A curse from the Bo...
 
Notifications
Clear all

A curse from the Book of the Law?


 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

As I was reading the BOTL tonight I was struck by this passgae from Chap III I believe-
"43. Let the Scarlet Woman beware! If pity and compassion and tenderness visit her heart; if she leave my work to toy with old sweetnesses; then shall my vengeance be known. I will slay me her child: I will alienate her heart: I will cast her out from men: as a shrinking and despised harlot shall she crawl through dusk wet streets, and die cold and an-hungered."
After Leah Hesig had their child he died correct?(while trekking through the jungles if my memory serves me) I know she was still his Scarlet woman at that time ,but in the future she resigned this position..
I thought this was interesting to say the least..The God in this case Horus? (correct me if I'm wrong) would well know in the future she would vacate the work..do you think there's a connection,or mere coincidence..
Thanks


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Levitas (?!),
Just my opinion obviously, but no one is ever cast out truley. A bad choice is always redemable above. The way is always open to walk the path. Explore the soil and in so doing send out your roots and from there climb, no seed falls in perfect soil hence the point of Malkuth. Lashtal is a beacon for all grow and support all who aspire to grow. "Pity not the fallen ?"Are we not all fallen!


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 655
 

Leah Hersig did'nt resign from her position of Scarlet Woman, Crowley himself dethroned her.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 554
 

... The passage that you have pointed out for circumspection, is indeed a 'nasty' one, on the face of it. It is difficult to see any other quality in it, because it appears as directed explicitely, & without mercy, to those that fill the office registered. Apparently, the scribe himself had significant problems with verses in the third book, as did those who were sympathetic to him. It is really quite horrible, isn't it? - & yes, I would have to concur that it is a "Curse". Why is it there?- Does this publish an example of the scribe's character as it was, or did the scribe pattern his actions after the contents of the Book?


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 543
 
"Horemakhet" wrote:
... The passage that you have pointed out for circumspection, is indeed a 'nasty' one, on the face of it. It is difficult to see any other quality in it, because it appears as directed explicitely, & without mercy, to those that fill the office registered. Apparently, the scribe himself had significant problems with verses in the third book, as did those who were sympathetic to him. It is really quite horrible, isn't it? - & yes, I would have to concur that it is a "Curse". Why is it there?- Does this publish an example of the scribe's character as it was, or did the scribe pattern his actions after the contents of the Book?

Rose Crowley, the Scarlet Woman, was chosen by the gods to perform a specified task, was warned of the consequences and failed utterly, only to die in obscurity as promised, and indeed her child with Aleister died in infancy. Dwelling on verse III:43 alone can leave a negative impression that is out of context with the verses that follow, where the Scarlet Woman is given the choice of being strong, shameless, adorned with jewels, and so on.

One of the purposes of verse is to encourage women to be strong and not succumb to their baser emotional instincts, which is a positive aspect, also making it evident that free will plays a role in all of our choices, regardless of the designs of the gods.

Verses II:43-45 also challenge the notion of solipsism as it relates to Thelema, wherein the gods are believed to exist solely within us as part of the human psyche as opposed to being independent external beings with extraordinary powers and abilities.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 554
 

. . . Oh?- Is that how it should be read?- maybe I picked up the wrong book: Not wretched & starving, but GOOD, if she behaves, then covered in radiant jewels . . That sounds so much better. Thank you. . . .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Honestly, believe that this verse refers to all of us women who succumb ourselves to the comforts of domesticity and the old ways of depending on men and reliquinshing our freedom. That is always a great temptation for many of us, not to judge people's free choices, but becoming a victim who is trapped into domesticity is very old aeonic and women who fall into that know that sooner or later, that false security might as well be gone! A warning to women of the New Aeon in more general terms....I think


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 554
 

. . . Well well well: Not only could he play a great game of chess, & climb a few rather large mountains; but, evidently he also promoted/promulgated the rise of 'feminism', through a "Curse/Warning"! Perhaps my uninitiated ignorance prohibits me from grasping some of the finer points?- I should order a new copy. The typography of my own is lacking. . .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Thanks for illuminating that for me, It does seem a bit harsh as it were lol.
As Alysa pointied out AC axed Leah so she didn't abandon the post of her own will; so that would nullify the "curse" it would seem .
AM I mistaken about Leah having a child? or did both Rose and Leah both have children that were taken?
Given the time this was written I do see the point of it "possibly" being taken as a warning for woman not to return to subservient roles that society dictated for them at that time. It could very well have a multiple meaning.
That just passage really stood out to me as I read it.
Also thanks Tiaknows for the encouraging words..and all of you for your discourse. Its nice to have people who can shed light on some of this as there are not many people in my imediate sphere to discuss this subject matter with.
Happy new Year to you..Cheers!!


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 384
 

93

There is, in my opinion, no "curse" in the verse at all. As I see it, Aiwass is a guide, not a tyrant. The counsel in Liber Legis is akin to a sign on the road. As we evolve, certain roads of conduct, rooted as they are in outmoded superstition and tradition, become dangerous to our progress --- pitfalls if you will.

As an example, there is the apparently harsh admonition to "kill" the heart. This only means that one should attain the larger view and not be enslaved to the madness of the moment or to the compulsion of emotion. "Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt." (L, 1:22) Passionate and assiduous dedication to one's work for its own sake, without the slightest care for the result, is key to achieving the perspective of Hadit. As is the sexual component of the instruction: for it was necessary that woman be entitled to the same enjoyment of her sexuality that men have always enjoyed. If she shuts herself off from her sexual nature for shame induced by the false ideology of chastity, then she sacrifices her sovereign will on the altar of patriarchal lies, and consequently evokes her own karmic self-injury.

Levitas777 wrote: "AM I mistaken about Leah having a child? or did both Rose and Leah both have children that were taken?"

Leah's children by Crowley died: Poupee died in infancy, the other miscarried, requiring surgery to remove if I recall.

Herupakraath wrote: "Verses II:43-45 also challenge the notion of solipsism as it relates to Thelema, wherein the gods are believed to exist solely within us as part of the human psyche as opposed to being independent external beings with extraordinary powers and abilities."

I would say that the solipsist notion is half on target actually, considering L, 1 "I am above you and in you." Where it falls short of the mark is in failing to understand that "self" is equally above as it is within: i.e., self transforms over time through the process of purifying and uplifting the mundane awareness in the infinitely deeper consciousness that lies beyond.

All this is merely my take on it, however...others may disagree.

93 93 93


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2175
 

Aleisterion,

An insightful and sane post! If one fixates on a given portion of AL outside of its overall scope and structure, imbalance may be readily evoked. There are seeming contradictions in the Book, unless one approaches it as Prophetic Poetry, in which case the symbolism takes on a living quality, interfacing with our consciousness wherever it might be in the Process of

uplifting the mundane awareness in the infinitely deeper consciousness that lies beyond

Very early on, I read the segment regarding pecking at the eyes of Jesus, not as some horrid blasphemy but an aggressive assault on corrupted Christianity. I was already very conversant with William Blake's "The Vision of Christ that Thou dost see is my Vision's greatest enemy." Blake depicts the Tyrannical Jehovah/Urizen being torn from his throne in one of the plates from "Milton." Very much a "pre-AL" embodiment of the Horusian impulse. And yet Blake never ceased exalting "Jesus" as a contrast to the evils of "restricition."

The "cruelties" of the Book need to weighed with insight against other passages indicating, not a retrograde descent into baser instincts, but the destructive/creative Path towards Liberation and Joy, on both an individual and Cosmic level.

Of course,

All this is merely my take on it, however...others may disagree

Kill your heart and set it free!

🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Concerning AL III 43, back in 1975ev Marcelo Motta stated this within The Commentaries of AL:

Although this verse is specifically directed to the Scarlet Woman, there is a sense in which it is useful to all Aspirants, and it must be taken in a very literal sense.

We have already remarked that there are no contradictions in this Book. You have been told not to pity; you have been told that compassion is the vice of kings; you must act as if you believe these assertions to be facts, if you want to become a Thelemite. See LXV, v, 52-56.

Many of your ordeals shall be of pity and compassion. You must remember that pity is vanity and compassion is confusion, or you will run the risk of wasting your dedication on the most worthless people.

"Old sweetnesses": see AL 1, 49; AL II, 5, 52. These verses must be understood in the most literal sense, and complied with punctiliously. Let the dead bury their dead, and follow 666!

"I will alienate her heart": I will confuse her intelligence.

"I will cast her out from men": Even those for whom she showed pity or compassion will scorn her. In fact, they will be first to do so.

"I will slay me her child": Remember the Sign I.R.! This is a hint for Members of a certain Grade.

Nor do you forget AL III, 16.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 554
 

I respect the head masters of the OTO, but it appears to me that their lust for interpretation as a dogmatic resolution, is overbearing. I respect Motta, but he is certainly not the guide for me through those verses. I reject his interpretation, & I am not alone in this.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2175
 

I reject his interpretation, & I am not alone in this.

Ditto.

you must act as if you believe these assertions to be facts, if you want to become a Thelemite

I thought seeking, finding and doing one's Will was sufficient.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Horemakhet" wrote:
I respect the head masters of the OTO

SOTO and OTO are different organizations.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

That verse in Liber Al is interesting and deserves careful analysis:

43. Let the Scarlet Woman beware! If pity and compassion and tenderness visit her heart; if she leave my work to toy with old sweetnesses; then shall my vengeance be known. I will slay me her child: I will alienate her heart: I will cast her out from men: as a shrinking and despised harlot shall she crawl through dusk wet streets, and die cold and an-hungered.

As I understand it, a balance must be made between a mother’s natural protective and nurturing instinct toward her child versus the New Aeon understanding that a child is a star in its own right whose orbit and evolution must be allowed to unfold naturally without undue restriction.

The subservience of women in the Old Aeon caused narcissistic, perverse and dysfunctional attitudes to emerge with regards to the idea of maternity which became reflected in women’s attitude toward their children. The space between a mother and child is considered sacrosanct and central in many cultures and I have no wish to analyze that primordial space (what Plato referred to as the chora). Let’s leave that to the psychoanalyst. Suffice to note the plethora of Madonna/child statutes all over Europe – and scholars have noted the link between Maryology and the Isis/Horus archetype - and the heavy impression this must make on devout girls. The fact mothers regard their child as more “special” than other children reflects - perhaps dimly and vaguely, but accurately nonetheless - the Old Aeon belief that a child will someday be the Messiah. Or at least exceptional and more talented than others. Thus “behind every great man stands a great mother”. Yet hidden within this Old Aeon conditioning is the thought is that a woman can have great historical significance only through their children - that is, vicariously (if you can't save the world at least save your mother from shame and embarassment). Which is contradictory to Thelema.

What is certain is that every Messiah once had a mother (the father being less certain – cf. Horus or Jesus), but the fact they became a Messiah due to their mother’s wonderful parenting skills is highly debatable. When Jesus starts doing the Will of his Heavenly Father, preaching the kingdom of heaven and becoming famous, his mother tries to have him take a break from preaching and spend some quality “family time” with her and his brothers (no doubt unaware that she was being a vampire). Jesus emphatically repudiates their mother/child relationship (cf. Matt 12:46-50), stating that his “family” is anyone who knows and does the Will of the Heavenly Father (which in New Aeon parlance means doing their True Wills).

Crowley notes that a mother’s overprotective and overbearing attitude can be one of the greatest obstacles to spiritual attainment – cf. “Mother Love” in MWT:

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_53.html

Eric Neumann in his Origins of Consciousness notes that escaping the influence of the Mother is one of the greatest obstacles to the process of individuation (did I mention that?). The Great Mother seeks to keep the child asleep, enthralled, in a state of stupor, helpless, or seduced by pleasure. Indeed for the male Thelemite real-life initiation is often a series of “working through” various female archetypes (play-girl, vampire, femme fatale, Scarlet Woman etc – cf. “Woman – Her Magical Formula” MWT) until one someday reaches the limit – the Great Mother Babalon who holds in Her hand the Cup containing the blood of the saints, the taste of which intoxicates with laughter and understanding.

As such RHK’s promise to “slay the child” of a Scarlet Woman who fails to understand her role in the New Aeon means the social-symbolic mother/child relationship of mutual interdependence and emotional self-indulgence, which in the long-term is emotionally crippling, may be destroyed if the principle of True Will is not respected. True Will is indifferent to the opinion of others, mothers included. It implies change and mothers may be reluctant to accept change in their children, but the same law of becoming underlies the Old and New Aeon, centering around the question of gnosis and identity, of success or failure. Mothers who fail to heed RHK's warning may be surprised to find their children have turned into strangers in a strange world.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 554
 

. . It is an odd little book! To me AC commenting that the prose styling is not his work, but that of another, places it in an unusual category. There are those who accept AC as a great 'Master', but reject this work in the ways you accept, & promote it.- That it was in AC's competitive nature to use it as a mark of his genius . . .


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 155
 

93,

Not to attempt to restrict anyone, but IMO, public displays like this are precisely why "The Comment" was written. I am of the opinion that we only restrict newer thelemites from discovering their own truths within Liber Al by spewing our personal interpretations. It cheapens the experience of personal discovery, and only serves to confuse and mislead them.

I mean, it's one thing to discuss these things (an activity that I personally do not engage in) amongst those we know will not be swayed, and have already developed a firm relationship with The Book of the Law, but this is not such a place.

If you are new to Thelema and not familliar with what I am talking about, please take just a moment to read "The Comment" (scroll all the way down to the bottom)...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/engccxx.htm

93 93/93,
Fr. Oz


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 554
 

Well said. I am not as worried about those who read it for the first time,though. The uniqueness of the work will always provoke interpretation whether it is sympathetic or otherwise. It stands alone. This is it's will. When I think of Thelema, I think of Rabelais. The BOL is mostly full of Egyptian symbolism, & a specific form of their religion. The amalgamation is transformative & bizarre. . .


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 384
 

"Not to attempt to restrict anyone, but IMO, public displays like this are precisely why "The Comment" was written. I am of the opinion that we only restrict newer thelemites from discovering their own truths within Liber Al by spewing our personal interpretations. It cheapens the experience of personal discovery, and only serves to confuse and mislead them."

Yet it is worth mentioning that some consider the Tunis Comment to be a test to weed out the fearful and the blind of faith. Only when unenlightened does such discussion "cheapen the experience of personal discovery" and only then does it help "to confuse and mislead". Crowley was known for using blinds.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2175
 

Crowley was known for using blinds

"The Tygers of Wrath are wiser than the Horses of Instruction."

And they don't wear blinders. 😉


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 155
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Yet it is worth mentioning that some consider the Tunis Comment to be a test to weed out the fearful and the blind of faith.

Some definitely do hold this opinion, there is absolutely no denying that. However, I don't think that Aleister Crowley was a member of that contingency...

In "Magick Without Tears" the prophet writes...

What then about AL III, 40? This problem was solved only by achieving the task. In Paris,* in a mood of blank despair about it all, out came the Comment. Easy, yes; inspired, yes; it is, as printed, the exact wording required. No further cavilling and quibbling, and controversy and casuistry. All heresiarchs are smelt in advance for the rats they are; they are seen brewing (their very vile small beer) in the air (the realm of Intellect—Swords) and they are accordingly nipped in the bud. All Parliamentary requirements thus fulfilled according to the famous formula of the Irish M.P., we can get on to your other questions untroubled by doubt.

93s,
Oz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Oz,

Crowley’s mention of “heresiarchs” refers to, or at least includes, himself. He described his first commentary on TBOTL as “over a quarter of a million words of the most turgid and incomprehensible hogwash ever penned”. He went on to claim HPK = the Higher Self and HGA in the authorized commentary edited by Wilkinson and HB (p. 29), but in later years denounced the Higher Self = HGA as a “damnable heresy and dangerous delusion” (MWT p. 282). By the time he wrote the MWT passage on the Tunis Comment, he had resolved his own doubts on the mandate of the Secret Chiefs and TBOTL and he was attempting to establish the religion of the New Aeon – hence his reference to St. Peters and number 4.

93 93/93
tai


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 155
 
"tai" wrote:
Oz,

Crowley’s mention of “heresiarchs” refers to, or at least includes, himself. He described his first commentary on TBOTL as “over a quarter of a million words of the most turgid and incomprehensible hogwash ever penned”. He went on to claim HPK = the Higher Self and HGA in the authorized commentary edited by Wilkinson and HB (p. 29), but in later years denounced the Higher Self = HGA as a “damnable heresy and dangerous delusion” (MWT p. 282). By the time he wrote the MWT passage on the Tunis Comment, he had resolved his own doubts on the mandate of the Secret Chiefs and TBOTL and he was attempting to establish the religion of the New Aeon – hence his reference to St. Peters and number 4.

93 93/93
tai

93 tai,

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Perhaps I'm overlooking it. Are you saying that somehow because Crowley went through periods where he looked at these things from different perspectives that it invalidates the comment? I am aware of the statements you are pointing out here, but I just don't see how they are relevant to my statements.

I don't claim to have all the answers, or to be some all knowing occult scholar, but I am unable to find anywhere, a passage in which Crowley states that the comment is in any way some kind of "test", or deception. Everything I've seen him write about it implies that he believed it to be the true comment as described in Al 3:40.

He did indeed say that his "commentaries" were produced because of a lack of understanding of the verse on his part, saying something to the effect that he mis-took "comment" for "commentary" and that he despised doing the commentaries. I don't see how this would invalidate it in any way. On the contrary, I think that it makes it all that much more valid...because it, unlike the commentaries, does indeed conform to the formula given by Aiwass in Liber Al regarding the comment itself.

Do you deny that the words of religious prophets throughout time have been perverted through interpretation, thus losing the original message? Do you really not think that this is exactly what The Comment is meant to work against? I mean even Liber Librae warns against this, saying "but their words have been perverted by their successors, and again and again the veil has fallen upon the Holy of Holies."

Obviously, I have strong feelings about this subject. But If you can show me where, exactly, Crowley physically states that the comment is some kind of test or blind, I would consider an alternate postition... I just believe that it says what it says for a reason. And I don't believe that that reason is anything other than to preserve the message for future generations, so they can see it as we do, with their own eyes, and not be poisoned by a perversion of the message(by us) over time.

93 93/93,
Oz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4273
 

Whether or not Crowley said that the Tunis Comment was a test or a blind is, in my opinion, irrelevant. Take for instance the statement "The study of this book is forbidden". The fact is that Crowley continued to recommend the study of the Book of the Law. Take for instance the statement that "Those who discuss the contents of this book are to be shunned as centres of pestilence". Crowley continued to discuss the contents of the Book of the Law. This, surely, indicates that there is more to the Tunis Comment than meets the eye.

In the final analysis, the Book of the Law is to be interpreted individually, each for himself or herself. The interpretations of others, be it Crowley or Grant or Regardie, or a myriad others, is of interest, but is not binding and does not constitute a final authority.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"ozzzz666" wrote:
I am of the opinion that we only restrict newer thelemites from discovering their own truths within Liber Al by spewing our personal interpretations. It cheapens the experience of personal discovery, and only serves to confuse and mislead them.

I’m a bit curious how you think that reading other people’s interpretations could possibly restrict anyone at all from “discovering their own truths within Liber Al.”

In the first place, one might argue that only the exceedingly weak-willed could ever be prevented from forming their own interpretations by the mere act of reading other interpretations. In the second place, one might argue that the act of reading many interpretations might reveal the *kinds* of interpretation possible, thus enriching one’s own act of interpreting a text.

An interpretation of any text is always necessarily going to be personal, and it’s going to be personal regardless of how many other interpretations one takes into account and/or disregards.

Now, you're right that discussion could spoil the fun of figuring things out by yourself, but discussion is both helpful to figuring things out and to some extent necessary. For example, if someone said that his "personal interpretation of Thelema" was that you should always obey all authority figures, we could demonstrate that he's incorrect by consulting the Book.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Michael – I see you’ve already noted the relevant lines of the Tunis Comment.

Oz - My point is that if you see the evolution of Crowley’s thought toward TBOTL, the purpose of the Tunis Comment might be grasped. In the beginning I regarded it as a joke designed to test the intelligence of the reader until someone pointed out that Crowley penned the Tunis Comment in response to Norman Mudd’s obssessive study and idiosyncratic interpretations of TBOTL (the Tunis Comment was penned in 1925 and Mudd committed suicide in 1934 – those dates need to be verified btw). The causal link between the Tunis Comment and Mudd’s demise is unknown, but at the very least it would suggest the Tunis Comment should be taken seriously.

On the other hand anyone who has read TBOTL more than once is already in breach of the Tunis Comment – regardless of whether one discusses it or not. Each person must come to terms with those implications and what it means for them. What is certain is that the Tunis Comment is designed to stop Thelemites from arguing over TBOTL and discover and do their unique True Wills, becoming tested and true individuals. By the time a person reads the Tunis Comment, one has unwittingly taken the first step on the path of heresy. That means the initiation has started.

Now I generally agree with the wisdom of the Tunis Comment – if only because most discussions on TBOTL are tiresome and boring - but every now and then I feel compelled to speak up.

This thread started out with a question on whether that verse in TBOTL is a curse from RHK to slay the child of a Scarlet Woman who does not step up to the plate. There are numerous levels of meaning in “slay her child” and I don’t want to get bogged down in discussing them. Suffice to note my lengthy response was only to counter the opening post - and there is certainly evidence to support a literal reading. If you disagree, here are random questions for you:

1. Would you respect any Scarlet Woman who fulfills her role out of fear of losing her child?
2. What is the difference between this interpretation and Christian evangelists claiming 9/11, Katrina or the Indonesia tsunami happened because of the sins of the people?
3. How is the threat of slaying a child reconciled against TBOTL’s claims to be centered on the crowned and conquering child and against slave-thinking?


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 155
 

93 Michaal,

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Whether or not Crowley said that the Tunis Comment was a test or a blind is, in my opinion, irrelevant. Take for instance the statement "The study of this book is forbidden". The fact is that Crowley continued to recommend the study of the Book of the Law.

While I do see the point you are making, I personally feel that the word "study" in that quote, refers more to prolonged group study than individual study. As if one was to say 'the study of philosophy', rather than 'I study my philosophy book'. That's the way it comes off to me, anyway.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Take for instance the statement that "Those who discuss the contents of this book are to be shunned as centres of pestilence". Crowley continued to discuss the contents of the Book of the Law. This, surely, indicates that there is more to the Tunis Comment than meets the eye.

Perhaps it does. Or, perhaps the fact that Crowley discussed the contents of the book is the underlying cause of the way society views him today...Or perhaps he was not included in that statement (Al 1:36). Like I said, I don't claim to have all the answers. I just have a strong opinion on the writing, and feel that Crowley did too.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
In the final analysis, the Book of the Law is to be interpreted individually, each for himself or herself. The interpretations of others, be it Crowley or Grant or Regardie, or a myriad others, is of interest, but is not binding and does not constitute a final authority.

I totally agree, for those who have a personal relationship with the book already... But for those who do not, I must disagree. Were they to read such things first, then they would already have pre-concieved notions about Liber AL before they even find out what it means for them. In that case it is not merely "of interest", it is an obstruction.

These are just my opinions, and I do not present them as facts. I just want to ensure that those who are new to this path don't take all the stuff in this(or any) thread as gospel.

93 93/93,
Oz


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 155
 

93 Los,

"Los" wrote:
I’m a bit curious how you think that reading other people’s interpretations could possibly restrict anyone at all from “discovering their own truths within Liber Al.”

Well to be honest, I think we may be looking at different timelines here. I am thinking of what could come to pass 1000 years from now after all that time of interpretation. Similar to the way it has affected Christianity. Beginning with a thread here or there, and escalating to a point that the original message is so obscured by these interpretative writings that their influence is virtually(if not completely) inescapeable. Possibly even to the point that the actual text is not even in use. A little here and there, equals a lot over a long time-period, and the choices we make now could have great impacts on future generations.

"Los" wrote:
An interpretation of any text is always necessarily going to be personal, and it’s going to be personal regardless of how many other interpretations one takes into account and/or disregards.

It's not that I don't think people will come to their own personal understanding. It is that their understanding would have been influenced in such a way as to cause it to differ greatly from what it would have been without such interference.

93 93/93,
Oz


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 155
 
"tai" wrote:
On the other hand anyone who has read TBOTL more than once is already in breach of the Tunis Comment – regardless of whether one discusses it or not. Each person must come to terms with those implications and what it means for them. What is certain is that the Tunis Comment is designed to stop Thelemites from arguing over TBOTL and discover and do their unique True Wills, becoming tested and true individuals. By the time a person reads the Tunis Comment, one has unwittingly taken the first step on the path of heresy. That means the initiation has started.

I agree with most of that, except for the fact that those who have read the book more than once are in breach of the comment. I say this because the comment does not say that one must destroy the book after the first reading, it simply says that it is wise to do so... And even if it did, it doesn't dissuade them from getting a second(or tenth) copy.

I want to say that my original post wasn't "aimed" at you, tai. I don't place any more or less importance on your interpretations than anyone elses. The post was more of a way to point people to The Comment who aren't aware of it than a rejection of your comment. I hope you didn't take it that way.

I thought about answering your questions, but I don't necessarily disagree with the post you made. Your relationship with Liber Al vel Legis is between you, and you. I'll not interfere with that.

93 93/93,
Oz

*Edit*(I love being able to do that)

Sorry for de-railing the thread, Paul. I really felt compelled to make that first comment...It's something I find rather important, and feel is overlooked and "reason[ed]" away all too often.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 543
 
"tai" wrote:
Oz - My point is that if you see the evolution of Crowley’s thought toward TBOTL, the purpose of the Tunis Comment might be grasped. In the beginning I regarded it as a joke designed to test the intelligence of the reader until someone pointed out that Crowley penned the Tunis Comment in response to Norman Mudd’s obssessive study and idiosyncratic interpretations of TBOTL (the Tunis Comment was penned in 1925 and Mudd committed suicide in 1934 – those dates need to be verified btw).

In his 1923 diaries, Crowley noted a perceived need to forbid discussion of Liber L, in the midst of disagreements between devotees over its meaning, and his ongoing struggles with what he saw as megalomania in Charles Stansfield-Jones. The belief The Comment was written in a moment of inspiration is demonstrably false, since Crowley mulled the idea over for two years or so before writing it. The value in reading the book once and letting it impact the psyche is also noted, from which arose the directive to destroy the book after the first reading.

In weighing the authority of Crowley to forbid discussion of Liber L, one should consider the directive in the text that it is the law to give, even if one is merely wining and dining--are we to suppose that statement solely for the benefit of Crowley? Also, how can the Law be for all if no is allowed to discuss it? And lastly, what about the statements made to the effect that Crowley would never understand the complete meaning of the book, and that someone else would come after him to expound it?

To assume Aleister Crowley was flawless in his perceptions on any matter is a mistake in my opinion, and if he he had been flawless, there would be little need for more than one prophet of Thelema, which the book evidently supports.

Tim


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 155
 

93 Tim,

"herupakraath" wrote:
In his 1923 diaries, Crowley noted a perceived need to forbid discussion of Liber L, in the midst of disagreements between devotees over its meaning, and his ongoing struggles with what he saw as megalomania in Charles Stansfield-Jones. The belief The Comment was written in a moment of inspiration is demonstrably false, since Crowley mulled the idea over for two years or so before writing it. The value in reading the book once and letting it impact the psyche is also noted, from which arose the directive to destroy the book after the first reading.

I cannot agree that the fact that Crowley had "mulled the idea over" for any period of time before he wrote The Comment makes the inspiration of it's writing "demonstrably false". Did you ever think that perhaps it was not these Ideas that were the Inspiration, but instead the act of putting them into the form we see them in today? I mean having the thoughts and seeing their value is completely seperate from that moment of inspiration when one actually puts pen to paper with a purpose. The realization that these were the ideas to be expressed as per Al 3:40 is the inspiration...Not the ideas themselves. Anyone can see the value of the Ideas if they look with the right set of proverbial "glasses".

"herupakraath" wrote:
In weighing the authority of Crowley to forbid discussion of Liber L, one should consider the directive in the text that it is the law to give, even if one is merely wining and dining--are we to suppose that statement solely for the benefit of Crowley? Also, how can the Law be for all if no is allowed to discuss it? And lastly, what about the statements made to the effect that Crowley would never understand the complete meaning of the book, and that someone else would come after him to expound it?

There is nothing about discussion in the passage you quote here. Merely about Giving. And so, I give to you this Law. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.""Love is the law, love under will." I could even give you a link or printing of "The Message of the Master Therion" or some such writing. This is not a discussion... It is a gift.
Why must we discuss the Law for it to be "for all"? I can be completely ignorant of Newton's Law, I can even reject it, but if I jump from the empire state building, I am still subject to it's truth.

"herupakraath" wrote:
To assume Aleister Crowley was flawless in his perceptions on any matter is a mistake in my opinion, and if he he had been flawless, there would be little need for more than one prophet of Thelema, which the book evidently supports.

Aleister Crowley was NOT flawless. I hear this all too often. Who ever said such a thing? I don't believe that I have ever heard anyone make such a claim. I have however, heard countless people fight against the idea... It's interesting to me how that works. It's just a straw man. No-one I have ever heard has said that Crowley was flawless, or that we should emulate him as a man. Only that He was the prophet, and that HIS writings are the writings that are the most important within the context of Thelema. He was a man as we all are, and he would have been the first one to admit this.... but he was also the chosen prophet of the Aeon of Horus, and not another, despite his flaws.

93 93/93,
Oz


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 384
 

"...he was also the chosen prophet of the Aeon of Horus, and not another..."

I believe that "All words are sacred and all prophets true..." But we are adrift from the topic I suppose, unless one considers the Tunis Comment to contain a curse.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
In the final analysis, the Book of the Law is to be interpreted individually, each for himself or herself. The interpretations of others, be it Crowley or Grant or Regardie, or a myriad others, is of interest, but is not binding and does not constitute a final authority.

The most intelligent and relevant reply yet. I entirely agree. Thank you Mr. Staley!

93 93/93

James121


ReplyQuote
Share: