Liber AL III:49-59
 
Notifications
Clear all

Liber AL III:49-59  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/10/2010 6:23 pm  

93,

Let us please turn this into a decent thread, and not a thread full of misplaced hate/bigotry...

Liber AL III:49-59

"49 I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.
50 Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!
51 With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.
52 I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
53 With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
54 Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.
55 Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!
56 Also for beauty’s sake and love’s!
57 Despise also all cowards; professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play; all fools despise!
58 But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers!
59 As brothers fight ye!"

So I noticed... there's Christianity, Islam, Hinduism (and Sikhism and other Indian religions), Buddhism, Mongol and Din is possibly a reference to the Chinese religions (Taoism, Confucianism, maybe?), and then....

....wait, no Jews?

93 93/93


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/10/2010 7:07 pm  

AL I,46: "Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen."

The verse above is the only mention of Jews. They seem to be presented as possessing some valuable knowledge.


ReplyQuote
iapetos666
(@iapetos666)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 4
26/10/2010 7:32 pm  

From the New Comment to AL III:53

"Din" -- 'severity' or 'judgment' may refer to the Jewish Law, rather than to the Faith (ad 'din') of Islam. Assuming this, the six religions whose flesh must be torn out cover the whole globe outside Islam and Christianity.

Why assault their flesh rather than their eyes, as in the other cases? Because the metaphysics, or point of view, is correct -- I take Judaism as Qabalistic -- but the practice imperfect.

See? No racial discriminations there. All are equally condemned 😛


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/10/2010 7:57 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
AL I,46: "Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen."

The verse above is the only mention of Jews. They seem to be presented as possessing some valuable knowledge.

Or, Judeo-Christianity is being regarded as one fused unit.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/10/2010 8:34 pm  

93,

"iapetos666" wrote:
From the New Comment to AL III:53

"Din" -- 'severity' or 'judgment' may refer to the Jewish Law, rather than to the Faith (ad 'din') of Islam. Assuming this, the six religions whose flesh must be torn out cover the whole globe outside Islam and Christianity.

He did say "may", indicating that he was not quite sure, but trying to find a way for the Jews to fit. Perhaps there is Qabalistic proof that it fits, but wouldn't that be ironic?

Why assault their flesh rather than their eyes, as in the other cases? Because the metaphysics, or point of view, is correct -- I take Judaism as Qabalistic -- but the practice imperfect.

Jewish flesh - Adam Qadmon.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 445
27/10/2010 4:24 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

"49 I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.
50 Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!

....wait, no Jews?

The phrase all gods of men means all gods of men--I see no confusion over which gods he refers to, he means all gods worshiped by men. To curse them is to wage magical warfare against them, not against the people who are enslaved by them, who are largely just victims.

Horus is the oldest, and most consistently worshiped deity in the recorded history of civilization; the whole point in delivering the Book of the Law to mankind is enable those that choose to, to link to the source of all religious currents, the solar current; all other currents are mere distortions and phantasms of the currents developed and utilized by the ancient Egyptians.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/10/2010 9:16 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"49 I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men. 50 Curse them! Curse them! Curse them! ....wait, no Jews?

"herupakraath" wrote:
The phrase all gods of men means all gods of men--I see no confusion over which gods he refers to, he means all gods worshiped by men. To curse them is to wage magical warfare against them, not against the people who are enslaved by them, who are largely just victims.

"herupakraath" wrote:
Horus is the oldest, and most consistently worshiped deity in the recorded history of civilization; the whole point in delivering the Book of the Law to mankind is enable those that choose to, to link to the source of all religious currents, the solar current; all other currents are mere distortions and phantasms of the currents developed and utilized by the ancient Egyptians.

Through their myth about Moses, the Jews can be related to the ancient Egyptians. Something to be found in much of the esoteric/occult literature written before and during the time AC lived.

This is maybe relevant to the Jews in the following verse, containing the only mention of Jews in The Book of the Law, seemingly being presented as possessing some valuable knowledge:

Liber AL I,46: "Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen."


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
27/10/2010 9:43 am  

93,

"gods of men" is not the same as the men themselves.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
phthah
(@phthah)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 210
01/11/2010 1:36 am  

93,

"herupakraath" wrote:
The phrase all gods of men means all gods of men--I see no confusion over which gods he refers to, he means all gods worshiped by men.

Good point heru. This would of course include the god of the "Jews". However, I think A.C.'s commentary to verse 49 sets up the meaning of the following verses.

49 I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.
"The evident interpretation of this is to take the word to be "Do what thou wilt", which is a secret word, because its meaning for every man is his own inmost secret. And it is the most profound blasphemy possible against all 'gods of men', because it makes every man his own God."
For more info on this secret fourfold word see chapter 2 of Liber 333.

"Azidonis" wrote:
He did say "may", indicating that he was not quite sure, but trying to find a way for the Jews to fit...

Perhaps, but it wasn't really necessary since they were already covered anyway, as mentioned above. For what it is worth, Motta's commentary here was, "Obviously, 'Din' refers to Mosaic Law; Islam has already been disposed of in the previous verse". This is just further confirmation of A.C.'s assumption.

93 93/93
phthah


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/11/2010 8:44 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"49 I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men. 50 Curse them! Curse them! Curse them! ....wait, no Jews?

"herupakraath" wrote:
The phrase all gods of men means all gods of men--I see no confusion over which gods he refers to, he means all gods worshiped by men. To curse them is to wage magical warfare against them, not against the people who are enslaved by them, who are largely just victims.

"herupakraath" wrote:
Horus is the oldest, and most consistently worshiped deity in the recorded history of civilization; the whole point in delivering the Book of the Law to mankind is enable those that choose to, to link to the source of all religious currents, the solar current; all other currents are mere distortions and phantasms of the currents developed and utilized by the ancient Egyptians.

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Through their myth about Moses, the Jews can be related to the ancient Egyptians. Something to be found in much of the esoteric/occult literature written before and during the time AC lived.
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
This is maybe relevant to the Jews in the following verse, containing the only mention of Jews in The Book of the Law, seemingly being presented as possessing some valuable knowledge:
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Liber AL I,46: "Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen."

