a forum. I seem to remember the person in question had (mis?)interpreted the word "Wilt" in "Do what thou Wilt" to indicate how a flower wilts.
And I've just remembered another example - someone recently on another forum didn't understand the usage of the word "save" in "The ordeals thou shalt oversee thyself, save only the blind ones". The poor sod in question thought the "blind ones" were people to be saved!
-
@nashimiron said
"
@RobertAllen said
"It's just that, if you have ever lived among a more or less homogeneous group of people, you understand the danger of that group to reinforce collective illusions and myths."On the other hand, studying something in isolation can lead to you developing your own personal illusions and myths."
You make a valid point. But you are talking about information and issues of translation, which are not so simple.
@nashimiron said
"A while ago I remember someone on some forum or other who was from a non-English speaking country who was studying Liber Al. I think they were working on a translation into their native tongue. Anyway, they were struggling with some passages where their English failed them and could only get help by discussing those passages with people on a forum. I seem to remember the person in question had (mis?)interpreted the word "Wilt" in "Do what thou Wilt" to indicate how a flower wilts."
This is pretty funny. There should be a book called Thelemic Bloopers. Executing my true will has now become much more straight forward, if a little dangerous to my health—drive to desert, stake self to a rock, sit in hot sun, avoid liquids...
Along these lines, if you like to laugh you should check out The Incomplete Book of Failures (not sure if it is in print anymore). In this book, an English/Portuguese phrase book is featured, written by one Pedro Carolino. Pedro didn't speak English, he didn't speak French either. But he did own a French/Portuguese phrase book and an English/French phrase book. The book was published as English as She is Spoke, and the result was nothing short of surrealistic brilliance!
Getting back on topic, as time passes we may find ourselves wondering what was originally meant by many phrases and terms in Liber AL for no other reason than that the English language is changing. Imagine the work that must go into mounting a Shakespeare play because we don't speak that English anymore. How much harder it must be for people who read Liber AL in translation! In Islam, it is important to learn Arabic so the Koran can at least be read in the original.
@Edward Mason said
"As for discussion about the text, I think the Book requires people to move up (or outwards) to a whole new level of both comprehension and dialogue. We need to begin by uncompromisingly extending our concept of the fundamental difference between viewpoints. That's partly an intellectual or conceptual shift, and partly a basic shift in the conventional (consensual, quotidian, etc.) nature of consciousness. It's one of the things that has to happen, and is gradually coming out, in this Aeon. Nurturing Hadit within and moving into that ability to accept the differences is a requisite transformation for which the Book calls."
Edward, aren't you begging the question here—can you say HOW this enlightened debate might actually appear in practice? Along these lines it is hard not to admire the Quakers. They sit in silence, and when someone receives an inspiration, or has something to say, they stand up and say it. Then they sit down and continue waiting in silence. One would expect there to be no challenge to the message, no discussion as to what it really means, and/or if the person speaking was actually channeling a divine truth or not. I suspect them of being secret Thelemites!
As I see it, there are two modes of relating, vertical and horizontal. Horizontal relation is social, vertical is spiritual. Imo, almost all religious practice, except for true mystical/experiential paths like Thelema, have lost any claim to a vertical connection. They have replaced it with some version of horizontal relating and control. This is because vertical energy is private, something between you and what is above and below. Horizontal energy is about community and social norms. They don't work well together, they never have. Is it really possible to have both at the same time in the same place without one ultimately raping the other? Most religions have correctly divined the answer to be 'no.' For this reason, personal revelation is frowned on. It basically means that that individual is out of control and might not be counted on to contribute a third of their wages to the church coffers.
Love and will
-
The Short Comment is problematic for any number of reasons, the least of which is Crowley violating his own directives. The first question that should be asked is just how many comments was Crowley supposed to write? The first one was published in the Equinox, long before the Short Comment was conceived. There are four verses in the Book of the Law that mention the comment, with two of them using the words **swiftly **and **quickly **in urging him to write it; the Short Comment was penned over 20 years after the Cairo Working, which makes it anything but quickly executed. It also appears that Crowley pondered forbidding discussion of the Book of the Law for years before penning the Short Comment, mentioning his desire to do so in his 1923 diaries.
There is ample evidence the Short Comment was ill-conceived, with the worst circumstance being the frequent references to the Book of the Law in the writings of Crowley, such as 'see Liber CCXX', or 'compare with Liber CCXX', or the instruction to memorize a chapter from the Book of the Law, which most certainly requires studying it. Then there are the two contradictions in Magick Without Tears, where Crowley instructs one of his pupils to make the Book of the Law her constant study companion, while relegating someone else to the status of center of pestilence for discussing the contents of it.
The positive side of the Short Comment, and what it was probably meant to achieve, is it keeps any one individual from being the sole authority on the Book of the Law, providing individuals with the leverage needed to ignore all other interpretations, making it possible for each person to be reliant on his or her own conclusions about it.
