The Book as "gold"
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"That conclusion - and my personal view that some intelligence vastly transcendent to any human personality was the source of this Book"
Jim,
93!
Are there any specific reasons that lead you to this conclusion? What does it contain that points to something other than the genious mind of Crowley? I don't disagree, but I'd like to hear your reason for this view.
-
I think you don't mean the "conclusion" mentioned at the beginning of the sentence, but the "personal view" mentioned next, yes?
Approach No. 1 to the answer:
I accept Crowley's assessment that it is vastly beyond anything he was capable of, and in many (but not all) respects inconsistent with his own writing and thinking style. Second, the Book has a philosophical cohesion and an understanding of where things were going that belies anything I can find in Crowley in the years leading up to 1904 or even for several years after.
Approach No. 2 to the answer:
I wonder if you meant the word "genius" in the casual or technical sense of the word. "Genius" is not separable from "Holy Guardian Angel" when taken at its original and literal meaning. Correct usage is not that one is a genius, but that one has a Genius. In this sense, attributing the work to Crowley's Genius is exactly the same as attributing it to "some intelligence vastly transcendent to any human personality."
-
Sorry for not being clear. Yes, I meant how did you come to the conclusion that it was of a superior source than any human personality.
As for genious, I was not using it as a synonym for HGA, but in the mundane? use:
a. Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
b. A person of extraordinary intellect and talent
c. A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140. -
JAE, 93.
This is partly a response to your own post, and partly an addition to DJHOHL's question.
"This postulate then requires accepting that the Book is invariably accurate as originally written down at the time of dictation (including the couple of places where Rose, in her capacity as Scarlet Woman, was permitted to complete the text). We can interpret it, cannibalize and Qa-babble-ize it, think this or that about it, change in our relationship to it, accept it, endorse it, reject it - in fact, do whatsoever we will and Will with it - within this basic definition that it is invariably perfect as it is."
I can imagine (more or less!) that one who can see the "ultimate sparks of the intimate fire" or even the "stones of precious water" can find something 'perfect'. But as a "copper member" I'm not really seeing even silver.
What you're proposing is a tautology. Liber L is perfect, which becomes evident when you accept it as such. I've never yet found myself able to step over the line of my own skepticism and go that far.
My pet example is Rose's famous interpolation "The five-pointed star with a circle in the middle, and the circle is red" lacks a verb to go with the subject ('five-pointed star'). This might seem hair-splitting, but Crowley, a self-professed master of English, would never have accepted that from himself, or through himself. It's the only Liber L verse I know of except for the very final one that has no verb, or no implied verb, where there should be one.
My point? That verse is 'fiddled with'. Not by much, but it is flawed. Somewhere Crowley remarks that even the smallest baby contradicts any woman's claim to virginity.
Liber L is something I think we have to spiral in upon. We start with whatever verses click, and go on to discover that many repellent passages in fact imply the opposite of their surface meaning. But I think that asserting perfection to the text confuses the planes. To the 3=8 or 2=9, maybe anything is perfect. Before that point, I think the idea of Liber L being perfect is confusing, or at least unhelpfully indigestible.
93 93/93,
Cyclops viridensis
-
Correction:
To the 3=8 or 2=9, maybe anything is perfect. Before that point, I think the idea of Liber L being perfect is confusing, or at least unhelpfully indigestible.
I'm counting backwards today. That should have been 8=3 and 9=2.
Edward
-
@DJHOHL said
"As for genious, I was not using it as a synonym for HGA, but in the mundane? use:
a. Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
b. A person of extraordinary intellect and talent
c. A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140."So, to answer the question again: I cannot conceive that any human personality or intellect thus defined was so constituted in 1904 that it could have created this Book.
