Required Acceptance of the Law?
-
@nderabloodredsky said
"How do you support that argument? "
I've been over this many times in other threads of this forum.
"How do you negate Crowley's statement above, number 4?"
I simply disagree with him. The fact that he gave it unusual importance doesn't mean that it, in fact, deserved it.
"How do you compare "Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire" with "Really, don't spill water on your keyboard if you can help it"??"
You're right - the second sentence you quote is much more important and sensible. The first one is just a silly scare tactic birthed from a morose mind at the time of a personal tragedy.
-
@Middleman said
"Fear is the word of Restriction. DCLXVI is the terror that sayeth: "Fear not.""
Agreed.
But their is fear, and then there is respect. I don't fear fire, guns or other tools, but I respect them.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@nderabloodredsky said
"How do you support that argument? "I've been over this many times in other threads of this forum.
"How do you negate Crowley's statement above, number 4?"
I simply disagree with him. The fact that he gave it unusual importance doesn't mean that it, in fact, deserved it.
"How do you compare "Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire" with "Really, don't spill water on your keyboard if you can help it"??"
You're right - the second sentence you quote is much more important and sensible. The first one is just a silly scare tactic birthed from a morose mind at the time of a personal tragedy."
O.K. I will suspend my judgement and look for the older threads. I agree there is no point in repeating yourself if the answers are just a search away. Thanks.
-
As has been pointed out many times, the "short commentary" was written primarily to stop Norman Mudd from boring Crowley to death by sending him reams of Cabalistic analysis of Liber Al. Crowley himself hardly failed to discuss the book after writing the comment.
-
really what does it mean to accept the book of the law.
Ch. 1) The other exists, we are all part of the continuous whole and Self has the ability to unite with the Other, in an egoless Samadhi. (just accept this as an acceptable hypothesis, something worth attempting to experience)
Ch 2) The self exists, each self has its own perspective awareness, and each self has its own unique relationship to all other points, which are also self-aware and those which are not self aware. The Realization here is that all points of perspective are valid expressions of the cosmic continuous whole derived from Nuit. (accept than you have a self awareness and so do others, and each is unique and yet all are intrinsically correct)
Ch 3) That the action of the self needs no regulation from moral codes and guides, that we can not universalize moral codes, but rather the dynamic tension between Nuit and Hadit, creates a subject specific orbit of expression or WILL. That as Hadit and nuit relate a child is born, and grown with each experience. The SELF. That this self is two fold the active loud voice of the conscious mind, and the silent inner mind that guide with subtle cues, emotional states, dream images, etc. That to grow we must also grow balanced, so that both aspects of the inner child are fulfilled by our actions. (be willing to accept that every experience is a learning exercise and be willing to accept that if you try to learn from your past experiences, (successes and failures) you can better predict and design actions, behaviors, and personality characteristic than will promote more success and less failures in the future)
This is all accepting the book of the law really amounts to in essence.
- the world exists and I am one with it
- I exist as part of the world, and so does everyone else
- I can choose to learn from my own mistakes and grow in my own way, without imposed restrictions so called, "for my own good"
What is good for me is to be left to act freely and learn my own powers and limits in my own right.
-
@sethur said
"As has been pointed out many times, the "short commentary" was written primarily to stop Norman Mudd from boring Crowley to death by sending him reams of Cabalistic analysis of Liber Al. Crowley himself hardly failed to discuss the book after writing the comment."
Ouch - I'm not so sure about that. I doubt anything Crowley did or said, especially in a context like Liber AL, is quite so throwaway. Generally speaking (not absolutely invariably of course, but generally, as a rule of thumb), there's usually at least two meanings to everything he says (an overt and common meaning, perhaps intellectual, and an initiated meaning that only becomes apparent if you're of an appropriate "Grade" of understanding yourself).
The Comment is, I think, quite subtle. As I see it, it's meant to "catch" people at different levels of development, and provide a challenge to their undertsanding of "Do what thou wilt".
For example "it is wise ..." might be absolutely appropriate for, say, a committed Christian who should happen to read the book. It's like it presents a little conundrum for them ("Hmm, what the hell does he mean by that? Why should I do what he says?") Some will ignore the conundrum and just obey the command. But should they?
Same for the rest of the Comment. Horses for courses.
It's a bit like that bit in Life of Brian when Brian tells the crowd "you're all individuals", and they shout back, as one man "We're all individuals!"
-
93,
Hmmn. I consider myself fundamentally Thelemic. Not because I intellectualized it and decided to glue-stick that label to myself. Simply because I realized at one point that was my nature. It's less a decision than a recognition.
Honestly some days I wish the whole of Thelema was a lot less weird and obscure. Then again I wish that about a good deal of my inner life a good deal of the time.
I do not necessarily consider Liber al vel Legis a doctrine I must follow or believe the words = Truth. In Crowley's reality it might have been. Whether that is my Truth is a different question. I feel that I and probably a zillion people contain some part of the energy that used to be AC but his/our/their writing, that was then. This is my life now and I have a distinct path. He lived his own life, I get to live mine. Edited to add: I actually do consider the book profound and I'm sure there's much more I'll get when I understand more. My point is that I think if I choose to accept this it is about my acceptance and understanding, and it is a conscious choice, not a 'morally obligatory' responsibility to 'recite doctrine' just because someone else tells me it's required I believe a certain thing.
I've had a lot of esoteric experiences related to Liber al. When I first encountered it, after awhile I had a lot of incredible draw to it, heart-chakra intensity, like I loved it so much it hurt, I slept with it (!) holding it against my chest, waking up in the middle of the night with lines of it running through my tranced-out head and geometries inside me spelling out fundamental meanings of Truth in it that had only bare relationship to anything words could possibly say.
I concluded the more Truth there was underlying it, the more everything it said on the surface was de facto a lie. A collection of flotsam arrow-pointers to Something Else, but that collection could be constructed in many ways. I don't feel morally or otherwise obliged to use that collection as that part is a bit arbitrary and individual to AC.
The Truth fundamental that it points to is the real point of it all. That part I accept to the best of my personal allowance, which is the whole path of me and what I work on ever-expanding.
The one thing I do consider fundamental to Thelema is that the idea of having to accept anybody else's doctrine is ridiculous. You know what, I think all that stuff about Mary in III ought to be applied just as much to every other Officialized Doctrinal Deity. Replacing one book doctrine with another is, like much of the occult, just as much a uniform as that which it allegedly rejects. (Then again, that reptilian part of my brain really LIKES uniforms, drum corps marching bands, etc. ;-))
I accept that Liber al represents one (of possibly many) inspired version(s) of "a pointer toward a greater Truth -- and a path for all of mankind and the individual toward it." Whether that matches what others call Thelemic is just their word-definition test for their filter on reality. It doesn't relate to my own spiritual ISness, you might say.
All that being said, I "conveniently" quote it now and then in small pieces I like best as surface words, and I often consider deeper meanings in it I had not previously thought about. I do see it as an insightful tool and I respect that people choose to study this as their doctrine. I simply consider the entire concept of "doctrine about Truth and genuine spiritual Freedom" to be, fundamentally, an oxymoron.
93 93/93.
RC -
@Middleman said
"I've done all my homework on the different lineage histories, does anyone know which branch of the A.'.A.'. is the least dogmatic about the BOTL?"
that dept. of the Great White Brotherhood which has NO CLUE what a Crowley or a Book of the Law is. outlets in many major non-English cities. they are A.'.A.'. of a side-step. -
@nigris said
"
@Middleman said
"I've done all my homework on the different lineage histories, does anyone know which branch of the A.'.A.'. is the least dogmatic about the BOTL?"
that dept. of the Great White Brotherhood which has NO CLUE what a Crowley or a Book of the Law is. outlets in many major non-English cities. they are A.'.A.'. of a side-step."You seem fond of necroposting nigris... check out the dates on the threads you're replying to!
-
nigris like zombie
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@nderabloodredsky said
"The Comment says not to discuss it and that those who do will be shunned as centres of pestilence. I am surprised how many people disregard this and the injunction to refer matters to the writings of Crowley. Of course that is not surprising, when Gems doesn't even include it."Similarly, we don't include it in any copies we publish or circulate. It's not part of Liber Legis per se.
Also, I place no significance on it whatsoever beyond the level of "this could be smart advice in many situations.""
I also looked at the comment sort of like a key to understanding how a lot of the teaching process works in Liber Al and even Crowleyanity at large. When I got this I can't believe I didn't see the significance of it before - and it's kind of funny in a zen like manner.
The comment begins with literally the core teaching of Liber Al - "DO WHAT THOU WHILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW!" - and then immediately after that forbids you to do something!
In this regard to me the comment holds a special alchemical significance.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
I also looked at the comment sort of like a key to understanding how a lot of the teaching process works in Liber Al and even Crowleyanity at large. When I got this I can't believe I didn't see the significance of it before - and it's kind of funny in a zen like manner.The comment begins with literally the core teaching of Liber Al - "DO WHAT THOU WHILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW!" - and then immediately after that forbids you to do something!
In this regard to me the comment holds a special alchemical significance."
Not to mention that being a "centre of pestilence" isn't necessarily a "bad thing." THE XTIANS TO THE LIONS!