-
Robert, 93,
"Edward, aren't you begging the question here—can you say HOW this enlightened debate might actually appear in practice? Along these lines it is hard not to admire the Quakers. They sit in silence, and when someone receives an inspiration, or has something to say, they stand up and say it. Then they sit down and continue waiting in silence. One would expect there to be no challenge to the message, no discussion as to what it really means, and/or if the person speaking was actually channeling a divine truth or not. I suspect them of being secret Thelemites!"
This is where, as I have encountered it, initiated practice and experience come into play. The standard Thelemic and Hermetic practices produce the rudiments of an attitude that permits and enhances this broader acceptance of other perspectives. But above all, they teach us to become more patient with ourselves, so we can be clearer that any given standpoint we might attain is just another resting point on the track up the hill. And it's that experience - realizing that the viewpoints I might have attained in 2004, 2007 and 2010 no longer apply - that most effectively allows the enlightened debate to emerge.
I agree that the Quaker approach has affinities with that of Thelema, except in the execution of what is learned. It can be too passive. That said, I acknowledge Quakers have long been gutsy social activists, manifesting the guidance they receive in their lives.
"Imo, almost all religious practice, except for true mystical/experiential paths like Thelema, have lost any claim to a vertical connection. They have replaced it with some version of horizontal relating and control. This is because vertical energy is private, something between you and what is above and below. Horizontal energy is about community and social norms. They don't work well together, they never have. Is it really possible to have both at the same time in the same place without one ultimately raping the other? Most religions have correctly divined the answer to be 'no.' For this reason, personal revelation is frowned on. It basically means that that individual is out of control and might not be counted on to contribute a third of their wages to the church coffers."
Okay, most religions do that. Thelema is still in its early stages, and has to transcend some of the Old Aeon forms of group organization. The test is for us actually to deliver that constructive decentralization over the next century or so.
I think there's also a stage in Thelemic practice where the internal up-down dialogue/exchange, which is where we all begin, permeates, or is expressed, into the horizontal framework you describe. That's far more of a reciprocal embracing than a rape.
I envisage K&C being not just an I-Thou relationship, but an I-in-All-This situation. And that would apply to some degree to attainments that come prior to the final K&C goal.
93 93/93,
Edward -
@Edward Mason said
"The standard Thelemic and Hermetic practices produce the rudiments of an attitude that permits and enhances this broader acceptance of other perspectives.
"We should definitely hope this is the case. And while we are at it, inner conviction based on experience and an appreciation for the vagaries of verbal communication couldn't hurt.
@Edward Mason said
"And it's that experience - realizing that the viewpoints I might have attained in 2004, 2007 and 2010 no longer apply - that most effectively allows the enlightened debate to emerge.
"I think this is a very insightful observation. But I don't think it is something that is only now possible because of the new Aeon, though maybe it is becoming more common as a result of the change. Artists have appreciated this truth for at least as long as we have had records recording their efforts. In fact, we are told—those of us who have had formal instruction—that while the truths of today are absolute and must be respected, we would be wise to anticipate their necessary transformation into something else. Moreover, this change can occur at any moment starting...now—a few seconds from now, tomorrow, in two weeks, ten years or a hundred—any truth I can now point to will eventually stop being true. The degree to which an artist understands this fact determines the difference between being exceptional and just being 'okay,' in other words, a hack.
Now follows a meditation on the topic...
There are models for the vertical influencing the horizontal. Liber Al itself is an example of this. As folks read the book it spreads its influence, horizontally. Darshan is another example; and so I would imagine is formal initiation. But these are not discussions. I would love to read a play, a hypothetical dialogue between a group of individuals, where opinions are discussed, and where the result is an enhancing of ones inner connection to the truth and not a weakening of it. The difficult point seems to be the idea that there needs to be an agreement. But what if I simply agree to respect you and your process, what would be the need for discussion? You already have my respect, no need to discuss! So, why do I need to discuss the book at all? To connect with like-minded people? we could have a pot-luck for that, a social mixer. Alas, there is still no need to discuss the book.
If I were directing a play that I thought was the shit—I mean shit in a good sense. The first thing I would ask the actors is: why should we do this play(?). They of course would not be able to answer the question, but I know that answer has to found or the play will not achieve the necessary degree of necessity to justify all the time and effort that will be required to make it worth the price of admission. Perhaps this topic, Discussing the Book, is not the core question here. Maybe there needs to be a well defined need, first. Why discuss the book?
"...what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?"
Love and Will
-
Just a question:
What is the difference between instruction and discussion? If u instruct me on the mysteries of Liber AL are you not "discussing" it with me(in the true sense of the word)?
Just curious about what you think about that.
