THE COMMENT
-
ADP 93,
"Crowley hated the Bible, the Book of the Law, God and the Gods. "
Huh??????
You should not mistake your own enthusiasm for extensive knowledge of what you are talking about.
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Ave de Prata said
"I am glad to know that you was a minister at a fundamentalist church in your youth. This will make easier for you to be a Thelemite. Thelemites are Fundamentalists as well - at least the members of the A.´.A.´. - just the book is different. "
Actually, the core story of my spiritual journey up until my thirties involves the long process of being freed from the obscurantism, historical inaccuracy, and intellectual dishonesty of the Fundamentalist interpretation of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. The story of the last 6 years involves being freed from the all the indoctrinated repression of self. You think I wanna go backwards? lol... no.
@Ave de Prata said
"You may keep your fundamentalist belief in Bible as well together with a fundamentalist belief in the Book of the Law. This probably will help you to solve a lot of questions. You will see that there is just minor conflicting points between these books. In this case, being a Thelemite, the Book of the Law must prevail. "
See, I'm relatively new to occultism and very new to the Law. But now you're speaking in my field.
Okay... You have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds like you're just making stuff up that you wish were true. The thing I can't really figure out, however, is if you are playing an elaborate practical joke in the vein of Stephen Colbert, or if you really do believe *everything *you say.
@Ave de Prata said
"Don´t forget that to be a Fundamentalist means to take literally the chosen book, not to hear about what other Fundamentalists are saying.
It is just the person, the chosen book and the God(s). "
No it's not. It's the person, the chosen book, the God, and the rules of literalist interpretation - that last one goes hand in hand with Fundamentalism by your own admission. And you, my friend, just tried to suggest to me that I should believe that from the big bang to the first humans took 6 literal days, that Adam and Eve got barred from a literal garden for eating a literal fruit, and that the entire population of the earth was sired by Noah, builder of the Ark and rescuer of all life on Earth during the Global Flood, which literally took place circa 2343 BCE.
That's with a literal interpretation of only the first 8 chapters of the Hebrew Scriptures. It's like you're assuming complete familiarity with an entire field of study because something felt really true, not ever actually examining the practical reality of your own claims.
The problem with the vast majority of Christian Fundamentalists is that they don't know what the Scriptures actually say. The just* want* it all to be able to be literally interpreted.
They just want something to be true so bad - they want so badly for interpretation to be easily wrapped in a nice pretty bow, understandable in terms of the lowest common denominator - that they believe it without critical examination. [cough]
@Ave de Prata said
"
@Frater_AVV said
"There are so many different ways that you can take that comment. And each of them seems perfectly true, or perfectly devilish, in its own context. Personally, I think whether it's read with a tear in the eye or a twinkle, it's a dead on interpretation. "I don´t see that way. Or it is true or false. In the case I have proved that it is false, since it conflicts with the Book of the Law. The members of the A.´. A.´. acknowledge my analisys as true, since they are Fundamentalist Thelemites like myself."
Yes, categorical thinking is a major impairment of fundamentalist thought.
Members of the A.'.A.'. may acknowledge your analysis as true, but let's not assume it's because they think like you do. That's like saying, "They agree with me that water is wet because they are all fish like me." Any imbecile could confirm your logic. It's quite plain to see. The mystery is why in the world you personally need that particular expression of logic. And why in God's name you would need anyone to acknowledge it as true for you.
Ave, you seem like a good guy... I guess you're a guy.... anyway... you seem to have really good control of your emotions, and I can respect that because I don't really. That earns a different kind of points with me. But, seriously, some of your statements are so far out of line with reality as it exists "on the ground" that you sometimes seem to be playing a ruse and attempting to insult our intelligence. It all sounds like a bunch of stuff you read somewhere that you wish all made complete sense together. Only, it doesn't.
I think maybe occult life and thought is simply messier and much more full of human frailty and error, and even deception, than you'd prefer.
-
@Frater_AVV said
"Ave, you seem like a good guy... I guess you're a guy.... anyway... you seem to have really good control of your emotions, and I can respect that because I don't really. That earns a different kind of points with me. But, seriously, some of your statements are so far out of line with reality as it exists "on the ground" that you sometimes seem to be playing a ruse and attempting to insult our intelligence. It all sounds like a bunch of stuff you read somewhere that you wish all made complete sense together. Only, it doesn't.
I think maybe occult life and thought is simply messier and much more full of human frailty and error, and even deception, than you'd prefer."
I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but Ave really entertains me a lot! i mean usually you have to pay for this much entertainment!:bounce: his enthusiasm is endearing & Child-like, his personality is very vibrant, such youthful exuberance is like a breath of fresh air amongst dead furniture and cadavers set with Rigor mortis.
Ironically there seems to me, to be a genuine point of view somewhere in his ramblings, and brief manifestations of logic, however, that increasingly gets obscured by diversions, over enthusiasm, and unsubstantiated irrelevant intuitive mythology, besides a lack of systematic presentation;his first few posts seem usually to be ok then all of a sudden 
no more "Dr Jekyll" some type of weird momentum takes over and he tends to get ahead of himself, the line between his "subjective reality" and a more objective view/presentation becomes increasingly blurred for him, as is the way others may view his well intended dissertations(er..I mean "cut & paste-tions"). My advice to you Ave would be "Slow Down" stop speeding, and try to find a bridge between your "subjective inclinations" and some type of "general objectivity", concentrate on the few ideas you have that are well developed enough to be presentable in a coherent format, at least in a general forum such as this. Try to separate your well researched opinions from your fantastic daydreams, which should remain private...at least for now, if you want to be taken seriously, although personally I enjoy them!! (In other words hold off on the Alice Bailey & Mother- Ships, and concentrate on your gripes with "The Beast":idea: ):mrgreen: 
-
@Ave de Prata said
"
@Shunyata said
"@ ADP:
Your "analysis" doesn't really seem to say anything at all. It is irrelevant that the book doesn't say anything about not studying itself. If it was written in the book then there would be no need for the comment.
"Yes, it proves that the Comment is false. At least for the Fundamentalist Thelemites like the members of the A.´.A.´. and myself.
The Book of the Law DO SAY much thing on the STUDY of the book.
Don´t seems strange to you that a book which came claiming to be the source of instruction for all mankind for the New Aeon, centuries, and its study is clearly pointed in the book itself, and then 21 years later a new regulamentation comes forbidding its study ?
The need for the comment was just to avoy gross misinterpretation, as I have shown above. Crowley`s commentaries - not the Comment - were in right track, albeit they could have been more sucint, Crowley disgressed a lot.
The problem arouse by Crowley´s misunderstanding of the aim of the comment, he thought he had to explain fully the book.
Then in a outburst of frustration after many years trying to solve its enigmas he issued the Comment in 1925 e.v.
In the introduction of Book Four this is explained.The Comment thus is not fruit of Divine Inspiration like the Holy Books, but of Crowley´s frustration.
Crowley was not able to produce a sactisfatory comment because he loathed some passages of the book, as he says in introduction of Book Four, and actually the whole Third Chapter. How could he get the wisdom from Ra-Hoor-Khuit to write the comment if he hated that God ? This was the main reason for his failure in producing the comment.
Crowley hated the Bible, the Book of the Law, God and the Gods.
But Thelema is the Law of Love, this was the reason for his failure in his mission."I think we can all agree you have no frickin' clue what you are talking about (new poll?)
IAO131
-
It is my firm belief (note that I do not say it is a fact or true) that the Tunis comment is a brilliant and subtle test of the reader. I find it very interesting that it is placed *after *and not *before *the text of the Book of the Law, for instance.
Dan
-
I completely agree... in my own way, of course.
To the person who is not intellectually or spiritually ready for the kind of changes that struggling with the Book of the Law will create in them, this serves as a completely literal warning. It should scare the hell out of them, and they should go occupy their lives with something else. "Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds."
To the person who is ready to look beyond outward appearances, it is obviously the voice of that old Trickster who riddles and speaks the truth of seeming paradoxes.
My take on it, anyway.
Peace.
-
@Aum418 said
"
@Ave de Prata said
"
@Shunyata said
"@ ADP:
Your "analysis" doesn't really seem to say anything at all. It is irrelevant that the book doesn't say anything about not studying itself. If it was written in the book then there would be no need for the comment.
"Yes, it proves that the Comment is false. At least for the Fundamentalist Thelemites like the members of the A.´.A.´. and myself.
The Book of the Law DO SAY much thing on the STUDY of the book.
Don´t seems strange to you that a book which came claiming to be the source of instruction for all mankind for the New Aeon, centuries, and its study is clearly pointed in the book itself, and then 21 years later a new regulamentation comes forbidding its study ?
The need for the comment was just to avoy gross misinterpretation, as I have shown above. Crowley`s commentaries - not the Comment - were in right track, albeit they could have been more sucint, Crowley disgressed a lot.
The problem arouse by Crowley´s misunderstanding of the aim of the comment, he thought he had to explain fully the book.
Then in a outburst of frustration after many years trying to solve its enigmas he issued the Comment in 1925 e.v.
In the introduction of Book Four this is explained.The Comment thus is not fruit of Divine Inspiration like the Holy Books, but of Crowley´s frustration.
Crowley was not able to produce a sactisfatory comment because he loathed some passages of the book, as he says in introduction of Book Four, and actually the whole Third Chapter. How could he get the wisdom from Ra-Hoor-Khuit to write the comment if he hated that God ? This was the main reason for his failure in producing the comment.
Crowley hated the Bible, the Book of the Law, God and the Gods.
But Thelema is the Law of Love, this was the reason for his failure in his mission."I think we can all agree you have no frickin' clue what you are talking about (new poll?)
IAO131"
on the contrary i think this is the only interesting aspect of what Ave has got to say, as far as bearing relation to "Thelema" in general, the rest is not immediately relevant. if Ave had not completely tarnished his credibility as a reasoning individual, i would have asked him to elaborate on this point and this point only if some people are able to accept or appreciate that conclusion based on some type of evidence, then he might get some ears. what he then chooses to do with those ears is another matter, if he continues to overwhelm with quantity rather than quality, then he will have a following that reflects that, I doubt if he will find many here!?
-
@ar said
" I find it very interesting that it is placed *after *and not *before *the text of the Book of the Law, for instance.
Dan"
This Dan, I think is the most significant fact in determining the intention behind THE COMMENT
-
@Shunyata said
"
@jw. said
"Are you familiar with the concept of a kōan?"
Are you? Clearly(correct me if I'm wrong) you see them as riddles. They are not. Koans are examples from the past of interactions involving people who are awake."
I understand kōan to be a statement or dialogue from a teacher which is supposed provoke a certain degree of awakening in the mind of a student when meditated upon.
-
@jw. said
"
@Shunyata said
"@jw. said
"Are you familiar with the concept of a kōan?"
Are you? Clearly(correct me if I'm wrong) you see them as riddles. They are not. Koans are examples from the past of interactions involving people who are awake."
I understand kōan to be a statement or dialogue from a teacher which is supposed provoke a certain degree of awakening in the mind of a student when meditated upon."
Reading my comment now, it seems a little pointed and rude. I hope I didn't offend you.
Your statement is mostly correct. -
"By perceiving that in Bible, although literally true, IT WAS BEING USED A FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
"The words you are looking for are "Divinely inspired," not "literal."
You believe the Hebrew Scriptures contain Divinely inspired Truth, but are not historically factual.
Your entire speech above does nothing but demonstrate you do not know the meaning of the word "literal."
If it says "day" and means "a 24 hour period," then the meaning is "literal."
If it says "day" and means "an immense period of time," then the meaning is "figurative."
In this context, the meanings of the words are mutually exclusive.I'm sorry, but nothing could demonstrate to me so clearly and definitively that you aren't as familiar with what you're preaching as you'd like to be.