Notifications
Clear all

Clarification re Liber AL I:3 and “The Law Is For All”  

Page 1 / 3
  RSS

jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
04/01/2015 2:44 pm  

In “The Law is for All” (New Falcon Publications, 1996) under the Commentary for I:3 it states

This thesis is fully treated in The Book of Wisdom or Folly.  Its main statement is that each human being is an Element of the Cosmos, self-determined and supreme, co-equal with all other Gods.

From this the Law “Do what thou wilt” follows logically.  One star influences another by attraction, of course; but these are incidents of pre-destined orbits.  There is however a mystery of the planets, revolving about a star of whom they are parts; but I shall not discuss it fully in this place. [...]

Firstly, does anyone know what this "mystery" consists of (apart from it being “the enemy of truth”!) and just where it might have been fully discussed?

Secondly, Paragraph 4 of the Commentary to the same verse states:

See “The Book of the Great Auk” [sup:21puf4dc]FN[/sup:21puf4dc] for the demonstration that each “star” is the Centre of the Universe to itself, and that a “star,” simple, original, absolute, can add to its omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence without ceasing to be itself; that its one way to do this is to gain experience, and that therefore it enters into combinations in which its true Nature is for awhile disguised, even from itself.

[sup:21puf4dc]FN[/sup:21puf4dc] A Crowley diary from 1919 E.V.; the relevant passage is quoted on p.26.

Although there is a page reference given, there is no indication of where this "Book of the Great Auk" may have been published.  Does anybody have this information or know where else it might be available on the internet?

I don’t like this “new” version of The Law is for All (edited Louis Wilkinsion and Hymenaeus Beta, as distinct from Israel Regardie) at all, as although a ‘popular’ edition it appears to excise much valuable material.  The Foreword by Hymenaeus Beta states

A complete edition of all of Crowley’s commentaries, intended for scholars and magical students, is in preparation, and will be issued in a few years hence by New Falcon Publications.

But as usual with ©.O.T.O. publications, good intentions have not always given rise to good harvests, and nearly twenty (20 !) years have now elapsed without anything more in the way of full Commentaries being available, completely thanks to their bizarre policy of verbotenism and prohibiting the appearance of other Crowley material in the meantime.  Also in the interim, this ‘popular’ edition could at least have included the otherwise hard-to-come-by (and only previously published in the 93 Publishing's Magickal and Philosophical Comms way back in the '70s) "Djeridensis Commentary" as an Appendix.

(I don’t know about anyone else, but I have found that Hymeaneus Beta’s penchant and predilection for “silent” editing also leaves something to be desired as well.)

Norma N Joy Conquest


Quote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
04/01/2015 3:02 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
In “The Law is for All” (New Falcon Publications, 1996) under the Commentary for I:3 it states

This thesis is fully treated in The Book of Wisdom or Folly.  Its main statement is that each human being is an Element of the Cosmos, self-determined and supreme, co-equal with all other Gods.

From this the Law “Do what thou wilt” follows logically.  One star influences another by attraction, of course; but these are incidents of pre-destined orbits.  There is however a mystery of the planets, revolving about a star of whom they are parts; but I shall not discuss it fully in this place. [...]

Firstly, does anyone know what this "mystery" consists of (apart from it being “the enemy of truth”!) and just where it might have been fully discussed?

I don't know of any place where it is "fully" discussed, but I did recently come across a passing remark on the subject, although, you will be doubtlessly disappointed to learn, I can't remember where.

Secondly, Paragraph 4 of the Commentary to the same verse states:

See “The Book of the Great Auk” [sup:3vw1kuyy]FN[/sup:3vw1kuyy] for the demonstration that each “star” is the Centre of the Universe to itself, and that a “star,” simple, original, absolute, can add to its omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence without ceasing to be itself; that its one way to do this is to gain experience, and that therefore it enters into combinations in which its true Nature is for awhile disguised, even from itself.

[sup:3vw1kuyy]FN[/sup:3vw1kuyy] A Crowley diary from 1919 E.V.; the relevant passage is quoted on p.26.

Although there is a page reference given, there is no indication of where this "Book of the Great Auk" may have been published.  Does anybody have this information or know where else it might be available on the internet?

It's quoted in "Crowley's Chemistry", here -
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=86031#p86031

He also quotes it four times in other places - the "New Comment" on I,3; Magick chapter XVIII, footnote near the end; Magick Without Tears, letter 5; and the Book of Thoth, pp. 15-16.

From what I have found, this is the only section of the "Book of the Great Auk" that has ever been published.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/02/2015 12:40 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
In “The Law is for All” (New Falcon Publications, 1996) under the Commentary for I:3 it states

This thesis is fully treated in The Book of Wisdom or Folly.  Its main statement is that each human being is an Element of the Cosmos, self-determined and supreme, co-equal with all other Gods.
From this the Law “Do what thou wilt” follows logically.  One star influences another by attraction, of course; but these are incidents of pre-destined orbits.  There is however a mystery of the planets, revolving about a star of whom they are parts; but I shall not discuss it fully in this place. [...]

Firstly, does anyone know what this "mystery" consists of (apart from it being “the enemy of truth”!) and just where it might have been fully discussed?

I don't know of any place where it is "fully" discussed, but I did recently come across a passing remark on the subject, although, you will be doubtlessly disappointed to learn, I can't remember where.

No one else seems to know anything about this or if they do, having read my request they are being very indolent keeping quiet about it.  It would only be fair, having initiated the thread and asked the question, to give my own two cents on the matter which, whether perceived rightly or wrongly, might then manage to get things loose and flowing a bit (as the actress said to the bishop – or was it vice versa?)  Or, there might be no need anymore for anyone to ejaculate any further upon the matter.

To begin with, the statement that the planets are “part” of the star about which they revolve discounts an alternative cosmological theory that such a “star system” of planets and stars evolved independently out of proto-stellar dust, rather than their both being spin-offs thrown out from the same larger unit (similar to the theories on how the Earth and the Moon themselves began).

Also, I don’t think there is any distinction to be made beyond the merely physical between the four smaller inner ‘rocky’ planets and the four outer ‘gaseous’ giants.  (Actually I’ve just read that sentence back again and realised how on the face of it, it may look a bit strange!  But, let it stand…)

The seven ‘classical’ planets as the basic constituents of the solar system in the macrocosm represent the elements of the Ruach in the microcosm in the form of a hexagram about the solar Tiphereth (6), customarily accounting for the Moon in position 9, Mercury=8, Venus=7, Mars=5, Jupiter=4 and Saturn=3, and with the Earth itself as 10 representing the Nephesch of the “animal soul”.  And to a point, there is also the mysterious secret of the ARARITA formula to bear in mind, if you’ll excuse the pun, with its relationship to the monad/ mystic mon[othei]sm contrasting with the at-first-glance contradictory 2=0 formula (cf. Liber AL I:45). 

Further by A.C. perhaps related to this “mystery of the planets”:

The Individuality, indicated by the Sun, is to man’s nature as the Sun to the universe, its very formative force and centre of life.

Thus in the correspondence between the Sun’s position in the universe – his passage through the zodiac – and his aspects to the planets revolving about him, we have the major measure of human nature, and in each particular instance, the primary measure of that Individuality.  All other planetary aspects, positions, and influences relate to these central and major aspects, positions and influences of the Sun, in measure, as the planets themselves relate to the Sun.

The Sun Symbolically Considered
Helios, Apollo, Sol, or the Sun, is the centre and source of all things in our system.  By him are all things, and in him all things subsist.

All the planets are the children of the Sun, and in him all their qualities are harmonized and made perfect.  There is nothing in them that is not in him; they are but specializations of one power, functions of one body, ministers of one king.

For the Sun is the image of God in the greater universe, as Man is His image in the lesser.

It is, then, around the Sun that the true fables of all mythologies weave their magick dance.  And their legend is ever the mystery which we have learnt in Christian symbol, the fivefold mystery of Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension.  These five are one, and this is the history of every God and every man.

Here is a great secret: if this were understood and valued, it would realize the dream of the Adepts – the Brotherhood of Man.  It is by virtue of this that Freemasonry has broken down the frontiers of nations, uniting all men in a simple and sublime sacrament that recalls the deepest truths of life to those who are apt to forget them in the frivolities of business, pleasure and ambition.

The Christian Church attempted the same work, and if orthodox religion is broken it is because the Church insisted upon a literal interpretation of her mystery, confining to one time and place a tragedy as universal as the cosmos.

For each one of us is the central figure of a drama divine and human.  Each one of us has clothed immortal splendour in a veil of flesh, has doomed himself to suffer and to die in order to rise again and mount the heaven with ever-increasing joy and majesty.  It is hard for us to realize why this formula must be fulfilled, why the nature of things is such that the incorruptible must feed on corruption, the immortal shroud itself in the cerecloth of mortality.  Only when we consciously attain to the enjoyment of life as a sacrament, only when the universe is understood as being a vast replica of our own nature, do we accept the cross, and hail death as the culmination and prize of life.

For the Sun is pre-eminently the Lord of Life and Death.  From his glittering eye radiates the glory of life; then from his quiver he draws an arrow tipped with gold, and feathered from the eagle; he draws the string of his ivory bow to his shoulder; it twangs, and the life pours from the veins of the victim.  Swift is he and glorious in his chariot, and the horses of Eternity gallop through the galaxies; to right and left he shoots, and never misses his mark.  He hath given all, and he will take all back, that it may be made perfect. […]

(Aleister Crowley: The General Principles of Astrology [Weiser, 2002], pp. 157-9.)[/align:38p0isx1]

(Incidentally, this following second quotation is not from the “Popular” Commentaries in The Law is for All, where the contents of verses 13 to 31 inclusive from Chapter One have been concertina’d into just four paragraphs of A.C.’s pearls taking up two thirds of a page!!  That’s value!?)

Now since this Ego is only conscious by virtue of having formulated itself, or the Universe (as it happens to view the case), in the form of Duality, and since all the experiences of the Ego are necessary to it, as all phenomena soever are necessary, it is permissible to regard the totality of the experiences of the Ego as the presentation in duality of a single simultaneous fact.

In other words, life is an attempt to realize one’s own nature in one’s own soul. […]

In a similar way, Nuith and Hadith include all possible forms of existence; they can only realize Themselves by creating an infinite variety of forms of Themselves, each one real as it is Their image, illusory as it is a partial and divided aspect of Them.
Each such Star is intelligible to Them, as a poem is to its author, as a part of his Soul mirrored by his mind.  But it is not intelligible to itself, because it has no relation with any other ideas; it only knows itself as the babe of its mother Nuith, to whom it yearns, being stirred by its father Hadith to express that instinctive attachment by inarticulate cries.

To know itself, each such Star, or Soul […] must reveal its nature to itself by formulating that nature as duality.  It must express itself by a series of symbolic gestures ostensibly external to it, just as a painter reveals one facet of his Delight-Diamond by covering a canvas with colours in such a way that the picture seems at first sight to represent something outside himself.  It must, in fact, repeat for itself the original Magick of Nuith and Hadith which created it.

As They made Themselves visible piecemeal by fashioning particular Souls, expressing the Impersonal and Absolute Homogeneity by means of Personal Relative Heterogeneity, so, not forgetting their true nature as forms of the Infinite, whereby they are one with all, must the Stars devise methods of studying themselves.

They must make images of themselves, apparently external, and they must represent their highly complex qualities in a duality involving space and time.  For each Star is of necessity related to every other star, so that no influence is alien to its individuality; it must therefore observe its reaction to every other star. […]

Each star is in itself immune and innocent; its proper consciousness is monistic; it must therefore employ a body and mind as its instrument for interpreting its relations with other souls, and comparing its nature with theirs. […]

It is important to understand the necessity of our present universe.  Perfection could not do otherwise than create Imperfection. […] Imperfection is a fact, and a God whom Perfection did not bore would not have created Imperfection.

(from the “New” Comment to Liber AL I:29)[/align:38p0isx1]

Just how original to A.C. is this last idea of stars incarnating in order to experience absence of omnipresence, etc., or does it stem from some other older religion or philosophy - and that being so, what was its ultimate known source (i.e., how far back historically can it be traced)?  To the time of Zoroaster, Gautama and Pythagoras, perhaps?  Or before that?  Elron Hubbard also borrowed from it to form one of the central tenets of belief of Scientology along with his MEST (Matter-Energy-Space-Time) theory.

Meanwhile, the phrase “In the stars they remember, in the planets they forget” comes from Mathers’ translation of the Kaballah, but where did that idea come from originally?  And what the fuck does it mean? (Someone remind me please – I’ve forgotten.)

I get a feeling that the answer relating to the ‘mystery of the planets’ lies somewhere within what is hinted at within these words from A.C. unless anyone can suggest anything less arcane or which might fit better in this regard.  Otherwise I suppose there it (and this thread) will have to stay.

A final consideration, at a slight tangent - in the body of Nuit, the Universe, the almost completely unknown phenomenon known as ‘dark energy’ is held to be responsible for 75% of her “missing” mass and due to astrophysical laws her circumference is continuing to expand at an accelerating rate as more time elapses.  This will cause clusters of galaxies and the galaxies themselves to move further apart and away from each other, with the result that at this present rate of expansion they would all eventually become lost from view from each other in approximately 100 billion years.  At present, Nuit is nigh on 13.8 billion years of age.

However due to this acceleration the fabric of space will end up expanding so rapidly it will overcome gravity and all other known forces, and all material objects will become torn apart, with matter spread extremely thinly and with the outcome of “heat death” as an eternal winter of zero energetic and thermodynamic activity at the end of the line…

According to the probability of this model the Milky Way (and of all the other star systems) will be shredded in roughly 20 billion years from now.  Maybe sooner, if the rate of acceleration itself accelerates for some unknown reason.

It is irrelevant if the universe behaves like some giant mutant long-lived meson ;), and it may be slightly premature to concern oneself about it now (even though time is relative!) but if so wither progress in “the long run”? The final achievement amounting to – what is there to endure, and for whom (the ultimate extension of Crowley senior’s “And Then...”)?  And the final question for your next coffee time or interlude of other stimulants pontification – have we (or rather our ‘ancestors’) been through the whole of this process infinite times before and to come?  Again, to what end this eternally recurring cosmic version of “Groundhogs Day”?  (The excellent writings of Olaf Stapledon – particularly Star Maker, Nebula Maker and Last and First Men – have some very interesting ideas in this regard, and have surprisingly not dated a great deal at all in over seventy years since he wrote them.)

"belmurru" wrote:
[...] It's quoted in "Crowley's Chemistry", here -
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=86031#p86031 [...]

From what I have found, this is the only section of the "Book of the Great Auk" that has ever been published.

There seems to be a blank regarding accessing “The Book of the Great Auk” so far belmurru, but that “Crowley’s Chemistry” you included was an interesting thread and one which I don’t think has yet exhausted its possibilities.  Truly A.C. was a “renaissance man”, though with economics/ accountancy maybe his “achilles’ heel”.  Interesting that the thread also referenced ‘In the Stars they Remember, In the Planets they Forget’, too...

"jamie barter" wrote:
I don’t like this “new” version of The Law is for All (edited Louis Wilkinsion and Hymenaeus Beta, as distinct from Israel Regardie) at all, as although a ‘popular’ edition it appears to excise much valuable material.  The Foreword by Hymenaeus Beta states

A complete edition of all of Crowley’s commentaries, intended for scholars and magical students, is in preparation, and will be issued in a few years hence by New Falcon Publications.

But as usual with ©.O.T.O. publications, good intentions have not always given rise to good harvests, and nearly twenty (20 !) years have now elapsed without anything more in the way of full Commentaries being available, completely thanks to their bizarre policy of verbotenism and prohibiting the appearance of other Crowley material in the meantime.  Also in the interim, this ‘popular’ edition could at least have included the otherwise hard-to-come-by (and only previously published in the 93 Publishing's Magickal and Philosophical Comms way back in the '70s) "Djeridensis Commentary" as an Appendix.

I wonder exactly which part of the general public (that includes us) this “Popular” edition is meant to be aimed at (a rare Crowley book in that it reveals itself to be more atrocious and practically worthless every time I need to consult it, which thankfully is not very often having the Regardie version most times to hand instead.)  The “popular” people seem to have managed to do without it fine for all of the years leading up to 1996 – since then, has anyone found this edition to be particularly useful or valuable, or know of anybody else who has found it so? (No? I thought not.)

It is a great shame Regardie’s version is not still available as for all its own lesser shortcomings it was still nonetheless a worthy companion and did the job in the absence of any full edition incorporating all of A.C.’s various Commentaries.  Never mind the “Popular” version, let’s see this [the publicised C.O.T.O.’s] scholar’s/ magickal student’s version p.d.q. please: it would be nice to be able to do so say this side of 2026 (the date when A.C. completed the final Comment to The Book of the Law – also, 30 years after the ‘Popular’ first appeared. :D).

Comickally nay cosmickally yours
‘иJoy


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
17/02/2015 2:28 pm  

Try here

http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2325

Volume IV Number II

The Vision and The Voice : With Commentary and Other Papers

This issue of THE EQUINOX features Liber 418, THE VISION AND THE VOICE, and is the record of Crowley's visionary exploration of the 30 Aethyrs of the Enochian system of magick developed by the Elizabethan magicians Dr. John Dee and Edward Kelley. Most were received in the Sahara Desert in 1909, with the assistance of Victor B. Neuburg. This text is the source of many of the spiritual doctrines of Thelema, including much of its theogony, particularly concerning the All-Father Chaos and the goddess Babalon. Other works and papers give details of Crowley's advanced initiations. Liber 415, Opus Lutetianum (The Paris Working), is the record of a magical working. It includes the Esoteric Records of the Paris Working as well as the Holy Hymns to the Great Gods of Heaven. The surviving portion of Liber 73, the Urn (Diary, of Magus), and The Book of the Great Auk, are included, as well as The Fox of the Balkans.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
17/02/2015 4:10 pm  

That was a publisher's pre publication prospectus. The actual book did not contain: The surviving portion of Liber 73, the Urn (Diary, of Magus), or The Book of the Great Auk, nor The Fox of the Balkans."

OK


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
17/02/2015 4:19 pm  

Thats disappointing.
Another publishing failure.....


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/02/2015 8:33 pm  
"OKontrair" wrote:
That was a publisher's pre publication prospectus. The actual book did not contain: The surviving portion of Liber 73, the Urn (Diary, of Magus), or The Book of the Great Auk, nor The Fox of the Balkans."
"ptoner" wrote:
Thats disappointing.
Another publishing failure.....

Tell me about it!

