Notifications
Clear all

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

Page 3 / 3
  RSS

Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
16/03/2015 9:34 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
I've tried to make sense of this paragraph, honest I have, but I'm forced to admit failure.

It's a Zen koan, Paul. A few more years working on it, and you'll be able to hear the sound of one hand clapping.

If not that, what zen?


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
16/03/2015 10:33 pm  

i think what the tortured verbiage is trying to express is:

-- it is not evident to wellreadwellbred that the note "This is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing..." was written after July 1906 because it was written before the phrase "MS. which came into my possession in July 1906." --

in other news, water is still wet...


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
16/03/2015 10:58 pm  

What I am trying to convey, is that it is not evident that the time given in the sentence "MS. (which came into my possession in July 1906)", is the same time as the following was written, or that July 1906 refers to a time before the following was written:

"[This is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing. Though I am in no way responsible for any of these documents, except the translations of the stele inscription (the words 'except the translations of the stele inscription' are clearly added as an afterthought in this handwritten text), I publish them among my works because I believe that their intelligent study may be interesting & helpful. AC.]"

Because the sentence "MS. (which came into my possession in July 1906)", refers to the sentence, "i.e. I meant I could be its master from that date – A.C. Oct. ’09.". And in chapter 11 of Tobias Churton's Crowley biography, Aleister Crowley: The Biography: Spiritual Revolutionary, Romantic Explorer, Occult Master and Spy, it is indicated that both of the latter quoted sentences, are Crowley referring to his attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel in July 1906.

In short, the time July 1906, mentioned in a handwritten sentence on the cover page of the original handwritten manuscript of The book of the Law, does according to what Churton indicates in his Crowley biography, refer to when Crowley attained the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel. And Churton does in the said biography point out that the said sentence mentioning July 1906, is added above the text where Crowley describes The Book of the Law as an example of automatic writing.

It is in conclusion, from the handwritten text on the cover page of the original handwritten manuscript of The book of the Law, not evident that the handwritten sentence mentioning July 1906 - which is added above some handwritten text within square-brackets, where The Book of the Law is described as an example of automatic writing - is a sentence that was written at the same time as the latter handwritten text within square-brackets, or is a sentence that was written before the latter handwritten text within square-brackets, as the latter text within square-brackets contains no time or date indicating when it was written:

The cover page of the original manuscript of The book of the Law:
       
 


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
17/03/2015 1:18 am  

Dwtw

The whole criticism about Liber L as "automatic writing" has been done to death in numerous fora. It's a term in common use at the time, and AC most likely used it as the easiest way to explain the origins of the Book to his readers. And the timeline of the writing on the cover page, while not exact, seems pretty obvious.

First of all, the cover page indicates that the text was dictated in April 1904. Bang goes your 'automatic writing' criticism; he clearly did not mean it in the sense of going into trance and writing whatever came to mind.

Aside from the title and date above the line, the text in square bracket was obviously written first; it's a summing up of the contents, a mini-preface. Then, while proofreading this prose, AC inserts the letters 'MS' with a caret, indicating where it should go for clarification. After that, he writes a parenthetical phrase about July 1906. At some time, either then or after, he also qualifies his involvement with the Stele inscriptions.

All of this prose appears in the Galley Proofs of the Collected Works Appendix from September 1907, and must have obviously been written well before then.

If one follows typical writing and editing protocols, it appears that the square bracket was added last. Initially, there was no need for one. Then the 'MS' note was added. This was followed by a parenthetical expression about 1906. Since we now have a parentheses in the sentence, it then requires a square bracket to make another subdivision. The square bracket would not have come first.

Most likely all of this material (save for the note dated 1909) was written for the Appendix to the CW. Possibly all at once; at most in three edits. There's nothing terribly mysterious about any of it, and far more has been made of it, by those who want to start an argument, than it really warrants. It's simply a short introduction for the first publication of Liber L. This version was abandoned, and AC never saw fit to include it in any future publications of AL.

