Discussing the Book of the Law
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward"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....?
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardFor 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?
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward@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
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward@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
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edwardwooooweee:) 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.
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardI 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
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardAn 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."
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
EdwardRobert 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
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward"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?
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward@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.
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward"I dismiss the Comment entirely. I give it no value. It was an emotional outburst."
me too:)
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward@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.
-
93,
Some off-the-cuff thoughts in response to questions posed by Atzilut in Magick (Detailed Questions on the Klippot, Jan 30/11):
It is all too easy to be deflected by how others choose to interpret the
Book of the Law when you are surrounded by thelemic politics I do agree that this does not
detract from the Book in its own right.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective
tool in the thelemic ideal?The majority of OTO thelamites (for example) I know do not discuss the Book, despite its apparent centrality.
There are occasional quotes, but not much else. What I ask myself is, despite what founding documents may
say etc, what does one hope to achieve in a group context, based on such a book?It never made sense to me that the Book of the Law should not be discussed. Just to recap, the warning Crowley gave was:
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. Thelema's whole stance up-ends previous societal and religious norms in the Western world, and it is nowhere near as dark at its core as it seems at first blush.
If something is forbidden to me, my knee-jerk reaction is to recall that "the only sin is restriction." And because I am here to become a (capital F) Fool, who treads into the forbidden unknown, I ignored the advice on destroying the Book. I accept that in doing so, I am challenging my own mind and its assumptions, a dire and perilous enterprise that, after many blunders, wrong turns, and other useful and important acts will, I hope, bring me to Illumination.
There are various places in the Thelemic system where poison is used as a metaphor for the corrosion and elimination of our old inhibitions and limitations. We have serpents that inject fatal venom (Liver LVX, V, v. 54) , we have the cauldron on the Art card that has the classic symbol for poison on it, and a whole lot of other symbols and imagery implying decay and illness. I see a healing crisis involved in the pestilence described in the Comment, and I think the epidemic is now well launched, and spreading. If anyone disapproves of my own attitude on this, he or she is free to shun me utterly.
Crowley's own two commentaries ignore the warnings of the Comment. Jim Eshelman published some reflections of his own at www.aumha.org/arcane/ccxx.htm, and I don't shy from quoting the Book myself at times. We are bidden to "argue not, convert not," but pestilence doesn't spread as a deliberate human act. Incidental contact does the job quite nicely.
In sum, I've always taken the Comment as a covert instruction to violate its apparent meaning.
What do see as laying beyond the fundamentalism it challenges? Do you feel it is the most effective tool in the thelemic ideal?
The Book is the starting point and the guide all the way through. It's the key tool, but it needs to be internalized more than analyzed. And it still has a lot that needs exploring. For example, we are still coming to terms with the Third Chapter, because it utterly defies a literal analysis, unless we conclude that "We need to go out and kill everyone we don't like." A short period of study of this chapter last year gave me a glimpse into what it seems to be about. In a word, I got: Joy. But I started by trying to analyze it verse by verse, and got nowhere. I had to open to it, and let what lies within the words speak to me.
Doing this reminded me of trying to read the Koran some years ago. I found that text (in English, of course) to be unbelievably boring and, simultaneously, hostile. But at a certain moment, something opened up, and I understood the Peace that Muslims say lies within their faith. The words inverted their surface meaning, and a window in the ceiling, so to speak, briefly opened.
The problem with understanding sacred texts such as the Koran and Liber L is that we try to comprehend them rationally, in terms that are acceptable to our ego-structures. I left the Koran alone because I felt (and feel) that its perspective is too limited for these times. But we are all still opening ourselves to Liber L.
So, when you ask what lies beyond the fundamentalism, the only answer I can give is: We have to discover that for ourselves, through diligent study, and disciplined spiritual practices. Crowley's, or Jim Eshelman's idea of what's there, or mine, isn't anyone else's, even if we and 666,000 other people all concur on significant points. That's where this process becomes most pestilential - the pestilence eliminates orthodoxy, or a Church to interpret it. The ultimate fundamentalism the Book reveals is the adamantine yet dynamic nature of the Star at the core of each of us, and the connections of that Star with every other one. But this has to be experienced and then lived, not merely described.
You asked what could be accomplished in a group based around the Book, and for me, the answer is: To make a good beginning. Also, since this stuff tends to drive us a little crazy, having other Stars with whom to compare notes along the way does tend to keep us from deciding we have no more beginnings to make.
93 93/93,
Edward"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.