lashtal.com
Writer - The provenance of The Book of the Law
MichaelStaley - Mar 13, 2006 - 08:54 PM
Post subject: The provenance of The Book of the Law
I would be interested to know some of the different views on Liber AL vel Legis. I accept its praeternatural provenance, but I do not accept it as a revealed text every word of which is holy writ. In particular, important to the transmission of AL though he was, I do not accept Crowley's position as Prophet.
We each of us come to terms with AL in our own way, and it is the initiated understanding of the Thelemite - an insight which is not static but dynamic, not being but going - which constitutes the fourth chapter.
frater_anubis - Mar 15, 2006 - 09:15 PM
Post subject:
Greetings
The provenance of Liber Al....my view is that the Book of the Law was received by AC as described by him in detail in The Equinox vol III no III, on the 8th 9th & 10th April 1904. I also accept a praeternatural provenance, but I usually think of "praeternatural" as "alien". Consequently it follows that the information or message contained in Liber Al is of importance and is very probably revelatory.
AC's advice, given in later years, was to read it once and destroy it, to interpret it each to him/herself and to settle questions of interpretation by reference to his other writings. This suggested to me long ago that AC felt that reading Liber Al carefully once opens a channel which allows understanding of the underlying message, but each in his or her own way of interpretation.
As far as AC as Prophet goes, some of the time i dont think he was, and some of the time i think he might have been and the rest of the time i'm sure he was!
Possibly the best course of action might be to hedge our bets and so....
Love is the Law, Love under Will
Regards
Nexus93 - Mar 16, 2006 - 02:33 PM
Post subject: The provenance of The Book of the Law
MichaelStaley wrote: › I would be interested to know some of the different views on Liber AL vel Legis. I accept its praeternatural provenance, but I do not accept it as a revealed text every word of which is holy writ.
I fail to see how you can view the text as originating from a metaphysical source and not see it as revealed.
There are no standards by which the Book of the Law can be judged as a holy writ. The circumstances and documentation of its reception exceed that of all other texts perceived as holy. For example, the Bible is collection of largely disconnected writings that were written by unknown authors at differing time periods, with many of the books having been written hundreds of years apart. There is also no original text in existence for any of the books of the Bible, and many differing copies in existence that call the accuracy of the texts into question.
Quote: › In particular, important to the transmission of AL though he was, I do not accept Crowley's position as Prophet.
What are the qualifications of prophets? We know nothing about the lives of the vast majority of the men and woman perceived as prophets. Crowley lived his life under a microscope which makes him unique in the world of prophets. I wonder how the world would view other prophets if we knew their actual names, and all of the sordid details of their lives. As in the case of the Book of the Law, there is no standard by which to judge Aleister Crowley as a prophet, having actually set a standard himself that previously never existed.
the_real_simon_iff - Mar 16, 2006 - 04:02 PM
Post subject: The provenance of The Book of the Law
MichaelStaley wrote: › In particular, important to the transmission of AL though he was, I do not accept Crowley's position as Prophet.
93!
In my opinion I would say that even if all this BOTL stuff would be fake, the Old Man at least still would be the prophet, of a fake religion then. Do you have a special understanding of "prophet"? Or is mine just too simple?
Love=Law
Lutz
hawthornrussell - Mar 16, 2006 - 04:34 PM
Post subject:
Provenance :origin , source.
Using that has a starting point for me , i accept from a occult magickal point of view the legitimacy of Liber AL. In that it is an evolution of traditional grimoires and allows the reader who has experience of Praxis to link and communicate with magickal intelligences who can benefit humanity.
Having said that, my personal opinion is that Crowley is not the source of Liber AL and was merely a secretary "taking notes" for the intelligence heralding Liber AL. Also remember Crowley didnt want anything to do with it for a good few years after the transmission because he didnt know what to do with it.Crowley was a very effective occultist who managed to get and build the link needed for magickal work .
Although written in his hand it is not Crowley's.(AL)If anything the Thelemite should investigate the motivations of Aiwass and Crowley's difficulty in accepting this intelligence.
It is not so much what Crowley suggested when he was alive but what is Aiwass telling us here today......
ianrons - Mar 16, 2006 - 05:08 PM
Post subject:
I think too much can be made of this "outside intelligence" angle – it's perfectly accurate, sure, and Crowley acknowledged he didn't have even the slightest part in the composition of Liber AL; but the HGA is, according to Madimi, "the external centre of the Soul". That is, an independent being. Crowley later acknowledged Aiwass as his HGA, so I don't think the "alien" perspective is terribly serious – there's nothing to support it, and plenty to suggest, instead, that the HGA develops by normal evolutionary means from a kind of conglomeration of "subtle matter" surrounding a human being & eventually gains this independence.
As to whether or not Crowley was the Prophet of this praeternatural message... well, if he was a fake Prophet then I'd like to see a real one 
runelogix - Mar 16, 2006 - 05:42 PM
Post subject:
insistence on the praeternatural orgin of Liber AL is overblown in my opinion. a praeternatural being is not that difficult to find but i suppose has more cool factor than saying some demon was saying crazy things into your ear. remember the defintion of praeternatural as inexplicable by ordinary means. its the same thing mohammad claimed, only we have a much more detailed account of it's reception than we do of mohammad. i like your idea about the fourth chapter of the book, certainly some food for thought.
spike418 - Mar 16, 2006 - 06:26 PM
Post subject:
Thelema All
Well in my world I don't give a lot of thought to the praternatural origin. I do consider it both received and inspired. It is an initiatory text. In my world I use Liber Al, EQ and Astro stuff! And they form a trident/trinity that function as one!
Must go its time for Resh
ALWays
Spike418
rabrazier - Mar 16, 2006 - 10:00 PM
Post subject:
I think the whole book came from Crowleys unconscious mind. Its an automatic writing and contains all the material you would expect from someone with an interest in kundalini yoga and a former member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn+ an interest in Egyptology.
The thing that makes the book interesting is the third chapter which is very suitable for the Kali Yuga.
erin93 - Mar 16, 2006 - 11:45 PM
Post subject:
93 all
My interpretation is that yeah, it did come from Aiwass, which was Crowley's HGA, so I suppose technically one could say that Crowley wrote it himself. At the same time, though, one could say that it was delivered to Aiwass via Nuit, Hadit, and Ra Hoor Khuit, with a little help from Ankh Af Na Khonsu (who may, or may not, be Crowley/Aiwass) and a bit of assistance from Rose Kelly as a intermediary. In either case, it wasn't the mortal human who was born Edward Crowley who was a former member of the golden dawn and interested in kundalini yoga and egyptology. He just happened to be along for the ride.
As far as whether Crowley was a prophet:
<b> a. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. </b>
If you accept Thelema, that was given to us by Nuit - A goddess. Check on A.
<b>b. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
A predictor; a soothsayer. </b>
Definitely. Not just Liber AL, but the majority of his catalogue. I was just reading Book 4 again recently and many times I was doing my best Keanu Reeves impersonation.
<b>c. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause. </b>
Nah. Guess he's not a prophet
(btw, not worshipping; I think as a person, Crowley was a lecherous shit. But as a prophet, I can't argue what he had to say, or more likely, what others had to say through him.)
93 93/93
ROTHGATE - Mar 17, 2006 - 12:20 AM
Post subject:
I was under the impression Liber AL vel Legis was based upon the 231 gates of the Sefer Yitzerah, as A-L is its central axis. I believe it is exact.
VictimofChanges - Mar 17, 2006 - 05:16 AM
Post subject:
How do we know it was Aiwass anyway?
Aren't you supposed to test the spirit or something?
Was Crowley so caught up he forgot to do so?
What if it wasn't really Aiwass at all.
Paolo_sammut - Mar 17, 2006 - 09:32 AM
Post subject:
Here is my 2p worth.
I have always found spirit communications to be somewhat fragmentary. In "speaking" with spirits both in a ritual magic context and as a paranormal investigator I have found that one does not have a conversation with one such as one might have face to face with another person. Rather a set of ideas are communicated across, phrased in terms which seem strongly a part of the mediums vocabulary and to a lesser extent world view. Often this communication is very incomplete and the entity seems stuck in a loop. At other times some clear ideas do seem to get tranmitted.
I would suggest something similar here in that there is genuine spiritual entity speaking though AC using his vocabulary, semantic patterns etc. Perhaps this is why he is seen as a prophet. Crowley (maybe simply as an accident of birth and experience) had exactly the right qualities needed to channel the message of Aiwass in a way it was intended; if that is indeed the case.
As AC was a poet, Liber Al was tranmitted in the form of prose as this was presumably the closest form to how his mind expressed (or recieved?) ideas. Had (for example) AOS recieved Aiwass we might have recieved a series of pictures. If Einstein a series of equations etc.
But whether he is a prophet in a "chosen one" sense is to me a bit of a question. Just because a spirit says one is chosen etc does not mean it is so and ones own subconscious desires seem to shape the communication to an extent. Some spirits are also notorious liars and love playing games such as this although I would imagine that AC would be aware of that and not necessarily fall for that sort of thing.
I tend to rule out a source such as AC's subconsious because of the connection with Rose. The fact that the dialogue was opened up initally through her, leading AC eventually to the Stele of Revealing as exhibit 666 implies a source external to AC himself, but making itself known in a way which he would accept. and thus leading to the transmitting of the book. This also seems to me to be a form of testing which as a member of the Golden Dawn he would have been trained to do.
Does anyone know if anything like a linguistic analysis has been done on Liber Al, comparing it with Crowleys poetry. I would also be interested to know whether anyone ever done any (ideally blind) psychometry on the stele of revealing.
anglescars - Mar 18, 2006 - 03:02 AM
Post subject:
93 all
At the present I am inclined to believe that Liber Al vel
Legis is the product of Crowley and his HGA Aiwass. This
understanding may change however, as I continue in the great work. The thing pertaining to the question at hand that I find most interesting is this. Why would Crowley, seemingly as starved for attention
as he was for increased knowledge ,continually refuse credit for authoring the work if he in fact did write it?
azreal93
lashtal - Mar 18, 2006 - 03:50 PM
Post subject:
Paolo_sammut wrote: › Had (for example) AOS recieved Aiwass we might have recieved a series of pictures. If Einstein a series of equations etc.
What makes you think we didn't? In both cases. And an infinite number of other cases...
Paul
webmaster@lashtal.com
ianrons - Mar 20, 2006 - 01:44 AM
Post subject: The provenance of The Book of the Law
93,
So, Michael, can you expand upon your views that you stated here to begin this topic? In particular, I am interested in how you see Liber AL with regard to Crowley's claim to be "the Prophet of the Book", and secondarily what on earth this "fourth chapter" is supposed to be – isn't Liber AL the "threefold book of Law"?
So far as I can see, Liber AL is so explicit as to prevent any kind of halfway-house interpretation re: prophethood – that is, it identifies prophet and scribe; but, as I say, I should be interested to hear your views on the subject. I would imagine you regard the book as being divinely inspired, yet rather more personal than Crowley would claim… which is of course perfectly rational and reasonable; but then, if you don't accept it all, just how much of it much do you accept, and to what degree? and in what respects do you regard it as being personal to Crowley and not capable of more general interpretation?
I suppose a good starting-point for this might be the "lettered" books of the G.'.D.'., such as Liber H, Liber T, Liber Z, etc., which correspond with the original Liber L.
93 93/93
Ian
MichaelStaley - Apr 08, 2006 - 01:41 PM
Post subject:
Ian,
93
The most important thing about the Book of the Law is its content, much of which is dazzling, profound and beguiling. I remember the impact it made on me when first coming across it in the late 1960s. There are some passages of the Book which I have always found repugnant, and which I feel no need to accept.
Though I accept the praeternatural provenance of the Book of the Law, that does not mean that I accept every word as being divinely inspired and thus beyond question. I believe the origin of The Book of the Law to be in the depths of cosmic consciousness; whatever its origin, the Book emerged through the consciousness of Aleister Crowley, and is inevitably coloured with some of his preoccupations at the time.
That the references to the Prophet in the Book of the Law may indicate Crowley himself I do not dispute; it does not mean that I have to accept them as beyond dispute, though. In similar vein, I choose not to stamp down the wretched and the weak. Some might think it necessary to take on board the whole Book, lock stock and barrel. I prefer to use my own judgement as to what I accept and what I have reservations about. Otherwise, we may as well be fundamentalist Muslims or Christians, who insist that every word of their beloved Book is of divine origin and consequently beyond dispute. My judgement, changes over the years and the house is therefore built on shifting sands, but it's better than blind acceptance surely.
As to the fourth chapter, this derives partly from my preoccupations many years ago with the life and work of Jack Parsons. Yes, there is reference in the Book to the threefold book of law; however, that is a reference to the Book as it was dicatated/transmitted/received. That doesn't mean it has to stay that way, cast in aspic for all eternity. The essence of Thelema is going, not being; dynamism, change, development; not a lake, but a surging river. Those who think otherwise might care to find a nice little back-water, where they can fester to their heart's content. Anticipation of a fourth chapter is reflective of a sense of imbalance, that there is more to come. Revelation is an ongoing development, not something once and for all.
I have always disliked intensely the spirit of the Tunis Comment, with its tone of "the study of this book is forbidden". On the contrary, there are great depths in the Book which yield to contemplation, which become apparent as our perspectives change, as our initiation continues apace. The fourth chaper need not be literally so, but might indicate a dimension to the Book which is our initiated understanding of it.
I've never studied the Golden Dawn material, so cannot comment on the parallels between the Book of the Law and G.D. books bearing a single letter, though I can see that there may well be parallels.
93 93 / 93
Best wishes,
Michael.
lashtal - Apr 08, 2006 - 02:19 PM
Post subject:
Michael,
93
Always a pleasure to read your posts here.
MichaelStaley wrote: › I have always disliked intensely the spirit of the Tunis Comment, with its tone of "the study of this book is forbidden".
Now, this is one of those things I "just don't get". You hear it said all over the place, often when one adherent has fallen out with another.
What is there to dislike about the Tunis Comment? It's "the one inspired comment" -- how can a comment be "disliked"? It can be argued with, dismissed, but disliked?
There's nothing to dislike about it at all unless one reads it as an instruction. It seems clear to me that the Tunis Comment is not an instruction: it's exactly what it says it is: a comment, an observation, a statement of how things are.
So, let's read it again...
The Comment wrote: › 1. The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
It certainly is forbidden -- to me all those years ago as a teenager, to countless Thelemites these days and in these "enlightened" times. And, if you want to live an easy life, wisdom says to burn your copy. A comment, remember, not an instruction.
The Comment wrote: › 2. Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Well, that's true, too, isn't it? For many?
The Comment wrote: › 3. Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
For years to come following the receipt of the Book this was exactly what happened to those who discussed it and tried to live by it, wasn't it? Respectable, decent people shunned by the herd?
The Comment wrote: › 4. All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.
A statement of fact, not an instruction.
So, at the risk of labouring the point, the Tunis Comment -- itself a Holy Book -- cuts through the nonsense, warning adherents of the result of studying dictation. A comment. Not an instruction...
I understand that congratulations are in order for a very successful talk at Treadwell's?
Regards,
93 93/93
Paul
bazelek - Apr 09, 2006 - 12:19 PM
Post subject:
It seems to me that "revealed texts" usually tell you as much about the character and preoccupations of the individual concerned as they do provide profound insight. If we were to apply the methods of science to such material, we might find a very different interpretation...
By the way, I have always regarded Crowley's Tunis "instruction" as exactly that. Spare would have recognised the principle very clearly: to study such a thing would be akin to thinking about a sigil... better to read once, then burn and forget if you wish to realise.
bazelek
hawthornrussell - Apr 09, 2006 - 01:31 PM
Post subject:
The Tunis commentary should be taken in the context of Crowley's confusion over the information transmitted by Aiwass. If taken in context the Tunis commentary is really more of a reaction to it(Aiwass) than a genuine spiritual cipher.If the Tunis commentary gives illumination to people who read it , then fair enough. Its all good. But the Tunis Commentary wasnt from the hand of Aiwass.And the commentary has to be taken in that context.
One of the issues that Michael has raised is the rigid dogma that the commentary displays. The sense of destroying the "book" after reading seems to go against the "flexibility" that "do what thou wilt " gives.This can also be taken in the context of Crowley's fustration over what to do with the book ,and how his students at that time raised questions about the book and the issue of Aiwass, and Crowley's inability to give an answer to his own satisfaction. (and his students).
Ps. If you go through what Aiwass was trying to convey and you personally have a "Understanding" of it then the commentary will be irrelevant to you................
lashtal - Apr 09, 2006 - 01:44 PM
Post subject:
"Comment" = A statement that expresses an opinion.
"Commentary" = A treatise in annotation or explanation, as of the Scriptures.
We're talking here about the Tunis Comment...
hawthornrussell wrote: › One of the issues that Michael has raised is the rigid dogma that the commentary displays.
The point I was attempting to make (above) is that the comment (not "the commentary"; that really is most important) appears to be dogmatic only if that's the gloss you choose to apply to it.
My contention is that there is no dogma in the Comment: it's just a comment, a statement that expresses an opinion. To this extent, it's a statement of how things are - or were at the time it was written - and not an instruction on how to behave.
But, you choose to interpret a Comment on a Book as an instruction on what to do when you've read it -- and you're not alone in that interpretation. I don't choose your interpretation and wonder why some do...
Paul
rabrazier - Apr 09, 2006 - 03:49 PM
Post subject:
I first read the comment when I was fifteen . Itwas in a copy of the Book of the Law. Iwas far too busy trying to understand the book to worry about the comment. I must have broken every rule laid down in it umpteen times. Nothing dire has happened to me.
You remember what Spare wrote about all religion starting with one man? Its then toned down for the folllowers-becomes superstition-becomes custom- becomes law.
Since some people are willing to pay extra for copy 93 of a Crowley book, has Thelema become a superstition yet?
Best Wishes and 93 (used to be Do what thou something or other but 93 is easier).
Robert.
Mastorn - Apr 09, 2006 - 05:11 PM
Post subject:
~Do what thou wilt~
As for Liber AL as a whole I try to make as few deffinitive statements about it as possible. My basic opinion on it is this: Crowley was contacted by some "other" (the nature of this other is up in the air, but I do believe it to be distinct from Crowley's own consciousness) and recieved the Book of the Law which serves to either usher in a new age or give us a far better understanding of the "law" as it is (perhaps both). I don't have nearly enough information (and quite possibly never will) to claim the book to be "infallible" or any such thing, but it has been extremly important in my personal evolution/initiation.
The Tunis comment is an important part of Liber AL for me personally. It's what seperates the Book of the Law from other "holy books." I see taboo on the study of it as not meaning study in the scientific sense but in the theological sense. It would be best of Liber AL didn't go the way of the new testement and have endless debates over what it "really means." I've done a fair amount of theological study and I can tell you that nothing will take the "spirit" out of a religion than making it the object of dogma that theology would make it. Here I take "success is your proof" quite literally. If you are following the law of Thelema as you personally see it and you are successful in truly Being yourSelf in an observable manner then you can consider your interpretation "correct" (at least for yourself). These sorts of things can't be decided by abstract thought, but by real world use and experience.
I am a big fan of Jack Parsons. He did many wonderful things in his life and from the accounts I've heard, a terrific magician. He is also a lesson to all of us: Just because you might be an awesome magician doesn't exclude you from making some truly dumb mistakes. This being said I don't believe the Babalon chapter to be a part of Liber AL, but I do believe it to be a recieved text which might be useful to some in their personal path. Speaking of Liber Al, I'm off to go read it. Happy Holy Days folks!
Love is the law, love under will.
Mastorn
arae_aquae - Apr 10, 2006 - 08:24 PM
Post subject:
Given my contribution to the "Andrew Standish aka 'Amado Crowley'" thread, I don't imagine that my input to this thread will come as too much of a surprise - but I do think that the possibility of L.220 being a hoax is a significant consideration, and certainly worthy of a muse.
First, let me say that I don't think that the book's hoax-status need automatically diminish the value of it's message, any more than one should automatically reject the words of a herald who is shown to have come from a questionable source. The ideas should stand or fall on their own merit.
To me, I think that The Comment is best taken literally (and why not): as such we should not read the book, and certainly not more than once, and never discuss it's contents at all; if we are to follow the admonition, that is. IF it was meant literally, then how could L.220 be Holy Writ ? One thing we shouldn't do, in my humble, is first assume that it IS holy writ, and then conclude from the assumption that The Comment's meaning MUST have been intended in a non-literal sense.
Three reasons (of many) for thinking it a hoax: Aleister was 'allowed' to change the wording to avoid his literary distaste - surely not the usual thing for a Divine Messenger to allow ? And, if I'm right, vast amounts of Chapter I were not read out, but rather the 'source' mentioned a reference to Aleister's recent poetry lines. This just doesn't sound like Revelation to me. Then: the WMT interpretation of the Jewish Qabalah (the symbolism of which differs vastly, incidently) is not the kind of thing that the Divine would use to communicate truths, it seems to me; the form used in the frequent 'interpretations' of L.220 is only a hundred or so years old, and very very Western.
If the authenticity of L.220 is as strong as the spiritual worth of the Qabalah, then to my mind it is severely lacking. - Am I right in thinking that Aleister himself gave up on the Qabalah after a while; I remember reading that in the Records, somewhere.
Even if The Comment is one of Aleister's opinions, then it is quite telling that in Aleister's opinion, the book is not worth reading ! :-p
Whatever the source of the ideas of L.220, be it Aleister's inspiration, humour, or another book from the library of Alexandria - why does it matter at all ?
AA
ianrons - Apr 10, 2006 - 08:40 PM
Post subject:
93 arae_aquae,
Quote: › Three reasons (of many) for thinking it a hoax: Aleister was 'allowed' to change the wording to avoid his literary distaste - surely not the usual thing for a Divine Messenger to allow ?
Actually, the reverse is true -- "change not as much as the style of a letter" is quite explicit.
Quote: › And, if I'm right, vast amounts of Chapter I were not read out, but rather the 'source' mentioned a reference to Aleister's recent poetry lines.
You're not right: there are some verses which are poetic paraphrases from the Stele of Revealing (see The Equinox of the Gods) -- one in Chapter 1 -- but not by any standard a "vast" amount, or even a moderate amount. Clearly you haven't read the book. I don't know why you'd say "if I'm right" about a point-of-fact concerning Liber AL when you could quite easily check. The poetry you refer to was alluded to by Aiwass during dication, and then inserted by AC in the printed editions (Liber CCXX), but these are not in the MS. (Liber XXXI) – interestingly it is used in Cap. III as a form of adoration (i.e., explicity, of the Prophet to the God), hence its inclusion is utterly appropriate.
Quote: › Then: the WMT interpretation of the Jewish Qabalah (the symbolism of which differs vastly, incidently) is not the kind of thing that the Divine would use to communicate truths, it seems to me; the form used in the frequent 'interpretations' of L.220 is only a hundred or so years old, and very very Western.
Again, read the book re: gematria/Qabalah -- "the Jews [...] have the half"; and note the Egyptian, African and other symbolism used. Aiwass' other instructions use different systems, such as Enochian in Liber 418.
Quote: › If the authenticity of L.220 is as strong as the spiritual worth of the Qabalah, then to my mind it is severely lacking. - Am I right in thinking that Aleister himself gave up on the Qabalah after a while; I remember reading that in the Records, somewhere.
The validity of the Qabalah is another matter entirely -- Liber AL is not predicated upon it.
Quote: › Even if The Comment is one of Aleister's opinions, then it is quite telling that in Aleister's opinion, the book is not worth reading ! :-p
That's not a reasonable interpretation of the Prophet's opinion of the book, and the Comment does not imply that the book is worthless at all. Quite the opposite, the Comment speaks to Crowley's esteem of its power.
Quote: › Whatever the source of the ideas of L.220, be it Aleister's inspiration, humour, or another book from the library of Alexandria - why does it matter at all ?
"Why? Why?" -- cf. Liber VII II:24. Everyone has an opinion, but it is helpful to have a basis. Please see the Forum Guidelines, and any further posts displaying this level of ignorance will be deleted.
93 93/93
Ian
arae_aquae - Apr 11, 2006 - 05:27 PM
Post subject:
Oh dear. With all respect due to those deserving:
I did not mean to cause any offence, and was quite at pains to merely suggest ideas gently (hence the suggestion that I might be wrong), that I thought might be interesting contributions to the topic - but I seem to have drawn fire, somehow. Ah well, I suppose this is one of the dangers of trying to be sporting in No-Man's Land. I feel that the posting was being judged extra-harshly because I was offering what seemed like an opposing view, rather than because it was filled with as much ignorance as suggested. As it happens, I am very well informed, and have read L.220 many times - along with the other literature on the topic. And I believe I have something interesting to offer the discussion.
I am not out to persuade anybody of anything that they don't want to be persuaded of: if I have any motivations on that spectrum, it is towards truce and peace between different views - no more. I believe Aleister would hate for his followers to behave like vehement fanatics silencing all debate and ideas contrary to 'accepted line'; thelemites (of whatever brand) should stand against the ideologies of the inquisition, surely ? To emphasise: let us discuss, nicely - please. I post only with good intentions. Is it wrong to bring up the possibility that Liber Legis and The Law of Thelema is not so sacrosanct as some people would have it be taken ? I would have thought this would be a fascinating line to investigate for those who might not have done so already.
To the topic, then: When I mentioned 'changing holy writ' I was refering to the Messenger's permission for Aleister to re-write 'in whiter words' a sentence that he didn't like. This event is clearly stated in The Equinox account, and the scribbled change can be seen in the Manuscript of L.200. My proposition is that this is not typical of Revelation, which usually disregards the prophets' personal tastes. I was indeed refering to the poetic transliteration of the Stele verses, and what you said was what I meant: I just don't see it as typical of Revelation, for the same reasons. My last question was rhetorical: to put it in whiter words: The value of Truth does not rest on the authority of one uttering it - "many a truth told in jest", so the saying goes. Indeed, I propose that it would be better for Aleister's and the other Masters' messages if people did not take L.220 so seriously, because then there would be less danger of a 'party line' forming.
I hope this post will be seen as less 'ignorant' than the previous, and be seen as adding to the fuel of the topic.
Even the secretary of the Typhonian OTO seems not to have a view too far distant from what I'm suggesting, although I appreciate it isn't exactly as proposed in my post. I dare say he wouldn't want this angle suppressed or silenced ? I'd be interested in his view on the ideas, at least.
ianrons - Apr 11, 2006 - 06:50 PM
Post subject:
93 arae_aquae,
Well, this post is not as bad as your last one, and I don't like deleting posts; and since Michael may wish to express a view on this – as you have requested, and it's his thread – I'll just say that you are wrong again:
A.C. / The Equinox of the Gods wrote: ›
"Change not so much as the style of a letter" in the text saved me from Crowley-fying the whole Book, and spoiling everything.
The MS. shows what has been done, and why, as follows:
1. On page 6 Aiwaz instructs me to "write this (what he had just said) in whiter words," for my mind revelled at His phrase. He added at once "But go forth on," i.e., with His utterance, leaving the emendation until later.
2. On page 19 I failed to hear a sentence, and (later on) the Scarlet Woman, invoking Aiwass, wrote in the missing words. (How? She was not in the room at the time, and heard nothing.)
3. Page 20 of Cap. III, I got a phrase indistinctly, and she put it in, as for "B."
4. The versified paraphrase of the hieroglyphs on the Stele being ready, Aiwaz allowed me to insert these later, so as to save time.
These four apart, the MS. is exactly as it was written on those three days.
Clearly the "whiter words" verse was not rewritten by Crowley. Consider Cap. II v.11, and read Crowley's account of how he was physically forced by Aiwass to write the text at that point, and more generally how Crowley was reluctant about the whole affair but was eventually persuaded to coöperate. It may be that Aiwass chose to modify his message when dictating to Crowley, but if mere interaction such as this (as in, e.g., Rev 5:4-5) is to be regarded as disproof of the validity of praeternatural messengers or their messages, then practically every divine revelation should be disregarded. Moses smashing the Tablets of Law & then having them re-written by Jehovah is perhaps a good example of something which, on your terms, would have to be dismissed. The history of divine revelation is a history of prophets struggling to receive visions, etc., and having different messages delivered according to the actions they take.
Furthermore, a divine message is not necessarily the only possible message: conceivably, The Book of the Law might have been written differently, were it delivered slightly earlier or later; and the book that we have is not the only possible way of saying the same thing. The Enochian record shows us angels actually discerning (one might say "composing") the message as it is being delivered; and indeed divine messages are, arguably, only possible because of, and tailored for, the particular qualities of the prophet in question.
The consideration that prevailing circumstances affect the content of a message does not, in itself, provide a basis for disputing the validity of the message itself: rather the opposite is true, for if a message had no relation to the environment in which it were delivered, it could not be understood by anyone & would be nonsense – it would appear as random gobbledigook to an observer; or rather, as silence.
Therefore, the fact that there was, as it were, a dialogue between Aiwass & Crowley does nothing to discredit Aiwass as a messenger, or the revelation in question. *However*, Crowley maintained throughout his life that he was not responsible in the least for anything in the MS. Book of Law; but again, I don't think the rationale which you are presenting re: validity of revelations has any real basis, historically or philosophically; and furthermore, your evidence is misleading and factually inaccurate.
Your comments about "party line" aren't appropriate when you can't even get your own evidence straight.
We do expect a reasonable standard from our contributors, and I don't think you're up to the mark, so please send all future posts to me for moderation prior to posting.
93 93/93
Ian
Seth156 - May 11, 2006 - 08:06 PM
Post subject:
93
I imagine he refused credit for Liber Al personally because the primary claimof the books authority and rerlevence rests upon it's praterhuman origin. If the whole bloddy thing was a con, not an admission he'd want to make regardless of his own psych-issues. This response is meant to address the last paragraph in angelscars most recent posting.
93 93/93
Argentum_Star - May 12, 2006 - 03:19 PM
Post subject: The provenance of The Book of the Law
MichaelStaley wrote: › I would be interested to know some of the different views on Liber AL vel Legis. I accept its praeternatural provenance, but I do not accept it as a revealed text every word of which is holy writ. In particular, important to the transmission of AL though he was, I do not accept Crowley's position as Prophet.
Greetings
93
I begin with the Thelemic greeting! Why, because it says it all. "Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law".
The premise revolves around the word "Thou", It is up to the individual! Not any peer group or outside influence from humanity. You, (yes you) are doing exactly the right thing, you are deciding for yourself!
It is your Path, and only you may walk it. I encourage you. (Said He, transgressing)
Be individual, do "it" your way, disagree, stand out from the crowd. It hurts though, the "crowd" don't like it, But slowly they percieve "A Master".
Love is the Law, Love under Will
93/93
Blessings
Argentum Star
nashimiron - May 13, 2006 - 06:10 PM
Post subject:
Further concerning the Comment. It's surely a sign of a truly inspired piece of work that it's few sentences can be read so many different ways. The Comments 100 or so words has stirred up almost as much controversy as the preceding 3 chapters of the book itself. Truly the 4th chapter is the best!
rabrazier - May 13, 2006 - 07:24 PM
Post subject:
Just one point.
If Crowley only wanted Liber AL to be read once, why did he incorporate the text into his commentaries on the book? and why right commentaries if the book is not to be studied?
rabrazier - May 13, 2006 - 07:25 PM
Post subject:
That should be write not right. The brain is giving up.
MichaelStaley - May 18, 2006 - 03:31 PM
Post subject: The provenance of The Book of the Law
Argentum_Star wrote: › The premise revolves around the word "Thou", It is up to the individual! Not any peer group or outside influence from humanity. You, (yes you) are doing exactly the right thing, you are deciding for yourself!
It is your Path, and only you may walk it. I encourage you. (Said He, transgressing)
Be individual, do "it" your way, disagree, stand out from the crowd. It hurts though, the "crowd" don't like it, But slowly they percieve "A Master".
Though this is clearly one valid interpretation, in my opinion there is a great deal more to Thelema than the elevation of individuality. True Will is cosmic rather than something inherent to an individual. The conception of a multitude of stars each following their own orbit, and not colliding, implies that the stars are each part of a greater whole, rather than a mass of bodies each in their own orbit who manage rather miraculously not to smash into each other. Hadit ("I am the flame that burns in every heart of man") is singular, not plural - similarly, the kundali-shakti which resides at the heart of the muladhara chakra is one, not many.
Thanks to all who have engaged in this post so far. It's been interesting reading the diversity of views. I do not accept Liber AL as a revealed text in its entirety; such communications, whatever their origin, are refracted through a human consciousness, becoming coloured by interpretations along the way.
Rose Kelly's role in Liber AL was perhaps more important than Crowley's account has it. For instance, it appears to have been her who facilitated the contact in the first place ("they are waiting for you"), and she who made some changes in the text. Taken together with the recent indications that Crowley may have left Cairo before the supposed reception of the Book of the Law, and Achad's assertion that the reception started several days earlier than Crowley's account, there is a great deal of mystery surrounding the reception of the Book of the Law.
However, the book is more important than the controversies surrounding its reception. It thrills with power and intensity; were that not the case, it would be of little interest, whatever its origin. The strength of the book is such that had it not emerged through Crowley / Rose Kelly, though, it would have emerged through someone else. Then the surface form would have been different, but the powerful core would have been the same.
rabrazier - May 19, 2006 - 02:33 PM
Post subject:
Interesting posting Michael.
If the Book of the Law would have manifested itself some how even if Crowley had never lived, that suggests that you see the book as having a life of its own.
Or do you mean that it is the manifestation of some sort of current or force that was predestinded to come into being?
Robert.
MichaelStaley - May 19, 2006 - 03:43 PM
Post subject:
rabrazier wrote: › Interesting posting Michael. If the Book of the Law would have manifested itself some how even if Crowley had never lived, that suggests that you see the book as having a life of its own. Or do you mean that it is the manifestation of some sort of current or force that was predestined to come into being?
Robert.
The Book of the Law is an expression of an informing force or current. It manifested through Crowley because, in an occult sense, he was in the right place at the right time. However, if not through Crowley, then it would have outed through some other vehicle. Depending on the disposition of that vehicle, perhaps lacking Crowley's literary skills, it might not have taken the form of a book, but might for instance have been a series of pictures or sculptures, or magnifent buildings, or astonishing and revolutionary scientific discoveries. Indeed, such may well have already occurred; there's no reason why an informing current should restrict itself to one instance of expression.
rabrazier - May 19, 2006 - 05:04 PM
Post subject:
I take it that this current is not of the kind that would be recognized as a force by science.
So how does one tune into it.
Best Robert.
frater_anubis - May 19, 2006 - 05:38 PM
Post subject:
AC gave a detailed, carefull description of the reception of Liber Al in the Equinox. I have never accepted the theory that he left Cairo on the 6th April, because I have never seen the original or even copies of the passenger lists allegedly found in the mormon genealogical centre and as far as i'm aware they are not available on the web. Neither have I seen any hotel records proving that AC & RK checked out of their hotel on the 5th. Until the alleged primary sources are available, it will remain my view that the reception of Liber Al is genuine and there are no inconsistencies.
Manyof you must have read the short and long commentaries. It seems obvious to me that AC was intensely puzzled by Liber Al and spent much of his life trying to understand it....as many of us still are. I have also heard the view that the style of the writing of the Book is AC's and this is used to suggest that he subconciously transmitted it. If this is so, nowhere else in his writings did he produce a work of such power, vibrancy and insight into human nature as the Book, and it also seems to me that the prose is unlike much of his other writing, particularly the use of the word "Ye" which is not found elsewhere very often.
Much as i respect Michael, i would point out that on a matter so important it is wise to see the primary sources before giving alleged "inconsistencies" serious consideration.
Love is the law, love under Will.
93 93/93
MichaelStaley - May 19, 2006 - 07:46 PM
Post subject:
frater_anubis wrote: › AC gave a detailed, carefull description of the reception of Liber Al in the Equinox. I have never accepted the theory that he left Cairo on the 6th April, because I have never seen the original or even copies of the passenger lists allegedly found in the mormon genealogical centre and as far as i'm aware they are not available on the web. Neither have I seen any hotel records proving that AC & RK checked out of their hotel on the 5th. Until the alleged primary sources are available, it will remain my view that the reception of Liber Al is genuine and there are no inconsistencies.
You are of course right to be cautious until and if the primary soiurces become available. As for inconsistencies, Crowley listed several himself in his account in "The Equinox of the Gods", such as the fact that Rose made changes in the manuscript, even though she was not in the room. If Crowley could highlight inconsistencies in the reception of the Book of the Law, why cannot we? To do so is not to suggest that the Book of the Law was a fabrication by Crowley, but to suggest that there was a lot more to it than meets the eye.
frater_anubis wrote: › Manyof you must have read the short and long commentaries. It seems obvious to me that AC was intensely puzzled by Liber Al and spent much of his life trying to understand it....as many of us still are. I have also heard the view that the style of the writing of the Book is AC's and this is used to suggest that he subconciously transmitted it. If this is so, nowhere else in his writings did he produce a work of such power, vibrancy and insight into human nature as the Book, and it also seems to me that the prose is unlike much of his other writing, particularly the use of the word "Ye" which is not found elsewhere very often.
Ever since first coming across the Book of the Law in the late 1960s, I have accepted the Book of the Law as a communication from praeternatural sources. I love its power and intensity, and find some passages - such as the last few verses of the Nuit chapter - extremely moving. I haven't come across a more powerful book. But the very mechanism of transmission means that there is a Crowley influence; how can there not be?
In the late 1980s I gave a talk at Leeds University Occult Society where I suggested that there was a good deal of Crowley in the Book. Some then-young man, now something of a bigwig in the Caliphate O.T.O., berated me on the grounds that the Book of the Law was either wholly a dictated text, or a fabrication by Crowley. I don't care for such fundamentalism myself, and certainly see no reason why I have to see things in such "either/or" terms.
93 93 / 93
Michael.
frater_anubis - May 19, 2006 - 10:56 PM
Post subject:
Michael
Quote: ›
As for inconsistencies, Crowley listed several himself in his account in "The Equinox of the Gods", such as the fact that Rose made changes in the manuscript, even though she was not in the room
I have a hardback copy of the Book of the Law...in a pouch at the back is a facsimile of the original manuscript. It's also available on an american OTO website, but i'm not going to include a link, because they dont let Paul post copies of AC's art.*
*(ken Anger's documentary on AC called "the man we want to hang" is excellent for art and Crowley's 3-headed Janus magick wand)
Someone has annotated a number to each verse, in a different hand than the text. Yet within i cannot see in the text a verse that is in Rose Kelly's hand. What changes to the text did she make? Or have i missed something here?
regards
93, 93/93
ianrons - May 19, 2006 - 11:19 PM
Post subject:
93,
frater_anubis wrote: › they dont let Paul post copies of AC's art.
Not true -- the galleries contain quite a reasonable selection of Crowleys. However, some of his art is now in private hands, so the galleries here do not comprise a complete collection by any means.
Quote: › What changes to the text did she make?
The five pointed star, with a circle in the middle, & the circle is red.
and
force of coph nia
93 93/93
Ian
frater_anubis - May 19, 2006 - 11:25 PM
Post subject:
93
Thanks...one of the reasons I joined LashTal was to learn something amazing like that. What do you think "force of coph nia" means, in the context of the Book?
93 93/93
Johnny
ianrons - May 19, 2006 - 11:43 PM
Post subject:
93 Johnny,
frater_anubis wrote: › What do you think "force of coph nia" means, in the context of the Book?
I think it might be connected with the Qabalistic notion of Chokmah proceeding directly from Ain Soph. It does make sense if one's considers it is the wand (i.e., Chokmah) of coph nia (i.e., "Ain Soph" partly reversed).
The phrase "I have crushed an universe, and nought remains" is perhaps relevant here, as being Kether or the whole universe. The conception suggests the Hawk-headed Lord represents Ain Soph Aur; whose "nemyss shrouds the night-blue sky" -- i.e., the shroud is in this sense the light that conceals the darkness, or at least the phrase suggests that his head extends up to Ain Soph. I suppose if he were crushing the "whole" universe he would have to be above it.
93 93/93
Ian
MichaelStaley - May 20, 2006 - 08:40 AM
Post subject:
frater_anubis wrote: ›
Someone has annotated a number to each verse, in a different hand than the text. Yet within i cannot see in the text a verse that is in Rose Kelly's hand. What changes to the text did she make? Or have i missed something here?
Thanks to Ian for listing the passages that Rose Kelly inserted. The verse numbers were added later, by Crowley I believe, but only to chapters 2 and 3; the verses of chaper 1 are left unnumbered. Crowley himself made a change. The passage was originally "the unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality". Crowley cavilled at this wording, and was charged to "write this in whiter words". He subsequently changed it to "the omnipresence of my body".
Quite apart from the power and intensity of the Book, it is rough edges like this which in my opinion strengthen the case for the source of the Book being beyond Crowley, however much the refraction through his consciousness coloured it.
frater_anubis - May 20, 2006 - 05:45 PM
Post subject:
Yes, thanks to Ian. Now that Rose Kelly's contributions are pointed out, I can't understand how I didnt notice them before. Possibly because I have usually read the typescript version.
Quote: ›
In the late 1980s I gave a talk at Leeds University Occult Society where I suggested that there was a good deal of Crowley in the Book. Some then-young man, now something of a bigwig in the Caliphate O.T.O., berated me on the grounds that the Book of the Law was either wholly a dictated text, or a fabrication by Crowley. I don't care for such fundamentalism myself, and certainly see no reason why I have to see things in such "either/or" terms.
I regret that an ambitious young occultist took you to task over your views on the Book and of course you are entitled to interpret the Book in your own way....but to suggest that those who accept that Liber Legis was dictated to AC by Aiwass as described in the Equinox are "fundamentalists" seems somewhat extreme!
My view remains the same, the Book was dictated to AC in Cairo by Aiwass on the 8th, 9th, & 10th April 1904, in a voice "of deep timbre, musical and expressive, its tones solemn, voluptuous, tender, fierce, or ought else as suited the moods of the message" If that makes me a fundamentalist Thelemite, so be it!
What I personally find exceptionally interesting is that AC described Aiwass as speaking English with a neutral accent. Of course I have no idea with what accent a praeterhuman intelligence would speak, but in moments of doubt it has crossed my mind that Aiwass may have attended the same public school as AC...
93 93/93
Johnny
rabrazier - May 20, 2006 - 11:08 PM
Post subject:
I never understood why Crowley asked Rose to rewrite those two sentences since they make perfectly good sense.
One other thing, in his Abramelin diaries Crowley describes Rose helping him in rituals and in particular painting the image of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. In the Equinox of the Gods he describes her as ignorant of magic and his amazement when she picked out Ra-Hoor-Khuit on the stele in the museum. Since Crowley had taught Rose all about Ra-Hoor-Khuit and his attributions why make out that she was ignorant and knew nothing about him?
It seems as if Crowley wanted to make out that Rose was far stupider than she was to make the reception of the book more 'miraculous' Its probably just spin since anyone who is trying to start a new religion is going to meet scepticism. But I do wonder if Rose played a much bigger part than A.C. let on.
Best Wishes Robert.
It would be interesting if it turned out that Rose was the founder of the new aeon and Crowley just the secretary who took down the book!