-
@FraterYod said
"Just a question:
What is the difference between instruction and discussion? If u instruct me on the mysteries of Liber AL are you not "discussing" it with me(in the true sense of the word)?
Just curious about what you think about that."
If you are asking me:
I guess, in terms of instruction, it is the assumption of a hierarchy—a vertical relationship as opposed to a horizontal one.
Love and Will
-
In some ways this reminds me of the basic political classification system used in Archaology: band, tribe, chiefdom, state.
In undergrad this was always presented as a vertical classification. Because I was taught to perceive this vertically, I could not imagine or even think of it any other way.
Then in Grad school a horizontal perspective was introduced to me. This simple perspective, something I had never considered before, changed completely my concept of political classification.Through discussion It provided waves of insight about politics and its relation to culture.
I think there is a time to learn(like an undergrad) and there is a time to discuss(like a grad).
Just my opinion:)
-
@FraterYod said
"In some ways this reminds me of the basic political classification system used in Archaology: band, tribe, chiefdom, state.
In undergrad this was always presented as a vertical classification. Because I was taught to perceive this vertically, I could not imagine or even think of it any other way.
Then in Grad school a horizontal perspective was introduced to me. This simple perspective, something I had never considered before, changed completely my concept of political classification.Through discussion It provided waves of insight about politics and its relation to culture.
I think there is a time to learn(like an undergrad) and there is a time to discuss(like a grad).
Just my opinion:)"
Are you being critical of my terms, Horizontal/Vertical, or my point of view?
If it is my point of view, could you be more descriptive and precise about what I actually wrote that you disagree with, because otherwise your post is confusing. If it's the terms, then what about the terms is bothering you, the spatial metaphor or their black/white binary character? You know, I could just have easily used terms like Inner/Outer or Private/Public.
Use quotes from my previous posts. Otherwise we are not having a discussion. Just my opinion:)
By the way, congrats on making it to Grad school.
Love and Will
-
sorry about that:( Sometimes I tend to write in a forcefull manner even when I am just trying to share some thoughts. I hope u will forgive me if I insulted you.
Anyway, I agree with everything u said. I was just connecting my thoughts to yours....sharing:)
-
Robert, 93,
"The difficult point seems to be the idea that there needs to be an agreement. But what if I simply agree to respect you and your process, what would be the need for discussion? You already have my respect, no need to discuss! So, why do I need to discuss the book at all? To connect with like-minded people? we could have a pot-luck for that, a social mixer. Alas, there is still no need to discuss the book."
The key issue for me here is that many people have taken the Comment as a gag-order. But without there being some exchange of perspectives about what's in Liber L, those who come to approach it in future will be limited to Crowley's own views as a guide.
For me, 'discussion' doesn't have to happen between a group of people sitting in the same room, nor do there need to be conclusions reached, let alone, agreement or consensus. I regard consensus is intrinsically impossible, not to mention undesirable. The need isn't for agreement, but for better and wider comprehension of the ways in which interpreting it should be approached. The art of Qabalistic exegesis needs to be learned from example.
I agree with your other point about the arts allowing people to explore changing perspectives. In fact, I'm a little surprised at the tack you've taken on this, given your own experience with theater.
93 93/93,
Edward -
@Edward Mason said
"The difficult point seems to be the idea that there needs to be an
For me, 'discussion' doesn't have to happen between a group of people sitting in the same room, nor do there need to be conclusions reached, let alone, agreement or consensus. I regard consensus is intrinsically impossible, not to mention undesirable. The need isn't for agreement, but for better and wider comprehension of the ways in which interpreting it should be approached. The art of Qabalistic exegesis needs to be learned from example."I agree 100%.
I noticed when I was in college that i would learn as much from my classmates as I would my Instructor. The different veiwpoints always seem to stimulate my intellect and allowed me a better overall understanding on the subject.
I get the feeling this is a natural, inherent way of learning.
-
@Edward Mason said
"
I agree with your other point about the arts allowing people to explore changing perspectives. In fact, I'm a little surprised at the tack you've taken on this, given your own experience with theater.
"I'm not against discussion, or group process, just not sure how it makes sense in terms of discussing Liber Al.
I self-define myself as a Thelemite; as such I accept the Book of the Law. How I am able to do this is a private matter. Talking about it seems impossible to my mind for any number of reasons: to do so would be to cheapen my relationship with the book, or willfully enter into a conceptual confusion when my experience is more of an experiential sort. I think I could get very confused very fast if I dealt with the Book in the wrong way.
Theater is different. It is, in my experience, the highest expression of the group dynamic possible—enlightened, generous. But it is what it is. It was designed to help people live together. You want to transform the culture? Make Theater an integral part of K-12!
A couple of posts back FraterYod asked about the difference between Discussion and Instruction. In practice they tend to overlap, but they are different. They form, along with Sharing the three things that tends to happen on this forum: people either discuss; they look for, or provide information; or they share something about themselves and their magical process. It's a messy world, so these rarely exist separate from the others, but they are nonetheless still separate activities.
Let me share: As you pointed out in your initial post, chapter three is especially challenging, very difficult to understand, and even repulsive on some level. Appropriately, my acceptance has little to do with a rationale defense of the book in terms of its rhetoric. It feels more like a dance, a new style of physical locomotion where I am blind folded, but if I fling myself forward in just the right way I somehow manage a skating momentum on the edge of what is possible—beyond old, constricting frames of reference. I feel I am in the zone when all the opinions and arguments amount to a great big nothing—so what, I am moving forward—what is that fear and defensive posturing that used to dominate my thinking, and who cares...
As for instruction: If you were to point out some mystery about Liber Al I would be eager to hear what you had to say.
Having dealt with sharing and instruction we are left with discussion. What is the essence of this activity? When is discussion not a debate?
@Edward Mason said"For me, 'discussion' doesn't have to happen between a group of people sitting in the same room, nor do there need to be conclusions reached, let alone, agreement or consensus. I regard consensus is intrinsically impossible, not to mention undesirable. The need isn't for agreement, but for better and wider comprehension of the ways in which interpreting it should be approached. The art of Qabalistic exegesis needs to be learned from example."
Does what you are describing have more to do with the benefits of sharing and instruction than it does with discussion?
"...argue not; convert not; talk not over much!"
Love and Will
-
deleted
-
Robert ,93,
"I self-define myself as a Thelemite; as such I accept the Book of the Law. How I am able to do this is a private matter. Talking about it seems impossible to my mind for any number of reasons: to do so would be to cheapen my relationship with the book, or willfully enter into a conceptual confusion when my experience is more of an experiential sort. I think I could get very confused very fast if I dealt with the Book in the wrong way. "
Well, I'm not suggesting we have to talk about it! You have formed your own relationship with the text and all that lies behind it, which sounds like the fruit of careful thought, meditation and whatever practices you follow. My concern is that too many people can't get into the text because they find it hard to open the doors to it.
In addition, I think Crowley's own relationship to Liber L, while highly important, has blinded a lot of people to the intuitions that can arise. I sometimes find him too set on a particular course in his published exegeses, and I need to spurn him in order to stay with the tendencies of my True Will in this matter.
But to "get very confused very fast" is a part of the process of opening up to the Book. We need to make wrong turns, so that when we finally make the corrections, remembrance of what we learned stays with us. To do this solely in a private bubble slows our learning.
I don't see the distinction between discussion and instruction as a valid division of ideas. I am instructed by discussing my own ideas with others. Again: I basically want the gag-order lifted permanently, not to find an excuse to lecture people on my own private explorations.
"Let me share: As you pointed out in your initial post, chapter three is especially challenging, very difficult to understand, and even repulsive on some level. Appropriately, my acceptance has little to do with a rationale defense of the book in terms of its rhetoric. It feels more like a dance, a new style of physical locomotion where I am blind folded, but if I fling myself forward in just the right way I somehow manage a skating momentum on the edge of what is possible—beyond old, constricting frames of reference. I feel I am in the zone when all the opinions and arguments amount to a great big nothing—so what, I am moving forward—what is that fear and defensive posturing that used to dominate my thinking, and who cares..."
It's perspectives such as this that we need to share as much as specific insights into individual verses. For example, people coming to this forum are, quite probably, still trying to figure out literal meanings of verses, and don't have a wider frame of reference.
"As for instruction: If you were to point out some mystery about Liber Al I would be eager to hear what you had to say."
The only thing that occurs to me in this context is what happened after I'd spent a long time - over a year, maybe two - memorizing Chapter One. One evening, as I sat down to go through it as usual, I found it being recited through me. That was when I first understood that Nuit, rather than being just a grand philosophical proposition about All & Everything, has the actual character of a Goddess. She was far beyond what I was really able to grasp or encompass with my normal consciousness.
The more I try to say about that experience, the further from the reality my words are going to go. But simply noting it for the benefit of others could be worth something. And I don't think that goes against "talk not overmuch."
93 93/93,
Edward -
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@RobertAllen said
"I would love to read a play, a hypothetical dialogue between a group of individuals, where opinions are discussed, and where the result is an enhancing of ones inner connection to the truth and not a weakening of it."
There's one in the Curriculum of the A∴A∴:
Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous by George Berkley
Love is the law, love under will.
-
"As for instruction: If you were to point out some mystery about Liber Al I would be eager to hear what you had to say.
"
Part of my problem with this is that I have taken many OATHS and I have a hard time determining if I initially learned something on my own or was instructed under the oath. So I get anxious sometimes when I think about discussing Liber AL
