A Petition on please-do-not-change-the-book-of-the-law
-
@kasper81 said
"
@Uni_Verse said
"I can not help but question the motives for the change..."I know it's one of those "huh???!!" moments"
No matter what happens, he will always be the man who proposed the change. Always. There are a great many people who rather than create their own master piece are more than willing to tag their names to the works of others.
-
Isn't the work in the public domain?
From that point of view, I don't care what OTO decides to do with stuff they print. It doesn't affect me.
That said, I think its really dumb and presumptuous. Whether one defines the change as a correction, or a mistake, its still a change. And no one has the authority to change.a Class A document. Plus there's the whole vowing to accept Liber Al without wishing to change it...
I didn't sign the petition, because I reject the idea that OTO owns Liber Al.
-
" I didn't sign the petition, because I reject the idea that OTO owns Liber Al."
I agree completely. It's not EVERY copy, it's theirs. I reject that their copy as mine, and if I see a Liber L with the change, I won't buy it etc. In addition, as long as this group is headed by those who make such decisions, I will refuse to ever participate in their order. I think it's a shame they found it wise to make this change.
-
@Jason R said
"I agree completely. It's not EVERY copy, it's theirs. I reject that their copy as mine, and if I see a Liber L with the change, I won't buy it etc. In addition, as long as this group is headed by those who make such decisions, I will refuse to ever participate in their order. I think it's a shame they found it wise to make this change."
The problem here is that the OTO publications tend to get the most circulation in the market, therefor quite likely tampering with the first experiences of many. Seems an act without taste
-
That's inevitable. An exoteric religion always calcifies around an esoteric core, simultaneously guiding people toward, and protecting people from, an inner truth.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"That's inevitable. An exoteric religion always calcifies around an esoteric core, simultaneously guiding people toward, and protecting people from, an inner truth."
Wow. So, by certain definition, does that make William Breeze a Black Brother?
-
I didn't mean that disparagingly. The OTO in general has, in my opinion, been jockeying to represent the more exoteric side of Thelema for a while. They're better known, they attract a lot of people new to Thelema, magick, Crowley, etc. It's not a role I'd want to be in, but someone has to do it, I guess...
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"That's inevitable. An exoteric religion always calcifies around an esoteric core, simultaneously guiding people toward, and protecting people from, an inner truth."
Inevitable if it's allowed be perpetuated... Petitions such as this thankfully seek to address that problem and keep the integrity of the information alive.
-
Any one else try the ritual both ways? I have noticed a difference. I feel that using fill is the better option, especially printed in the BOTL. There was a reason Crowley did not change it.
-
Well, as long as the original text is always available as a photocopy in any LA book, the issue will resolve itself, and any future readers be able to judge for themselves if any given "translation" of the original handwriting is revisionist history or not, am I overlooking something?
-
@Simon Iff said
"Well, as long as the original text is always available as a photocopy in any LA book, the issue will resolve itself, and any future readers be able to judge for themselves if any given "translation" of the original handwriting is revisionist history or not, am I overlooking something?"
From a practical mystical standpoint, it could potentially be much more difficult to encourage an aspirant to approach Liber Legis from that state of mind in which even the accidental "style of a letter" may carry significance (i.e. may not be truly accidental) when, from the beginning, the aspirant is taught that "well, this one part was wrong and had to be corrected."
-
@Simon Iff said
"Well, as long as the original text is always available as a photocopy in any LA book, the issue will resolve itself, and any future readers be able to judge for themselves if any given "translation" of the original handwriting is revisionist history or not, am I overlooking something?"
This is the key, and why it is written into the Book as a self-reference. It cannot be changed. Those that would try are misguided and delusional, possibly even motivated by forces that would deny the True Will. It is mathematically perfect in every way.
It is absolutely essential that every student study the handwritten manuscript and regard it as the authority of the Book. Beyond this, every student should transcribe into their own notebook The Book of the Law in its entirety. And this sacred Book that is made is the beginning of the end, not the end of the beginning.
-
@P is for Pomegranate said
"
@Jason R said
"I agree completely. It's not EVERY copy, it's theirs. I reject that their copy as mine, and if I see a Liber L with the change, I won't buy it etc. In addition, as long as this group is headed by those who make such decisions, I will refuse to ever participate in their order. I think it's a shame they found it wise to make this change."The problem here is that the OTO publications tend to get the most circulation in the market, therefor quite likely tampering with the first experiences of many. Seems an act without taste
"Good point. Ill sign lol.
-
@Bereshith said
"...filioque...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
"My worst fear is that it is meant to be point fully divisive
-
It's poor textual criticism. The goal of textual criticism is to get as close as possible to the original document. But we have the original document. Not only that, but AC lived like forty years after introducing the OTO to the text of the Law and never changed it before he died. In fact, the complete opposite is true. He made members of the AA take oaths based on not changing it at all.
Based on the above, any claim that the change is what AC intended to do... You just can't successfully make that argument. In practice, he emphatically opposed changing it, no matter what the "correct" "translation" of the poem says in a non-Liber Legis manuscript.
If someone is arguing that AC refused changing the manuscript for about 40 years but should have made the change, I'd say that they were lost in the Game.