Center of Pestilence
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Here is an excerpt from the intro I wrote for my online posting of my meditations on Liber L.
"I have decided to make these available to my students and other interested parties who request a copy. This action is controversial within the social, and perhaps the religious, philosophy of Thelema, and warrants some brief explanation.
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. I shall not review the historic details here, for they are lengthy and readily obtainable; but I will remark that it is abundantly clear that all-too-human grief and despair were the sponsors of its dour tether.
In any case, let me make clear that my purpose in what follows is absolutely not to tell anyone what any part of Liber Legis means to them. No one will ever receive from me a copy of this unless they first request it. Nor was it written as a "commentary," but as my own meditations - please keep that very much in mind! I didn't write this for you. I wrote it for me.
[...]
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."
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
@Redd Fezz said
"So, what do you think about the Tunis Comment?"
To propogate Thelema is to propogate a reality tunnel. All reality tunnels are false.
"The word is a lie, and the understanding darkness"
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I almost registered under the user name "Center of Pestilence" but decided against it. I have also done my best to avoid discussing Liber Al in detail.
This thread seems a good a place as any other to ask:
So, what do you think about the Tunis Comment? I trust nobody here did the "wise" thing?=========
seems to be an encouragement aimed at neophytes to develop the silence aspect of 4 powers of sphinx and thereby the other 3 powers.
-
@redd fezz said
" RE the Tunis Comment? I trust nobody here did the "wise" thing?"
see hermetic.com/legis/tunipeople take their authorities where they find them. as did many of my friends, we all did the wise thing and burned the copies we first read of Liber Al vel Legis, often on April 8, 9, or 10, after reading them. if you are enslaved by the dictates of the Master or his vehicles, then this is your karma. lecturing others on their True Wills is the Path to Hells Paved with Good Intentions. I also enjoy the thought of jmiller that it is an innoculation against fundamentalism.
" ...how serious was Crowley about "child sacrifice?" ..."
see book-of-the-law.com/#VIII12
like LaVey, post-accreditation lent power to the prose. with the Satanist it was a curse he levelled at Jayne's agent, with the Beast he apparently felt Nuit Ma Ahathoor Hecate Sappho Jezebel Lilith Crowley was a casualty of his involvement. overtly he blamed his wife, but he'd deserted her in China, after all, for his lover." ...how do you all feel about Motta?..."
my impression is that it is futile to feel about him. I am not yet profitting from his Commentary on Liber Al vel Legis, but few seem to offer the kind of line-by-line comments without entering into flowery scripture themselves. those who treat it as a whole pay insufficient attention to detail or get lost in their gematria. I preferred the expression thusfar of Heidrick, Grant and Symonds, or even of Regardie.@Shunyata said
"{RE the Tunis Comment} To {propagate} Thelema is to {propagate} a reality tunnel. All reality tunnels are false. ..."
this applies where Thelema is a dogma, doctrine, or platform of ideology, rather than a principle of personal sovereignty and social rights-support. -
I am I!
@Jim Eshelman said
" {quoting himself}...fundamental to the religious philosophy of Thelema ...each person must, ultimately, draw his or her own conclusions as to the meaning of our scriptures...."
this is always true about every scripture. were it required by all hierarchs then its significance would be greater. that you endorse it is admirable."...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."
his entire life wasn't devoted to that aim. for a good long time he knew it not, and for a period after his writing of it down he regarded it as unimportant or a peculiarity. further, his commentaries must be regarded as the first and most important FOR HIM, and for those who partake of his cult(s). any text might be "properly" interpreted with the insight of higher consciousness, and at times beasts will be chosen to transmit gems."...a commonplace "rule" that Thelemites do not tell each other what this Book means...."
cultic religious cannot help but to do so. even to install the "'rule'" is to interpret and apply according to a convention. at what level is the application being made? is the actor a King free of the floor whom only the coarse and unrefined will criticize? a Slave Maker keen on replicating her plight?" {RE the} Comment {being} Class A. ...all-too-human grief and despair were the sponsors of its dour tether."
at what point does the aspirant lock into the premises? will you accept the importance of the Beast? will you accept his estimation of Classes of documents, of the cosmic importance of the elements of his cults? will you regard as literal the implications of referents? when someone speaks of The Book of the Law, if it meant "the manifest Universe" would this change your attitude about it all? 'change not a jot or a tittle' ("Change not as much as the style of a letter") could easily imply that estimating and regarding the real is wisdom manifest, whereas denying the real is the utmost folly.qualms about influence, encouragement and stultification are those relating to uneven terrain. granted this, all expression is both a curse and a blessing. condemn it for its intrusion and curtail communication. praise it for its caution and commit the Sin of Restriction.
Oyez - The word of Sin is Restriction.