Certain writers, who should be ignored, would love to stir the pot with material like this. But said writers ought to abandon said material and find better onions to stir in the said pot.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
17/03/2015 3:52 am  
"threefold31" wrote:
... The whole criticism about Liber L as "automatic writing" has been done to death in numerous fora. It's a term in common use at the time, and AC most likely used it as the easiest way to explain the origins of the Book to his readers. And the timeline of the writing on the cover page, while not exact, seems pretty obvious.

First of all, the cover page indicates that the text was dictated in April 1904. Bang goes your 'automatic writing' criticism; he clearly did not mean it in the sense of going into trance and writing whatever came to mind.

Crowley clearly did not only describe The Book of the Law as an example of automatic writing, but even as an example of genuine automatic writing, and he clearly had enough comprehension of the English language, to be fully aware of the said description's implied meaning.

"threefold31" wrote:
Aside from the title and date above the line, the text in square bracket was obviously written first; it's a summing up of the contents, a mini-preface. Then, while proofreading this prose, AC inserts the letters 'MS' with a caret, indicating where it should go for clarification. After that, he writes a parenthetical phrase about July 1906. At some time, either then or after, he also qualifies his involvement with the Stele inscriptions.

All of this prose appears in the Galley Proofs of the Collected Works Appendix from September 1907, and must have obviously been written well before then. ...

Well, yes, the following is the wording Crowley intended to use in the Galley Proofs for his abandoned first publication of Liber L. (= The book of the Law):

"[This MS. (which came into my possession in July 1906) is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing.*  Though I am in no way responsible for any of these documents, except the translations of the stele inscription, I publish them among my works because I believe that their intelligent study may be interesting & helpful.–AC.]"

So I accept that it is likely that Crowley's description of the The book of the Law as an example of genuine automatic writing, can not have been written earlier than July 1906.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/03/2015 5:45 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
So in short, it is not evident from what Crowley wrote on the cover page of the original manuscript of The book of the Law, that his description of the said book as an example of automatic writing, was written after July 1906, as the said description was written before the later addition of the sentence "MS. which came into my possession in July 1906."

I've tried to make sense of this paragraph, honest I have, but I'm forced to admit failure.

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
i think what the tortured verbiage is trying to express is: [...]

Meanwhile...

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
[...] It is in conclusion, from the handwritten text on the cover page of the original handwritten manuscript of The book of the Law, not evident that the handwritten sentence mentioning July 1906 - which is added above some handwritten text within square-brackets, where The Book of the Law is described as an example of automatic writing - is a sentence that was written at the same time as the latter handwritten text within square-brackets, or is a sentence that was written before the latter handwritten text within square-brackets, as the latter text within square-brackets contains no time or date indicating when it was written:
"jamie barter" wrote:
[...] It seems curious, given that I recall you mentioned your main language is Norwegian, that your English style generally seems a little better in some of those earlier posts of your preincarnation than in your later ones ?!

Strange phenomenon, well !?
N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
17/03/2015 11:00 pm  
"threefold31" wrote:
Certain writers, who should be ignored, would love to stir the pot with material like this. But said writers ought to abandon said material and find better onions to stir in the said pot.

Well, that made me chuckle. 🙂

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
18/03/2015 4:18 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
[...] It seems curious, given that I recall you mentioned your main language is Norwegian, that your English style generally seems a little better in some of those earlier posts of your preincarnation than in your later ones ?!

Strange phenomenon, well !?
N Joy

Being aware of the larger context, I don't find this to be a strange phenomenon at all. In my post-reincarnation I have posted much about The Book of the Law. And the latter is a book which according to Crowley is characterized by the use of "un-English expressions" and "awkward expressions", as can be derived from for example his The New Comment to AL III,46. Occasionally, Crowley is also unclear in the way he writes about The Book of the Law, like for example how he writes about it on the cover page of its original handwritten manuscript, where it is described both as "given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of The Beast on April 8, 9, & 10, 1904.", and also as "a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing."

I hope that me pointing out the said larger context, is of some help in explaining the decrease in the quality and clarity of my English style, and I am sure that the said larger context i.e. the "awkward expressions" and "un-English expressions" characterizing the content of The Book of the Law, and Crowley's often unclear way of explaining and/or describing the said content is a major reason for why Crowley's Thelema never became, and can never become, the new world religion he intended it to become. 


