The Book of The Law Study Group: The Comment

closrapexa said:

It could also be argued that the commentaries themselves violate the Comment. They are themselves interpretations, and in some cases I've found they didn't quite jive with my own impressions. But then, they are "authorized" while any other interpretations aren't.

Click to expand...

From the end of the Christian Bible, Revelation 22:18-19. "I warn every one who hears the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." This quotation is from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which would not exist if those words were taken literally, since it is impossible to translate the Bible word for word from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

But the Bible doesn't authorize a single commentator practically by name

Aiwass said:

36. My scribe , 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.

Click to expand...

However, it could also be said that everyone is Ankh-af-na-khonsu. There is no caste of priests who have sole authority in interpreting the Law.

Aiwass said:

34. But she said: the ordeals I write not: the rituals shall be half known and half concealed: the Law is for all.

Click to expand...

But then the problem becomes even more convoluted, because

Aiwass said:

17. But ye are not so chosen.

Click to expand...

So on one hand we have the Prophet's special situation which allows him to comment, while on the other hand... we don't. To me, the answer is Will. The Comment may be Class A, but it doesn't supersede "the whole of the Law."

I recall a (quite possibly apocryphal) story about it.

Crowley's number-one disciple at the time, so the tale goes, was asking too many questions about what Liber AL meant, wanting to discuss it to death.

The "Tunis Comment" was written as a not-so-subtle hint that he needed to shut up, think it through for himself, and reach his own understanding.

True or not, it makes for nice little lesson.

devilkitty said:

I recall a (quite possibly apocryphal) story about it.

Click to expand...

It's true. Norman Mudd repeatedly picked fault with Crowley's (mis)handling of The Book of the Law and it's instructions. Eventually Crowley nipped it in the bud with The Comment. Problem solved.

Inspired text? Or tool of convenience? (Or both?)

Aeon418 said:

It's true. Norman Mudd repeatedly picked fault with Crowley's (mis)handling of The Book of the Law and it's instructions. Eventually Crowley nipped it in the bud with The Comment. Problem solved.

Click to expand...

I was pretty sure it was true. Mudd's name escaped me, so I hedged the language -- because as soon as I asserted the story's truth someone would have come up with something to prove me wrong.

Aeon418 said:

Inspired text? Or tool of convenience? (Or both?)

Click to expand...

Let's call it "inspired convenience".

Now if it had been Harcourt Fenton Mudd, that would have been really amusing.

I always saw it as an attempt to stop some sort of Priestly class insisting to us what it means ... and why we have to follow their agenda because of what they think it means.

As far as " by appeal to my writings, each for himself " there are books ... but also 'unpublished' Libers, rituals, rites, and written 'secret' material relating to OTO and AA initiation rites , knowledge lectures, etc.

Not to mention "unwritten writings" procured through personal experience and initiation.

Kill/Fill

ravenest said:

I always saw it as an attempt to stop some sort of Priestly class insisting to us what it means ... and why we have to follow their agenda because of what they think it means.

Click to expand...

Recent history has shown us how easy it is to circumvent this. Simply swap 'agenda' for 'editorial issue' and you can get away with anything you like.

III:40. But the work of the comment? That is easy; and Hadit burning in thy heart shall make swift and secure thy pen.

Click to expand...

III:40 is verse 185. That's the numerical value AL spelled in full.

ALPh = 111. LMD = 74. 111+74=185.

I find that quite suggestive. AL expanded would seem to indicate a traditional commentary.

Aeon418 said:

Recent history has shown us how easy it is to circumvent this. Simply swap 'agenda' for 'editorial issue' and you can get away with anything you like.

Click to expand...

A low blow perhaps, but well deserved, in my opinion. But that really depends on what one considers the definitive verse. But how can one "appeal to my writings" if there isn't a single canonical source? If the OTO is considered at the very least the most organized of Thelemic bodies, "kill me" could very easily pass into the realm of canon, by virtue of the power of numbers.