-
@Edward Mason said
"My pet example is Rose's famous interpolation "The five-pointed star with a circle in the middle, and the circle is red" lacks a verb to go with the subject ('five-pointed star'). This might seem hair-splitting, but Crowley, a self-professed master of English, would never have accepted that from himself, or through himself. It's the only Liber L verse I know of except for the very final one that has no verb, or no implied verb, where there should be one."
Actually, if you look at the original manuscript, that problem is resolved. I tend to think that the published versions should read exactly as the original manuscript reads: "The shape of my star is The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red."
"Liber L is something I think we have to spiral in upon."
No arguement. (I did burn my first copy.
) -
"No arguement. (I did burn my first copy.) "
That's the best laugh I've had all week!
Thanks for sharing,
EM
-
Jim,
93!
Can you explain what the Comment means (included below for others). This is Crowley's comment or is it still considered part of the actual sacred book? And since no one actually does it, is there another meaning?
:
THE COMMENT.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
Love is the law, love under will.
The priest of the princes,
Ankh-f-n-khonsu
-
@DJHOHL said
"Can you explain what the Comment means (included below for others). This is Crowley's comment or is it still considered part of the actual sacred book? And since no one actually does it, is there another meaning?"
It's Crowley's. It isn't part of the Book.
Some - including O.T.O. upper management - regard it as Class A, the "comment" the Book itself says will come from Hadit.
I think it is an interesting short piece that I might characterize as Class C but, in any case, do not give Class A status to it. I think it should be studied for its virtue as a social commentary and intriguing bit of psychological and social engineering.
-
93 Everyone:
I'm not certain if this is relevant to this thread, but here goes anyway:
"Can you explain what the Comment means (included below for others). This is Crowley's comment or is it still considered part of the actual sacred book? And since no one actually does it, is there another meaning?
:
THE COMMENT.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.The study of this Book is forbidden."
I think of this in the light of what little I know about children (and we're all children in the light of Genius):
If you really want to (as a parent, etc.) get a child to learn and explore something, just lock it up or tell them never to touch it.
"
It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading. "
This one's easy: Jim's a very wise man! lolololol
"Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire"
The risks and perils of truly knowing one's self (or one's Self) and recognizing the need to, and actually following one's own True Will is very likely to bring the whole apparatus of one's current life right down around one's ears. I think that's pretty dire situation if one is not prepared for it.
"
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
"This should be obvious. Just imagine what your family would do if you started discuss said contents at Thanksgiving!
"All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."
I think this one has more to do with the fact that Crowley was in the process of developing a self consist system that he (and I as well) considered to be an improvement of Masonry (empty ritual due to undereducation of members), and the Golden Dawn (nepotism and incomplete initiation). Not to mention the overt synthesis of magic with yoga.
To me it seems that he simply wanted to save people a whole lot of time and trouble.
Anyway, that's how I approach the comment. He was being helpful but not too helpful.
93 93/93,
Y.S.
"
-
@Edward Mason said
"{asking Fr. Eshelman} ...there seems to me to be a question of a possible limitation of {The Book of the Law's} applicability caused by its author's own origins and character.
How do you think we should approach the idea of Crowleyan dross (both Aleister's and Rose's) in Aiwass' gold? ..."
the problems are twin and trine. "the author" is disputed, set into potential fiction, through a chorus (Ankh-n-f-khonsu, priest of the princes of ancient Egypt; Aiwass, at best a tutelary spirit and particular to the Beast; or Aleister Crowley, who made his limitations widely known by his expressions and confessions).the perspicacious extend beyond the Beast's cults and question the man's soundness of mind and character. as such, his report on the integrity and discreteness of the chorus becomes suspect. failing the confirmation of one VSL or Lawbook, another option for the King becomes the reception or invention of one's own. in response to your question of how to approach this dross-in-gold, i know of no better recommendation than "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. The word of Sin is Restriction."
-
The gross must pass through fire; let the fine be tried in intellect, and the lofty chosen ones in the highest.