It really is a disgrace, when you think about it.  The biggest setback to the widespread propagation of (the writings of) Thelema over the last quarter of a century has been as a direct result of the ©.O.T.O. acquiring the copyrights to the A.C. Estate.  After an initial flurry of activity in the ‘Nineties, since the new millennium and the Astrology book in 2002 there has been virtually no publications at all unless one counts some fiction and the (what some would call) rip-off “Best of The Equinox” anthologies.  Meanwhile, we wait and wait (and wait) for further new material, such as the “proper” versions of the Confessions, Magick Without Tears, Equinox III.2 (and whatever happened to III.7?) plus whatever Diaries there are.  F’chrissakes now, isn’t there some sort of petition we can sign or force we can bring to bear to somehow get their arses moving into a higher gear?

(Takes a soothing mouthful of tea)
N Joy!

Oh, and thank you v. much Paul for the Heru-ra-ha reference, although there doesn’t seem to be a lot else on it there either!


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
17/02/2015 9:41 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
F’chrissakes now, isn’t there some sort of petition we can sign or force we can bring to bear to somehow get their arses moving into a higher gear?

"Force" someone to publish?  Try to control the actions of OTO?

Thank goodness (almost) everything is available online.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
18/02/2015 12:36 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
F’chrissakes now, isn’t there some sort of petition we can sign or force we can bring to bear to somehow get their arses moving into a higher gear?

"Force" someone to publish?

Yes, as in:  ♫ Wooh, ooo, ooo, ooh - can you feel the Force ?! (= The Real Thang)

"Shiva" wrote:
Try to control the actions of OTO?

An impossible feat, I know.  In fact I don’t know why I even thought to suggest it – I must be going crazy.  However could I even have contemplated such a farcical idea?! 

Your alternative suits my lazy, laisser-faire side much better where you appear to be saying let’s all resign ourselves to being able to do nothing about it, not even affirm how dreadful the situation is from time to time as the years roll by just to show we - care a damn?  As with everything else in this life, “we” all end up with the kind of O.T.O. we deserve, and we do.  Still, as privileged beneficiaries I bet their top table are happy enough with the status quo, and feel that long (after 2018) may the good times continue to roll.

"Shiva" wrote:
Thank goodness (almost) everything is available online.

I don ‘t know where you get the idea that “almost everything” is online from… Even if someone posts something online, there is no guarantee it will stay there - especially with copyright “sensitive” material which the C.O.T.O. quaintly describe as “restricted” (as in, “the word of sin”) – for example, Liber Agape, IX[sup:3ofijepd]o[/sup:3ofijepd] Emblems and Modes of Use, De Arte Magica, etc.  (I could go on to list a lot more, and have done elsewhere on the forum if anyone is filled with the spirit to investigate, but will limit myself to 3 for the purposes here of giving an example.)  I don ‘t know where you get the idea from either that the items I mentioned previously – the unabridged Confessions, Diaries, missing Equinoxes and MWT etc – are available online as the last time I checked they’re not (unless you count Motta’s annotated version of the complete MWT which was on David Berrson’s “S.O.T.O.” castletower website).

So no my friend, not everything is available online by any means – and even if it were, that isn‘t going to suit everybody’s taste & some people, for various reasons of their own such as ease of reference in skimming from page to page, would much rather prefer to consult the physical texts than scrolling'n'searching.  They (books) also come in handy in the event of the occasional power cut or electromagnetic surge caused by a solar flare, that sort of unlikely thing: the old-fashioned way that everyone used to consult magickal (and other) textbooks. 😮

‘иjoY


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
18/02/2015 4:55 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
I don ‘t know where you get the idea that “almost everything” is online from.

From experience. I sold my entire Crowley library in 2007 and since then have completely rebuilt it in downloaded digital format.

Note the word, "almost," and don't bother to ask me if I care about a few missing diaries or an edited Confessions. There is nothing missing that will affect my ability to do my own practices as outlined in Gems from the Equinox, the only "Crowley Book" that I retained - and will probably soon sell.

Even if someone posts something online, there is no guarantee it will stay there - especially with copyright “sensitive” material which the C.O.T.O. quaintly describe as “restricted” (as in, “the word of sin”) – for example, Liber Agape...

That's why it's called "download," subject to that olde maxim, "He who hesitates loses the bird in the bush."

... IX[sup:2n4frfyw]o[/sup:2n4frfyw] Emblems and Modes of Use, De Arte Magica, etc.

Yeah, OTO has done a good job of suppressing/repressing such docs. But they keep appearing. Emblems , and other upper-degree docs, is/was available for years from a site in Czechoslovakia - apparently beyond the reach of the Oriental Templars. Anybody who hasn't got a copy hasn't been looking very hard. I just ran a Google search. Google is the Borg, but it shows, right now, several sources for Emblems.

There's no need to get anal about certain non-essential works that are not currently available. You have already received adequate information that should enable you to make your own contact with the secret chiefs.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
18/02/2015 5:28 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
I don ‘t know where you get the idea that “almost everything” is online from.

From experience. I sold my entire Crowley library in 2007 and since then havecompletely rebuilt it in downloaded digital format.
Note the word, "almost," and don't bother to ask me if I care about a few missing diaries or an edited Confessions. There is nothing missing that will affect my ability to do my own practices as outlined in Gems from the Equinox, the only "Crowley Book" that I retained - and will probably soon sell. [...]

It rather seems that our ideas about the meaning of "almost" differ.

"Shiva" wrote:

Even if someone posts something online, there is no guarantee it will stay there - especially with copyright “sensitive” material which the C.O.T.O. quaintly describe as “restricted” (as in, “the word of sin”) – for example, Liber Agape...

That's why it's called "download," subject to that olde maxim, "He who hesitates loses the bird in the bush."

Yes, those that will must "make hay while the sun shines".

"Shiva" wrote:
[...] There's no need to get anal about certain non-essential works that are not currently available. You have already received adequate information that should enable you to make your own contact with the secret chiefs.

I don’t know if you’re addressing “you” here in the singular or general (plural) sense, but if it’s towards me personally I don’t think showing concern over the ongoing availability of all of A.C.’s writings is a case of being anal at all. 

Plus whether something is essential or Non-essential is in the eye of the beholder. 

And as to the matter of whether “I” have received adequate information to enable me to make my own contact with the secret chiefs – well, sorry that’s secret :-X  :'( (If you can’t beat ‘em, join  ‘em…)

Now, where were we with the “mystery of the planets”?
N Joy


ReplyQuote
k4n3
 k4n3
(@k4n3)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 27
19/02/2015 1:24 pm  

I am quite surprised that people tend to brush off the fact that a certain organization that is supposed to promulgate the law of Thelema, does exactly the opposite - unthelemically restricting (committing the only sin mentioned in Liber AL) you and other people who never heard about Crowley or Thelema from accessing printed works of the Beast.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/02/2015 3:36 pm  
"k4n3" wrote:
I am quite surprised that people tend to brush off the fact that a certain organization that is supposed to promulgate the law of Thelema, does exactly the opposite - unthelemically restricting (committing the only sin mentioned in Liber AL) you and other people who never heard about Crowley or Thelema from accessing printed works of the Beast.

Oh, please.

First of all, the OTO makes substantially every single important Thelemic text available online for free. Do you have any idea how accessible this makes Thelema? When I was first learning about Thelema -- which would be almost fifteen years ago now -- I got started by reading all of the core texts online for free. There is no conceivable way I would have been able to buy all of those books, even if they were all available for purchase. The only reason that I was able to start to study and practice Thelema is due to the efforts of the OTO in making them widely available for free.

Second of all, not that it makes much of a difference, but it's the upper-degree members of the OTO who actually went through the trouble of typing in the words from Crowley's texts to make them available online for free. [At least, entry of the texts is attributed to upper-degree members] I think the world owes them a debt of gratitude for the not inconsiderable work.

Third, "restriction" in a Thelemic context does not mean what you seem to think it does. It's not "restriction" for copyright to exist; for an organization to keep a handful of minor, symbolic texts less visible to the public for reasons of its private initiations (P.S. it takes about ten seconds of work to find the supposedly "restricted" upper-degree documents online); or for an organization with limited resources to fail to keep up with whatever publishing schedule you've been imagining.

Opinions like yours are tiresome.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
19/02/2015 4:11 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
I don’t think showing concern over the ongoing availability of all of A.C.’s writings is a case of being anal at all.

Sorry. The word should not have been anal (-retentive), as in "holding in," but maybe rather "oral."
Let's see ...

Wiki: "The term anal retentive (also anally retentive), commonly abbreviated to anal, is used to describe a person who pays such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, potentially to the detriment of the anal-retentive person. The term derives from Freudian psychoanalysis."

No, I guess the right word was selected.

Posted by: k4n3:

I am quite surprised that people tend to brush off the fact that a certain organization that is supposed to promulgate the law of Thelema, does exactly the opposite - unthelemically restricting (committing the only sin mentioned in Liber AL) you and other people who never heard about Crowley or Thelema from accessing printed works of the Beast.

I don't see or hear anybody "brushing off" any facts about a "certain organization." We all know that the specified org has become the legal holder of the Crowley copyrights, and they do have the [legal] right to do what ever they will/want. It is not up to outsiders to say what they are "supposed" to do, or what their "ethical" responsibilities are.

If anybody doesn't like what they seem to be doing, i.e., announcing forthcoming docs and then failing to produce, then that anybody might consider joining the org and working within to effect a change, or maybe working from without by hiring an attorney-lawer-barrister-solicitor and proceeding to sue the org into compliance with one's wishes. Good luck ;D

Let there be no mistaken concepts generated here. I (me), Frater Shiva, former Grand 😉 Secretary 😮 General ::) .'. of Solar Lodge, the precursor to The Caliphate, which was the forerunner to the present paradigm of Oriental Templars, Inc, should theoretically be amongst the most outspoken agitators against the present state of affairs ... because "they" have relegated my alma pater to non-entityness in historical legend.

But noooo!  I have decided to say, "They are who they Am, and they can do what they want/will."
( It's my party, and I'll do what I want to ...)

Again ... Thank goodness almost all of the stuff is available for free online ... so that the phrase "restricting you and other people who never heard about Crowley or Thelema from accessing printed works of the Beast" applies only to folks who have no direct or indirect access to the internet ... and they're probably too busy with personnal survival problems to care about New Aeon techniques.

Almost anyone in our modern Borg-dominated New Era of digital availability can easily convert a digital file into a "printed work," simply for the cost of a few pieces of paper and a few drops of ink ... much cheaper than buying a bound book.

[/align:q73p1x1g]


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
19/02/2015 4:17 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I got started by reading all of the core texts online for free. There is no conceivable way I would have been able to buy all of those books, even if they were all available for purchase.

I hear you knockin' ... I got started in 1963, which was over 50 years ago. I saved my "lunch money" to buy what little was available. Any single book from The Equinox series was $10 ... that's about "ten lunches."


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/02/2015 5:02 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I got started by reading all of the core texts online for free. There is no conceivable way I would have been able to buy all of those books, even if they were all available for purchase.

I hear you knockin' ... I got started in 1963, which was over 50 years ago. I saved my "lunch money" to buy what little was available. Any single book from The Equinox series was $10 ... that's about "ten lunches."

I understand that there was a period of time, before the internet, when it was really quite difficult to get a hold of some of the important core Thelemic texts. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the only available published edition of Crowley's commentaries to the Book of the Law was the version that was incompetently edited by Regardie -- and even that was hard to find.

In contrast, as soon as I got interested in Thelema, I was able to pull up Crowley's full commentaries on my computer and study them side-by-side with the Book (something I did almost every day for a very long period of time).

Kids today just don't appreciate how good they have it. They don't seem to grasp how generous the OTO is in making these texts available, and how this wide availability does more than perhaps anything else to "promulgate" Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
19/02/2015 5:13 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Kids today just don't appreciate how good they have it. They don't seem to grasp how generous the OTO is in making these texts available, and how this wide availability does more than perhaps anything else to "promulgate" Thelema.

"But," they say, "I'm a child of the electronic Borg information age, and I have a smarty-phone. But I prefer a hardbound book in my hands that I can touch and feel, because it's more real that those difficlt words on my viewscreen ... and I don't have a brinter or any binding tools. Alas! "


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
19/02/2015 8:18 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I understand that there was a period of time, before the internet, when it was really quite difficult to get a hold of some of the important core Thelemic texts. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the only available published edition of Crowley's commentaries to the Book of the Law was the version that was incompetently edited by Regardie -- and even that was hard to find.

You are very much mistaken, as it happens. There was also the Grant/Symonds edition, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law, which came out in 1974.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/02/2015 8:27 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I understand that there was a period of time, before the internet, when it was really quite difficult to get a hold of some of the important core Thelemic texts. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the only available published edition of Crowley's commentaries to the Book of the Law was the version that was incompetently edited by Regardie -- and even that was hard to find.

You are very much mistaken, as it happens. There was also the Grant/Symonds edition, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law, which came out in 1974.

Thanks for the correction. How widely available was this edition?


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 447
19/02/2015 8:41 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I understand that there was a period of time, before the internet, when it was really quite difficult to get a hold of some of the important core Thelemic texts. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the only available published edition of Crowley's commentaries to the Book of the Law was the version that was incompetently edited by Regardie -- and even that was hard to find.

You are very much mistaken, as it happens. There was also the Grant/Symonds edition, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law, which came out in 1974.

There was also Motta's Commentaries of AL; it was first published at the same approximate time as TMAPCOTBOTL.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 447
19/02/2015 8:49 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I understand that there was a period of time, before the internet, when it was really quite difficult to get a hold of some of the important core Thelemic texts. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the only available published edition of Crowley's commentaries to the Book of the Law was the version that was incompetently edited by Regardie -- and even that was hard to find.

You are very much mistaken, as it happens. There was also the Grant/Symonds edition, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law, which came out in 1974.

Thanks for the correction. How widely available was this edition?

In the USA it was essentially unobtanium. When I first started reading and collecting works by Crowley in 1981, I wrote every known publisher listed in The List of Books in Print, and had my name added to lists of those in search of works by Crowley. TMAPCOTBOTL never appeared on my radar during the next 20 years, nor was I even aware of its existence.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
19/02/2015 9:09 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I understand that there was a period of time, before the internet, when it was really quite difficult to get a hold of some of the important core Thelemic texts. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the only available published edition of Crowley's commentaries to the Book of the Law was the version that was incompetently edited by Regardie -- and even that was hard to find.

You are very much mistaken, as it happens. There was also the Grant/Symonds edition, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law, which came out in 1974.

Thanks for the correction. How widely available was this edition?

It was published by 93 Publishing who were based in Montreal, Canada. We had copies over here in the UK, and they would have been distributed throughout Canada and the USA as well. 93 Publishing made a beautiful job of the book, and it is highly sought-after (and correspondingly expensive) today. It's bound to have been pirated in PDF format over the years. I still get the occasional enquiries about whether Starfire will be republishing it. I'd love to of course, subject to negotiations with the Crowley copyright holder.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
19/02/2015 10:30 pm  
"herupakraath" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I understand that there was a period of time, before the internet, when it was really quite difficult to get a hold of some of the important core Thelemic texts. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the only available published edition of Crowley's commentaries to the Book of the Law was the version that was incompetently edited by Regardie -- and even that was hard to find.

You are very much mistaken, as it happens. There was also the Grant/Symonds edition, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law, which came out in 1974.

Thanks for the correction. How widely available was this edition?

In the USA it was essentially unobtanium. When I first started reading and collecting works by Crowley in 1981, I wrote every known publisher listed in The List of Books in Print, and had my name added to lists of those in search of works by Crowley. TMAPCOTBOTL never appeared on my radar during the next 20 years, nor was I even aware of its existence.

I'm surprised to hear this. I had assumed that since it was published by a Canadian publisher, and was distributed over here (I remember buying my copy in the Atlantis Bookshop in London in, I think, 1975), then it would have been on sale in the USA too. As well as publishing titles (though unfortunately The Paris & Amalantrah Workings never went ahead), they used to distribute titles such as Sothis, The Magical Record of the Beast 666, and The Heart of the Master, the last two being the Grant/Symonds editions. They also republished The Book of Pleasure by Spare with an Introduction by Grant, and a small collection of essays by Parsons entitled Magick, Gnosticism and the Witchcraft.

They were clearly distributing somewhere, since Mike Magee said in one of the later issues of Sothis that the magazine wouldn't have survived without distribution by 93 Publishing.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/02/2015 2:02 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
Thanks for the correction. How widely available was this edition?

In the USA it was essentially unobtanium. When I first started reading and collecting works by Crowley in 1981, I wrote every known publisher listed in The List of Books in Print, and had my name added to lists of those in search of works by Crowley. TMAPCOTBOTL never appeared on my radar during the next 20 years, nor was I even aware of its existence.

Thanks for the info. That's the impression I had -- that this book (and a lot of Crowley material) was hard to come by in the pre-internet days.

It's worth noting that The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries is today available online, accessible with a simple google search. The entry of the text is attributed to Frater HB, the current head of the OTO (Ordo Templi Orientis).


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
20/02/2015 10:00 am  

There was also Motta's Commentaries of AL; it was first published at the same approximate time as TMAPCOTBOT

ah, those were heady days!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
20/02/2015 7:08 pm  
"Los" wrote:
It's worth noting that The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries is today available online, accessible with a simple google search. The entry of the text is attributed to Frater HB, the current head of the OTO (Ordo Templi Orientis).

http://hermetic.com/legis/magical-philosophical-commentaries

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 547
20/02/2015 11:08 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"herupakraath" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I understand that there was a period of time, before the internet, when it was really quite difficult to get a hold of some of the important core Thelemic texts. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the only available published edition of Crowley's commentaries to the Book of the Law was the version that was incompetently edited by Regardie -- and even that was hard to find.

You are very much mistaken, as it happens. There was also the Grant/Symonds edition, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law, which came out in 1974.

Thanks for the correction. How widely available was this edition?

In the USA it was essentially unobtanium. When I first started reading and collecting works by Crowley in 1981, I wrote every known publisher listed in The List of Books in Print, and had my name added to lists of those in search of works by Crowley. TMAPCOTBOTL never appeared on my radar during the next 20 years, nor was I even aware of its existence.

I'm surprised to hear this. I had assumed that since it was published by a Canadian publisher, and was distributed over here (I remember buying my copy in the Atlantis Bookshop in London in, I think, 1975), then it would have been on sale in the USA too. As well as publishing titles (though unfortunately The Paris & Amalantrah Workings never went ahead), they used to distribute titles such as Sothis, The Magical Record of the Beast 666, and The Heart of the Master, the last two being the Grant/Symonds editions. They also republished The Book of Pleasure by Spare with an Introduction by Grant, and a small collection of essays by Parsons entitled Magick, Gnosticism and the Witchcraft.

They were clearly distributing somewhere, since Mike Magee said in one of the later issues of Sothis that the magazine wouldn't have survived without distribution by 93 Publishing.

Copies do surface intermittently. We have a copy for sale at the moment and I've sold two previous copies over the last 6 months. It's just one of those titles that takes a little seeking out and patience to obtain.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
22/02/2015 1:20 pm  
"Hamal" wrote:
Copies do surface intermittently [...] It's just one of those titles that takes a little seeking out and patience to obtain.

Alternatively, simply visit abebooks.co.uk and take your pick of the five copies listed as available today:

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=magical+philosophical+commentaries (Six appear but the first is just a photocopy...)

Prices start at a surprisingly modest £334.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 547
22/02/2015 5:18 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Hamal" wrote:
Copies do surface intermittently [...] It's just one of those titles that takes a little seeking out and patience to obtain.

Alternatively, simply visit abebooks.co.uk and take your pick of the five copies listed as available today:

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=magical+philosophical+commentaries (Six appear but the first is just a photocopy...)

Prices start at a surprisingly modest £334.

It's either famine or flood! Incidentally ours is on special offer at only £300, but I noticed the old page was still cached, now cleared. We aren't on Abebooks but can be found here:

http://liber-al.com/magical-philosophical-commentaries-book-law%E2%80%A8-2/

If such a link be allowed!

🙂
Hamal


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
22/02/2015 5:46 pm  

nice!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
22/02/2015 7:32 pm  
"Hamal" wrote:
If such a link be allowed!

Of course it is! As you know, I'm a great admirer of your online bookshop, Hamal.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2582
22/02/2015 8:08 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I understand that there was a period of time, before the internet, when it was really quite difficult to get a hold of some of the important core Thelemic texts. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the only available published edition of Crowley's commentaries to the Book of the Law was the version that was incompetently edited by Regardie -- and even that was hard to find.

You are very much mistaken, as it happens. There was also the Grant/Symonds edition, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law, which came out in 1974.

I lucked out and found this book (Magical and Philosophical Commentaries) , not advertised anywhere online, save on a stripmall retail, (turns out they are located a half an hours drive from me) New Age bookshops personal website about 5 or 6 years ago and bought it for a little over 200 bucks which I considered a great steal.  One of those luck of the Gods things.
[s:3eydkthk]I just wanted to offer; if anyone has any passages that they want looked up, that aren't available in the later versions by New Falcon or whatever, I would be glad to type them up for you. I think this kind of selective quoting is not copyright infringement, esp for educational use.[/s:3eydkthk]

LOL I just saw it has been typed up in full on hermetic texts.  Even better!


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2582
22/02/2015 8:12 pm  

A lot of people are ripping on the OTO pubilshing; I agree they are very slow; and are not always completely accurate in their announcements.  What I want to say positively is that what they do put out is very useful and generally actually new material.  I really like their Commentaries on the Holy Books, as well as their Vision and the Voice and Other Papers. 


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2582
22/02/2015 8:20 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Just how original to A.C. is this last idea of stars incarnating in order to experience absence of omnipresence, etc., or does it stem from some other older religion or philosophy - and that being so, what was its ultimate known source (i.e., how far back historically can it be traced)?  To the time of Zoroaster, Gautama and Pythagoras, perhaps?  Or before that?  Elron Hubbard also borrowed from it to form one of the central tenets of belief of Scientology along with his MEST (Matter-Energy-Space-Time) theory.

I am not sure if there are any traditions about stars incarnating in the flesh; but I do know that the vice versa is extant in traditional texts of the Egyptians.  Upon death the Pharaoh or king was said to ascend the heavens to become a Star.


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 547
22/02/2015 8:38 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
Of course it is! As you know, I'm a great admirer of your online bookshop, Hamal.

Many thanks Paul! 😀


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
24/02/2015 10:28 am  
"christibrany" wrote:
I am not sure if there are any traditions about stars incarnating in the flesh; but I do know that the vice versa is extant in traditional texts of the Egyptians.  Upon death the Pharaoh or king was said to ascend the heavens to become a Star.

Crowley in chapter 6 of his auto-hagiography Confessions writes "It was only when the development of my logical faculties supplied the demonstration that I was compelled to set myself in opposition to the Bible itself." Crowley was Bible literate enough to be aware of that the birth of the Jesus Christ mentioned in the said Holy Book, is marked by "his star" (Matthew 2: 2), rising (Matthew 2: 2, 9) and appearing (Matthew 2: 7), and this story is an example of a 'tradition' where someone associated with a star, is incarnating in the flesh.

In direct contrast to the said Jesus Christ story in the Bible - the Holy Book of the Christians, where the said Christ, in the specifically Christian part of the said Holy Book, The New Testament, is the only one associated with a star, incarnating in the flesh - the third verse in The Book of the Law, which Crowley used as the main Holy Book of his religion Thelema, contains the claim that "Every man and every woman is a star." Crowley's mentioned compelling "opposition to the Bible itself", is likely to have inspired him to put the anti Biblical claim that "Every man and every woman is a star.", near the very beginning of the book that he used as the main Holy Book of his religion Thelema.

According to ancient tradition, the said Jesus Christ is in the Bible described as having his own star (Matthew 2: 2), because he in the same verse is described as being "born king of the Jews" (Matthew 2: 2).


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
24/02/2015 12:40 pm  

93!

"Being a star" (Thelema) and "having a star" (Christ) are completely different things. This is really too far stretched, wellread!

And after reading about "the said Jesus Christ story in the Bible - the Holy Book of the Christians, where the said Christ, in the specifically Christian part of the said Holy Book, The New Testament" my brain hurts, sorry, no language barrier can excuse this...

Read on! Breed on!

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
24/02/2015 3:25 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"Being a star" (Thelema) and "having a star" (Christ) are completely different things. This is really too far stretched, wellread!

What that is really too far stretched, is Crowley's silly story about how the The Book of the Law was dictated to him by a 'praeter-human intelligence' named Aiwass, as if such an entity would dictate a new Holy Book for the whole world where so much is patterned after esoteric Golden Dawn material, that without knowledge of the latter, the said book is likely to come across as impenetrable and/or ridiculous for the uninformed reader. 

In The Book of the Law it is claimed that "Every man and every woman is a star." (I: 3), and this is in direct contrast to the specifically Christian part of the Bible, The New Testament, where only Jesus Christ is described as having a star (Matthew 2: 2), and where only Jesus Christ is described as being as star (2 Peter 1:19), and where only Jesus Christ describes himself as being a star (Revelation 22:16). And Revelation is of course a part of the Bible which is reflected in how The Book of the Law is written, written so that it is in line with Crowley's compelling "opposition to the Bible itself." (Confessions chapter 6), and written so that it is in line with Crowley's identification of himself with the beast 666 mentioned in the Bible in Revelations (Revelations 13: 15-18 and Revelations 14: 9-11), and written so that it reflects Crowley's overall familiarity with the Bible.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
24/02/2015 6:52 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
What that is really too far stretched, is [several strethed examples follow] ...

Indeed, these examples of yours form the basis of many two-sided confrontations that we may call debates. "Channeled" speeches and writings, sometimes called "automatic writings," usually (always?) tend to be presented in the language and concepts that are already known, or perhaps ingrained or imprinted, in the consciousness of the scribe or the speaker.

So, yes, we see much (most?) of Crowley's work expressed in Golden Dawn terminology and concepts and, surely, the Beast 666, the staunch enemy of Christianity, is certainly drawn from the Bible, which is merely a "book" that was made up from assorted myths and docs that was was/were selectively included in a "Bible" that was put together by people who weren't even around when the so-called Jesus was doing his thing.

Well, I suppose most of the Old Testament was available in Zero to 33 AD*, but that "New" Testament, which is the basis of Christianity, is a "newer Sheriff in Town." And, of course, Revelation(s), where 666 makes his debut, is more like an Appended Apendix Appendum, which even Christians have a hard time interpreting.

* "Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings. - http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

Sometimes, it's all a stretch. Personally, I see the "Star" concept having much more validity within the consciousness of the individual initiate. I have had, and had reported, a multitude of experiences wherein a person who is traveling astrally, or who is engaged in meditation, has a vision of a Star, which either talks to him/her or which forms the basis of a dhyana/samadhi. And that internal Star is often (usually? always?) somehow interpreted as, or identified with, one's angel, or higher self, or whatever.

Sometimes, interesting external phenomena are associated with an unusual Star in the sky/heavens.

So, I have no problem whatsoever with Every man and every woman is a star, nor even with the Star that the "wise men" followed, because both these archetypes have touched my consciousness. I'm sure that many (most?) lashtalians have had similar experiences.

This other stuff, the praeter-human dudes and the Jesus legends and the snarly Beasts ... well, there's a lot of room for stretching there.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
24/02/2015 7:00 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
What that is really too far stretched, is Crowley's silly story about how the The Book of the Law was dictated to him by a 'praeter-human intelligence' named Aiwass, as if such an entity would dictate a new Holy Book for the whole world where so much is patterned after esoteric Golden Dawn material, that without knowledge of the latter, the said book is likely to come across as impenetrable and/or ridiculous for the uninformed reader.

Well, it seems like a "silly story" to you no doubt, wellreadwellbred, but that doesn't mean that it is a "silly story". Perhaps you find "silly" the whole idea of there being praeter-human intelligences; perhaps you think there's nothing beyond the virtual reality of our apparent identities. If so, you're far from alone, but again it doesn't mean that you are right.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 447
24/02/2015 11:28 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Crowley's mentioned compelling "opposition to the Bible itself", is likely to have inspired him to put the anti Biblical claim that "Every man and every woman is a star.", near the very beginning of the book that he used as the main Holy Book of his religion Thelema.

WRWB: you are clearly ignorant of the elements of ancient Egyptian culture that are woven into the Book of the Law. The objective of the Kings of Egypt was to become one of the 'imperishable' stars in the heavens after dying. The imagery of Nuit was painted on the coffins of the deceased, and in the case of the step pyramid of Unas at Saqqara, there are hundreds of five-pointed stars (yeah, the symbol Nuit) engraved on the ceilings of the hallways and burial chambers so that the King could find his way to the abode of the stars after his physical demise. The adoration and worship of the stars portrayed in the Book of the Law has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
25/02/2015 12:58 pm  

I was unpredictably away for a few days, and we seem to have taken a turning-off away from “the mystery of the planets” and the long-term prospects for Nuit onto my little ‘peeve’/’bee in bonnet’ about Crowley’s texts not being more available away from the net, but as that was about a third of my OP anyway I can’t really moan (nor was I intending to anyway, but some people are more sensitive – or maybe even anal’s the word?! ;D – than others about posts going off topic that’s all.  I think maybe there’s likely to be a little bit more of that before we’re all finished though.)

Reply #12 by Los on: February 19, 2015, 03:36:11 pm:
Quote from: k4n3 on February 19, 2015, 01:24:38 pm:
"I am quite surprised that people tend to brush off the fact that a certain organization that is supposed to promulgate the law of Thelema, does exactly the opposite - unthelemically restricting (committing the only sin mentioned in Liber AL) you and other people who never heard about Crowley or Thelema from accessing printed works of the Beast."

Oh, please.
First of all, the OTO makes substantially every single important Thelemic text available online for free. Do you have any idea how accessible this makes Thelema? When I was first learning about Thelema -- which would be almost fifteen years ago now -- I got started by reading all of the core texts online for free. There is no conceivable way I would have been able to buy all of those books, even if they were all available for purchase. The only reason that I was able to start to study and practice Thelema is due to the efforts of the OTO in making them widely available for free.

Reply #15 by Los on February 19, 2015, 05:02:10 pm:
They [Readers/ ‘Kids’] don't seem to grasp how generous the OTO is in making these texts available, and how this wide availability does more than perhaps anything else to "promulgate" Thelema.

Unsurprisingly, I agree with K4n3’s observation.  Oh, please save us from this schtick of yours here, Los.  You talk about tiresome!!  Of course the ©.O.T.O. has been “generous” (I acknowledge your use of the word) in making these texts available – but what else would you have them do in “promulgating” or “propagating”?  Sit on them for ever for their own personal use and profit? 😮 (Heaven forbid!)  I have always paid tribute to their input in this regard so far as it goes – vide this written twenty years ago and which I stand by:

The C.O.T.O. has produced through donations, “royalties”, and the help of members' funds on the whole scholastically competent and occasionally aesthetically satisfying editions of Crowley's work.  It has also transcribed key Thelemic texts onto information technology which have the associated additional advantages of index-linking and cross-referencing through a data base.  This achievement is probably the “Caliphornian”’s strongest suit, along with the research which is of necessity involved with it - and in my opinion is the only valid reason for this particular manifestation of the “O.T.O.” to exist.  (Some people may also count what has more or less ended up as a large series of social clubs “doing” magick of varying quality: but where the magick fails to outweigh the socialisation aspects, as it generally does, I do not.) There is just one proviso involved here: that in this rôle the C.O.T.O. does other Thelemites - and those not necessarily “Caliphornian” members - a genuine act of service by making these researches widely available at zero or reasonable cost, and without interfering with the rights of others to do similarly. (In one sense this means abandoning any monopolistic claims whatsoever to the Crowley copyrights, which after all in the final reckoning are religio-philosophical writings meant to be appreciated and enjoyed by everybody in the public domain who has the ability to do so - for just as “The Law” is for all, so too by extension are all the words of its Prophet, whether they be written on subway walls, in tenement halls, or on beautiful paper made by hand.) If by doing this the C.O.T.O. succeed in establishing for themselves a reputation for excellence, then people will naturally gravitate towards their products and their own organization as a matter of course; if on the other hand they are inferior, nothing will be able to save them and these same people will go elsewhere for their Thelemic materials and association and must be allowed to have the freedom and the opportunity and the right of so being able to do.

(From “The “O.T.O.” since 1973” – for context and full contents see the Blog of the same name here on Lashtal)[/align:lozih0ib]

Reply #12 by Los on: February 19, 2015, 03:36:11 pm:

Second of all, not that it makes much of a difference, but it's the upper-degree members of the OTO who actually went through the trouble of typing in the words from Crowley's texts to make them available online for free. [At least, entry of the texts is attributed to upper-degree members] I think the world owes them a debt of gratitude for the not inconsiderable work.

Whilst in the Caliphornian “O.T.O.”, I volunteered on many occasions myself to input texts if required, along with others of my acquaintance (some not even in the Order) only to be told “thanks, but no thanks” – it seems they did actually prefer only to have the sacred texts inputted by “higher degree” members for some reason – as if the mere fact of seniority ensured better proofing, or maybe so just so they could claim some sort of kudos from “the world” knowing they’d done it, I don’t know.  But the offer – for free and most sincerely and willingly given from lots of volunteers – was there.

Reply #13 by Shiva on: February 19, 2015, 04:11:51 pm:
Quote from: jamie barter on February 18, 2015, 05:28:36 pm:
I don’t think showing concern over the ongoing availability of all of A.C.’s writings is a case of being anal at all.

Sorry. The word should not have been anal (-retentive), as in "holding in," but maybe rather "oral."
Let's see ...
Wiki: "The term anal retentive (also anally retentive), commonly abbreviated to anal, is used to describe a person who pays such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, potentially to the detriment of the anal-retentive person. The term derives from Freudian psychoanalysis."
No, I guess the right word was selected.

Make your mind up dearie! (& You can always “edit” afterwards if you’re muddled, you know…)

Reply #13 by Shiva on: February 19, 2015, 04:11:51 pm:

We all know that the specified org has become the legal holder of the Crowley copyrights, and they do have the [legal] right to do what ever they will/want. It is not up to outsiders to say what they are "supposed" to do, or what their "ethical" responsibilities are.

I very much disagree – it is up to “outsiders” insofar as there is an overlap of interest (which there most certainly is) with what they are “supposed to do” with the common, should-be-open-to-all legacy of the Beast, the magickal and other writings of A.C. which they have managed to have gotten hold of for themselves (see below).  Ethically, they are responsible in that they should be ensuring that access to these items should all be open and available “for all” on the ‘net or otherwise.  That was what Gerald Yorke’s intention was in making his archive for all (which the C.O.T.O. regularly consult and rely on heavily, through the vicissitudes of fate no longer having the majority of it themselves.  What else they do, and what their responsibilities are within the remit of their own org, are of course rightly and naturally enough their own business.)

Reply #13 by Shiva on: February 19, 2015, 04:11:51 pm:

If anybody doesn't like what they seem to be doing, i.e., announcing forthcoming docs and then failing to produce, then that anybody might consider joining the org and working within to effect a change, or maybe working from without by hiring an attorney-lawer-barrister-solicitor and proceeding to sue the org into compliance with one's wishes. Good luck ;D

Well, let’s leave aside any ideas of “suing into compliance” – not my own personal style – but I as “anybody” can’t be criticised for failing to have a go as that’s precisely what I attempted to do for the nearly eight years I was with them, 1986 to ’94.  (And in this, incidentally, I differ from pro-C.O.T.O. Los, who regularly has informed us he has the preference to make up his mind about the evidence of something from first hand direct experience).  I think I made a “hell” of an effort at the time: I’ve made the following various points separately just the once, or maybe twice at most, at various times throughout all of my postings on the Lash, so will pull them all together here & now for the benefit of those who might not have read them before, or who have poor memories or are disinclined to search for them or whatever.  So one more time for the road then…

I was one of the seven original founding members of the ©.O.T.O. in the UK and as the fledgling London camp & oasis master then organized 39 magickal workings in approximately a seven year period (some of these actually booked in the name of the O.T.O. into the “rock’n’roll” Columbia hotel – very reasonable rates, and you never knew what pop stars of le jour you might bump into in the bar afterwards :o.  But I digress.) Had I stayed in, tugged my forelock and toed the corporate line better, it is a substantially more than 50/50 probability that I would have been made X[sup:lozih0ib]o[/sup:lozih0ib] at some point by now, on the prevailing basis of “buggin’s turn” as was the mode then if nothing else.  However, I was never one for taking the Caliph’s “shilling” on all matters…

In the late ‘80s Gerald Suster, the Secretary of the London group and an M.A. in Law from Cambridge with particular knowledge of probate business, came out with the news which they were unaware of before then that the Crowley bankruptcy could actually be bought out for a relative song – or between £1,500 and £3,000 – which if we had had at the time, we would have done ourselves under the auspices of our own A.’. A.’. subsidiary “the company of heaven”, since in terms of integrity we were at least sure about our own probity!  But as we didn’t (have the paltry sum involved), G. asked me instead if I thought it would be a good idea to apprise the O.T.O. of the situation and persuade them to go for it themselves.  As there was once a time when they seemed pretty kosher and we believed that they might be the real deal, I agreed – “what harm can it do?” I can remember saying back to him like some well-meaning idiot.  Later on, Gerald said that he regarded that tipping off of the C.O.T.O. and letting the cat out of the bag re the copyright situation as the biggest magickal mistake of his life – with which I can only sadly concur, although I must also, I suppose, accept my own limited karmic culpability there as well.  Because we came to differ with the aggressively non-laisser faire way the C.O.T.O. came to handle this new ownership after 1991, in all good conscience we felt unable to continue within the Order and both resigned, although I hung on a bit longer than he did, misguidedly still hoping to “influence” it from the inside whilst being the national Grand  Secretary  General  .'.  as well.  The main discontent the C.O.T.O. had with myself was that I apparently failed in keeping, and/or had no desire to keep, Gerald “under control” when he occasionally kicked up a fuss – having failed to be able to do so themselves! – but that is a whole other story for another time, if anyone’s particular interest might occasion to warrant its telling. 

When I left I was a IV[sup:lozih0ib]o[/sup:lozih0ib] and continually delayed for advancement to the V[sup:lozih0ib]o[/sup:lozih0ib] (for reasons not so puzzling perhaps in retrospect) given that someone else who received a Minerval on the same date as I did had been bumped up to VII[sup:lozih0ib]o[/sup:lozih0ib] by that time (although he has advanced no further, I think, after twenty odd years – nice lot of dues paid towards legal fees, though!).  Meanwhile, after resigning, my time was written out of the records in quite a wittily Orwellian way with the eventual new London group calling itself Tabula Rasa – or a clean slate!  Nothing quite like appreciation of all one’s efforts but please though, no sympathy nor mention of “sour grapes” from anyone (heaven forbid!) – this was, nor is, the case at all: I have no regrets on that score “whatsoever”!  But nearly a quarter of a century later things seem, if anything worse than ever, unfortunately. 🙁

Reply #13 by Shiva on: February 19, 2015, 04:11:51 pm:

Let there be no mistaken concepts generated here. I (me), Frater Shiva, former Grand 😉 Secretary 😮 General  ::) .'. of Solar Lodge, the precursor to The Caliphate, which was the forerunner to the present paradigm of Oriental Templars, Inc, should theoretically be amongst the most outspoken agitators against the present state of affairs ... because "they" have relegated my alma pater to non-entityness in historical legend.
But noooo!  I have decided to say, "They are who they Am, and they can do what they want/will."
(♫ It's my party, and I'll do what I want to ...♫)

The psychology is interesting here.  Not sour grapes (heaven forbid!), no sulkily trotting out of the playground with the ball in an attempt to stop play (as if one could!), no regrets (not even a few too few to mention) But almost a Taoist peace, a zen-like acceptance of the status quo in fact I feel honoured to be able to bask in the serenity of such sage-like wisdom upon the Lashtal screen.  I think shirley you (you), Frater Shiva, former Grand Secretary General of Solar Lodge, the precursor to The Caliphate, which was the forerunner to the present paradigm of Oriental Templars, Inc, should maybe, for your inspirational humility alone, be nominated the one true O.H.O.  Ah, If only Ray Burlingame had been by chance the most favoured out of Crowley’s Agape Lodgers instead of McMurtry, how different things would be today… 

(Or, if there be mistaken concepts generated here - if it’s all a line, a masque, a con yeahhhh! You may care to consult me by PM if you wish on any psychological issues you may have yourself – my own rates are very competitive and reasonable! :D.

Reply #13 by Shiva on: February 19, 2015, 04:11:51 pm:

Again ... Thank goodness almost all of the stuff is available for free online ... so that the phrase "restricting you and other people who never heard about Crowley or Thelema from accessing printed works of the Beast" applies only to folks who have no direct or indirect access to the internet ... and they're probably too busy with personnal survival problems to care about New Aeon techniques.
Almost anyone in our modern Borg-dominated New Era of digital availability can easily convert a digital file into a "printed work," simply for the cost of a few pieces of paper and a few drops of ink ... much cheaper than buying a bound book.

"A miss is 'almost' as good as a mile …"


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
25/02/2015 12:59 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
What that is really too far stretched, is Crowley's silly story about how the The Book of the Law was dictated to him by a 'praeter-human intelligence' named Aiwass, as if such an entity would dictate a new Holy Book for the whole world where so much is patterned after esoteric Golden Dawn material, that without knowledge of the latter, the said book is likely to come across as impenetrable and/or ridiculous for the uninformed reader.

Well, it seems like a "silly story" to you no doubt, wellreadwellbred, but that doesn't mean that it is a "silly story". Perhaps you find "silly" the whole idea of there being praeter-human intelligences; perhaps you think there's nothing beyond the virtual reality of our apparent identities. If so, you're far from alone, but again it doesn't mean that you are right.

With all due respect, Michael Staley, you are of course free to accept the said far out "silly story", if doing so corresponds with you following your genuine preference[-s] in this matter, even if Crowley initially describing the original handwritten manuscript of The Book the Law as "This is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing", comes across as more intelligent than his later far out "silly story" about that it was dictated to him by a 'praeter-human intelligence'. But given that Los is right about that the core matter of practicing Thelema, is about following your genuine 'preferences' in an as intelligent way as possible, you preferring the said far out "silly story", does not come across as an example of practicing Thelema in an as intelligent way as possible.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
25/02/2015 1:02 pm  

[cont'd...]

Reply #15 by Los on: February 19, 2015, 05:02:10 pm:

I understand that there was a period of time, before the internet, when it was really quite difficult to get a hold of some of the important core Thelemic texts.

You understand correctly.  Yes there was. Hard to believe wasn’t it!?  Incredibly enough, did you happen to know there was also a period of time when humanoids didn’t view any sort of a screen at all? 😮

Reply #15 by Los on: February 19, 2015, 05:02:10 pm:

For example, if I'm not mistaken, the only available published edition of Crowley's commentaries to the Book of the Law was the version that was incompetently edited by Regardie -- and even that was hard to find.

Well you definitely are mistaken there Los – as has been proved!  I wonder though, what else you might possibly have been mistaken about? ???
Btw, I don’t agree that Regardie’s version was at all incompetently edited – or nothing to any serious degree anyway.  Certainly not the butcher’s job done with the atrocious and unpopular “Popular” Version by the ©.O.T.O. since, and no worse than Motta’s own selections in his editing of the contemporaneous “The Commentaries of AL”.

Reply #15 by Los on: February 19, 2015, 05:02:10 pm:

In contrast, as soon as I got interested in Thelema, I was able to pull up Crowley's full commentaries on my computer and study them side-by-side with the Book (something I did almost every day for a very long period of time).

Sigh* So much apparent diligence and hard effort… for so little apparent result?  I don’t know whether to commiserate – or to commiserate? ;D I would say, “Keep up the good work” but somehow that seems… inappropriate?

Reply #15 by Los on: February 19, 2015, 05:02:10 pm:

Kids today just don't appreciate how good they have it.

Well yes I would agree with you there…  Kids today, they don’t know they’re born (cue “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch from Monty Python…)

Reply #21 by Michael Staley on: February 19, 2015, 09:09:08 pm:

It was published by 93 Publishing who were based in Montreal, Canada.

Reply #23 by Los on: February 20, 2015, 02:02:45 am:

[…] It's worth noting that The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries is today available online, accessible with a simple google search. The entry of the text is attributed to Frater HB, the current head of the OTO (Ordo Templi Orientis).

I also agree that The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries is definitely the finest produced and most aesthetic version of the Commentaries so far by far, and it is very much a shame that it can’t be brought out again.  Tsk, these pesky copyright hassles once more!  But, credit where it’s due department, someone told me once that Bill Breeze was involved in its actual production from the time of his involvement with 93 Publishing – does anyone know if this is true?

"christibrany" wrote:
A lot of people are ripping on the OTO pubilshing; I agree they are very slow; and are not always completely accurate in their announcements.

This might qualify as the understatement of the century there, chris!  I think they have actually given up making any more “announcements” of moratoriums for the time being out of sheer embarrassment – you can only keep trotting out the same line in excuses for so many years without them becoming completely transparent, after all.  But I wouldn’t put it past them to have the gall to try it on one more time at least!

"christibrany" wrote:
What I want to say positively is that what they do put out is very useful and generally actually new material.  I really like their Commentaries on the Holy Books, as well as their Vision and the Voice and Other Papers.

As far as it goes maybe – but “generally actually new material” though?  Nearly all of it was previously available in print in one form or another.  What examples did you have in mind there?  Motta issued A.C.’s commentaries on Liber LXV in the late ‘70s and gave every indication that left to his own devices would have gone ahead with his own Thelema Publications “Equinox” publishing programme in the ‘80s and onwards that would have put the C.O.T.O.’s efforts into the shade, with the possible exception of their Book Four.  And their (C.O.T.O.’s) own commentaries on the Holy Books and The Vision and the Voice came out twenty years ago and are long out of print, for almost as long.  Let alone the availability of The Holy Books of Thelema, interim Confessions and Magick Without Tears, etc etc.

I really want to be able to say something positive myself, but find I’m genuinely struggling here.  This is meant to be their forte and raison d’etre after all – what everything else was supposedly put on hold and in second place for.  Yet Thelemites worldwide appear to have been done a lamentable disservice by the “O.T.O.” over the course of the last three decades, more’s the pity.  What, apart from the Wordsworth anthologies of Simon Iff stories and magazine pieces have they managed to do over the last ten years alone, for example?  If they can’t do it themselves for whatever reason, for Horus’ sake let them announce it “open season” for all other publishers to have a go, and irrespective of any copyright considerations.  If these productions then turn out to be a crock of crap, word will soon get out & they will rightly have a lot of unsold copies on their hands.  On the other hand, if they’re any good or better of course, then…

Can anyone please tell me just what might be so wrong with this eminently sensible idea? ???

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
In The Book of the Law it is claimed that "Every man and every woman is a star." (I: 3), and this is in direct contrast to the specifically Christian part of the Bible, The New Testament, where only Jesus Christ is described as having a star (Matthew 2: 2), and where only Jesus Christ is described as being as star (2 Peter 1:19), and where only Jesus Christ describes himself as being a star (Revelation 22:16). [...]

Maybe it was only ‘cos he was also described as being “Jesus Christ SuperStar” (Andrew [Lloyd Webber] 19:70)  (Boom, er, tish ?!)

Still open to conversing about the rest of the OP (anyone remember that!)

Yours as anal—ytically as ever?
‘и * joY 


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
25/02/2015 1:50 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
What that is really too far stretched, is Crowley's silly story about how the The Book of the Law was dictated to him by a 'praeter-human intelligence' named Aiwass, as if such an entity would dictate a new Holy Book for the whole world where so much is patterned after esoteric Golden Dawn material, that without knowledge of the latter, the said book is likely to come across as impenetrable and/or ridiculous for the uninformed reader.

Well, it seems like a "silly story" to you no doubt, wellreadwellbred, but that doesn't mean that it is a "silly story". Perhaps you find "silly" the whole idea of there being praeter-human intelligences; perhaps you think there's nothing beyond the virtual reality of our apparent identities. If so, you're far from alone, but again it doesn't mean that you are right.

With all due respect, Michael Staley, you are of course free to accept the said far out "silly story", if doing so corresponds with you following your genuine preference[-s] in this matter, even if Crowley initially describing the original handwritten manuscript of The Book the Law as "This is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing", comes across as more intelligent than his later far out "silly story" about that it was dictated to him by a 'praeter-human intelligence'. But given that Los is right about that the core matter of practicing Thelema, is about following your genuine 'preferences' in an as intelligent way as possible, you preferring the said far out "silly story", does not come across as an example of practicing Thelema in an as intelligent way as possible.

Thank you, wellreadbred, for so generously affording me the privilege of not sharing your doubtless sensible, erudite and academic views.

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
But given that Los is right about that the core matter of practicing Thelema, is about following your genuine 'preferences' in an as intelligent way as possible . . .

Well, that's quite some "given", isn't it - in the sense of "Is that a given in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?", or even "do do do the funky given". Although I agree with Los on some things, on this particular point he and I differ. Preferences, shmeferances.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
25/02/2015 2:31 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
[...]

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
But given that Los is right about that the core matter of practicing Thelema, is about following your genuine 'preferences' in an as intelligent way as possible . . .

Well, that's quite some "given", isn't it - in the sense of "Is that a given in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?", or even "do do do the funky given". Although I agree with Los on some things, on this particular point he and I differ. Preferences, shmeferances.

To clarify Los' position on that the core matter of practicing Thelema, is about following your genuine 'preferences' in an as intelligent way as possible, for any reader not familiar with the said position, it all-ways implies practicing Thelema in an as intelligent and skeptical way as possible.

"22. [...] Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt. 23. But whoso availeth in this, let him be the chief of all!" (The Book of the Law I: 22 and 23).

Thus can one overcome all that one's mind takes for given. 


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
25/02/2015 2:59 pm  

I'm not sure, wellreadwellbred, that your words ever impart much in the way of clarity to anything. In this particular instance, however, anyone sufficiently interested can access Los's posts, rather than rely on you playing St. Paul to said Jesus.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
25/02/2015 3:57 pm  

No, I guess the right word was selected.

"jamie barter" wrote:
I very much disagree – it is up to “outsiders”

Enter the meddlesome busybody.

Meanwhile, after resigning, ... I have no regrets on that score “whatsoever”!

Then why are you on a constantly recurring rant about it?  I believe you have been warned by the moderator, and singled-out by others, for your obvious hatred of the current org. It seems like you will never stop, and virtually anyone can predict what your "last words" will be. Oh, make that your "last bombardment of paragraphs."

The psychology is interesting here.  Not sour grapes (heaven forbid!), no sulkily trotting out of the playground with the ball in an attempt to stop play (as if one could!), no regrets (not even a few too few to mention) But almost a Taoist peace, a zen-like acceptance of the status quo in fact I feel honoured to be able to bask in the serenity of such sage-like wisdom upon the Lashtal screen.

Well, now you've finally come [back] to your sesnses.

I think shirley [snide sic] you (you), Frater Shiva, former Grand Secretary General of Solar Lodge, the precursor to The Caliphate, which was the forerunner to the present paradigm of Oriental Templars, Inc, should maybe, for your inspirational humility alone, be nominated the one true O.H.O.

Forget it Surely!  When I resigned, I affirmed my intention to never use OTO "stuff" again. You're on your own here, in your attempt to change history and modify reality.

(Or, if there be mistaken concepts generated here - if it’s all a line, a masque, a con yeahhhh! You may care to consult me by PM if you wish on any psychological issues you may have yourself – my own rates are very competitive and reasonable! :D.

Practicing psychology without a license are you?
Oh, by the way, (theoretically speaking) if I were to absolutely hate a certain org, and it's leadership, so badly that I couldn't help myself and contantly (as in over and over and over again) raged and ranted against them on a semi-public forum, what would you suggest that I do about it?
If you send me a bill with your answer, I will report you to your local [s:1q3q048l]Grand Tribunal[/s:1q3q048l], er no, your local psycho assn. ::)


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
25/02/2015 5:37 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
No, I guess the right word was selected.

I guess you can’t let things go “either”, it would seem…

"Shiva" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
I very much disagree – it is up to “outsiders”

Enter the meddlesome busybody.

This because I happen to hold an opinion, much like your good self.

"Shiva" wrote:

Meanwhile, after resigning, ... I have no regrets on that score “whatsoever”!

Then why are you on a constantly recurring rant about it?  I believe you have been warned by the moderator, and singled-out by others, for your obvious hatred of the current org. It seems like you will never stop, and virtually anyone can predict what your "last words" will be. Oh, make that your "last bombardment of paragraphs."

Somewhat extreme exaggeration, n’est-ce pas?!  “Constantly” ? When I made it clear I have mentioned specific examples no more than twice before – hang me if there’s a third, even!  Perhaps you would care to point out to me all these “constant” references – after all, there must be so many they’re virtually omnipresent? 

Ditto exaggeration there with “hatred” – I’m not sure one can hate an org, but if so maybe you’re possibly transferring your own feelings there?  After all, you will have had a lot more years to seethe over the matter!  I am actually still on quite friendly terms - or certainly not unfriendly - with all those still in the org that I knew & know.  Just because we may disagree over "policy" doesn't mean that I hate anyone, and it's really rather immature of you to presume so.

I really think you are being unjustly accusatory in this regard and if I could be half-assed to work myself up into a lather about it I would become most indignant.  Just where exactly are all these references where I have been “warned by the moderator and singled-out by others” for this purported “hatred” of yours?

"Shiva" wrote:

I think shirley [snide sic] you (you), Frater Shiva, former Grand Secretary General of Solar Lodge, the precursor to The Caliphate, which was the forerunner to the present paradigm of Oriental Templars, Inc, should maybe, for your inspirational humility alone, be nominated the one true O.H.O.

Forget it Surely!  When I resigned, I affirmed my intention to never use OTO "stuff" again. You're on your own here, in your attempt to change history and modify reality.

Hang on, what exactly is “snide” about my harmless little quip there of “shirley” ?

That “affirmation” of “never” rather reminds me rather of the alcoholic’s vehemence to “never” touch a drop again!  But then I don’t know exactly what on earth you mean by “stuff”, so what would I (or anyone) know there…

Also, aren’t we all doing our bit to “modify reality” in our own little ways - so I’m hardly on my own so far as that goes? 

"Shiva" wrote:
Practicing psychology without a license are you?
Oh, by the way, (theoretically speaking) if I were to absolutely hate a certain org, and it's leadership, so badly that I couldn't help myself and contantly (as in over and over and over again) raged and ranted against them on a semi-public forum, what would you suggest that I do about it?
If you send me a bill with your answer, I will report you to your local [s:1e52nqao]Grand Tribunal[/s:1e52nqao], er no, your local psycho assn. ::)

I wasn’t aware one needed a licence to practice amateur psychology – psychiatry, why yes of course.  Do get your terms right, old chap!

I presume you mean "association" rather than, ahem “assassin” there - such a threat as that might possibly go against site Guidelines! 

But you ask of me, what would I do about this “absolutely hate” “so badly” “raged” etc etc?  Well first of all I would point out they are not my words, or even an accurate description of the reality.  I don’t make as “contant” a thing about it as you apparently imagine – I gave an answer to a point which came up in the forum, which you brought up, in fact - relating to the “changing” things from the “inside” of the org in question, which you suggested as the alternative to “suing them into compliance”.  That’s hardly premeditatedly banging a drum on about it, and it must be several months at least since I last made any sort of a direct reference in the posts.

If everyone had an attitude like yours here Shiva, it would be a wonder if things ever manage to get changed for the better at all.  That’s if anyone could be bothered to do anything at all, of course – the actual availability of Crowley texts away from the net being just the tip of the iceberg here...

As in, “I’m all right now Jack, so blow you”
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
25/02/2015 5:44 pm  

"Methinks the lady protesteth too much."


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 3
Share: