Notifications
Clear all

The Titling of Liber Al Initially as Liber L


 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

In the post regarding "The Meaning of Lashtal" recently, mention was made of the original titling of Liber AL as "Liber L".

One suggested it so titled to conform with GD-style, another for some other reason I didn't quite catch, nor cogitate, because...

Msr.Crowley elsewhere states that the reason he so called it was that Aiwaz had pronounced it so; that is, to old Aleister's hearing, and within the orbit of his ignorance at the time, he heard that it was "Liber L".

That it later, after "the key of it all" was revealed of Frater Achad as "LA" ("Nothing is a secret key of this law" et alia - qv. his Liber XXXI, as distinct from the original manuscript of Liber CCXX being titled Liber XXXI), came to be called Liber AL was perhaps more to do with the political leanings of Old Al than anything else. 🙄

Keep On Truckin'
The Old Aeon Down
The Road Back to the Future,

Glory be unto Nuit, Hadit,
and Ra Hoor Khuit, as
Aiwass in the Beginning
Is now and maybe shall be,
Power and Thanksgiving
Empowerring Progress,

Via Veritas Vniversvm.


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Most of Crowley's understanding of The Book Of The Law is dubious according to the book itself. It says he will 'know never' in fact what it means, implying that he will have no knowledge or say who his successor is even. The one thing that we know for sure is that The Beast is not supposed to ever know 'the meaning of it all'.
Stansfield-Jones is simply not up to the job really in my opinion being a boring writer, grovelling lacky to Crowley and essentially a dismal failure as even just an occultist, let alone a Thelemite. His key to it all is meaningless wordgames to me but that dpoes not give anyone the right to say I'm not a Thelemite. No the jury is out on that one and will stay out for several decades I believe.
I read all the works of those that for a week or two Crowley claimed were his succesor and none of them say anything even remotely as important as the Beast, so to me it was all a desperate attempt to hold onto ownership of the Thelema franchise. He knew this himself in truth I believe. Why did he for instance throw out everyone, no exceptions, from the OTO just prior to his death? He had no faith in any of his school to be his successor at all.
Each must for now interpret the book as they see fit, each to their own personal will. Perhaps one day one persons interpretation will seem more right than others but for now we must not try and split Thelema as a whole by establishing a strict orthodoxy (at least any other than the Beast himself) so early in our spiritual tradition.

Alex

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

The Great Beast said of himself that even toward the end of his life, the 3rd Chapter in particular ter still did not sit well with him. But others amongst us, and subsequently, find it "hard but true", or even "intimate fire" as they say.

Some of Stansfeld-Jone's works I find interesting. He was a magician, and had insight. And also held the right to disagree with Crowley (who seemed to be unable to stand anyone attaining to Mastery alongside him - Jack Parson's is another Thelemic notable who split soon enough after claiming Magister Templi status. But to call him a grovelling lacky is I think unjust; overly deferential betimes by way of respect born of direct acquaintance, yes, grovelling - not from the evidence I have read (though I know the feeling one might interpret such from of his writings)).

On "AL": Did you know that 'aleph' is actually a glottal stop, so " 'L "(AL) and " L' "(LA) might well sound the same to an untutored ear (and recall AC writes he "heard Aiwass say the book should be called " L " ")? Liber XXXI (Achad's) more or less recounts his sincere revelation of the key of it all - Crowley said much about said revelation, one coming after and all that. But the word "successor" does not appear in Liber AL - and many suggest the hints toward such are not necessarily referant to only one person, and perhaps no longer relevant now the old turd is dead and buried, a well urn-t rest, as they say, for a Magus.

Personally, I think AC was a bit disillusioned toward the end of his life with what he could see of his accomplishments. That he did not fail of an heir must be accepted - we have you for example! Let alone: did he throw everyone out? Everyone? I heard he promised 'leadership' to virtually anyone who asked: "Can I be OHO?"..."Sure, Bud-Will-y!" ex infinitum ad terminum, causing no end of problems (barring the Supreme Court decision according copyright essentially to those who held the original manuscript of Liber XXXI at the time; and away from a crew that were really not well-placed, to say the least, to uphold the OTO banner, and who did not in fact attempt to do so per se).

As for 'Not' being a key of it all, I certainly can see it so. That AC may have "nor shalt thou know ever"-ed [which is not the same as "never know" - it could mean he knew 'nor' always, or even "averred his knowledge of 'nor'(~= 'not')"] is really neither there nor here to me,
except in this coming Celebration of the Equinox, Anno Nobilis IV.xv.

Do What Thou Wilt,
Love is the law,
love under will;
Blessings of Babalon,
May All Attain Aeternal,

Respect on All Points of the Triangle,
Via Veritas Vniversvm.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

"My scribe Ankh-Af-Na-Khonsu, the Priest of the Princes shall not IN ONE LETTER change this book; But lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-It"

The title was quite visibly changed by one letter from "Liber L" to "Liber AL", so is it possible thet the above exactly the opposite? What say ye?

"Change one letter, change a bunch, you can't change the basic meaning of the book. But in case you change it too much, ill get my man to write comment on it, keep you on the straight and narrow"


ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 389
 
"mikemystery" wrote:
"My scribe Ankh-Af-Na-Khonsu, the Priest of the Princes shall not IN ONE LETTER change this book; But lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-It"

The title was quite visibly changed by one letter from "Liber L" to "Liber AL", so is it possible thet the above exactly the opposite? What say ye?

"Change one letter, change a bunch, you can't change the basic meaning of the book. But in case you change it too much, ill get my man to write comment on it, keep you on the straight and narrow"

I feel the same way about it. I believe the book was meant to be called Liber L but I think even most people that feel the same way realize that the social convention of calling it Liber Al outweighs the veracity of truth in this case. Crowley went to great lengths to rationalize the title change in "The Law is for All" but for all his rationalizing as to why he should change the title when commanded not to change anything is an interesting puzzle to ponder.

In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 

93,

I've often wondered why Crowley let Ouarda edit some things in the Book as she saw fit, something that must've been a huge deal, but she never once edited the original title. If she went through and was able to cross out things and rewrite them as they were "supposed to be written" like she was in the room or otherwise in direct communication with Aiwass, then why didn't she also try to change the title?

Or was the changing of the title something that Aiwass left for Crowley's "Magickal son"?

The change makes the name from "Book L Law", to "Book Not Law", right? And if I'm not mistaken, "AL" is "NOT" and "LA" is "ALL", correct me if I'm wrong. So then, why wouldn't Crowley want it to be "Book ALL Law" instead of "Book NOT Law"? One more thing, if is is indeed to remain "Book L Law", then what the fuck does the "L" stand for specifically, and why would my eyes have seen that damned "L."L."?

Okay maybe these are just personal questions. 😛

93 93/93,

Az


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1072
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

I've often wondered why Crowley let Ouarda edit some things in the Book as she saw fit, something that must've been a huge deal, but she never once edited the original title. If she went through and was able to cross out things and rewrite them as they were "supposed to be written" like she was in the room or otherwise in direct communication with Aiwass, then why didn't she also try to change the title?

Those are good questions, but there is no definite answer, except to note that Crowley accepted that she had the authority to change things she heard better. Was she listening at the door? Was she standing in the room? Off-hand, I don't remember. All I am sure of is that it was a magically charged event, and during these times the sequence of events and what actually transpires is often not clearly remembered.

It also illustrates clearly that the formula of the New Aeon is "Babalon and the Beast Conjoined", i.e. spiritual marriage is implied, love under will, not just a solitary prophet receiving a message on the mountain. Thus Liber Legis stands apart from the "solitary" books of V.V.V.V.V., as a "real" child of Rose's and Aleister's union.

Or was the changing of the title something that Aiwass left for Crowley's "Magickal son"?

I wouldn't want to get into debating that. I would only note that if Aleph=0 (by the G.D. tarot attributions, anyway), it's as if there is no additional letter.

I am convinced he heard "el" though.

The change makes the name from "Book L Law", to "Book Not Law", right?

No, "Liber L vel Legis" translates to "The Book L, or, of the Law". "AL", if transliterating Aleph-Lamed, is a Hebrew (and Ugaritic) word for the supreme old God (El). The plural in Hebrew is Elohim.

Thus if AL is the Hebrew word El, a legitimate translation following Hebrew grammar (the construct case) might be "The Book of God, or, of the Law." But I think AL is to be taken as a proper name, and as such it is simply "The Book AL, or, of the Law."

And if I'm not mistaken, "AL" is "NOT" and "LA" is "ALL", correct me if I'm wrong.

"LA" (lamed-aleph) is no or not (pronounced "lo"), and "AL" is the god (or god-name) El.

The play on Aleph-Lamed and Lamed-Aleph is similar to that intimated in Liber Legis itself, "Is a god to live in a dog? No!" (god=dog backwards or vice-versa). It was Jones who made this backwards-forwards discovery, dormant in the title itself, which so inspired Crowley. I.e. he could accept that he heard "L", and that since aleph-lamed is pronounced "el", it was an acceptable solution as a god=nothing (al=la) key.

Although the real semitic words are pronounced "el" and "lo" respectively, they are spelled the same in reverse, and pronouncing the latter "la" brings Hebrew to English as "law." Nice coincidences.

So then, why wouldn't Crowley want it to be "Book ALL Law" instead of "Book NOT Law"? One more thing, if is is indeed to remain "Book L Law", then what the fuck does the "L" stand for specifically, and why would my eyes have seen that damned "L."L."?

I think "L" is just what he heard, and stands for "lex" and "law". Thus Crowley called it "Liber Legis" - "The Book of the Law" literally.

Thus, "L.L." could stand simply for "Liber Legis." If you want to take it a step further, and accept the "key" of AL, it could be (A)L.L.(A) - "A" being the "factor infinite and unknown" that turns Law into both God and Nothing.

Okay maybe these are just personal questions. 😛

Those are the best kind. Cheers!

93 93/93

Bel Murru

P.S. Crowley and Jones also sometimes speculated on "ALLA" as the Arabic-Muslim name for God, and for Crowley IIRC he somewhere mentions how Mohammed's "word" in full really meant "There is no God." (i.e. Al-La - "no god" or "god is not."). Note that the Arabic word does not have two Alifs - it is spelled Alif-Lam-Lam-Ha (Allah). Semitic speakers vocalise the final "h" - it comes out as a soft breath.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

If we paste the sheets of Liber aL from left to right, top to bottom, as instructed, we generate a very crude upside down "L"......or a Greek Gamma, if you are so inclined.

The original title of the manuscript is curious since the book refers to itself as the Book of the Law. Since I don't know what Crowley heard or what he was thinking, I'll just stick to my compromised title: Liber aL vel Legis.

Hmmm....another thought: what is with all the Hebraic speculation? If "tzaddi" is not the star and the Jews only "have the half" or "half the half", might that be an indication that Hebrew or Semitic tools will only lead to folly?

II:27 "...for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss."


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
 

Dear Friends,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

Liber L vel Legis
(L)iber (L) vel (L)egis

L - L - L

We have three L. I wouldn't to comment The Holy Book. But I will only notice that 3 L in the title possibly have some specific, or even important, meaning.
In this moment I can only think about three "L" rays. Namely Licht, Liebe, Leben.
But also there is great possibility that these things aren' related at all. I don't know really.

Love is the law, love under will

Hriliu


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,
Or was the changing of the title something that Aiwass left for Crowley's "Magickal son"?

No - the title of the Book isn't mentioned in the actual Liber accept "(threefold) Book of the Law." The style of a letter, I doubt, applies to the actual title of the book - just the contents.

The change makes the name from "Book L Law", to "Book Not Law", right?

No. It changes it from Book L of the Law to Book Al of the Law or Liber AL vel Legis instead of Liber L vel Legis.

And if I'm not mistaken, "AL" is "NOT" and "LA" is "ALL", correct me if I'm wrong.

You are mistaken. AL means "God" or 'All', "LA" means "Nothing" in Hebrew and "No" (its a negation) in Arabic.

So then, why wouldn't Crowley want it to be "Book ALL Law" instead of "Book NOT Law"?

He wanted it to be Liber AL vel Legis, just like it is. Was the book ever called Liber L Law or Liber AL Law? You are severely confused.

One more thing, if is is indeed to remain "Book L Law"

Its not. The ENTIRE point of all this is that it went from "Liber L vel Legis" to "Liber AL vel Legis" because of the discovery of the Key (AL/LA=31)

, then what the fuck does the "L" stand for specifically, and why would my eyes have seen that damned "L."L."?

Didn't learn your Qabalah, did you? L = Lamed = 30, Adjustment/Justice in the Tarot, Libra etc... Like Liber Librae (Book of Balance and its Liber 30). I also recommend looking at the chapter titles of De Lege Libellum.

Okay maybe these are just personal questions. 😛

How could questions about Liber AL be personal? Oh well.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
Dear Friends,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

Liber L vel Legis
(L)iber (L) vel (L)egis

L - L - L

We have three L. I wouldn't to comment The Holy Book. But I will only notice that 3 L in the title possibly have some specific, or even important, meaning.
In this moment I can only think about three "L" rays. Namely Licht, Liebe, Leben.
But also there is great possibility that these things aren' related at all. I don't know really.

Love is the law, love under will

Hriliu

This is just word games that have no content. Licht Liebe Leben has 3 Ls, Light Life Love and Liberty has 4 Ls... its arbitrary (theres 4 Ls in anyway... you missed the one in 'vel').

65 & 210,
111-418


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Just for fun!

Maybe, what Master Therion meant in the LAW being for ALL (61), was that he meant it was for those who have achieved VOID/61? as...by gemetria;

ALL = A+L+L= 1+30+30 = 61, therefore, the LAW is for ALL = 61...or those that have crossed the veil of paroketh and entered into ALL/VOID/AIN/61.

The LAW is for NONE.

Best Wishes

Charles


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"magispiegel" wrote:
Just for fun!

Maybe, what Master Therion meant in the LAW being for ALL (61), was that he meant it was for those who have achieved VOID/61? as...by gemetria;

ALL = A+L+L= 1+30+30 = 61, therefore, the LAW is for ALL = 61...or those that have crossed the veil of paroketh and entered into ALL/VOID/AIN/61.

The LAW is for NONE.

Best Wishes

Charles

That would be a law for a very very very very few amount of people.


ReplyQuote
Sonofthoth
(@sonofthoth)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 45
 

@ViaVeritasVniversvm

Interestingly, the word "not" happens to appear in Liber Legis 83 times!


ReplyQuote
Share: