Discussing the Book of the Law
-
"I would argue, more from experience than anything else, that unless a person has a very firm grasp of who they are and what they know for themselves, group activity can be a mistake. This certitude in ones position—verticality—is the only thing I know of which can stand against the tidal forces of the group—horizontality.
"
Thats true. In my opinion both sides of this issue is true.
But you dont need enlightenment to understand either of these issues. If u just read various myths and understand them via your intellect, u will see these patterns of Instuction and discusion over and over.
Anyway, here are concrete examples in various outer orders that show in certain degrees/grades the interplay between discussion/instruction.
O.T.O
H.O.O.R.
The Temple of BabalonI have been involved in all three of these Orders and I can state with confidence that at higher grades this interplay becomes pronounced.
Thats all I can say about it. I value my Oath and also I cant afford to be sued in civil court:p
-
@FraterYod said
"
Thats all I can say about it. I value my Oath and also I cant afford to be sued in civil court:p"Oh, come on, spill the beans! It's not like you have to say what people were talking about, just describe how they talked about it...
ps I'm thinking of suspending my keyboard from the ceiling so when I contribute to this forum I will also be extending my arms overhead to form a 'V,' the attitude of Apophis, the destroyer!
Love and Will
-
"ps I'm thinking of suspending my keyboard from the ceiling so when I contribute to this forum I will also be extending my arms overhead to form a 'V,' the attitude of Apophis, the destroyer!
"
haha:) well said:)
"There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."
-
"I'm not impressed by these kinds of statements"
They are not said to impress anyone, merely to reflect upon. These issues are not necessarily 'old' aeon
just because they were uttered or formulated then."I would argue, more from experience than anything else, that unless a person has a very firm grasp of who they are and what they know for themselves, group activity can be a mistake. This certitude in ones position—verticality—is the only thing I know of which can stand against the tidal forces of the group—horizontality."
The first part I agree with with qualification, though not knowing who 'you' think you are has also been known
to be an advantage. Typically I find that some members of Thelemic Orders I have belonged to stress the individual over the group because of their conception regarding the 'true will' and developing it, whilst relying on the 'group'
to provide a social/ritualistic environment. By 'group' I wasn't referring to this idea of a social horizontal group, but
rather something that exists in the very nature of 'vertical' ascent. Personally, the vertical/horizontal or directional idea doesn't really work for me. The Group, therefore, is not referring to some corporeal body of people, but rather the inner identity of our nature, so-to-speak."The enlightened argument, while it may be the only/best answer, is still a bit of a cop out because it basically asserts that any problem will be overcome when we are able to do it better. "
Can't see how it can be a cop out, unless we simply rest on our laurels hoping to be enlightened or delude ourselves we are, when we are not.
The question for me, given what I see around me in terms of 'group' /individual practices, is whether the idea/concept/reality of the 'Kabbalistic' teachings of Adam HaRishon etc incorporated into Thelemic theory and practice is really taken seriously and understood. And would that change the way we operate? Im just exploring
here
-
I thought it was generally known that Crowley wrote the "is forbidden" just to stop one student, possibly Norman Mudd, from sending him reams of Cabalistic gematria analysis of Liber Al. As has been pointed out, Crowley never stopped discussing it. The commandment should be seen as one of Crowley's "joke traps" for those over-literal!
-
@Atzil said
"
"The enlightened argument, while it may be the only/best answer, is still a bit of a cop out because it basically asserts that any problem will be overcome when we are able to do it better. "Can't see how it can be a cop out, unless we simply rest on our laurels hoping to be enlightened or delude ourselves we are, when we are not."
It is because it doesn't attempt to offer concrete solutions in terms of what we know. It avoids that effort. This doesn't mean it may not be how things will play out, in time, but in terms of the 'discussion' it is still a cop out.
@sethur said
"I thought it was generally known that Crowley wrote the "is forbidden" just to stop one student, possibly Norman Mudd, from sending him reams of Cabalistic gematria analysis of Liber Al. As has been pointed out, Crowley never stopped discussing it. The commandment should be seen as one of Crowley's "joke traps" for those over-literal!"
I hope this is true if only because I too will go out of my way to avoid people with this fly up their butts. As a practice it is important, but as a something shared, It just goes on forever and usually proves nothing.
But these "joke traps" are a real concern. It could just be viewed as Crowley not wanting to deal with a pest, or it can be a real trap, the discussion thing spiraling out of control as it tends to do.
Case in point. I was at a 'group event' the other night. This was my first time there, so my opinion of the experience may not be the whole story. But I was surprised to find a room full of people with silly opinions on everything, and I mean every trivial detail. Instead of being a classroom it was just an opportunity for people to pontificate on what they thought they knew. It was a total waste of time. This might have been okay if they knew what they were talking about, but they didn't. On the other hand, the moderator did know, and as far as I could tell, was in a position to relate some real understanding, but he politely allowed the whole event to fall off the bridge, because it was a discussion! I could only imagine that over the years most of the people, the talkers in the room, had ground down the edges of their intellectual/critical swords to such a degree that one doubted their ability to cut soft butter. But that didn't stop them from waving those swords around with great bravado, as if they were the greatest swordsmen of all time. In their posturing, anyone who knows the Commedia masks will readily recognize one of the most beloved clown figures, El Capitano. It would have been high comedy if it wasn't so sad. This sorry state of affairs was clearly nurtured by each one of these individuals, over many years, in the laboratory of egalitarian 'discussion.' The opportunity to have a discussion didn't improve anything, it just made things worse.
I sound totally negative here, but I don't want to be. In fact, I plan to go back to this group because I want it to work! I'm genuinely interested in learning something and deepening my connection to things spiritual!
In conclusion, anyone who wants to defend 'discussion' should be prepared to define exactly what they mean by it, or it's just a vague word that includes my example above as well as some potentially helpful activities that, while I may feel is not discussion proper, I will nonetheless probably admit has some value.
Love and Will
-
"It is because it doesn't attempt to offer concrete solutions in terms of what we know. It avoids that effort. This doesn't mean it may not be how things will play out, in time, but in terms of the 'discussion' it is still a cop out."
Surely that is the point. It argues that there are no solutions based on the criteria of what we think we know. I agree, it is easy to use the transcendental argument to sidestep to finding a 'concrete' solution. So what do we know? How do we verify what others say regarding such knowledge, whoever they may be? Discussion can only take us so far....then....?
-
For the record, I specialized in Epistemology, and the basically the problem with 'precisely' defining something is that the tighter the definition, the smaller the number of things that can be included as counting as knowledge. Trying to define things is tricky, for the answer is conditional upon the how the question is phrased. The issue is what is our goal. What do we want to know or experience? Then we can look at the various solutions others have offered, accept or reject or consign to 'don't know'. Or one, with experience and changing values and desires, finds a path that best expresses that goal for a given time. That may point beyond the individual towards the collective, or it may not. We can only do what we feel is right, however irrational or impossible it may seem. After all, if we knew we could achieve it, where would be the attraction, the desire?
-
@Atzil said
"For the record, I specialized in Epistemology, and the basically the problem with 'precisely' defining
something is that the tighter the definition, the smaller the number of things that can be included
as counting as knowledge. Trying to define things is tricky, for the answer is conditional upon the
how the question is phrased."My background is theater. I never studied Epistemology, but part of my education as a director included things like text analysis and dramaturgy. My attitude is that in describing something, the more you can describe the nitty-gritty bits that make up the whole, the better. It helps avoid commonplace platitudes, generic emotion, and general sentiment. I also believe that the more we can chop things up into their various parts the better we can talk about the actual reality we are trying to describe—only the term suffers, as well it should! The thing people are wanting to call discussion is still intact, albeit with more parts to consider. It's a mistake to identify with your words too much or you will find yourself defending something you don't believe in.
@Atzil said
"The issue is what is our goal. What do we want to know or experience? Then we can look at the
various solutions others have offered, accept or reject or consign to 'don't know'. Or one, with
experience and changing values and desires, finds a path that best expresses that goal for a given
time. That may point beyond the individual towards the collective, or it may not. We can only do
what we feel is right, however irrational or impossible it may seem. After all, if we knew we could
achieve it, where would be the attraction, the desire?"I think this is more or less what I have been pushing for the whole time. A careful reading of my previous comments will show, that while I have serious doubts about the value of discussion as a positive tool for growth, I am still open to the possibility of making it work.
As far as this discussion is concerned I guess I could simply accept that people mean something more than simple debate when they use the term, but that would be lazy. There would still be this thing that was ill-understood and that formed the basis of the entire topic.
Love and Will
-
@Atzil said
"
"It is because it doesn't attempt to offer concrete solutions in terms of what we know. It avoids that effort. This doesn't mean it may not be how things will play out, in time, but in terms of the 'discussion' it is still a cop out."Surely that is the point. It argues that there are no solutions based on the criteria of what we think we know. I agree, it is easy to use the transcendental argument to sidestep to finding a 'concrete' solution. So what do we know? How do we verify what others say regarding such knowledge, whoever they may be? Discussion can only take us so far....then....?"
When all is said and done I am a very practical person. Speaking for myself, at some point I will need to get into the rehearsal studio with a few warm bodies and awake minds and try to make it work.
Love and Will
-
wooooweee:) this topic took off in the last 12 hours or so:p
Everything that has been said in this thread is true.This isnt lip service. It is just a fact from my particular perspective.
Anyway, I think if u combine all this info in this thread into one Ideal {;)} you will understand my veiwpoint.
I think it better to veiw this as a loop that combines the vertical with the horisontal. The 93 current isnt just vertical or horisontal....its both.
-
I woke this morning, feeling a little foolish over the whole sequence of my comments, and wishing for an exit strategy.
What started as a simple opinion has turned into something both weighty and empty. This feeling is connected with the effort, not with the content of my posts.
These are the main points I wanted to make, hopefully they are expressed in an innocuous fashion:
- If you are going to discuss the book, it makes sense that everyone agree on what they mean by discuss.
- Even if you just open it up and allow a free forum where anyone can contribute whenever and whatever they want in any way they feel inclined, there should be someone watching and thinking about the relative merits of the venture, and an assessment should be made, hopefully with the intention of improving the general effort, possibly by the addition of a few simple rules, or at least with the contribution of comments meant to appeal to the better angels of the contributors.
- A clear idea of what you hope to accomplish is also a good thing to have. Something folks can be referred to, and read before jumping in.
On this last note, I think Edward has already presented a clear and admirable objective in his comments, most appropriately in his initial post. This and other bits of wisdom can be collected or restated easily enough and left to languish in a separate document.
There really is no reason not to try.
Love and Will
-
An excerpt from something I wrote many years ago. My one-and-only reentry into this subject.
"Something I consider fundamental to the religious philosophy of Thelema is that each person must, ultimately, draw his or her own conclusions as to the meaning of our scriptures. Yes, there is a level where Aleister Crowley’s reporting of the more or less “objective” meaning of the verses must be considered, because he was the channel through whom the transmission passed, the individual whose mind and vocabulary and imagery formed the menstruum for its manifestation. In short, he was the only witness! There are passages which, therefore, no one alive or dead could understand except Aleister Crowley. Furthermore, as the one person for whom the Book was most personally written — the one whose entire life was devoted to its understanding and explication — Crowley’s understanding of these verses must rank well ahead of anyone else’s. His commentaries must be regarded as the first and most important.
At the same time, the essence of these verses — the real meaning behind the words — is of Neshamah (super-consciousness). Their interpretation requires direct intuitive perception, which can only come from the individual reader. And, like the best of poetry, the ultimate meaning of these words is to be found in their impact on the soul of the reader, independent of the Author’s original intention.
It is, therefore, a commonplace “rule” that Thelemites do not tell each other what this Book means. The authority for this often paranoid avoidance of discussing The Book of the Law rests in the so-called Class A Comment which Crowley appended decades later. It advises against the study of the Book, its discussion — even against keeping it on hand and intact after the first reading.
Despite this, Crowley regularly insisted that newcomers “study often” The Book of the Law. He even ritualistically sealed these instructions in ceremonies written, or at least substantially rewritten, after “The Comment” was penned.
I must confess that I have never been at all sure that this Comment was at all Class A. [NOTE 2011: I'll be blunter now: I reject it completely as an emotional outburst. I give it no credence at all.] [...]
There is no human field that can prosper and progress if its caring and capable students are unable to exchange views with each other.
The virtue of the usual social prohibitions against discussing Liber Legis is that they resist sectarianism, philosophical tyranny, and distortion. Its condemnation is that it stultifies all sincere exchange of views and creates a ridiculous atmosphere of knee-jerk distrust."
-
Robert said:
"1. If you are going to discuss the book, it makes sense that everyone agree on what they mean by discuss.
- Even if you just open it up and allow a free forum where anyone can contribute whenever and whatever they want in any way they feel inclined, there should be someone watching and thinking about the relative merits of the venture, and an assessment should be made, hopefully with the intention of improving the general effort, possibly by the addition of a few simple rules, or at least with the contribution of comments meant to appeal to the better angels of the contributors.
- A clear idea of what you hope to accomplish is also a good thing to have. Something folks can be referred to, and read before jumping in.
On this last note, I think Edward has already presented a clear and admirable objective in his comments, most appropriately in his initial post. This and other bits of wisdom can be collected or restated easily enough and left to languish in a separate document.
There really is no reason not to try. "
Well said
Actually, now I know that you are connected to theater, your comments make a lot more sense. I had a fascinating discussion with a Brother who is also in theater on this and other subjects. He felt that he wanted, like many of us, to find a way of opening up dialogue between members of the Order by exploring through a more free-form association ritualistically, rather than a prescribed path, which very often leads to stale and tired and outworn arguments and rituals. Have you done any such workshops? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this, albeit I am a bit off topic again
Atzilut
-
"It is, therefore, a commonplace “rule” that Thelemites do not tell each other what this Book means. The authority for this often paranoid avoidance of discussing The Book of the Law rests in the so-called Class A Comment which Crowley appended decades later. It advises against the study of the Book, its discussion — even against keeping it on hand and intact after the first reading"
So what about when u are told to memorize a chapter of Liber AL?
Also I have had initiations where certain "Truths/Lies" in Liber Al was explained to me.
How does all this fit with the Comment?
-
@Frater ALLAShALLA said
"How does all this fit with the Comment?"
I dismiss the Comment entirely. I give it no value. It was an emotional outburst.
-
"I dismiss the Comment entirely. I give it no value. It was an emotional outburst."
me too:)
-
@Tone said
"The Comment talks about the Alienation one experiences from mainstream Religion and Society when exploring such a Philosophy.
"What, so it only applies in places where the last vestiges of the old aeon hold sway? I don't seem to remember being alienated from society when I began to read and discuss the Book of the Law.
"
The Book Of The Law and other Holy Books
were written for the Guardian Angel by the Guardian Angel.
For the most part these books can only be interpreted by the Incarnate (88418)
with the hindsight of the Ordeal."Then why write them down?
It's the book of the Law, and as it says "the Law is for all"
Sure, some is personal to Crowley and some is only understandable to those that have attained to certain states of consciousness. But there's plenty there to help people grow to understand something they wouldn't have otherwise. That's the point of communication.
-
"The Book Of The Law and other Holy Books
were written for the Guardian Angel by the Guardian Angel.
For the most part these books can only be interpreted by the Incarnate (88418)
with the hindsight of the Ordeal.
Many of the situations described are Personal Experiences."
Well, as you attain to the grades you are explained the mysteries of Liber Al.
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.