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 330
18/03/2015 5:38 pm  

wellreadwellbred wrote: "...Crowley's Thelema never became, and can never become, the new world religion he intended it to become."

You're a bit impatient. It should be noted that it took Christianity a few centuries to become a nationally recognized religion. In the first couple of centuries, Christians were regarded as shady folk. I really don't care what you choose to think, but I will speak up against what I consider to be baseless and short-sighted naysaying. In the Book of Thoth, Crowley left us with the following bit of wisdom to keep in mind:

"There are many other details with regard to the Lord of the Aeon which should be studied in the Book of the Law. It is also important to study very thoroughly, and meditate upon, this Book, in order to appreciate the spiritual, moral, and material events which have marked the catastrophic transition from the Aeon of Osiris. The time for the birth of an Aeon seems to be indicated by great concentration of political power with the accompanying improvements in the means of travel and communication, with a general advance in philosophy and science, with a general need of consolidation in religious thought. It is very instructive to compare the events of the five hundred years preceding and following the crisis of approximately 2,000 years ago, with those of similar periods centred in 1904 of the old era. It is a thought far from comforting to the present generation, that 500 years of Dark Ages are likely to be upon us. But, if the analogy holds, that is the case. Fortunately, to-day we have brighter torches and more torch-bearers."


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
18/03/2015 6:04 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
"It is a thought far from comforting to the present generation, that 500 years of Dark Ages are likely to be upon us. But, if the analogy holds, that is the case. Fortunately, to-day we have brighter torches and more torch-bearers."

Yes, and we have "brighter bombs" (nuclear suitcases) and the internet. Oh, but so do those terrorists who are striving to bring in said Dark Ages. Well, maybe they don't have the suitcases ... yet 😮


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
18/03/2015 6:36 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
... You're a bit impatient. It should be noted that it took Christianity a few centuries to become a nationally recognized religion. In the first couple of centuries, Christians were regarded as shady folk. I really don't care what you choose to think, but I will speak up against what I consider to be baseless and short-sighted naysaying. ...

I must admit that I considered qualifying what i stated in my posting preceding this one in this thread, with respect to The Comment that after its writing in 1925, was added to all editions of The Book of the Law published during Crowley's lifetime, and that is added to more or less all editions of The Book of the Law published after his lifetime. If the said comment is commonly understood as literally making it forbidden to "discuss the contents of" the most Holy Book of Thelema, then Thelema can never become a world religion, as no example can - for obvious reasons - be found, of a world religion developing without any discussion[-s] of its most holy text. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
18/03/2015 7:16 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
... making it forbidden to "discuss the contents of" the most Holy Book of Thelema ...

Oh, what a joke that is 😀


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
18/03/2015 8:19 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
If the said comment is commonly understood as literally making it forbidden to "discuss the contents of" the most Holy Book of Thelema, then Thelema can never become a world religion, as no example can - for obvious reasons - be found, of a world religion developing without any discussion[-s] of its most holy text. 

The amount of comment on and discussion of the contents of The Book of the Law, on this forum and elsewhere, makes it plain that the "said comment" is not "commonly understood" as forbidding discussion.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
18/03/2015 8:33 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
... the "said comment" is not "commonly understood" as forbidding discussion.

Oh, I think most (all?) folks who have read The Comment understand that readers are not supposed to discuss the contents, and that they're supposed to destroy their copy after their first reading. It's just that nobody takes it seriously, or finds it funny or amusing, or sees it as a warning to the faint-hearted who might die if they get serious about it.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
18/03/2015 8:35 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
... You're a bit impatient. It should be noted that it took Christianity a few centuries to become a nationally recognized religion. In the first couple of centuries, Christians were regarded as shady folk. ...

Park, C. (2004) Religion and geography. Chapter 17 in Hinnells, J. (ed) Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. London: Routledge, contains the following on page 15:

"Within the first century there were an estimated million Christians, comprising less than one percent of the total world population." Source: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/gyaccp/geography%20and%20religion.pdf

Of the current total world population, as far as i know, "... 30,000 Thelemites (self-described as such)." has been mentioned on this site. Source: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28038#p28038 -  Re: RE: Numbers of Thelemites? « Reply #3 on: June 29, 2008, 01:50:10 pm »

I don't know what 30,000 is in percentage out of the current total world population.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
18/03/2015 8:41 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
If the said comment is commonly understood as literally making it forbidden to "discuss the contents of" the most Holy Book of Thelema... 