@Edward Mason said
" {to Fr. Eshelman} What you're proposing is a tautology. Liber L is perfect, which becomes evident when you accept it as such. ..."
it is a common conscription device bent on predisposing the aspirant to the desired conclusions and beliefs. surely this is one of the reasons there is advocation against informing one another what any of it "really" means. by my understanding it is also an aspect of the Law of Thelema not to inform others of its "real value", even through time. BURN the book and speak not at all of it if you can't display an equivocal character to it. for you it may hold NO VALUE AT ALL. for me it may become the fulcrum of my very existence. let us remain kindred and dispute as such in any difference of opinion thereof." ...Th{e} verse {"The five-pointed star with a circle in the middle, and the circle is red" (added by Ouarda the Monkey)} is 'fiddled with'. Not by much, but it is flawed. ...."
the whole notion of flaw splays across it from beginning to end. you don't mention the intrusion of the internal processes of the Scribe to the whole event. you don't mention the parts left out for later insertion. you don't mention what Fr. Eshelman does about the resurfacing from L to Al, XXXI to CCXX. the whole of this analysis ignores the very real likelihood that any pile of trash put forward by someone with chutzpah may be taken for a far more important vehicle or revelation than it truly is, OR (more importantly) that it may serve different people in different ways. for you it may become a tar baby and trap you. for me it may become the very Sun into which I stare for constant illumination." ...asserting perfection to the text confuses the planes. To the {advanced/adepti}, maybe anything is perfect. Before that point, I think the idea of Liber L being perfect is confusing, or at least unhelpfully indigestible...."
this gives the impression, then, that perfection is actually an appearance to those who observe, or is the reality which only those of sufficient advance my realize. it does not allow for perfection to distend and break, warrant change and revision, call for action. documents like these are fluctuating in time, however slowly. their cherishers, holders, and shapers determine not only their form but their significance to their followers and readers. attributing to these inerrancy and perfection may serve the Slave Masters, but generally do cultists very little good if any as a sandal strap yoking them on to illumination.Yay, on to illumination.
-
E6
@DavidH said
" {to Fr. Eshelman} ...Can you explain what the Comment means...{? Is this} Crowley's comment or is it still considered part of the actual sacred book? And since no one actually does it, is there another meaning?"
for you, a comment on@Ankh-n-f-khons said
" THE COMMENT. ...The study of this Book is forbidden."
note the important capitalization of 'Book' here. this implies a transcendental and significantly occulted meaning.it simultaneously gives a rationalization for excluding, expelling, or otherwise distancing from those who transmute into true centres of pestilence (advocating strict and restricted meanings, dogmatizing, attempting to conscript others to their ideologies, etc., etc., through evangelizing their understanding); and it makes it possible to glorify the icon of the Book in the cults which seek to use this propaganda, ascribing it inerrancy, perfection, and all manner of unfounded escalated quality.
a secret, initiated significance to "this Book" is "this manifest Universe", and as such the rationale for its study being "forbidden" is from the paradigm of restricted conservative religion whereby the scientific principles and the laws of nature might disrupt and destroy the flimsy, and ultimately worthless blinders installed by cults in Misguided Myopic Moulding (MMM).
"It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading."
encouragement to lay waste to the idol is one of the first ordeals of the liberated. it challenges the submissive to bend beyond strict bibliolatry to a demonstration of compromise. if we can command you to destroy the cult's Magic Book then you will not try to make it your own or construct a replica. the initiated alternative is of course the am of Zen Buddhism: eradicate the plane of reason, forbid the generation of philosophy, and extinguish the intellectual flotsam which sits between you and a direct apprehension of the real."Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire."
in the wake of the Master, naturally the froth of zealous compliance will reign supreme, lambasting and castigating rebel genii. in such an environment, risk is necessarily involved. the 'direness' may equate to the actual value of striking out in dispute with cultic authorities. destroying crutches or casts has a timing and a regeneration element to it."Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence."
exascerbating the warning for rational application, ADULATION AND OBSESSION is warned against as forbidden, prating and lecturing incessantly about the real meaning (to all) is the valuably shunned. innoculating by shunning even discussion may curtail intelligence, debate, and coming to a cognizance of religious blinders and mechanisms of cultic myopia.watch out for cultic language, adulation of leaders, extraordinary powers and characteristics associated to the cultic power objects and heros, and general aggrandizement surrounding the special icons of attention. further, be wary of domination surrounding essentialities of personal life such as sleep, diet, and sex. and as a part of the initiatic understanding of 'this Book', the same applies to radical scientific idealists, promoting ridiculous metaphysical theories of Quantum Fluff Fluff, Dark Woo Woo, and Stringy Energy Balls.
"All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."
the uninitiated Slave accepts this dictation as a directive to appeal to the priest of the princes himself, or to the Beast in physique or absentia (his properly decorated stand-in). the King understands that "my writings" refer to the liberated herself, are recursive, and self-revelatory (thus turning inward to her own Lawbook).E666
-
On Gold and Dross...
This scan was taken from the last page of 'The Holy Books' published in 1910.
http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae111/alrah/5-Philosophus-AraritaVolIII_zpsea5b692e.jpg
When I asked Jerry about the missing comment from Ararita he wrote: "This comment is found only in The Holy Books Vol. III, privately printed, London, 1909/10. It was omitted from the next published version or the Sangreal Foundation, Inc., TX, 1972, p.101. When this Liber then appeared in The Equinox, Vol.III No.9, 1989 it also omitted the comment but in the beginning of the book in the section titled ‘Synopsis’, pg. xxxiv-xxxv under the notes regarding this liber it does mention the above comment and in a footnote to it, Bill Breeze adds - “These notes are unique to this edition.” "
Neither Hermetic.com nor the OTO deem this last page to be a part of the book anymore, perhaps feeling that including the original price of the work and notes to the student Philosophous that Crowley intended this work to be studied by is somewhat déclassé? I don't know as I'm not aware of any editors giving a reason for it's omission. I wonder if the new 'Holy Books' as edited by Bill Breeze contain the last page or a footnote about it?
Fun factoids: A Royal Proclamation of December 1717 fixed the value of the golden guinea at twenty-one silver shillings, or one Spanish dollar (which are colloquially and famously known from countless pirate movies as 'pieces of eight').
-
I agree that it's not part of the book. It was an editorial comment and shouldn't (for example) be thought to be part of the Class A component.
Nonetheless, I think the note is important. For Eqx III:9, I think HB did exactly the right thing - including it in the notes. When COT published a collection of these specific books mirroring the original collection, I made a point of including it (but, in that case, the intention was to mirror the original edition).
There is a similar note in the 1909 edition of Thelema for each of the other Holy Books included (65, 7, 220, 27).
-
@kasper81 said
"If I could just interject. @the +OP :Where do you see similarities in AC's personal poetry or work?. I actually don't"
Kasper, notice that the OP is from seven years ago.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I agree that it's not part of the book. It was an editorial comment and shouldn't (for example) be thought to be part of the Class A component.
Nonetheless, I think the note is important. For Eqx III:9, I think HB did exactly the right thing - including it in the notes. When COT published a collection of these specific books mirroring the original collection, I made a point of including it (but, in that case, the intention was to mirror the original edition).
There is a similar note in the 1909 edition of Thelema for each of the other Holy Books included (65, 7, 220, 27)."
In the April 10th OTO news (oto.org/news0413.html) HB wrote: "We have also developed a new edition of The Holy Books of Thelema (Equinox III(9))—currently in final proofs except for the appendices (the joys of typesetting Egyptian hieroglyphs are new to us here). This is a high priority for reissue." We shall have to hope that the new edition retains the footnote about the comment.
It's good to know there are mirrored versions of the original editions published by COT.
