"faux" commentary to Liber Legis
-
93
I agree! I was just going off the sarcastic tone of AC's in the chapter of <i>Magick Without Tears</i> referred to by others previous to me.. That and what's proclaimed by those attending the Gnostic Mass which would likely be called complete heresy by the Christian conservative right wing:
THERE IS NO PART OF ME NOT A PART OF THE GODS!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Stubborn adherance to an anti-orthodox position is as unsceptical and doctrinally entrenched as its opposite. Sometimes the orthodox opinion happens to be right. Sometimes it doesn't. A heresy doesn't allow for the first of those two possibilities."
Thanks Jim!
I sometimes call myself heretic but only when certain subjects come up. The word is "loaded" and it causes a strong emotional reaction... if you happen to be far-right Christian, or far-right anything...
In any case, I totally agree with your point that sticking to one side of an argument without paying attention to what is being said, just because it is the "opposite", makes you stiff, obtuse and dull.
-
@Jim said
"Predecessors? The people who came before him?"
You can always tell when the little one [my 13 mos. old son] has kept me up at night for long hours -- I loose the ability to discern the meaning of 'pre'fixes. HA!
I do mean the successors!
-
What I thought was interesting in reading Jerry's blog is the notion that the Tunis comment might actually refer to the manuscript, rather than the typescript.
Dan
-
"What I thought was interesting in reading Jerry's blog is the notion that the Tunis comment might actually refer to the manuscript, rather than the typescript. "
Hmm.... could well be! Did you send Jerry a post inquiring into that mystery of myteries?!
-
"I loose the ability to discern the meaning of 'pre'fixes. HA! "
Ahem... I do me lose my ability. Yes, I must definitely aim for a solid 5 hours this evening, if at all possible -- new molars are a trial by fire, my friends.
-
@King of the Wolves said
"Did you send Jerry a post inquiring into that mystery of myteries?!
"Somebody did. He pointed out that in the first edition of Liber L. (and in most subsequent editions) the comment immediately follows the manuscript.
It raises some interesting possibilities. For one, the actual content of the book, the words themselves, would not be off limits. Only discussions about the reproduction of Crowley's actual scrawl would be forbidden.
Dan
-
"It raises some interesting possibilities. For one, the actual content of the book, the words themselves, would not be off limits. Only discussions about the reproduction of Crowley's actual scrawl would be forbidden. "
Now, you are aware that in the Meditation of the Day, hosted on this blog there is direct discussion of the Book of the Law. There is no off limits in what we share or discuss there -- given certain rules and regulation inherent to this list. That said, the Book of the Law is only forbidden insofar as one is not willing to trust themselves to understand themselves.
The Book of the Law is a reference on how one should live as a Thelemite. It suggests that Love is the Law and that doing what THOU [one's higher essence] wilt shall be the whole of this Law.
If you come to see that the Comment was not a Class A document, than the value of FEAR is eliminated from what one chooses to do with this tome. It is not something to be feared, or burnt. It is to be ingested, digested and its nutriments extended to the health of your being.
The Word of Sin is RESTRICTION!
"The sun is arisen; the spectre of the ages has been put to flight. ``The word of Sin is Restriction,'' or as it has been otherwise said on this text: That is Sin, to hold thine holy spirit in!
Go on, go on in thy might; and let no man make thee afraid."
-- Liber 837
-
In DUTY, our Beast writes:
"Each being is, exactly as you are, the sole centre of a Universe in no wise identical with, or even assimilable to, your own. The impersonal Universe of "Nature" is only an abstraction, approximately true , of the factors which it is convenient to regard as common to all. The Universe of another is therefore necessarily unknown to, and unknowable by, you; but it induces currents of energy in yours by determining in part your reactions. Use men and women, therefore, with the absolute respect due to inviolable standards of measurement; verify your own observations by comparison with similar judgements made by them; and, studying the methods which determine their failure or success, acquire for yourself the wit and skill required to cope with your own problems."
(my bolds- perhaps this has some relavence to the current conversation?)
93 93/93 -
@Ambrosios666 said
"....verify your own observations by comparison with similar judgments made by them; and, studying the methods which determine their failure or success, acquire for yourself the wit and skill required to cope with your own problems.
(my bolds- perhaps this has some relevance to the current conversation?) "
Excellent point of reference and something that should be a universal standard as a thelemite! As the Book of the Law states, every man and every woman is a star -- sovereign to their own universe and inherent sphere of sensation. It seems incumbent upon us to determine just what the LAW is for each of us.
Thank you for sharing that pertinent quote!
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
@hypatie said
"That is why, logically, discussions upon the contents of the Book are forbidden, for they may tempt gone-wild egos to try to establish a dogmatic meaning of the Book, which would be a blasphemy against the Law itself - And, however, "class A" material is undiscussable. "
with respect, for someone warning against dogma you seem to be suffering under a bit of it yourself.
@aum418 said
"Indeed - quite a different subject. It seems quite annoying that someone would do that. Let me guess, followers of Motta? "
snort
trust me, we Don't.
jim, i would So join your guild of centers of pestilence
i Love crowley's old and new comment on the law, but i certainly don't agree with every single thing in it. same with motta. he's usually right on as far as i'm concerned, but Some Times, heh...
@ann-claire said
"On the other hand, it was AC's certitude that this Comment was an inspired writing."
if memory serves, That's actually what qualifies something as class A material.
@michaeljwjr said
"To study a book, is to ask why, which evokes because and destroys will."
II, 30. If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought.
i would respectfully suggest looking at the rest of the instances of the word "nought" and it's close cousin "not" in the Book of the Law.
i would also point out that crowley wrote two other comments to Liber AL vel Legis, which discuss the Book of the Law line-by-line at great length. it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the "don't talk about it" argument.
@ni-verse said
"You should also burn it...
In the fire of your spiritual furnace. "ooo i Like that!
@michaeljwjr said
"Why should someone who discusses the contents of this Book be shunned as a centre of pestilence?"
"II, 25. Ye are against the people, O my chosen!"
@steven cranmer said
"There's a point at which "learning by discovery" can mean "reinventing the wheel." There's a point at which "being given the answers" (or the questions!) can mean "making progress by standing on the shoulders of giants."
The negative aspects of each extreme seem to be the "qlippoth" of the positive aspects. "
i couldn't Possibly agree with you more!
one of the screwy things about discussion is that it can turn into argument, which is a hairs breadth away from an attempt to convert.
@asraiya said
" & nor the excessive, punctuations marks;"
"The stops as thou wilt"
anyway...
Love is the law, love under will
LIHF -
"...with respect, for someone warning against dogma you seem to be suffering under a bit of it yourself. "
**Yes... does the idea of DOGMA fit into the modality of THELEMA?! **
I think not....as dogma is a 'dark poison' in the veins of those who would follow their True Will. But there are those who would argue -- and perhaps successfully, that Thelema is a dogma complete and with doctrine!
That said, dogma can be a useful signpost from which to view the Picean Age as it laps upon the shores of the Aquarian Age!
-
To me it is simply down to "Love is the law, love under will".
I can talk and i can listen, what i cant do is try to convert or even suppose that i´m necessarily "right" in any conclusions i have made.Liber Al can, like Yogic or Theurgical techniques be discussed from an intellectual standpoint (fully realising the folly of intellect).
But like any Mystery Liber Al cant be discussed in any TRUE regard.
It is a bit like the difference of reading a Ceremony of Masonry and being Initiated into Masonry, actually experiencing it.
I can teach a Yogic technique but i cant conferr the experience of Samadhi.
Mystery is by it´s very nature personal.
When it comes to Crowley, i regard him as the Prophet of 93 but i have no problem distinguishing between that office and the man.
He gave Mathers and the Golden Dawn crap despite having learned and built upon that very system. At one place he calls Jews cowardly, i find them courageous (and we are both wrong in generalizing:) ) and worst of all....an Englishman without appriciation for beer???
I think talking is fine, of anything as per Liber Oz, believing oneself an authority (for any other King) is not.
As far as study goes there is the intellectual reading and the experiencing of Liber Al, one an intellectual exercise, Ruach, the other a Mystical attainment, Neschamah.
One can be discussed but does not fully reflect the truth, the other can not be conveyed from one person to another.
"A man searching for truth is wise.
When he thinks he has found it he is a fool"Jewish proverb
-
I'm not educated enough on the Thelemic classificatory system to say anything too sophisticated about that aspect of this thread, so forgive me if I'm out of line here: but it seems to me that Crowley himself was not too rigid about classification, at least when it comes to the readings he recommends in the Introduction to Magick Without Tears, and especially when it comes to The Book of The Law. I think this quote from there suggests that the "study of this book is forbidden" clause of The Comment is not to be taken literally (as with the instruction to burn it--how many of us of actually did that?).
"I think you should have a copy of The Equinox of the Gods and make The Book of the Law your constant study. Such value as my own work may possess for you should amount to no more than an aid to the interpretation of this book (my bolds)."
Or am I missing something?