"To recapitulate the historical basis of The Book of the Law, let me say that evolution (within human memory) shows three great steps: 1. the worship of the Mother, when the universe was conceived as simple nourishment drawn directly from her; 2. the worship of the Father, when the universe was imagined as catastrophic; 3. the worship of the Child, in which we come to perceive events as a continual growth partaking in its elements of both these methods.

Egyptian theology foresaw this progress of humanity and symbolized it in the triad of Isis, Osiris, Horus. The neophyte ceremony of the Golden Dawn prepared me for the New Aeon; for, at the Equinox, the officer who represented Horus in the West took the throne of Osiris in the East.

The Book of the Law is careful to indicate the nature of the formula implied by the assertion that the residing officer of the temple (the earth) is Horus, the Crowned and Conquering Child. And again, Egyptology and psychology help us to understand what is implied, and what effect to expect, in the world of thought and action.

Horus avenged his father Osiris. We know that the sun (indeed, every element of nature) does not suffer death."

In the quote above from page 399 in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, we witness Aleister Crowley relating The Book of the Law to the ancient Egyptians and their theology. The Jews' mythic 'founder-hero-figure' Moses, was according to their myth brought up among the leadership of the ancient Egyptians.

On page 808 in the above mentioned self biography by Aleister Crowley, we find him describing his knowledge of the Bible in this way: "The almost unparalleled knowledge of the text of the Bible which I had acquired in early childhood [...]"

It is a fact that the only explicit mention of Jews contained within the supposedly channeled text in the most holy book of Thelema - to be found in the verse number 46 in the first chapter of The Book of the Law - seems to present them as possessing some valuable knowledge. It might be interesting in this context, to keep in mind that both Thelema through the myth-making capability of Aleister Crowley, and the Jews through the Moses-myth, can be related to the ancient Egyptians.

Aleister Crowley was often - at best - ambivalent about Jews in general, but throughout his life he cooperated with individual Jews like for example Victor Benjamin Neuburg (1883 - 1940), Israel Regardie (1907 - 1985) who was of the opinion that Aleister Crowley would have benefited from Reichian therapy, and John Symonds (1914 - 2006). The latter was an illegitimate son of a Lithuanian Jew. John Symonds had also married one Renata Israel in 1945, the year before he started cooperating with Aleister Crowley.

"In 1922, Crowley hoped that Israel had to be subjected completely to the Law of Thelema, because he, Crowley the Anti-Christ, nevertheless was the Messiah for which the Jews waited." Source: 'The Templar's Reich Milieu The Slaves Shall Serve' - http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/2006/pro/pene.htm

If there is something in the rumour about there being many Jews among those who are attracted to Thelema, this will hopefully, according to my personal experience as a guest among Jews both in Israel, and in the USA, add to the lively exchange of views, information, and news within this group as a whole.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
02/11/2010 3:53 am  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:

Through their myth about Moses, the Jews can be related to the ancient Egyptians. Something to be found in much of the esoteric/occult literature written before and during the time AC lived.

This is maybe relevant to the Jews in the following verse, containing the only mention of Jews in The Book of the Law, seemingly being presented as possessing some valuable knowledge:

Liber AL I,46: "Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen."

Dwtw

Verse I:46 can just as easily point to the Jews NOT having any valuable knowledge, as their version of Nothing, i.e., AIN = 61 is not what Nuit calls Nothing.

AFAIK, the Ain Sof is not mentioned in the Torah. Correct me if I am wrong about that.

and no, using Hebrew letters on Tarot cards is hardly an advertisement for Judaism, especially when half the attributions were juggled by Kenneth Mckenzie and/or S.L.Mathers, contrary to the Sefer Yetzirah.

That there may be traces of Judaism in the form of Qabalism in TBOTL is not an advertisement for its promotion, since these may well have been due to the scribe's unconscious influence, or simply for hiding things in well-known numerical codes. The Book of Revelation is quoted directly and indirectly, but few think Liber AL is proselytizing for Xtianity.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
02/11/2010 9:53 pm  

One of the most major concepts in Thelema is the reception of pleasure, for Nuit gives a long list of pleasures the Thelemite may enjoy but ends it all by saying "But ever unto me".

What does this mean?

Well, if we turn to the Zohar we find the same exact theme. In the Zohar we learn that the universe was created for the sake of enjoying pleasure, except that we are not to receive this pleasure for ourselves alone because that would be pure ego. Instead, we are to receive it, via an act of Will, for the sake of the Creator.

Furthermore the trinity of Liber AL, Hadit, Ra Hoor Khuit and Nuit correspond to Keter, Chokmah and Binah. The Beast is Tiferet, and the Scarlet Woman is Malkut.

There is much more, suffice it to say Kabbalah was to much a part of Crowleys cosmology and he praised it in multiple places. Furthermore real Kabbalah only recognizes an undefined and undefinable source, it does not worship Jesus as a God and it does not even worship the idea of a Man as a God. Its actually very similar to Hindu and Tantric conceptions of God.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
03/11/2010 5:58 pm  
"718" wrote:
One of the most major concepts in Thelema is the reception of pleasure, for Nuit gives a long list of pleasures the Thelemite may enjoy but ends it all by saying "But ever unto me".

What does this mean?

Well, if we turn to the Zohar we find the same exact theme. In the Zohar we learn that the universe was created for the sake of enjoying pleasure, except that we are not to receive this pleasure for ourselves alone because that would be pure ego. Instead, we are to receive it, via an act of Will, for the sake of the Creator.

Furthermore the trinity of Liber AL, Hadit, Ra Hoor Khuit and Nuit correspond to Keter, Chokmah and Binah. The Beast is Tiferet, and the Scarlet Woman is Malkut.

There is much more, suffice it to say Kabbalah was to much a part of Crowleys cosmology and he praised it in multiple places. Furthermore real Kabbalah only recognizes an undefined and undefinable source, it does not worship Jesus as a God and it does not even worship the idea of a Man as a God. Its actually very similar to Hindu and Tantric conceptions of God.

Dwtw

While I get what you're saying, the fact is that there are only relatable concepts between Qabalism and Liber AL. Nowhere does it specify that Hadit is Keter, etc, or that the SW is Malkut. It's putting the cart before the horse to say that.

Actually, if Din is accepted as a name for the sefira Gevurah, which it is in certain circles, then RHK may in fact be 'tearing out the flesh' of the Tree of Life. You'd have a very different qabalah without that superstructure!

So rather than ask whether Qabalism is included in the attack on Judaism presumed by the word Din, we might flip that around and wonder if Judaism is implied in the attack upon the Tree of Life and Qabalism. I don't think it's fair to perfectly equate Judaism and Qabalism, but given the context, I think they may be considered more or less synonymous, and therefore equally reviled.

But should we be surprised that the Tree of Life needs to be felled as much as the Cross or the Crescent? It's all Osirian Aeon imagery and thought processes and religiosity, etc. Time for a change.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/11/2010 7:05 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Liber AL III:49-59 "49 I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men. [...]
"Azidonis" wrote:
"gods of men" is not the same as the men themselves.

Liber AL I: "11. These are fools that men adore; both their Gods & their men are fools."

"threefold31" wrote:
Verse I:46 can just as easily point to the Jews NOT having any valuable knowledge, as their version of Nothing, i.e., AIN = 61 is not what Nuit calls Nothing.

There was some error on my part, earlier in this thread, as both verse 46, and the following verse 47, in the first chapter of The Book of the Law, mention the Jews:

"46. Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen. 47. But they [the Jews] have the half: unite by thine art so that all disappear."

"718" wrote:
There is much more, suffice it to say Kabbalah was to much a part of Crowleys cosmology and he praised it in multiple places. Furthermore real Kabbalah only recognizes an undefined and undefinable source, it does not worship Jesus as a God and it does not even worship the idea of a Man as a God. Its actually very similar to Hindu and Tantric conceptions of God.

"The least abject asset in the intellectual bankruptcy of European thought is the Hebrew Qabalah. Properly understood, it is a system of symbolism indefinitely elastic, assuming no axioms, postulating no principles, asserting no theorems, and therefore adaptable, if managed adroitly, to describe any conceivable doctrine. It has been my continual study since 1898, and I have found it of infinite value in the study of the "Tao Teh King." [...] "From 1905 to 1918 the Tao Teh King was my continual study." Source: Chapter XXXV: The Tao (2), in Magick Without Tears.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
03/11/2010 7:56 pm  
"threefold31" wrote:
It's all Osirian Aeon imagery and thought processes and religiosity, etc. Time for a change.

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2010 4:54 am  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"The least abject asset in the intellectual bankruptcy of European thought is the Hebrew Qabalah. Properly understood, it is a system of symbolism indefinitely elastic, assuming no axioms, postulating no principles, asserting no theorems, and therefore adaptable, if managed adroitly, to describe any conceivable doctrine. It has been my continual study since 1898, and I have found it of infinite value in the study of the "Tao Teh King."
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"[...] From 1905 to 1918 the Tao Teh King was my continual study." Source: Chapter XXXV: The Tao (2), in Magick Without Tears.

Wait a second - in the text above, quoted from Magick Without Tears, AC describes "the Hebrew Qabalah" as "a system" "adaptable, [!]if managed adroitly[!], to describe any conceivable doctrine." Keep also in mind that this claim is directly followed by him admitting that this system had been his "continual study since 1898, [...]." Which means that he since 1898, would have had six years to get this system "managed adroitly" enough, to - by 1904 - "describe any conceivable doctrine", with The Book of the Law. A book which he subsequently claimed was an all-encompassing document.

About the word 'Thelema', which in chapter 1, verse 39, of The Book of the Law, is described as "The word of the Law", AC states the following on page 399 in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley:

"Thelema implies not merely a new religion, but a new cosmology, a new philosophy, a new ethics. It co-ordinates the disconnected discoveries of science, from physics to psychology, into a coherent and consistent system. Its scope is so vast that it is impossible even to hint at the universality of its application. But the whole of my work, from the moment of its utterance, illustrates some phase of its potentiality, and the story of my life itself from this time on is no more than a record of my reactions to it."


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
04/11/2010 5:45 am  

93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"Thelema implies not merely a new religion, but a new cosmology, a new philosophy, a new ethics. It co-ordinates the disconnected discoveries of science, from physics to psychology, into a coherent and consistent system. Its scope is so vast that it is impossible even to hint at the universality of its application. But the whole of my work, from the moment of its utterance, illustrates some phase of its potentiality, and the story of my life itself from this time on is no more than a record of my reactions to it."

What then, thus far, is new? If, as the verses in this thread's title indeed shine a light on the "out-dated-ness" of the Old Aeon, just what have we come up with that is indeed new?

It's a general question, not an accusation. I should add some 😀 😀 😀 :D.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2010 9:37 am  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"Thelema implies not merely a new religion, but a new cosmology, a new philosophy, a new ethics. It co-ordinates the disconnected discoveries of science, from physics to psychology, into a coherent and consistent system. Its scope is so vast that it is impossible even to hint at the universality of its application. But the whole of my work, from the moment of its utterance, illustrates some phase of its potentiality, and the story of my life itself from this time on is no more than a record of my reactions to it."
"Azidonis" wrote:
What then, thus far, is new? If, as the verses in this thread's title indeed shine a light on the "out-dated-ness" of the Old Aeon, just what have we come up with that is indeed new?
"Azidonis" wrote:
It's a general question, not an accusation. I should add some 😀 😀 😀 :D.

What if AC first decided that the word Thelema implied all those tings, and about "the universality of its application", and then afterwards, sometime between 1898 and 1904 - during his "continual study since 1898" of "the Hebrew Qabalah" - composed The Book of the Law, using his great knowledge of "the Hebrew Qabalah."

Here is something we can find on the pages 197, 202 and 203, in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, in relation to AC's knowledge of the Qabalah, and this is from the summer of 1900, four years before "the reception of" The Book of the Law :

"[...] late in June 1900, I sailed for New York. [...] I only stayed in New York two or three days and then travelled direct to Mexico City. [...] I had an introduction to an old man named Don Jesus Medina, a descendant of the great duke of Armada fame, and one of the highest chiefs of Scottish rite free-masonry. My Cabbalistic knowledge being already profound by current standards, he thought me worthy of the highest initiation in his power to confer; special powers were obtained in view of my limited sojourn, and I was pushed rapidly through and admitted to the thirty-third and last degree before I left the country."

Is this something Aleister Crowley could have done? That is, is it plausible, in the sense that it provides a serious motive for him, for deliberately writing The Book of The Law?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2010 9:57 am  

It would be biographically fitting for Aleister Crowley, to start by taking the word Thelema, a word already present and established within Christianity, and give it his own interpretation.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
04/11/2010 10:29 am  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"[...] late in June 1900, I sailed for New York. [...] I only stayed in New York two or three days and then travelled direct to Mexico City. [...] I had an introduction to an old man named Don Jesus Medina, a descendant of the great duke of Armada fame, and one of the highest chiefs of Scottish rite free-masonry. My Cabbalistic knowledge being already profound by current standards, he thought me worthy of the highest initiation in his power to confer; special powers were obtained in view of my limited sojourn, and I was pushed rapidly through and admitted to the thirty-third and last degree before I left the country."
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Is this something Aleister Crowley could have done? That is, is it plausible, in the sense that it provides a serious motive for him, for deliberately writing The Book of The Law?

The first quote is offered by you as support for the suggestion advanced in the second quote. I can't for the life of me see a connection.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
04/11/2010 1:14 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
It would be biographically fitting for Aleister Crowley, to start by taking the word Thelema, a word already present and established within Christianity, and give it his own interpretation.

Thelema is simply a Greek word meaning 'will'. Doubtless it has been used for a long time in diverse contexts by a great many people. In what way, then, is it" biographically fitting" for Crowley to do what billions of other people have done?

Surfing the Ocean of Bewilderment,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
04/11/2010 3:33 pm  

93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
What if AC first decided that the word Thelema implied all those tings, and about "the universality of its application", and then afterwards, sometime between 1898 and 1904 - during his "continual study since 1898" of "the Hebrew Qabalah" - composed The Book of the Law, using his great knowledge of "the Hebrew Qabalah."

What if... Crowley actually knew Hebrew?
___________

I see Crowley, at times, as sort of a trash compactor of the Old Aeon. It would appear that he took everything he thought was essential and fit it to his system. The rest of the stuff he just didn't deal with. But, aside from renaming a rearranging a few things here and there, Crowley didn't create much of anything new. What he did was trim the wheat from the chaff of the Old Aeon systems, and tell us that this is about all we can probably use from them if we are to make something happen in the direction he was expecting events to happen. Then of course, it is up to us to make it happen.

So again I ask, what has happened thus far? What is new? (I'm asking this generally, just to get an idea if 1. people actually are understanding me, and 2. to get an idea what sort of real changes people think have been made up to this point for the advancement of the Aeon).

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2010 3:44 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
The first quote is offered by you as support for the suggestion advanced in the second quote. I can't for the life of me see a connection.

In short, my point is that AC was qualified to write BOTL himself, already some years before he supposedly received it.

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
It would be biographically fitting for Aleister Crowley, to start by taking the word Thelema, a word already present and established within Christianity, and give it his own interpretation.
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
[Thelema is simply a Greek word meaning 'will'. Doubtless it has been used for a long time in diverse contexts by a great many people. In what way, then, is it "biographically fitting" for Crowley to do what billions of other people have done?

MichaelStaley, have "billions of other people" done what Aleister Crowley did, namely, develop a system named Thelema, while - like Aleister Crowley also did - continuasly presenting this system to the world, as an enemy and eventual replacement of Christianity? (Keep in mind that Christianity is a system with an already present and established definition of the word Thelema).

Aleister Crowley deliberatly developing the system he called Thelema, from the very beginning - deliberatly starting with the word Thelema - to defeat and replace Christianity, (already having its own definition of the word Thelema), is a posibility biographically fitting to his unhappy childhood among certain Christians.

But on the oher hand MichaelStaley, you might prefere another interpretation, or other interpretations, of the origin[-s] of the Thelema related to Aleister Crowley. Or you might even be of the opinion that the relationship between Aleister Crowley and Thelema, is an aspect of Thelema, that in the end is of significantly less importance then one's own relationship to it. If the latter is the case, me and you MichaelStaley, do for once, partly agree upon at least one thing. 😉

Below is The New Testament Greek Lexicon's definition of the word Thelema:

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2307 "The New Testament Greek Lexicon[:] Transliterated Word[:] Thelema [-] Phonetic Spelling[:]
thel'-ay-mah [...] Definition[:] what one wishes or has determined shall be done
a. of the purpose of God to bless mankind through Christ
b. of what God wishes to be done by us
1. commands, precepts
2. will, choice, inclination, desire, pleasure".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2010 5:00 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
What if... Crowley actually knew Hebrew?

😆 That is why I wrote "the Hebrew Qabalah", and not, the Hebrew Qabalah.

"Azidonis" wrote:
[...] if we are to make something happen in the direction he was expecting events to happen. Then of course, it is up to us to make it happen.

'We' and 'us'? In the end, the 'we' and 'us' are "centers of pestilence", "to be shunned by all", according to The Book of the Law, and only useful as means to an end, and not as ends in themselves. IMO of course.

"Azidonis" wrote:
So again I ask, what has happened thus far? What is new? (I'm asking this generally, just to get an idea if 1. people actually are understanding me, and 2. to get an idea what sort of real changes people think have been made up to this point for the advancement of the Aeon).

IMO, that is a question depending on what means to an end, I find the world around me, to be useful for. As the joy is in the going, for me, I have no set answer to that question.

IMO, based on BOTL verse 41, chapter 1, "the advancement of the Aeon", is a faulty idea, being falsely based on faith, a faith believing in the external restricting influence of illusions like for example 'Aeons.'


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2010 5:07 pm  

WTF?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2010 5:25 pm  

To actually believe that some "advancement" of "Aeons", have some defining influence over you, is an abdication of your own sovereignty, and in breach of the one supreme commandment in The Book of the Law: Do what thou wilt.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2010 6:24 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
To actually believe that some "advancement" of "Aeons", have some defining influence over you, is an abdication of your own sovereignty, and in breach of the one supreme commandment in The Book of the Law: Do what thou wilt.

Not really. Species tend to progress and evolve collectively, in general, even one such our own which is sometimes noted for individual divergence. Should humanity progress to the point where true individualism is openly encouraged, which would be a truly Thelemic development, this progress will still come gradually and collectively, for a variety of reasons, one being necessary societal values and constraints. This is why it is said that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." There is process involved; and that "the Law is for all," meaning that it is a collective process. There is a clear scientific grounding for this observation, it is not really open to too much debate.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
04/11/2010 9:17 pm  

93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
MichaelStaley, have "billions of other people" done what Aleister Crowley did, namely, develop a system named Thelema, while - like Aleister Crowley also did - continuasly presenting this system to the world, as an enemy and eventual replacement of Christianity? (Keep in mind that Christianity is a system with an already present and established definition of the word Thelema).

Aleister Crowley deliberatly developing the system he called Thelema, from the very beginning - deliberatly starting with the word Thelema - to defeat and replace Christianity, (already having its own definition of the word Thelema), is a posibility biographically fitting to his unhappy childhood among certain Christians.

Liber AL, Chapter I:

"39. The word of the Law is Θελημα.
40. Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look but close into the word. For there are therein Three Grades, the Hermit, and the Lover, and the man of Earth. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

Now, if one believes Crowley's claims, and the claims of The Book of the Law, Aiwass, the Minister of Hoor paar Kraat (a form of Horus), spoke these words to the Scribe, the Priest of the Princes, a reincarnation of Ankh-f-n-khonsu, who as Edward Alexander Crowley had become a fit vehicle (Avatar) for the transmission of this information, and as Aleister Crowley took up the Motto of Perdurabo, pursued the Great Work, and eventually the Office of the Beast or Logos of the Aeon. The dictation by Aiwass was in three separate forms, that of Nuit, Hadit, and Ra Hoor Khuit, all gods, deities. Therefore, the words of the Minister of these deities, it is assumed, has been heard by this Minister, and the Minister had the Scribe to write them down.

With that line of thinking, it is Nuit who used the term Thelema, not Crowley.

If you can show us undeniable proof that Crowley had conjured up The Book of the Law and decided to use the term Thelema as its main precept, as in the verses quoted above, then perhaps we could discuss Crowley's intentions concerning the Word of the Law.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
04/11/2010 9:25 pm  

93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
What if... Crowley actually knew Hebrew?

😆 That is why I wrote "the Hebrew Qabalah", and not, the Hebrew Qabalah.

In other words, you were aware that you were just talking out of your ass?

'We' and 'us'? In the end, the 'we' and 'us' are "centers of pestilence", "to be shunned by all", according to The Book of the Law, and only useful as means to an end, and not as ends in themselves. IMO of course.

You speak of 'we' and 'us' in the sense of by-products of the Great Work. That's fine, although I doubt that's what you meant.

IMO, that is a question depending on what means to an end, I find the world around me, to be useful for. As the joy is in the going, for me, I have no set answer to that question.

As we are by-products of the Great Work, so does our "Going forth" create/leave by-products. That you have left no by-products in your Going...

IMO, based on BOTL verse 41, chapter 1, "the advancement of the Aeon", is a faulty idea, being falsely based on faith, a faith believing in the external restricting influence of illusions like for example 'Aeons.'

For those who aren't inclined to look it up in order to understand your rhetoric:

Liber AL I:41 "The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursèd! Accursèd be it to the æons! Hell."

In light of my own understanding of the Book, and in an effort to allow the actual Book to speak for itself, I'll refrain from explaining the flaws in your argument at this time.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
04/11/2010 9:27 pm  

93,

"Camlion" wrote:
Not really. Species tend to progress and evolve collectively, in general, even one such our own which is sometimes noted for individual divergence. Should humanity progress to the point where true individualism is openly encouraged, which would be a truly Thelemic development, this progress will still come gradually and collectively, for a variety of reasons, one being necessary societal values and constraints. This is why it is said that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." There is process involved; and that "the Law is for all," meaning that it is a collective process. There is a clear scientific grounding for this observation, it is not really open to too much debate.

Well said.

93 93/93

P.S. Apologies for the triple post.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2010 11:06 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Not really. Species tend to progress and evolve collectively, in general, even one such our own which is sometimes noted for individual divergence. Should humanity progress to the point where true individualism is openly encouraged, which would be a truly Thelemic development, this progress will still come gradually and collectively, for a variety of reasons, one being necessary societal values and constraints.
"Camlion" wrote:
This is why it is said that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." There is process involved; and that "the Law is for all," meaning that it is a collective process. There is a clear scientific grounding for this observation, it is not really open to too much debate.

I agree with this, and I think that my answer to Azidonis about my interprettaion of Liber AL I:41, will make clear that we misunderstood each other, due to me not expressing myself with enough detail and clarity.

"Azidonis" wrote:
What if... Crowley actually knew Hebrew?

😆 That is why I wrote "the Hebrew Qabalah", and not, the Hebrew Qabalah.

"Azidonis" wrote:
In other words, you were aware that you were just talking out of your ass?

No, using the " "-signs, indicates me being aware that Crowley were talking out of his pretentious ass, in respect of his study of what he, Azidonis, described as "the Hebrew Qabalah".

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
IMO, based on BOTL verse 41, chapter 1, "the advancement of the Aeon", is a faulty idea, being falsely based on faith, a faith believing in the external restricting influence of illusions like for example 'Aeons.'
"Azidonis" wrote:
For those who aren't inclined to look it up in order to understand your rhetoric:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Liber AL I:41 "The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursèd! Accursèd be it to the æons! Hell."
"Azidonis" wrote:
In light of my own understanding of the Book, and in an effort to allow the actual Book to speak for itself, I'll refrain from explaining the flaws in your argument at this time.

As I understand Liber AL I: 41, it states that all alternatives to; Love is the Law, Love under Will - are invalid through all æeons, meaning forever. In other words; Love is the Law, Love under Will - shall be a valid Law forever. I is my impression that AC focused to much on the idea of what you Azidonis, described as "the advancement of the Aeon", and which I understood - or rather misunderstood - as the advancement of successive Aeons (= long periods of time).

I am of the opinon that the following quotes from so called inspired Class A writings among the so called Holy Books of Thelema, confirmes my position that the Law of Thelema shall be valid forever:

Liber LXV Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente sub figurâ - Publication in Class A.- http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib65.html

[Chapter] V" 21.But thou shalt heed none of this. Thou shalt be ever the heart, and I the serpent will coil close about thee. My coil shall never relax throughout the æons. Neither change nor sorrow nor unsubstantiality shall have thee; for thou art passed beyond all these."

Liber A’ash vel Capricorni Pneumatici sub figurâ CCCLXX - Publication in Class A.- http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib370.html

"5.Thou art tossed about in the grip of the storm for an æon and an æon and an æon. But thou givest not thy sap; thou fallest not."


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
05/11/2010 12:35 am  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
In the end, the 'we' and 'us' are "centers of pestilence", "to be shunned by all", according to The Book of the Law, and only useful as means to an end, and not as ends in themselves. IMO of course.

Your opinion might amount to a little more if you didn't make errors such as, for instance, attributing something to The Book of the Law that actually comes from the Tunis Comment more than twenty years later.

Doubtless a minor quibble.

Best wishes,

Michael


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
05/11/2010 12:45 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Doubtless a minor quibble.

😉

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2010 7:46 am  

oh yeah! my personal favorite Book of the Law verses! But listen, man, the finger, once it has written, MOVES ON!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2010 1:28 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

Let us please turn this into a decent thread, and not a thread full of misplaced hate/bigotry...

Liber AL III:49-59

"49 I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.
50 Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!
51 With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.
52 I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
53 With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
54 Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.
55 Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!
56 Also for beauty’s sake and love’s!
57 Despise also all cowards; professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play; all fools despise!
58 But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers!
59 As brothers fight ye!"

So I noticed... there's Christianity, Islam, Hinduism (and Sikhism and other Indian religions), Buddhism, Mongol and Din is possibly a reference to the Chinese religions (Taoism, Confucianism, maybe?), and then....

....wait, no Jews?

93 93/93

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

The word Din is a derogatory word from the Victorian period meaning Semites. So there's the Jews though Semite includes Egypt by the way.

I feel that the main force of destruction is laid squarely on Jesus and Mohammed's sight. Rendering both of their religions blind.
The other four get slightly less in that they are just torn to pieces and their flesh eaten. To me this means that these traditions are not blind but have simply become corrupt. Indian means the religions of South Asia, Buddhist is obvious, Mongol means the religions of East Asia and Din the Middle Eastern religions including Judaism.

To put it in plain English then Christianity and Islam have no spiritual value and are mere slave cults. Their gods too are blind fools. They are the blind leading the blind as it were.
Indian Traditions and Buddhism have some value as their flesh can be absorbed into Thelema in things like Yoga, Tantra, Mantra and the like but need re-revaluing in the light of The Book Of The Law.
Like wise with Mongol Traditions and Din or Semitic Tradition, in the form of Kabbalah, Taoist philosophy, Alchemy and therefore Egyption Thought (Egypt was a Semitic people). They too need revaluing in the light of The Book Of The Law.

Love is the law, love under will.

Alex


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2010 1:45 pm  

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

On a the slightly more complicated issue of Chaste Women and Cowards: Chaste Women are a in fact a degredation of feminity that has been done by Patriarchy. It is the application of a male virtue to the female world view and it has no place there. The same is said elsewhere when the veil of the modest woman is called the pall of death. Chastity is a male discipline that essentially is what prevents men from committing rape. When applied to women it prevents sex. Modesty too is a male discipline that is part of the warrior code to prevent unnecessary bloodshed and people squabbling. When applied to women it just makes the world drab.

As for cowardice it actually is the cause of the arms race. The drive to get more powerful and destructive weapons so that war becomes to risky. We should be more like the Celts when war was what happened in their time off from farming to keep the bloodlines stromg and weed out the week genes. By failing to face life's battles we just have over population and therefore too much pollution and risk the destruction of the Earth itself.

Love is the law, love under will.

Alex


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2010 1:59 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

Let us please turn this into a decent thread, and not a thread full of misplaced hate/bigotry...

Liber AL III:49-59

"49 I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.
50 Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!
51 With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.
52 I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
53 With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
54 Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.
55 Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!
56 Also for beauty’s sake and love’s!
57 Despise also all cowards; professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play; all fools despise!
58 But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers!
59 As brothers fight ye!"

So I noticed... there's Christianity, Islam, Hinduism (and Sikhism and other Indian religions), Buddhism, Mongol and Din is possibly a reference to the Chinese religions (Taoism, Confucianism, maybe?), and then....

....wait, no Jews?

93 93/93

"Alex_Bennett" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

The word Din is a derogatory word from the Victorian period meaning Semites. So there's the Jews though Semite includes Egypt by the way.

I feel that the main force of destruction is laid squarely on Jesus and Mohammed's sight. Rendering both of their religions blind.
The other four get slightly less in that they are just torn to pieces and their flesh eaten. To me this means that these traditions are not blind but have simply become corrupt. Indian means the religions of South Asia, Buddhist is obvious, Mongol means the religions of East Asia and Din the Middle Eastern religions including Judaism.

To put it in plain English then Christianity and Islam have no spiritual value and are mere slave cults. Their gods too are blind fools. They are the blind leading the blind as it were.
Indian Traditions and Buddhism have some value as their flesh can be absorbed into Thelema in things like Yoga, Tantra, Mantra and the like but need re-revaluing in the light of The Book Of The Law.
Like wise with Mongol Traditions and Din or Semitic Tradition, in the form of Kabbalah, Taoist philosophy, Alchemy and therefore Egyption Thought (Egypt was a Semitic people). They too need revaluing in the light of The Book Of The Law.

Love is the law, love under will.

Alex

Liber 61 / Liber LXI / Liber Causae - Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib61.htm

"THE HISTORY LECTION[...]"

"23. Deliberately, therefore, did he take refuge in vagueness. Not to veil the truth to the Neophyte, but to warn him against valuing non- essentials. Should therefore the candidate hear the name of any God, let him not rashly assume that it refers to any known God, save only the God known to himself. Or should the ritual speak in terms (however vague) which seem to imply Egyptian, Taoist, Buddhist, Indian, Persian, Greek, Judaic, Christian, or Moslem philosoÿhy, let him reflect that this is a defect of language; the literary limitation and not the spiritual prejudice of the man P[erdurabo[?]]."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2010 2:21 pm  

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

Fair enough but I gave up taking the Beasts word for it years ago. As should everyone.

In fact that brings me to the verses 58 and 59. To me that means interpret the Law for oneself and voice that intepretation and have the courage to stand up for it and see if you get shot down in flames or not.

Love is the law, love udner will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2010 3:00 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
What then, thus far, is new? If, as the verses in this thread's title indeed shine a light on the "out-dated-ness" of the Old Aeon, just what have we come up with that is indeed new?
"Azidonis" wrote:
So again I ask, what has happened thus far? What is new? (I'm asking this generally, just to get an idea if 1. people actually are understanding me, and 2. to get an idea what sort of real changes people think have been made up to this point for the advancement of the Aeon).

Azidonis, it is not my intention to be confrontational with you, but I wonder if you would care to share with us your own thoughts related to those questions?

"Azidonis" wrote:
If you can show us undeniable proof that Crowley had conjured up The Book of the Law and decided to use the term Thelema as its main precept, as in the verses quoted above, then perhaps we could discuss Crowley's intentions concerning the Word of the Law.

Azidonis, am I missing something here, or is your main point that we shall discuss the opinon[-s] of The Book of the Law itself - or the opinion[-s] of those (Nuit, Hadit, Ra Hoor Khuit and Aiwass) behind it themselves, rather then Crowley's own opinion[-s] on - and interpretations of, The Book of the Law? That is fine with me, and I am happy about it, if this is what you mean with what I have quoted from you just prior to and above this paragraph.

Aleister Crowley states the following on page 399 in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley:

"Thelema implies not merely a new religion, but a new cosmology, a new philosophy, a new ethics. It co-ordinates the disconnected discoveries of science, from physics to psychology, into a coherent and consistent system. Its scope is so vast that it is impossible even to hint at the universality of its application. But the whole of my work, from the moment of its utterance, illustrates some phase of its potentiality, and the story of my life itself from this time on is no more than a record of my reactions to it."

My question to you all is: Firstly, is it something new under the sun, to brag about a system, like Aleister Crowley does about Thelema, and, secondly, is it something new under the sun, to claim that a system invalidates and surpasses all other - former or current - systems, like Aleister Crowley also does about Thelema? My own answer to this question, is no, on both accounts.

________________________

"It is "my scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu" (CCXX, I, 36) who "shall comment" on "this book" "by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit"" Source: http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox-of-the-gods/eqotg7.html

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
In the end, the 'we' and 'us' are "centers of pestilence", "to be shunned by all", according to The Book of the Law, and only useful as means to an end, and not as ends in themselves. IMO of course.
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Your opinion might amount to a little more if you didn't make errors such as, for instance, attributing something to The Book of the Law that actually comes from the Tunis Comment more than twenty years later. Doubtless a minor quibble.

Don't blame me for what you MichaelStaley, presume to be an error. Blame Aleister Crowley, who attributed 'The comment' to The Book of the Law, by including it in all editions of it from 1925. It is usually located at the end of the text in this book, without footnotes stating that it was written in 1925, or that it was written in Tunis), thus making it appear - for readers - as an inherent or integral part of that book.

Aleister Crowley regarded The Comment to be an inspired text, akin to the rest of the text of The Book of the Law, which he supposedly received through successive channelings in 1904. As I have already explained to you before MichaelStaley, in the thread 'AC admits authoring all except BOTL?' - http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-4664-highlight-admits.phtml - I regard Aleister Crowley's channeligs as a quality of his thinking, or a way of his thinking. And I do the same in respect of the rest of his so called "inspired" class A writings. By the way: It is the body of class A writings, that I find to be the only required - and also the most aesthetically pleasing - part of Thelema. This saves me from bothering myself with contradictions - apparent or not - contained within in all the rest of Aleister Crowley's writings. And as we both know MichaelStaley, Aleister Crowley remained puzzled by parts of The Book of the Law, during his whole life. It is *not* my intention to invalidate or belittle Aleister Crowley, you MichaelStaley, or anyone else for that matter, for possibly, just possibly, being puzzled by parts of The Book of the Law. How others work to manifest the supposedly universal so called the 'Law of Thelema', is fine with me, as long as that work is not interfering with my individual manifestaion of the same.

Now, the Class A texts, also appear to contradict each other: On one side, there is The Book of The Law chapter 2, verse 58, containing this: "Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. [...]"

On the other side, there is "the 16th Aethyr" of The Vision and the Voice (Liber 418), containing this: "Woe unto me that am cast down from my place by the might of the new Aeon. [...]." Also on the other side there is The Book of the Heart Girt With a Serpent, Liber LXV (Liber 65), in chapter 1, verse 57, containing this: "Then was the Adept glad, and lifted his arm. Lo! an earthquake, and plague, and terror on the earth! A casting down of the them that that sate in high places, a famine upon the multitude!"

A relevant point here is that "one of the main precepts of the Book[of the Law]", according to Aleister Crowley on page 398 in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, is "emancipation of mankind from all limitations whatever". Something Aleister Crowley states, while at the same page and at the same time, quoting the following from The Book of the Law: "Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt." On the same page of The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, Crowley claims that The Book of the Law "contents itself with indicating a stage in evolution."

*So to conclude this subject matter, the descriptions contained within The Vision and the Voice, and The Book of the Heart Girt With a Serpent respectively, of "me that am cast down from my place", and "A casting down of the them that that sate in high places", indicates something going discharged, or going into extinction, or fading away. The The Book of the law contains no clear indication[-s] that Thelema shall eventually fade away, and I do not find the mention of a new prophet, to be anything else than a hint of a future medium channeling something in line with Thelema. The following quote from posting by Aleisterion on page 2 of the tread - BOTL demands obedience to its Prophet - http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-4689-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-30.phtml - brings across my point: "Obedience to the prophet of Thelema is no abdication of one's own sovereignty as the one supreme commandment he has to give is to Do what thou wilt. No prophet or institution takes precedence over one's own Holy Supernal Will." In chapter 3, verse 42, The Book of the Law tells us that: "Refuse none, but thou shalt know & destroy the traitors." This is likely to cover all future false prophets having a message contradicting "one's own Holy Supernal Will", so central to the Thelema related to The Book of the law,... and Aleister Crowley.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
06/11/2010 3:38 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Don't blame me for what you MichaelStaley, presume to be an error. Blame Aleister Crowley, who attributed 'The comment' to The Book of the Law, by including it in all editions of it from 1925. It is usually located at the end of the text in this book, without footnotes stating that it was written in 1925, or that it was written in Tunis), thus making it appear - for readers - as an inherent or integral part of that book.

What utter nonsense. The Book of the Law is the fruit of the Cairo Working in 1904. The Tunis Comment was written over twenty years later. Whatever the relationship, they are clearly separate documents. If more recent editions of The Book of the Law do not make that difference clear (though labelling it "The Comment" might be a clue), then it's regrettable.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2010 3:03 am  

IMO, both The Book of the Law ("channeled writing"), and its 'The comment '(inspired writing), originated due to a quality or a way of Crowley's thinking (and some interaction with his wife when it comes to the book).

According to my interpretation of 'The comment' - earlier demonstrated here on this forum - it is not intendede to contradict and/or invalidate The Book of the Law's one supreme commandment: "Do what thou wilt [...]."


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
07/11/2010 3:29 am  

93,

"Alex_Bennett" wrote:
Fair enough but I gave up taking the Beasts word for it years ago. As should everyone.

With all due credit to the Beast, this is a refreshing comment to see.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 445
07/11/2010 4:00 am  
"Alex_Bennett" wrote:
The word Din is a derogatory word from the Victorian period meaning Semites. So there's the Jews though Semite includes Egypt by the way.

Do you have a source for this? Din is a Hebrew word that means judgment.

The term Semitic was originally coined in regard to the Semitic family of languages, which includes the Egyptian language, but I fail to see how invoking it in this instance links Jewish and ancient Egyptian cultures in such a way as to imply criticism directed at Egyptian culture by the author of the verse.

Tim


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2010 4:15 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Liber AL III:49-59 [...] So I noticed... there's Christianity, Islam, Hinduism (and Sikhism and other Indian religions), Buddhism, Mongol and Din is possibly a reference to the Chinese religions (Taoism, Confucianism, maybe?), and then.... ....wait, no Jews?
"Alex_Bennett" wrote:
I feel that the main force of destruction is laid squarely on Jesus and Mohammed's sight. Rendering both of their religions blind.The other four get slightly less in that they are just torn to pieces and their flesh eaten. To me this means that these traditions are not blind but have simply become corrupt. [...] To put it in plain English then Christianity and Islam have no spiritual value and are mere slave cults.

The verses 49-59 in chapter 3 of The Book of the Law describes no force of destruction in relation to something resembling the atheist communism, so important in the world threatening arms race later during the century that The Book of the Law was written. This indicates that The Book of the Law is more of a document bound to the historical context of its origin, then a prophetic text - actually capable of - predicting the future.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 329
07/11/2010 1:19 pm  

Verses 49-54 of ch.3 are aimed solely at the creeds of the "gods of men". Common-sense atheism is at the core of Thelema, though with a twist; the divine impersonal mind of Thelemic doctrine is really that of man himself. The cult of nought, i.e. no god, is often emphasized in the book. See L 1:21, 1:27, 1:28, 1:46 and especially 2:23. 1:52, by the way, blasts not just monotheism (the "one") but vulgar materialism (the "many") as well.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2010 5:53 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Verses 49-54 of ch.3 are aimed solely at the creeds of the "gods of men". Common-sense atheism is at the core of Thelema, though with a twist; the divine impersonal mind of Thelemic doctrine is really that of man himself. The cult of nought, i.e. no god, is often emphasized in the book. See L 1:21, 1:27, 1:28, 1:46 and especially 2:23. 1:52, by the way, blasts not just monotheism (the "one") but vulgar materialism (the "many") as well.

Yes, enlightened atheism.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2010 7:05 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
The verses 49-59 in chapter 3 of The Book of the Law describes no force of destruction in relation to something resembling the atheist communism, so important in the world threatening arms race later during the century that The Book of the Law was written. This indicates that The Book of the Law is more of a document bound to the historical context of its origin, then a prophetic text - actually capable of - predicting the future.

wellred, you do go on and on with this silly mixed up shit.

It is "atheist communism" that is truly bound to and doomed by the historical context of its origin, and it is not its atheism that dooms it. It is doomed by the fact that socialism is untenable, as will continue to be more and more dramatically demonstrated.

That aside, the presentation of the central Prophesy of Liber AL, that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," is only limited insofar as the understanding of the Prophet was limited. (see AL I 56). This is perfectly natural, as with any series of observations being limited by time and place. Nevertheless, Liber AL, with its central Prophesy, remains uncontested as "a prophetic text - actually capable of - predicting the future." The Law of Thelema can only be rightly contested on the grounds that it is untenable, and it is perfectly tenable.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2010 10:53 pm  
"wolf354" wrote:
well if we look at Crowley being a communist infiltrated among the spiritual community ... it is amusing to say the least. What was the relation between Crowley and Stalin?

Crowley wanted to work with Stalin, and tried contacting him through the English journalist Walter Duranty. This is covered by Marco Pasi in a book.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
07/11/2010 11:07 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Crowley wanted to work with Stalin, and tried contacting him through the English journalist Walter Duranty. This is covered by Marco Pasi in a book.

So, no relation whatsoever - just (another) supposition presented as informed analysis?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
07/11/2010 11:08 pm  

Between the lines:

Crowley wanted to work with Stalin,/as did Winston Churchill who was more successful/ and tried contacting him through the English journalist Walter Duranty./the Pulitzer Prize winning liar/ This is covered by Marco Pasi in a book./which awaits translation into English.

Besides that, Stalin had webbed feet and Crowley once went duck shooting.

OK


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: