The Book of The Law Study Group: The Comment
Zephyros
I have only digital versions of the BoL. Is it enough to delete the file after reading, or is my entire tablet tainted? That could be quite expensive.
But I don't expect anyone to answer me, as I am very properly shunned by all.
But I don't expect anyone to answer me, as I am very properly shunned by all.
Grigori
I have only digital versions of the BoL. Is it enough to delete the file after reading, or is my entire tablet tainted? That could be quite expensive.
But I don't expect anyone to answer me, as I am very properly shunned by all.
Grigori
By who and for what reason? I'm not being a smart arse, I'm actually intrigued by the various possible interpretations of what this means and why. We're not told, we're just asked to accept it fairly blindly.
Certainly this would be good for Crowley's income
But also if really taken on, the contents of this book may be very uncomfortable and cause a lot of potentially difficult change in a person's life. It's nice to be warned about that. This I actually really like. The idea that someone would give you a warning (perhaps belatedly since its after you've already read the book) about it's contents having a possible negative effect. This should be regulated to be on the front cover of all religious texts
I like that is also places responsibility back on the individual. OK
Fair enough. I've seen the interpretation that this is prophetic, rather than directive. And certainly is probably true in the main. No one likes an evangelist, and particularly one as controversial as the BoL can be.
Again I really like this. Making an individual responsible for themselves, and not beholden to another's idea or interpretation, but also a reminder to be aware of the context of this book, within Crowley's other writings and work. Making this not a stand alone document. It also suggests to me questions about this comment should be understood from Crowley's other publications. Interestingly there are a couple of these that were extensive commentaries on the BoL, before this Comment was written forbidding this
I note that it doesn't say which writings, and so I'd assume this is not limited to a particular class. This whole comment intrigues me. I went to a thelemic workshop once, and was struck by how frequently conversations were avoided or dismissed on the basis of it being improper to discuss the BoL. A very literal interpretation seemed to be the norm, which surprised me given the very non-literal interpretation of other things during that day.
Personally I don't see a literal interpretation as valid here (as the last few years of threads may have made clear
). I read this as a reminder to not take anything literally, and true to it's intent that authority should be avoided, but also the authority of this final added 'comment' as a bit of a break on dogmatism from the entire book.Aeon418
Was that the J.Daniel Gunther workshop?
Grigori
Yup, exactly.
Aeon418
Comment literalists
I thought so. Gunther is an ex-student of Marcelo Motta. He was the first person to declare the Short Comment a Class A text, despite the fact that Crowley never labled as such. He merely said it was inspired.
Gunther heads the lineage of A.'.A.'. that the current upper management of O.T.O. have aligned themselves with. Their interpretation of the Comment forbids the dissemination of personal interpretations.
I thought so.
Gunther is an ex-student of Marcelo Motta. He was the first person to declare the Short Comment a Class A text, despite the fact that Crowley never labled as such. He merely said it was inspired.Gunther heads the lineage of A.'.A.'. that the current upper management of O.T.O. have aligned themselves with. Their interpretation of the Comment forbids the dissemination of personal interpretations.
Grigori
Ah I see! I find it odd that anyone committed to not publicly discussing their interpretation of the BoL would comment in public so easily on the final comment
Though even if in Class A, I still wouldn't feel that necessitates a literal interpretation. But I respect the idea and see it's value. Just personally I prefer it as a concept to understand internally, rather than a director of external behavior.
Though even if in Class A, I still wouldn't feel that necessitates a literal interpretation. But I respect the idea and see it's value. Just personally I prefer it as a concept to understand internally, rather than a director of external behavior.
Aeon418
Ah I see! I find it odd that anyone committed to not publics lily discussing their interpretation of the BoL would comment in public so easily on the final comment
It's bit of a contradiction to say the least. It kind of creates a dogma out a statement that was originally written with the intention of avoiding dogma!
I think the prohibition on expressing interpretations is meant to preserve the integrity of individual interpretation. But IMO understanding doesn't occur in a vacuum.
I don't see a problem with shared interpretations as long as the individual is the final arbiter of personal interpretation.
Zephyros
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.