If that's the 'common understanding' (and I don't think it is) then that 'understanding' is wrong. It's not 'forbidden to discuss the contents': 'Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.'

You are confusing 'discussion' with 'study.' Neither word appears in Liber AL itself, by the way.

Please, wellreadwellbred, I urge you for the umpteenth time to actually read the source material before launching into your (mis)interpretations. Which is kind of the point of 'The Tunis Comment.'

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
18/03/2015 9:15 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
... Please, wellreadwellbred, I urge you for the umpteenth time to actually read the source material before launching into your (mis)interpretations. Which is kind of the point of 'The Tunis Comment.'

Well, even if the common understanding of The Comment to The Book of the Law, is the interpretation that the said comment only forbids "The study" of the said book, I know of no world religion which in its development has not involved, and does not also currently involve, the study of its most holy text[-s] among its adherents, study to clarify such text[-s] for the said adherents.

What is the major difference between the study of a holy text for the purpose of hopefully clarifying it for oneself and for others, and the theme of this thread, to clarify a certain verse in the most holy book of Thelema: Clarification re Liber AL I:3 and “The Law Is For All”?   


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
18/03/2015 11:13 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"Aleisterion" wrote:
... You're a bit impatient. It should be noted that it took Christianity a few centuries to become a nationally recognized religion. In the first couple of centuries, Christians were regarded as shady folk. ...

Park, C. (2004) Religion and geography. Chapter 17 in Hinnells, J. (ed) Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. London: Routledge, contains the following on page 15:

"Within the first century there were an estimated million Christians, comprising less than one percent of the total world population." Source: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/gyaccp/geography%20and%20religion.pdf ...

In his book The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History, (13 May 1996), Princeton University Press, Rodney Stark does in the first chapter on page 5 assume that there were 1,000 Christians in the year 40. And in the same chapter he does on page 6 state that if the given starting number of 1,000 Christians in the year 40 grew at the rate of 40 percent per decade, there would have been 7,530 Christians in the year 100, followed by 217,795 Christians in the year 200 and by 6,299,832 Christians in the year 300. Reasoning that a 40 percent growth per decade (or 3.42 percent growth per year), seems the most plausible estimate of the rate at which Christianity actually grew during the first several centuries. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
19/03/2015 12:46 am  

It doesn't matter how many Christians there were at any given time, or how fast they grew, or how many there are now. It doesn't matter (in the same mathematical way) how many Taoists, or how many Islamic Statists, or how many Buddhists there were or are. What matters is that anything can happen at any time, and we should seek solace in whatever appeals to us, whether it's destined to flourish or fall on it's face.

Egad! We don't care about some scholastic twit's estimate or assumption. It seems like there's a determined argument afoot that says Thelema is doomed. So what? It (it) is about finding one's Will in the here and now ... or maybe tomorrow 😉  Let's not fret about 500 years from now. The Dark Ages are already upon us.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
19/03/2015 1:13 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
What is the major difference between the study of a holy text for the purpose of hopefully clarifying it for oneself and for others, and the theme of this thread, to clarify a certain verse in the most holy book of Thelema: Clarification re Liber AL I:3 and “The Law Is For All”?

   
The significant thing in the Tunis Comment is the bit at the bottom about all questions of the Law having to be decided each for him (or her)self.  As I have remarked before, it seems to me that half of the rest of it is a test to see how much the readers of it will apply this New Aeon context of interpretation to it, or how much they will be stuck in the Old Aeon way of preferring to be told or bullied what to do, rather than thinking and acting for themselves.  This was part of the reason why I proposed a forum, to be talismanically named “the centre of pestilence discussion forum”, which may or may not become part of Lashtal or some other thelemic website, for the purpose of sensibly and equitably discussing each of the verses of Liber AL (and possibly other Holy Books) on the basis of one thread per verse.

Although there is not a specific, separate structure on Lashtal, individual verses are (like this one) being discussed one at a time as they arise, although the majority are still unaddressed.  Thankfully the numbers of idiots who might think of shunning me in person because I have reminded them of their slavish devotion to literalness have remained in the single figures of one hand, and nothing at all in the last decade – in line with the seeming parallel decline of Thelemic fundamentalism as a whole.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/03/2015 9:24 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
What is the major difference between the study of a holy text for the purpose of hopefully clarifying it for oneself and for others, and the theme of this thread, to clarify a certain verse in the most holy book of Thelema: Clarification re Liber AL I:3 and “The Law Is For All”?

This is one of those rare times you ask a good question. In this case, the question calls our attention to (what at least seems like) a contradiction in the Comment: if "The study of this Book is forbidden," then how is it that "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself"?

Unless we just write off the Comment as hopelessly confused and contradictory -- which may be the case -- these two lines suggest that "study" means something other than consulting and interpreting the Book to decide "questions of the Law."

Note, by the way, that the comment is saying that each person needs to decide for himself "questions of the Law" -- it nowhere says that each person gets to decide for himself what the Law is in the first place. The phrase "questions of the Law" seems to imply something more like deciding how to *apply* the Law in each individual case. Indeed, since the Book insists that "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt," and since each individual can only ever discover his or her own Will, then it would *have* to be the case that "All questions of the Law" must be decided "each for himself." It is, however, not the case that each person must decide "each for himself" what the Law means in the first place. Quite to the contrary, Crowley himself says in Equinox of the Gods that he "lay[ s ] claim to be the sole authority competent to decide disputed points with regard to the Book of the Law." Crowley, at least, didn't think that each person gets to decide what Thelema means, and nothing in the Book suggests this idea either.

There's one possible way to read the Comment so that it's not hopelessly contradictory. Perhaps the kind of "study" that's forbidden is not simple interpretation and application but the sort of religious exegesis that leads to the development of "rules" over and on top of "Do what thou wilt." For example, some people read the Book of the Law as literally instructing them to give out copies of Liber AL to everyone they have dinner with. If someone were to "study" the Book with the intention of coming up with similar such "rules" for living "Thelemically," such an individual would not be applying the Law of Thelema (which would involve actually discerning his True Will, which likely has nothing to do with weirdly handing out copies of a book to dinner companions) but searching for new ways to restrict himself.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
19/03/2015 9:57 pm  

Or you could just read the biographies that indicate the circumstances of the writing: an act of desperation in response to Mudd's constant questioning.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/03/2015 11:09 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
Or you could just read the biographies that indicate the circumstances of the writing: an act of desperation in response to Mudd's constant questioning.

Well, sure. But Crowley's conscious motivation is only one of the factors that comprise the text's meaning...and it's far from the most interesting factor.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
20/03/2015 12:35 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
Or you could just read the biographies that indicate the circumstances of the writing: an act of desperation in response to Mudd's constant questioning.

Definitely one possible interpretation of the Comment, but if its main purpose was as an act of desperation at the time, this would imply that once Mudd was safely out of the picture, there would be no need for A.C. to continue to resort to such chicanery.  However, he gave the Comment prominence in The Equinox of the Gods produced a decade afterwards, and it has been included in virtually every edition of Liber AL printed in A.C.’s lifetime since and beyond.

If A.C. regarded it as of temporal significance and as a result of Mudd’s pestering, it would have sunk back into relative obscurity after Norman had disappeared from the picture.  Sure, he could have done it as a “preventative measure” in the event of questioning from other Mudd-like interrogators in the future, but was he really that worried about it sufficiently to instead go to the extent of awarding it Class A status, thus putting it on an equal footing with all of the other “Holy Books” ?  This doesn’t seem a step which A.C. would take at all lightly. 

I feel the Comment was mainly designed and intended as a koan, and as A.C. himself “commented” is of sublime simplicity in its execution, with the after-effect upon Mudd being a resultant by-product rather than the main motive.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
20/03/2015 12:41 pm  

Clarifiers = Muddites

OK


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 330
20/03/2015 5:53 pm  

As this is a discussion of the contents of Liber Legis, I think it might help to make a few quick points on the comment. Put simply, if it isn't your true will, then don't do it. As brilliant and inspired as Crowley clearly was, he didn't have all the answers. I for one am thankful whenever a genius such as C.S. Jones or Kenneth Grant shines light on some part of the book. There is of course a big difference between merely discussing the contents of the book, or sharing Crowley's views on the same, and actually offering outrageous interpretations. It is best to be certain first, before venturing out on such a limb. There will be those who muddy the waters, but they were warned so they shouldn't be surprised if they drown therein; by their fruit judge them. As for discussion, many indulge in it without being shunned, but there are worse things. At least there are fewer distractions that way.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
20/03/2015 6:10 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
As for discussion, many indulge in it without being shunned ...

That's right. Although The study of this book is forbidden, initiates are advised to study it. Although I have often discussed the contents of the book, I have never been shunned as a centre of pestilence. At least not for my discussion ... maybe for other reasons. 😀

The Comment is actually a bit silly, because by doing what it says not to do, the promised consequences do not occur.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
20/03/2015 9:01 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
If A.C. regarded it as of temporal significance and as a result of Mudd’s pestering, it would have sunk back into relative obscurity after Norman had disappeared from the picture.  Sure, he could have done it as a “preventative measure” in the event of questioning from other Mudd-like interrogators in the future, but was he really that worried about it sufficiently to instead go to the extent of awarding it Class A status, thus putting it on an equal footing with all of the other “Holy Books” ?

 
Seems perfectly likely to me. 99% of spiritual seekers that I've come across are just as pestering with their questions as the 99% who haven't started the Work. If he saw it as a symptom with this Mudd guy, it's likely he was perceptive enough to see it all around him. If I recall correctly, it was something along these lines that underlies the Probationer Grade in A.'.A.'., no? Ensuring that the aspirant actually has the self-possession to walk the path alone without constant hand-holding? I can't imagine that Mudd was the only person AC ever ran across that drove him a bit batty with his metaphysical ponderings.

This doesn’t seem a step which A.C. would take at all lightly.

Why not? He wrote erotic poetry inspired by his mistress, acrostic-ed her name into the work, and published that as Class A. What's the difference between that and writing a few lines inspired by a pain in the arse that turn out, on reflection, to be an "inspired" way of dealing with the 99%?

I feel the Comment was mainly designed and intended as a koan, and as A.C. himself “commented” is of sublime simplicity in its execution, with the after-effect upon Mudd being a resultant by-product rather than the main motive.

But, as with any koan, the inverse must be true as well, no?  Cause/effect = effect/cause 😉


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
20/03/2015 9:20 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
... Probationer Grade in A.'.A.'., no? Ensuring that the aspirant actually has the self-possession to walk the path alone without constant hand-holding?

You are absolutely correct. And guess what? My long-time observations have demonstrated that the most common "mistake" made upon Probationers is that their link-neophyte-guru-mentor can't resist the temptation to tell the Probationer what practices to do and when, or to design "other" tests for them, or (especially) to give them advice or orders that deal with their personal life. Now it's okay to answer questions, and to demonstrate rituals, and to do other things to help the Probationer out. But "pulling" them along with constant , or even semi-constant, order-giving ("do this" "don't do this" "get rid of so-and-so") is probably the main reason why teachers end up scratching their head while asking, "Where did we go wrong?"


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
22/03/2015 5:30 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
Or you could just read the biographies that indicate the circumstances of the writing: an act of desperation in response to Mudd's constant questioning.

Definitely one possible interpretation of the Comment, but if its main purpose was as an act of desperation at the time, this would imply that once Mudd was safely out of the picture, there would be no need for A.C. to continue to resort to such chicanery.  However, he gave the Comment prominence in The Equinox of the Gods produced a decade afterwards, and it has been included in virtually every edition of Liber AL printed in A.C.’s lifetime since and beyond.

If A.C. regarded it as of temporal significance and as a result of Mudd’s pestering, it would have sunk back into relative obscurity after Norman had disappeared from the picture.  Sure, he could have done it as a “preventative measure” in the event of questioning from other Mudd-like interrogators in the future, but was he really that worried about it sufficiently to instead go to the extent of awarding it Class A status, thus putting it on an equal footing with all of the other “Holy Books” ?  This doesn’t seem a step which A.C. would take at all lightly. ...

The academic and ex mathematics professor Norman Mudd, interpreted The Book of the Law as involving some requirements which Crowley needed to fulfill.

The following words in The Comment, "The study of this book is forbidden.", are in opposition of interpreting The Book of the Law as involving some universally mandatory study requirements and study practices, in addition to the Law the said book describes as being for all, and whose word is THELEMA, according to the said book.

The following words in The Comment, "Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.", are in support of everybody being extremely critical of those who discuss the contents of The Book of the Law.

The following words in The Comment, "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.", are in support of that all questions concerning the Law in The Book the Law, ultimately are are to be decided on an individual basis only.

The Comment does in short oppose adding any universally mandatory requirements and practices to the Law mentioned and described in The Book of the Law, supports being extremely critical of those who discuss its contents, and ultimately supports only any single individual alone, as the right instance to decide all questions of the Law expressed through the said book.

Other belief-systems than Thelema, have been known to add universally mandatory requirements and practices, to the required acceptance of the main message of any particular holy book. The following text describes one example of this from within Christianity:

"Finally Confirmand - after a delay of 65 years!

At the age of 78 years Per Andreas Tuhus from Eidskog was finally accepted as a Confirmand. The reason for the postponement was of a somewhat odd character...

Per Andreas should really have been confirmed in 1950. There was only one problem: He was - and is still - a person with an Intellectual Handicap and had difficulty reading. And one must be able to read, if one are to participate in confirmation classes. But on the confirmation day - after a delay of 65 years - Per Andreas felt that this day corrected much.

He had to learn a bit before the procession, but told afterwards that he knew everything. No wonder, since Per Andreas has been on more than a 1,000 services in his 78-year life.

- We decided that the first thing we would say was sorry that this had not happened before, says priest Harald Schøien.

The confirmation was celebrated afterwards with church coffee and cakes, as well as a many gifts in the form of flowers from friends and acquaintances. And perhaps best of all - two hymn books with personal greetings."

Source: A text published by Anders Teslo March 6, 20015 on http://www.empo.no/aktuelt/endelig-konfirmert-65-ar-pa-etterskudd (Translation from Norwegian to English by me.)


Accepted as a Confirmand after a 65 years delay.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
22/03/2015 7:21 pm  

Could you summarize that endless defense in a single paragraph?


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
22/03/2015 8:28 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Could you summarize that endless defense in a single paragraph?

The Comment to The Book of the Law, goes against adding anything as universally applicable, and/or universally mandatory, on top of what the said book describes as "... the Law is for all." (I,34:), is extremely critical of those who discuss the contents of the said book, and in support of that all questions concerning the said Law, ultimately are to be decided on an individual basis only.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2582
23/03/2015 12:57 am  

BreadHead, you should become a lawyer, because you make no sense.  I almost think you are a Chinese hacking experiment designed at trying to be a real poster sometimes.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
23/03/2015 5:10 am  
"christibrany" wrote:
BreadHead, you should become a lawyer, because you make no sense. ...

The Comment is more concerned with the individual person as the ultimate arbiter of all questions concerning the Law, than with The Book of the Law which it forbids the study of, and about which The Comment states that all should shun those who discuss the contents of The Book of the Law. And this makes sense inasmuch as The Book of the Law is not the Law itself, but only something which points towards the said Law.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
23/03/2015 8:31 pm  
"Tao" wrote:

This doesn’t seem a step which A.C. would take at all lightly.

Why not?

It just seemed to me "because" the result was meant to be so long lasting by virtue of giving it a Class A, at least as long lasting as The Book of the Law itself, and it struck me that therefore there was probably a lot more involved to it than the mere momentary irritation of Mudd.

Just my opinionsy!
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
23/03/2015 10:05 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
... therefore there was probably a lot more involved to it than the mere momentary irritation of Mudd.

Why, yes, just look ... it's irritating [some of] us over a century later.


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3
Share: