Aeclectic Tarot
Tarot Cards & Reviews          Free Tarot Readings           What's New           Tarot Card Meanings

Oppression

  > Aeclectic Tarot Forum > Tarot Special Interest > Thoth Tarot




 
Aeon418's Avatar
Aeon418  Aeon418 is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 30 Sep 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,342
Aeon418 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Wondering
It's a nice verse and I thinK I would take inspration from it. Except I don't get the "Oh lover, if thou wilt, depart" line. Is this an unloved lover? Or is "Aiwass" saying if you've got a willing mate loose the lover? Or is the wife the lover?
The main meaning that Crowley extracted from this verse was: "There shall be no property in human flesh." You can't own another person. A wife (or a husband) is not a piece of property. Neither can you force one person to love another. The common threats of emotional blackmail, physical violence, economic privation or recourse to legal punishments via the courts aren't going to inspire love in anyone. And yet they are used everyday because of this ingrained (normative ?) belief in control and ownership.

Of course that's only one interpretation of that verse. Like the rest of The Book of the Law there are multiple levels of interpretation to each verse. And the only interpretation that is valid for you is your own interpretation.
Top   #21
ravenest's Avatar
ravenest  ravenest is offline
ravenator
 
Join Date: 02 Feb 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 13,835
ravenest 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeon418
The common threats of emotional blackmail, physical violence, economic privation or recourse to legal punishments via the courts aren't going to inspire love in anyone. And yet they are used everyday because of this ingrained (normative ?) belief in control and ownership.
And don't let any of that influence you to stick around if things are taking you elsewhere. Oh Lover, if thou wilt depart. Dont hang on to the empty shell that was - due to sentiment or any other reason, emotional blackmail, threats of suicide ... whatever. It wont work, 'love' you had will morph into someother beast ... and you wont be happy ... and it wont be love.

And also If your lover is departing .... good luck to them , off you go. I take it as advice to let go as well. NUmerous times I've done this, and they often comeback. Eventually one might get to the point where there is no coming or going, leaving or coming back. Its just all flowing naturally, you might be spending everymoment with each other, or hardley any.

Thelemic relationships require a degree of maturity ... and understanding of the self .... and others .... but when worked out I find them SOOOO much better than the old Aeon type of relationship ( yurk!)
Top   #22
Always Wondering's Avatar
Always Wondering  Always Wondering is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 04 Mar 2008
Location: The North State
Posts: 1,655
Always Wondering 

I appreciate both of your thoughts. You've given me a lot to think about. It's not easy to find people willing to talk Thelema like this, especially the Book of Law.
I think that perhaps I have been closed minded to BoL. I don't know, the language, or something. Maybe I will try it in smaller, more reflective doses.

AW
Top   #23
Abrac  Abrac is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 13 Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,466
Abrac 

I agree with what Aeon418 and ravenest have said. You have indeed articulated it quite nicely.

I believe "love," as in "Love is the law, love under will," refers to the opposite of fear. Usually people think of the opposite of love as hate, but fear and hate go hand-in-hand. There is also the well-known Bible verse, "Perfect love casts out all fear," of which Crowley would have no doubt been very familiar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Wondering
I think that perhaps I have been closed minded to BoL. I don't know, the language, or something. Maybe I will try it in smaller, more reflective doses.AW
I share your opinion about the Book of the Law. It could be closed-mindedness, but I feel that a lot of the blame rests squarely on Crowley's shoulders. I'm not convinced it even was from Aiwass. I'm more inclined to think it is a product of Crowley's own fruitful imagination, though perhaps not consciously. Crowley was in such a drug-befuddled state half the time the real miracle is he ever accomplished anything. A testament to the power of will I suppose. But even he couldn't figure a lot of it out. His interpretation of the "Stele of Revealing" was erroneous from the get-go and in his interpretations of the BoL he often overlooked the obvious. But he did bring it forth, so I guess he deserves credit for that.

For a clear-minded and up-to-date commentary on the BoL, you might check out this PDF.

Click Here

You can double click it and open it in your browser or right click, then select "Save Link As..." to download the file. The commentary is in the Appendices (A5: The Book of the Law- Commentary)
Top   #24
Aeon418's Avatar
Aeon418  Aeon418 is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 30 Sep 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,342
Aeon418 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Wondering
I think that perhaps I have been closed minded to BoL. I don't know, the language, or something. Maybe I will try it in smaller, more reflective doses.
In his introduction to Crowley's commentaries, Louis Wilkinson had this to say to the new reader of The Book of the Law:
Quote:
The Book of the Law, however, is not only for mathematicians and mystics. In some one phrase or other of the Book there is a direct message for every human being. The best way for the layman to approach this Book is to regard it as a letter written directly to himself. Even though he may not be able to understand some parts of the letter, he is sure to find other parts that are unmistakably addressed, in an intimately personal sense, to him.
The language of the book is a common problem, particularly when it becomes "strong". A large part of the problem in my opinion is that people automatically assume a literal interpretation.
Mystical Book + literal interpretation = big mess. Think of what happens when people interpret the Bible literally.

Here's an example. The first is from the Buddhist, Dhammapada. The Second is from the Book of the Law.
Quote:
By rousing himself, by earnestness, by restraint and control, the wise man may make for himself an island which no flood can overwhelm.
Quote:
4. Choose ye an island!

5. Fortify it!

6. Dung it about with enginery of war!

7. I will give you a war-engine.

8. With it ye shall smite the peoples; and none shall stand before you.

9. Lurk! Withdraw! Upon them! this is the Law of the Battle of Conquest: thus shall my worship be about my secret house.
I see very little difference between these two quotes. Yet the quote from the Book of the Law is routinely interpreted in the most stupidly literal sense imaginable.
Of course if it is someones Will to take a literal interpretation, so be it. I wish them the best of luck in their efforts to buy a tropical island and munitions factory.

The only battle worth fighting is the battle with the self. It's an internal process, not external.
Top   #25
Aeon418's Avatar
Aeon418  Aeon418 is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 30 Sep 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,342
Aeon418 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abrac
I share your opinion about the Book of the Law. It could be closed-mindedness, but I feel that a lot of the blame rests squarely on Crowley's shoulders.
Yep. It's always the other guys fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abrac
For a clear-minded and up-to-date commentary on the BoL, you might check out this PDF.
ROFL!!!
I have to admit that Michael Aquino's attempted subversion of the The Book of the Law to his own Settian cosmology is good for a giggle..... but little else.
Quote:
63. The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and its comment; & he understandeth it not.
Top   #26
Always Wondering's Avatar
Always Wondering  Always Wondering is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 04 Mar 2008
Location: The North State
Posts: 1,655
Always Wondering 

Quote:
Originally Posted by A5: The Book of the Law- Commentary
What?
Who?
When?
How?
Why?
To what beginning?
All excellent questions. I'm not very sociological minded so "To what beginning?" often translates to what does it mean to or for me? (Introverted and self-centered perhaps.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by abrac
I'm not convinced it even was from Aiwass.
I think it is healthy to question all disembodied voices, but in the end, if I find meaning in it, I wonder, does the source matter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by abrac
It could be closed-mindedness, but I feel that a lot of the blame rests squarely on Crowley's shoulders.
I admit Crowley doesn't make it easy for me. But when I find myself resistant to even asking who, when, how, so on, an alarm goes off in my head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herber Spencer
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeon418
Mystical Book + literal interpretation = big mess.
Yep, I was doing this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeon418
The only battle worth fighting is the battle with the self. It's an internal process, not external.
Ah, music to this self-centered, introvert's ears.

AW
Top   #27
Abrac  Abrac is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 13 Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,466
Abrac 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeon418
Yep. It's always the other guys fault.
Perhaps "blame" was a poor choice of words. Blame is rarely productive, but it's a fact that sometimes the other guy IS responsible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeon418
ROFL!!!
I have to admit that Michael Aquino's attempted subversion of the The Book of the Law to his own Settian cosmology is good for a giggle..... but little else.
I'm neither a Setian nor a huge fan of Michael Aquino, so anything he has to say I take with a grain of salt. But to simply laugh something off because you don't agree with it borders on ignorance of a high degree. In reading Aquino's commentary, I don't see in it an attempt to "subvert" the Book of the Law for his own purposes at all. But I suppose a person with a lot invested in another ideology might possibly see it that way.
Top   #28
ravenest's Avatar
ravenest  ravenest is offline
ravenator
 
Join Date: 02 Feb 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 13,835
ravenest 

Well, I'm laughing at Aquino too ... but it isn't because I dont agree with him.

It's for a more obvious reason
Top   #29
Abrac  Abrac is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 13 Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,466
Abrac 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenest
Well, I'm laughing at Aquino too ... but it isn't because I dont agree with him.

It's for a more obvious reason
Do tell.

I don't believe Aquino has set out to "subvert" anything. If anything, he has corrected long-standing errors. The way I understand it, the Stele of Revealing is not based on the Osirian Mythos as Crowley believed; it is from a much older period. The seated figure is not Ra-Heru-Khuti (Ra-Hoor-Khuit), but Ra-Harakhte, a pre-Osirian neter of the dead. My own research seems to verify this; the figure is indeed Ra-Harakhte- Horus the Elder, not Horus the Younger as Crowley thought. In Crowley's day, the Osirian mythology was all that was really known about Egyptian religion and much of the confusion in his comment stems from the fact that he was trying to interpret something that is not Osirian from an Osirian perspective.
Top   #30




 

 


Tarot Cards & Reviews          Free Tarot Readings           What's New           Tarot Card Meanings
Aeclectic Tarot Forum Links
· Tarot
· Tarot Special Interest
· Beyond Tarot
· Forum Library

Aeclectic Tarot Categories
· Angel Decks
· Dark & Gothic Decks
· Goddess Decks
· Fairy Decks
· Doreen Virtue Decks
· Beginner Decks
· Cat Decks
· Pagan & Wiccan Decks
· Ancient Egyptian Decks
· Celtic Decks
· Lenormand Decks
· Rider-Waite Decks
· Marseilles Decks
· Thoth Decks
· Oracle Decks
· List All Decks
· Popular Tarot Decks
· Available Decks
· Tarot Books
· What's New

Copyright © 1996 - 2020 Aeclectic Tarot. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Contact us.