-
@redd fezz said
"So, what do you think about the Tunis Comment?"
On one level, it's a joke: at the end of the text that proclaims "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt," we encounter prohibitions. That's about as funny a joke as you're going to find.
It should be incredibly obvious that the True Will of the reader trumps the prohibition found in the Tunis Comment. The Comment itself even says, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt." Further, it instructs the reader to answer "All questions of the Law" by "appeal to [Crowley's] writings," and we know from Crowley's writings that he encouraged the study of the Book (as he does in the beginning of Magick Without Tears, and elsewhere).
So even a literal reading of the Tunis Comment commands an individual, so inclined, to study and discuss the text. It commands it no less than three times in the short space of the Comment (as compared to the one single time it apparently "forbids" it).
On another level, we might regard the Tunis Comment as stating plain fact: the principles of Thelema are "against the people," as the Book tells us, and studying and practicing Thelema is both "forbidden" in the eyes of "the people" (since they are limited by their belief in morality) and will lead to those same, small-minded people "shunning" the Thelemite.
What's clearest of all, though, is that the Tunis Comment simply does not mean, "The Book means whatever you want it to mean. Make up any ol' silly nonsense you like, never tell it to anyone, and pretend that it has something to do with Thelema."
If Thelema meant absolutely anything, then there would be no need for the Book of the Law in the first place (it would also make Thelema completely meaningless and pointless). The "each for himself" stipulation simply means that each individual has to determine for himself what actions are in line with his True Will (since each individual can only ever discover his own True Will). In order to do this, an individual would have to know what the term "True Will" means, how to go about discovering that True Will, etc. The answers to these questions are objective, and they can be determined by studying the Book and Crowley's writings, exactly as the Tunis Comment says.
The most important takeaway point is that if you seriously find yourself hesitating to do what you authentically want to do because some book has some apparent ill-defined "rule" against it, then the message of the Book of the Law has not gotten through to you yet.
-
Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!
@Los said
"On one level, {the Tunis Comment}'s a joke: at the end of the text that proclaims "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt," we encounter prohibitions. That's about as funny a joke as you're going to find."
maybe it's just confused, or maybe these 'seemingly liberating and licensing' scripture slogans are really about doing the Will of God and no other."It should be incredibly obvious that the True Will of the reader trumps the prohibition found in the Tunis Comment."
I don't know why that is the case. usually the True Will isn't supposed to interfere with orbits. what about the orbit of the Tunis Comment? maybe this is the Will of Aiwass or Nuit and the rest."The Comment itself even says, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.""
sure, but that might mean that you shouldn't do anything except what Jesus (or Ateh) wants you to do."Further, it instructs the reader to answer "All questions of the Law" by "appeal to [Crowley's] writings,""
only if you equate Crowley to Ankh-n-f-khonsu."and we know from Crowley's writings that he encouraged the study of the Book (as he does in the beginning of Magick Without Tears, and elsewhere)."
he was in some measure self-promoting. you'd have to buy his book (/Book?) and magnify his influence if you studied it."So even a literal reading of the Tunis Comment commands an individual, so inclined, to study and discuss the text."
the Book, as you term it, also says "talk not overmuch!" funny thing, that -- to whom is it directed? should we take all officious commandeers as our fearless leaders? do we have loyalty oaths to Ankh?"It commands it no less than three times in the short space of the Comment (as compared to the one single time it apparently "forbids" it)."
fine, and why shouldn't i burn that and disobey it with impugnity?"On another level, we might regard the Tunis Comment as stating plain fact: the principles of Thelema are "against the people," as the Book tells us, and studying and practicing Thelema is both "forbidden" in the eyes of "the people" (since they are limited by their belief in morality) and will lead to those same, small-minded people "shunning" the Thelemite."
strongly agreed. kinda like a statement of fact. then the question is: so do you want to be the one who takes it on the authority of this faceless 'self-slain' wonder for shunning people because they mentioned (discussed!) your holy book? or do you find it enjoyable to analyze the offal out of every scripture including your own and have no problems getting obsessed with and evangelizing on it?"What's clearest of all, though, is that the Tunis Comment simply does not mean, "The Book means whatever you want it to mean. Make up any ol' silly nonsense you like, never tell it to anyone, and pretend that it has something to do with Thelema.""
arguably it is far more problematic and nefarious than that, since it sets up a new priesthood to tell you "This is how you should be reading and understanding the writings of the prophet - here, read it for yourself and agree! Oh, by the way, don't discuss it with anybody, they'll shun you and so will I.""If Thelema meant absolutely anything, then there would be no need for the Book of the Law in the first place (it would also make Thelema completely meaningless and pointless). The "each for himself" stipulation simply means that each individual has to determine for himself what actions are in line with his True Will (since each individual can only ever discover his own True Will)."
some of the concern about such commands or whatever you want to call them is that cults benefit from isolated, groundless participants, gullible and susceptible to outrageous fables and boasts by their manipulating leaders. so instructions to "figure it out yourself", especially for survivors of fundie Christian sects who may be reacting against these sects by seeking out quasi- or proto-Satanists, while still bereft of critical reasoning skills, and wholly unprepared for those who may take advantage of their naivete, seem a little irresponsible or unrealistic for some of those likely to encounter it."In order to do this, an individual would have to know what the term "True Will" means, how to go about discovering that True Will, etc. The answers to these questions are objective, and they can be determined by studying the Book and Crowley's writings, exactly as the Tunis Comment says."
these articles of faith are disputed. they aren't objective in any clear sense. you can't photograph or measure them, you cannot record them in devices. people may attest to varying referents for them and there's little to no means of distinguishing amongst the contenders. like 'true love', it is romantic and effectively baseless aside from an appeal to emotion and ego. witness Napoleon: It is my true will to demolish your city! (Huh! Must have been! He did it!)"The most important takeaway point is that if you seriously find yourself hesitating to do what you authentically want to do because some book has some apparent ill-defined "rule" against it, then the message of the Book of the Law has not gotten through to you yet."
except what you think you may authentically want to do could be just a flimsy whim (puny!). then you shouldn't trust it, and should look further into the cult and its Book for answers (Answers!). I think that the most important takeaway point is that there may be something useful that is called True Will, and someday, maybe, someone will explain why it is valuable and then, maybe, even give you some reliable method to identify, locate, and adhere to it.For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.
-
@Los said
"The most important takeaway point is that if you seriously find yourself hesitating to do what you authentically want to do because some book has some apparent ill-defined "rule" against it, then the message of the Book of the Law has not gotten through to you yet."
I agree with this mostly, except I don't think the comment is ill-defined, I think it is very well worded. I see it acting as a filter, anyone who can't wield sharp enough discrimination and relate it to the text it's attached to has, as you suggest, not absorbed the message of the Book. Anyone who is looking for a book to follow slavishly should burn it and forget about Thelema until they can stand on their own two feet.
-
One thing I would like to point out, is the comment says "discuss the book of the law", implying not merely some comment on it, but a back and forth communication between two or more people, creating a community of people discussing the book of the law. As, a result, no one is being shunned by all, by virtue of the fact the members of this community are speaking to one another.
-
@Frater Horus said
"Verily everything is true."
Indeed.
But not everything is useful.
-
In '98-ish, I wrote a research paper in a cultural anthropology course called Magic, Witchcraft, & Religion where I explored the Tunis Comment (how ironic is that?) and decided it just meant understanding The Book of The Law is a non-verbal, ineffable, intuitive, archetypal, meditative type of thing. You can try all you want to make sense of it with logic, reason and language (and probably even math), but, ultimately, it's comprehension is a "mystical" process.
-
@Los said
"The most important takeaway point is that if you seriously find yourself hesitating to do what you authentically want to do because some book has some apparent ill-defined "rule" against it, then the message of the Book of the Law has not gotten through to you yet."
I'm inclined to agree with this, but I'm not certain it's the most important takeaway point.
-
@landis said
"
@Shunyata said
"All reality tunnels are false."
Including the reality tunnel that views all reality tunnels as false?"to quote another holy book (Liber Principia Discordia
)"All reality tunnels are true in some sense, false in some sense, and mysterious after another sense all together"
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
@landis said
"
@Shunyata said
"All reality tunnels are false."
Including the reality tunnel that views all reality tunnels as false?"to quote another holy book (Liber Principia Discordia
)"All reality tunnels are true in some sense, false in some sense, and mysterious after another sense all together""
That's obvious. [to some]
-
**pes·ti·lence **
noun
1.
a deadly or virulent epidemic disease.
2.
bubonic plague.
3.
something that is considered harmful, destructive, or evil.From the viewpoint of the old Aeon, we are the disease, destroying it. We are viewed as "evil", "satanic". We become Hadit, a "center" of this change, this destructive power of the new Aeon. So, for those who get it, we should totally DISOBEY the comment. Be part of the epidemic!
-
@Jason R said
"**pes·ti·lence **
*nouna deadly or virulent epidemic disease.
2.
bubonic plague.
3.
something that is considered harmful, destructive, or evil.*From the viewpoint of the old Aeon, we are the disease, destroying it. We are viewed as "evil", "satanic". We become Hadit, a "center" of this change, this destructive power of the new Aeon. So, for those who get it, we should totally DISOBEY the comment. Be part of the epidemic!"
Now you get me!
"You're saying 'centre of pestilence' like it were a bad thing."
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... -