Your favourite Libe...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Your favourite Liber AL verse  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/11/2010 8:11 pm  

93! Brothers and Sisters

AL II:55 "Thou shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet; thou shalt find new symbols to attribute them unto."

Together with I:3 and I:4 this is the verse that I remember most after reading The Book of the Law and the one that I have spent most time with. One can spend a lifetime exploring this one.

93 93/93
Nevyn93


Quote
ZIN
 ZIN
(@zin)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 82
14/11/2010 9:21 pm  

Chapter I :

29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2569
14/11/2010 10:07 pm  

nice thread
i have to say whenever i hear/read:
ch 2
"9. Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
I am always touched and agree.
Also i like:
ch 1
"Let my servants be few and secret; they shall rule the many and the known."
and its compliment in
ch 2
"58. ...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. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty. "

hard to pick one but those three always stick with me the most i think. in terms of ideas.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/11/2010 10:18 pm  

II.44. Aye! feast! rejoice! there is no dread hereafter. There is the dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu.

This was my favourite when I first read the Book.

III.42. Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not over much!

This is my current favourite: A great modus vivendi.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/11/2010 2:36 am  

"The Study of this book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading."

- Ankh-f-n-khonsu

This quote lets you know it's serious. f-n A.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/11/2010 12:54 pm  

AL III, 17. Fear not at all; fear neither men nor Fates, nor gods, nor anything. Money fear not, nor laughter of the folk folly, nor any other power in heaven or upon the earth or under the earth. Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force, vigour, of your arms.

This verse has helped me through a lot of difficult situations, including important and problematic business meetings.

Eilthireach.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/11/2010 3:19 pm  

AL 2:28-34
Now a curse upon Because and his kin!
May Because be accursed for ever!
If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought.
If Power asks why, then is Power weakness.
Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.
Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!
But ye, o my people, rise up & awake!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/11/2010 4:54 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,

Currently, it is: "I am alone: there is no God where I am." II:23

love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2010 1:27 am  

The Nuitian chapter is beautiful:

"I am the blue-lidded daughter of Sunset; I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky."


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
16/11/2010 7:46 am  

I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2010 5:01 pm  

II:30

"If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought"

This currently speaks most strongly to me


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/11/2010 10:17 pm  

93,

An obligatory quote...

I:22 "Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name Nuit, and to him by a secret name which I will give him when at last he knoweth me. Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also thus. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."

Of course, that sets the tone for the statement... I enjoy the Book as a whole.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/11/2010 3:49 am  

My favorite Liber AL verse. I find it hard to pick one, as there are so many loose ends in that book. The Book of the Law's own references to the supernal triad of the kabbalistic Tree of life, to be found in the terms "the threefold book of Law" and "Three Grades", are both good candidates. IMO they clearly indicates AC - who in Chapter XXXV: The Tao (2), in Magick Without Tears claims that the "Hebrew Qabalah" was his "continual study since 1898" - more or less consiously, himself putting in those references during the writing[-s] of The Book of the Law.

Another good candidate indicating something similar on AC's part - more or less consiously - during the writing[-s] of this book, is the notion of reversibility so paramount in religious and magical practice, and aluded to in the verse containing Hadit asking, "Is God to live in a dog?"

I am sorry, as there are so many loose ends in The Book of the Law, I find it imposible to pick one favorite Liber AL verse.:oops:


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
19/11/2010 2:47 pm  

...speaking of Loose Ends...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/11/2010 4:55 pm  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
...speaking of Loose Ends...

My bad. What I mean is that AC's version on the so called reception of The Book of the Law does not add up at all, as this document has his fingerprints all over it. And a as far as I know, he could have written this document even during the years after 1904, up untill 1909, or when he first starts handing it out to persons in his circle.

Maybe he actually wrote much of it, or all of it, after 1904, and just backdated it to his wedding trip to Egypt and Cairo, to provide it with a spicy and crispy setting and background.

*Very relevant data here, would be documentation confirming when other individuals first starts giving their reactions to actually reading something that can be identified with some certainty, as most likely being an early edition of The Book of the Law.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/11/2010 5:18 pm  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
...speaking of Loose Ends...

ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
19/11/2010 5:29 pm  

93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"Horemakhet" wrote:
...speaking of Loose Ends...

My bad. What I mean is that AC's version on the so called reception of The Book of the Law does not add up at all, as this document has his fingerprints all over it. And a as far as I know, he could have written this document even during the years after 1904, up untill 1909, or when he first starts handing it out to persons in his circle.

Maybe he actually wrote much of it, or all of it, after 1904, and just backdated it to his wedding trip to Egypt and Cairo, to provide it with a spicy and crispy setting and background.

There is information contained within The Book of the Law that not even Crowley knew about, and it can be obtained through methods Crowley was unaware of even until his death. While this may be the case with many books, I know of maybe one that has been so conclusive or concise as to what it eventually reveals, which is the Torah. The book simply stands alone and unparalleled as a symbolic text, against even the Torah, as they both present entirely new paradigms.

Whether or not Crowley wrote it in 1904 is really insignificant data unless you are a history buff of some sort. What evidence has led you to believe that he may have written it after 1904, and how would that effect the actual text? Further, how would that effect you picking a "favorite verse"?

*Very relevant data here, would be documentation confirming when other individuals first starts giving their reactions to actually reading something that can be identified with some certainty, as most likely being an early edition of The Book of the Law.

It would only be relevant in a very broad sense. If the book was written in 1904, and any part of the original MS has survived, one could simply date it to 1904 and be done with it. That he stashed it away in his attic until further notice only shows that people's account of the Book would begin much later than 1904. In fact, I don't remember dates and such, but after writing it in 1904 and "re-discovering it" in 19-whenever, there was still a period of time before the Book was actually first published and distributed.

While you're at it, I recall reading yesterday that Kenneth Grant is releasing a novella that he wrote in the 50s (if this is wrong, see date statement above). So by your logic he could very well have written it on Monday, said it was from the 50s, and publish it in 3 months. And...?

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
phthah
(@phthah)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 210
19/11/2010 7:07 pm  

93,

"nevyn93" wrote:
93! Brothers and Sisters

AL II:55 "Thou shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet; thou shalt find new symbols to attribute them unto."

Together with I:3 and I:4 this is the verse that I remember most after reading The Book of the Law and the one that I have spent most time with. One can spend a lifetime exploring this one.

93 93/93
Nevyn93

AL I:8 The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs.

For me, the assimilation of this verse was a revelation! As a youth I was conditioned to believe the exact opposite.

93 93/93
phthah


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
19/11/2010 8:02 pm  

But he didn't "stash it away in his attic." He later *claimed* he'd misplaced it and found it in his attack looking for skis in 1908, but IIRC, his notes on the original cover page of Liber L makes it plain he had the manuscript in hand in 1906, during the time it was supposedly 'misplaced.'

While I disagree with much of what Wellread/ usually says, s/he is correct on this point: there has been a good bit of legitimate doubt concerning the conflicts surrounding Crowley's accounts of the reception of the Book of the Law, and its whereabouts prior to 1909. We know, for example, that the word Abrahadabra was revealed to Crowley in 1900, which was when he charted out the number sequence 8, 80, 418, not in 1904. And there's lots more. Crowley didn't write about this until 1912, several years after Rose had been committed, so there was no-one to contradict whatever his claims were changed to.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
19/11/2010 8:31 pm  

93,

"Walterfive" wrote:
But he didn't "stash it away in his attic." He later *claimed* he'd misplaced it and found it in his attack looking for skis in 1908, but IIRC, his notes on the original cover page of Liber L makes it plain he had the manuscript in hand in 1906, during the time it was supposedly 'misplaced.'

While I disagree with much of what Wellread/ usually says, s/he is correct on this point: there has been a good bit of legitimate doubt concerning the conflicts surrounding Crowley's accounts of the reception of the Book of the Law, and its whereabouts prior to 1909. We know, for example, that the word Abrahadabra was revealed to Crowley in 1900, which was when he charted out the number sequence 8, 80, 418, not in 1904. And there's lots more. Crowley didn't write about this until 1912, several years after Rose had been committed, so there was no-one to contradict whatever his claims were changed to.

Do you know whether or not the original MS for Liber L exists in a form in which it can be properly dated?

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
19/11/2010 9:23 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Do you know whether or not the original MS for Liber L exists in a form in which it can be properly dated?

93!

I doubt that any analysis would bring other results than that it was written during a time-span of probably some years. I believe the manuscript is in the OTO archives (after having surfaced in some garage iirc), but I suspect such an analysis would be quite expensive. But anyway, we know that AC studied Liber L with Elaine Simpson in early 1906 (which would suggest that he had travelled with it for a year or more, because iirc he did not land in England after the Kanchenjunga adventure in 1905), he had page proofs for a projected publication as an appendix for the third volume of the Collected Works in 1907, and there are page proofs of his Holy Books from 1908.

But there are a lot of threads already about this and the discussion about it should be taken there I guess. We should all be able to find a favourite verse in the book even if AC would have found it on a bus in 1941 or so. As a teacher wellreadwellbred should know that his input here would have earned him a straight F. "Well, I decided not to answer because I think that Shakespeare did not write this piece!" Would you let a student get away with this?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/11/2010 11:18 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I doubt that any analysis would bring other results than that it was written during a time-span of probably some years.
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
As a teacher wellreadwellbred should know that his input here would have earned him a straight F. "Well, I decided not to answer because I think that Shakespeare did not write this piece!" Would you let a student get away with this?

My point is that I will not let AC get away with his made up story about the so called 1904 reception of The Book of the Law. But I do accept that AC, as Azidonis writes in the thread 'L. Ron Hubbard and Thelema'; "wrote to help expound on the path of enlightenment", and not to make money. That is why I intend to find out more on AC's scientific illuminism.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
19/11/2010 11:52 pm  

Paul, 93!

My point was that this is totally unfitting for a favourite Liber AL verse thread. There are a lot of threads already about it. It's fun to play Sherlock, and I am and have been usually on board.

But will AC get away with his story? There are the well known discrepancies, but so far no real proof has occured. If it is your agenda to not let him get away with it, you have to provide some evidence. Although I must admit that - aside from bibliographical and historical interests - there is pretty little use in not letting him get away with it. Because it really doesn't matter. And by the way, it won't tell you anything about AC'S scientific illuminism (I observe that you did not put this into quotation marks).

So, come on and choose your favourite verse, may it be by Aiwass or Aleister with tongue in cheek. And then hunt him down in another thread.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/11/2010 12:27 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
So, come on and choose your favourite verse, may it be by Aiwass or Aleister with tongue in cheek. And then hunt him down in another thread.

Allright the_real_simon_iff, here it is:

BOTL chapter 3, verse 60: "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/11/2010 1:23 am  

II:9 "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."

This was the verse that solidified my conviction that Thelema was the path I was to tread. I was 14, and that verse specifically became a sort of mantra I clung to through my awkward teen years for a very long time. Still find myself repeating it, even on superficially "bad" days.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/11/2010 1:26 am  

The next in line would be BOTL chapter 3, verse 63: "The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and its comment; & he understandeth it not."


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
20/11/2010 4:37 am  

Aleister was a man who could and would Fake something to his own delight. He was a genius, so he may have created a fiction for it. Except, Rose really did go insane. There is truth in his story, and this takes it beyond trickery. His own life shows clearly how upset he was by this tiny book. I take his word for it. He is not fooling us with it's weight.

My favourite is the opening verses. Such beauty sustained. . .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/11/2010 3:05 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
But will AC get away with his story? There are the well known discrepancies, but so far no real proof has occured. If it is your agenda to not let him get away with it, you have to provide some evidence.
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Although I must admit that - aside from bibliographical and historical interests - there is pretty little use in not letting him get away with it. Because it really doesn't matter. And by the way, it won't tell you anything about AC'S scientific illuminism (I observe that you did not put this into quotation marks).

Yes Lutz, you correctly observe that I did not put AC'S scientific illuminism into quotation marks.

I know that The Book of the Law's 'THE COMMENT' - contained within all versions of it published after 1925, according to how Aleister Crowley wanted the The Book of the Law to be published - is not one of the original verses in this book. But to me this supposedly divinely inspired little text, is a favorite part of the post 1925 editions of the supposedly also divinely inspired The Book of the Law, as the following extract from it documents Aleister Crowley engaging in arguing in a circle, or in begging the question:

"Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence. All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."

In short, at the end of post 1925 editions of Aleister Crowley's most holy book in his belief system called Thelema, we find him basically ordering us - simultaneously as forbidding us to discuss this with others - to understand this book that he most likely wrote by himself, on the basis of his other writings.

Such incredible reasoning, did Aleister Crowley after 1925, intend all editions of his most holy book for his belief system of Thelema, to contain as a concluding part. This reasoning on Aleister Crowley's part, concluding the 'improved' and authorized post 1925 editions of Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law, has minimal or nothing to do with the proper scientific research on a subject that interests me, namely illumimism.

And - this might be of special interest to new beginners - as stated in the epilogue of Richard Kaczynski's Perdurabo: The Life of Aleister Crowley, you do not have to accept Aleister Crowley's belief system of Thelema, to avail yourself of his scientific illuminism.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2569
20/11/2010 5:09 pm  

yet another simple thread ruined... 🙁


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/11/2010 5:33 pm  

I hope this posting brings this thread more back on track

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
I know that The Book of the Law's 'THE COMMENT' - contained within all versions of it published after 1925, according to how Aleister Crowley wanted the The Book of the Law to be published - is not one of the original verses in this book.

In line with the subject matter of this thread - Your favourite Liber AL verse - I want to add something to what I quote above in this posting, from my posting before this posting in this thread.

The Book of the Law's 'THE COMMENT' might not be among the original verses in this book, but Aleister Crowley presented it as a divinely inspired fulfilment of various verses in The Book of the Law, and that is one obvious reason, for him to include it in all edoitions of this book, published after he supposedly received this 'THE COMMENT'.

One of the verses in The Book of the Law that this 'THE COMMENT' supposedly fulfilled for Aleister Crowley, is my following second most favorite verse from The Book of the Law, posted by me earlier in this thread:

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
The next in line would be BOTL chapter 3, verse 63: "The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and its comment; & he understandeth it not."

Once again, I hope this brings this thread more back on track, and makes my point clearer. I wish you all a nice weekend.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/11/2010 8:23 pm  
"christibrany" wrote:
yet another simple thread ruined... 🙁

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/11/2010 9:01 pm  

Greetings!

I like all the verses mentioned previously, but I think these are my favourites for the time being:

"6. Be thou Hadit, my secret centre, my heart & my tongue!"

and

"14. Above, the gemmed azure is
The naked splendour of Nuit;
She bends in ecstasy to kiss
The secret ardours of Hadit.
The winged globe, the starry blue,
Are mine, O Ankh-af-na-khonsu!"

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/11/2010 4:43 am  

Now ye shall know that the chosen priest & apostle of infinite space is the prince-priest the Beast; and in his woman called the Scarlet Woman is all power given. They shall gather my children into their fold: they shall bring the glory of the stars into the hearts of men. Ch. 1 v.15


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
22/11/2010 10:09 am  

Considering how Crowley used the comment (for a discussion of this see Henrik Bogdan's "Brother Crowley, Brother Curwen" (Teitan Press, 2010) and how Crowley relied on "charismatic authority"), it is rather clear that the "my writings" in the Tunis Comment is a reference to Aleister Crowley. In the Antecedents of Thelema he wrote about the identification of the two:

"IT HAS BEEN remarked by some critics of the Law of Thelema that the words "Do what thou wilt" are not original with the Master Therion: or, rather, with Aiwass, who uttered to the scribe Ankh-f-n-khonsu, the priest of the princes, The Book of the Law."

Later in the same unfinished essay he goes on to remark about the problem of the Antecedent Rabelais uttering similar words and system as he did, solving it by giving him prophetic abilities:

We may then conclude that the masterpiece of Rabelais contains in singular perfection a clear forecast of the Book which was to be revealed by Aiwass to Ankh-f-n-khonsu 370 years later."

Whatever one may think about the prophetic abilities of Rabelais (I for one considers him to have had none and that his masterpieces were an attack through satire rather than describing a new kind of philosophy), it is clear that Crowley identified Ankh-f-n-khonsu with the scribe of the Book of the Law, which again was identical with Crowley.

Why did he do so? Apparently there were good scriptural reasons for it, for in AL I:36 we find:

"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-Khuit."

On this Crowley writes as a matter of fact in the Comment called D, authored in the same time period as The Comment, which again emphasize the identity between him and Ankh-f-n-khonsu:

" 666 identified with Ankh-f-n-Khonsu.

I am in some way, One and the same Man and Ankh-f-n-Khonsu, whose Stélè helped to bring about the writing of that Book.

AL: The MS. the sole authentic text: 666 to abstain from editing it.

I am not to change it in one letter; for not only was mine [Originally “my”] ear at the service of Aiwass, but also mine hand. The effect of this is made plain elsewhere.

666 to comment on AL to guard against false interpretations.

I comment on this Book, lest there be folly; for many are the Secret Sayings [Originally “mysteries”] and obscure in the text thereof. It would be easy for the clever and the crafty to distort the true meaning of Aiwass so as to suit their own conceits, as hath been seen of old time in the cases of the Words of the Masters, the Q’uran, and the so- called Scriptures of the Christians.

666: His Curse upon any that should seek to distort the Book, or His comment.

Thus as a safeguard against such, I, by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit, do now foresee and guard against all fraud and false ways of reading the Book in simple and plain language. And I lift up my voice and curse with the Great Curse of a Magus of Power him that shall seek to turn my Word from its Truth."

And if this was not enough he declares uequivocally concerning his identity as Aleister Crowley with Ankh-f-n-khonsu and his own exclusive exegetical power as far as the populace are concerned i The Equinox of the Gods:

"It is "my scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu" (CCXX, I, 36) who "shall comment" on "this book" "by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit"; that is, Aleister Crowley shall write the Comment from the point of view of the manifested positive Lord of the Aeon, in plain terms of the finite, and not those of the infinite. "

[...]

I lay claim to be the sole authority competent to decide disputed points with regard to the Book of the Law, seeing that its Author, Aiwaz, is none other than mine own Holy Guardian Angel, to Whose Knowledge and Conversation I hace attained, so that I have exclusive access to Him. I have duly referred every difficulty to Him directly, and received His answer; my award is therefore absolute without appeal."

I am sure there are many ways to read the Comment, something history itself has borne out. However given what we know of history (Crowley's own usage of it) and his own writings, it is rather clear that the "my writings" is a distinct reference to Crowley's own as far as his own iterpretation went.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/11/2010 11:07 am  

Greetings

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Considering how Crowley used the comment (for a discussion of this see Henrik Bogdan's "Brother Crowley, Brother Curwen" (Teitan Press, 2010) and how Crowley relied on "charismatic authority"), it is rather clear that the "my writings" in the Tunis Comment is a reference to Aleister Crowley. In the Antecedents of Thelema he wrote about the identification of the two:

"IT HAS BEEN remarked by some critics of the Law of Thelema that the words "Do what thou wilt" are not original with the Master Therion: or, rather, with Aiwass, who uttered to the scribe Ankh-f-n-khonsu, the priest of the princes, The Book of the Law."

Later in the same unfinished essay he goes on to remark about the problem of the Antecedent Rabelais uttering similar words and system as he did, solving it by giving him prophetic abilities:

We may then conclude that the masterpiece of Rabelais contains in singular perfection a clear forecast of the Book which was to be revealed by Aiwass to Ankh-f-n-khonsu 370 years later."

Whatever one may think about the prophetic abilities of Rabelais (I for one considers him to have had none and that his masterpieces were an attack through satire rather than describing a new kind of philosophy), it is clear that Crowley identified Ankh-f-n-khonsu with the scribe of the Book of the Law, which again was identical with Crowley.

Why did he do so? Apparently there were good scriptural reasons for it, for in AL I:36 we find:

"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-Khuit."

On this Crowley writes as a matter of fact in the Comment called D, authored in the same time period as The Comment, which again emphasize the identity between him and Ankh-f-n-khonsu:

" 666 identified with Ankh-f-n-Khonsu.

I am in some way, One and the same Man and Ankh-f-n-Khonsu, whose Stélè helped to bring about the writing of that Book.

AL: The MS. the sole authentic text: 666 to abstain from editing it.

I am not to change it in one letter; for not only was mine [Originally “my”] ear at the service of Aiwass, but also mine hand. The effect of this is made plain elsewhere.

666 to comment on AL to guard against false interpretations.

I comment on this Book, lest there be folly; for many are the Secret Sayings [Originally “mysteries”] and obscure in the text thereof. It would be easy for the clever and the crafty to distort the true meaning of Aiwass so as to suit their own conceits, as hath been seen of old time in the cases of the Words of the Masters, the Q’uran, and the so- called Scriptures of the Christians.

666: His Curse upon any that should seek to distort the Book, or His comment.

Thus as a safeguard against such, I, by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit, do now foresee and guard against all fraud and false ways of reading the Book in simple and plain language. And I lift up my voice and curse with the Great Curse of a Magus of Power him that shall seek to turn my Word from its Truth."

And if this was not enough he declares uequivocally concerning his identity as Aleister Crowley with Ankh-f-n-khonsu and his own exclusive exegetical power as far as the populace are concerned i The Equinox of the Gods:

"It is "my scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu" (CCXX, I, 36) who "shall comment" on "this book" "by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit"; that is, Aleister Crowley shall write the Comment from the point of view of the manifested positive Lord of the Aeon, in plain terms of the finite, and not those of the infinite. "

[...]

I lay claim to be the sole authority competent to decide disputed points with regard to the Book of the Law, seeing that its Author, Aiwaz, is none other than mine own Holy Guardian Angel, to Whose Knowledge and Conversation I hace attained, so that I have exclusive access to Him. I have duly referred every difficulty to Him directly, and received His answer; my award is therefore absolute without appeal."

I am sure there are many ways to read the Comment, something history itself has borne out. However given what we know of history (Crowley's own usage of it) and his own writings, it is rather clear that the "my writings" is a distinct reference to Crowley's own as far as his own iterpretation went.

Well, that was a very informative post!
Thank you, Patriarch156.

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
07/03/2011 2:30 am  

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

Every time that I open up the Book of the Law I see it in a different light. Something I might have previously read and thought I understood appears completely different to me on the next look. With that said I have to single out:

AL I:3 Every man and every woman is a star.

That one line has affected the most change. It has caused me to view this world from a solar perspective. It has helped me to understand those around me and to view them in a more compassionate way. It has helped me to become more tolerant.
Many years ago while contemplating this line I looked into my hand and seen the living cells that make up my body glimmer like the stars in a moonless, winter night sky. I seen that I was part of an unbroken chain that stretched back to the beginning of time. It seemed as though there were cells inside me, viewing what was beyond them not unlike the way that I, standing in this world ,view the stars in the space that contains us. I fail miserably at this as I do not have the vocabulary to adequately express myself.
Certainly what we read is understood differently by each of us? Is there a wrong interpretation?

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/03/2011 4:38 am  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
it is rather clear that the "my writings" is a distinct reference to Crowley's own as far as his own iterpretation went.

... as far as it went, yes, which is only as far as it could go. We are all, of course, free to view this one man's particular interpretation, and the Book itself, with the independent, authentic autonomy which typifies Stars.

I find Crowley's various comments to be remarkably profound in many places but to say they're the last word would seem to defeat the purpose of the very doctrine which they (to me) elucidate, which is largely one of the cosmic propriety of totally independent autonomy and absolute authenticity (which, below the Abyss, procludes absolute congruency or submission to the viewpoint of another individual, as Crowley himself also happened to profess) rather than anything else. But this is perhaps a matter for another thread?

___

Back on topic: I can't help but agree very strongly with obscuruspaintus' post above. It's hard for me to find a particular passage in the Book of the Law which to call my favourite. There are so very many right through it. I've just tried to isolate one or two but I'd have to conclude that it's the bit which begins "Had! The manifestation of Nuit", and ends with "The Book of the Law is written and concealed. Aum. Ha." !

That said, the first chapter is in many ways for me the meta-chapter which contains the whole book within it in some ways. The first few pages in particular seem to really nail the colours to the mast, and within that, the first few verses have a similar effect, for me, say I.1 to I.6.

Of those, if pressed, I'd have to agree that the exquisite simplicity of AL I.3 punts me into the void every time!

But it's all so sexy. I love it!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/03/2011 8:26 am  

93

Whatever the historical perspective (and I agree with what others have said, that thus far there has been no definitive evidence to show either that Crowley did not produce the BoTL in 1904, or that he did so at a later date), in my experience its quite clear that there is something different about the book that makes it special.
From the spiritual perspective, the other "holy books" of that same period, while none of them bad, do not reflect the same enlightened perspective; they are at best the inspired work of a good adept, getting a message and trying a little too hard to make it look goog; whereas the Book of the Law is the work of a Master.

As for me, I can't really say I have a favorite verse, other than maybe "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". I also quite like what immediately follows it: "The word of Sin is Restriction"; that one, like the former, is a perfection of spiritual language, reflecting truth (but not the same truth) at every different level of reality.
The latter part of that same verse: "There is no bond that can unite the divided but love" is pretty awesome too.

I'd best stop now, because I could end up just going on with pretty well every line.

93


ReplyQuote
soz
 soz
(@soz)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 93
07/03/2011 10:14 am  

Verse 1:26 really sends chills down my spine

I:26 Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one: Who am I, and what shall be the sign? So she answered him, bending down, a lambent flame of blue, all touching, all-penetrant, her lovely hands upon the black earth, & her lithe body arched for love, and her soft feet not hurting the little flowers: Thou knowest! And the sign shall be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the omnipresence of my body.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/03/2011 10:29 am  

I agree. It really is an incredible document. So beautiful, so hot, so human, so celestial, all at once. I personally couldn't give a monkey's uncle if it was written in three sittings in April 1904 or over a period of fifty years with extensive revision. There is nothing like it. It's like the Tao Teh Ching on heat. There is no miracle (or even importance) in the annunciation myth for me. That alone does not "convince" me of the reality of Thelema in any way. The content of the Book, and separately the broad context of its provenance and place in history, speaks for itself. Crowley was a brilliant and inspired man, but the Book really does seem to wipe the floor with such terms. It's white-hot, occasional, character-giving cracks in the fabric notwithstanding.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/03/2011 12:00 pm  

III:17 - 'Fear not at all; fear neither men nor Fates, nor gods, nor anything. Money fear not, nor laughter of the folk folly, nor any other power in heaven or upon the earth or under the earth. Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force, vigour, of your arms.'


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/03/2011 9:18 pm  
"phthah" wrote:
93,

"nevyn93" wrote:
93! Brothers and Sisters

AL II:55 "Thou shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet; thou shalt find new symbols to attribute them unto."

Together with I:3 and I:4 this is the verse that I remember most after reading The Book of the Law and the one that I have spent most time with. One can spend a lifetime exploring this one.

93 93/93
Nevyn93

AL I:8 The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs.

For me, the assimilation of this verse was a revelation! As a youth I was conditioned to believe the exact opposite.

93 93/93
phthah

93

I was wondering, out of curiosity, in what way you were conditioned to believe the opposite in your childhood? Are you referring to a christian upbringing?

93!
Swami


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
08/03/2011 6:06 am  
"phthah" wrote:
AL I:8 The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs.

For me, the assimilation of this verse was a revelation! As a youth I was conditioned to believe the exact opposite.

In a sense, we’ve all been conditioned to believe the opposite, religious upbringing or not. Most other “spiritual” systems, systems of “attainment,” and even pop culture “self-help” guides assume the opposite: they assume that the Khu is in the Khabs, that the goal is “out there” somewhere, in something that we have to become in order to “fix” ourselves.

The “Khu,” remember, is roughly the “soul” – the self-consciousness, the mind, body, and self-image of the individual. The “Khabs” – the star, the essence, the Self – is “inside” it…that is, the Book of the Law is telling us something counter-intuitive: that our real selves are actually inside what we usually call “the self.”

The implication is that we have – all of us, to different extents -- woven for ourselves a false garment of a self-image. In short, we believe the stories that our minds tell us about ourselves. To take that garment and to try to “change” it into something “better” -- to chase ideals, whether they be religious or secular – is to move in precisely the wrong direction.

The system of attainment given in the Book of the Law is just the opposite – call it “de-attainment,” if you like. The task is to get rid of all the crap that you’ve surrounded your real self with, all the false ideas and self-image that are interfering with your true will.

And if you want a “favorite” verse, I’d also have to throw my vote behind I:26, for no reason other than I like it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/03/2011 6:58 am  

AL I:58 (with my own punctuation)
I give unimaginable joys on earth:
certainty, not faith, while in life,
upon death, peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy;
nor do I demand aught in sacrifice.

AL II:9
Remember all ye that existence is pure joy;
that all the sorrows are but as shadows;
they pass & are done

AL III:17
Fear not at all;
fear neither men nor Fates, nor gods, nor anything.
Money fear not, nor laughter of the folk folly,
nor any other power in heaven or upon the earth or under the earth.
Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force, vigour, of your arms.

I find all this very inspirational!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/03/2011 12:12 pm  

talk not overmuch 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/03/2011 3:43 pm  

I know that I've never said this before, but....wonderful post Los! As far as MY favourite verse goes it really hard to pick just one as I Love the whole book! As a funny aside I have one of those "fortunes" from a fortune cookie placed between the front cover of my centennial AL that reads "You have an ability to sense and know higher truth". 😀


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/03/2011 5:17 pm  

I do really enjoy III:72


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/03/2011 7:38 pm  

93,

"Los" wrote:
The system of attainment given in the Book of the Law is just the opposite – call it “de-attainment,” if you like. The task is to get rid of all the crap that you’ve surrounded your real self with, all the false ideas and self-image that are interfering with your true will.

Wonderful post, Los. I agree. Regarding the quoted portion, would you say that Thelema is the only system that approaches "de-attainment"?

If not, would you agree that there are other, perhaps misunderstood systems, that also approach attainment, or enlightenment, in a similar manner?

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
08/03/2011 9:44 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Regarding the quoted portion, would you say that Thelema is the only system that approaches "de-attainment"?

No, I think you can find similar ideas in other systems, especially Eastern systems. Some forms of Buddhism -- particularly Zen -- are big on erasing ideals and reconnecting to the person you actually are.

And I think lots of individuals throughout history, either on their own or with the help of "esoteric interpretations" of other systems, have figured out these mysteries as well. It's not really that hard or complicated; the hard part is figuring out what you have to do. That's the advantage of having discussions and writing books about spiritual attainment -- which would be great, if the vast majority of books and discussions on the subject weren't nonsense as well.

Thelema is unique in that it lays out this fundamental truth right on the first page of its holy book, though the sublime simplicity of the matter is obscured somewhat by the vagueness of the terminology (Khabs and Khu, I mean). Students will have to do a little digging in many cases before they come to a proper understanding of Thelemic de-attainment. In some cases, they can spend years (and more) chasing their "magical image" before realizing the error of their ways.


ReplyQuote
phthah
(@phthah)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 210
09/03/2011 12:14 am  

93 Swami

"Swamiji" wrote:
"phthah" wrote:
93,

"nevyn93" wrote:
93! Brothers and Sisters

AL II:55 "Thou shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet; thou shalt find new symbols to attribute them unto."

Together with I:3 and I:4 this is the verse that I remember most after reading The Book of the Law and the one that I have spent most time with. One can spend a lifetime exploring this one.

93 93/93
Nevyn93

AL I:8 The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs.

For me, the assimilation of this verse was a revelation! As a youth I was conditioned to believe the exact opposite.

93 93/93
phthah

93

I was wondering, out of curiosity, in what way you were conditioned to believe the opposite in your childhood? Are you referring to a christian upbringing?

93!
Swami

Sorry, but I only just saw your question. You are correct in your assumption that I am referring to my Christist upbringing. I prefer to use the term "Christist" when referring to the distortion that is normally considered "Christianity" amongst the profane.
Los's first post comes close to a good explanation and I would refer you to that, though I would not call it a "de-attainment" 🙄 I would only ad to Los' scholarly post, this quote from A.C.:

"We are not to regard ourselves as base beings, without whose sphere is Light or "God". Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a "Dark Star ", and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil'. This Doctrine is evidently of supreme importance, from its position as the first 'revelation' of Aiwass."

Does that answer your question?

93 93/93
phthah


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: