Book of Law Study Group 1.36

Aeon418

I'll try and get the ball rolling on this one.

This verse seems to be a direct instruction to Crowley, telling him not edit or tamper with the text of Liber AL. This point seems to be so important that it is repeated later on. (It didn't stop him doodling on it though. :laugh: And possibly even adding a line. ;))

It's reminiscent of certain passages from the Bible:
Rev 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Click to expand...

In a wider sense I note that the word "scribe" is used in other of the Holy Books to denote the human consciousness. A secretary taking dictation comes to mind. The human consciousness is good for recording and copying. But trouble starts when it gets ideas above it's station. This verse would seem to guard against that possibility.
Nor is it fitting for the cobbler to prate of the Royal matter. O cobbler! mend me this shoe, that I may walk. O king! if I be thy son, let us speak of the Embassy to the King thy Brother.

Liber LXV 1:11
Click to expand...
Comment. Crowley claims that he mistook this word for commentary. A line by line exposition. For years he worked away on one commentary after another. Equally disgusted and disappointed with all of them. In the end I think he came to the conclusion that a full commentary was an impossibility.

The Comment is a different matter though.
THE COMMENT.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.

Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.

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.

There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.


Love is the law, love under will.

The priest of the princes,

Ankh-f-n-khonsu
Click to expand...
Is the Short Comment really Class A? Or was it a mere device invented by Crowley to get Norman Mudd off his back? The debate rages on that one. ;)
As to Part IV, The Book of the Law section, the idea was that the volume should comply with the instructions given in AL III,39: "All this and a book to say how thou didst come hither and a reproduction of this ink and paper for ever—for in it is the word secret & not only in the English—and thy comment upon this the Book of the Law shall be printed beautifully in red ink and black upon beautiful paper made by hand; and to each man and woman that thou meetest, were it but to dine or to drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds. Do this quickly!" I mistook "Comment" for "Commentary"—a word-by-word exposition of every verse (and much of it I loathed with all my heart!) including the Qabalistic interpretation, a task obviously endless.

What then about AL III, 40? (also see attached) This problem was solved only by achieving the task. In Paris,* in a mood of blank despair about it all, out came the Comment. Easy, yes; inspired, yes; it is, as printed, the exact wording required. No further cavilling and quibbling, and controversy and casuistry. All heresiarchs are smelt in advance for the rats they are; they are seen brewing (their very vile small beer) in the air (the realm of Intellect—Swords) and they are accordingly nipped in the bud. All Parliamentary requirements thus fulfilled according to the famous formula of the Irish M.P., we can get on to your other questions untroubled by doubt.

One Textus Receptus, photographically guaranteed. One High Court of Interpretation, each for himself alone. No Patristic logomachies! No disputed readings! No civil wars and persecutions. Anyone who wants to say anything, off with his head, and On with the Dance; let Joy be unconfined, You at the prow and Therion at the helm! Off we go.

Magick Without Tears. Chp.50
Click to expand...
*Tunis, not Paris.

But the scribe shall comment by the wisdom of R.H.K., the HGA. The verse number would seem to suggest this also. (Verse 36 - Sol. Also the 6th verse of the current Daleth set of verses. The Child of Daleth.) This may be saying that human reason alone isn't equipped to comment on the book. The result is mere folly.
 

Grigori

I thought since we're commenting on the comment :)D) it might be a good time to re-post the link. http://www.hermetic.com/220/index.html These are Crowley's initial commentaries, as well as those of some others.

My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes
Click to expand...

I was reading Liber Samekh, Crowley's ritual for achieving Knowledge and Conversation with the HGA, and noticed a line referring to Ankh-af-na-khonsu which in the context of Liber Samakh, makes me read this line a little differently than before.

1. Thee I invoke, the Bornless One.
2. Thee, that didst create the Earth and the Heavens.
3. Thee, that didst create the Night and the Day.
4. Thee, that didst create the darkness and the Light.
5. Thou art ASAR UN-NEFER ("Myself made Perfect"):
Whom no man hath seen at any time.
6. Thou art IA-BESZ ("the Truth in Matter").
7. Thou art IA-APOPHRASZ ("the Truth in Motion").
8. Thou hast distinguished between the Just and the Unjust.
9. Thou didst make the Female and the Male.
10. Thou didst produce the Seeds and the Fruit.
11. Thou didst form Men to love one another, and to hate one another.

1. I am ANKH - F - N - KHONSU thy Prophet, unto Whom Thou didst commit Thy Mysteries, the Ceremonies of KHEM.
2. Thou didst produce the moist and the dry, and that which nourisheth all created Life.
3. Hear Thou Me, for I am the Angel of PTAH - APO - PHRASZ - RA (vide the Rubric): this is Thy True Name, handed down to the Prophets of KHEM.
Click to expand...

In the first section Crowley is identifying his HGA as a/the creator god it seems, and also as his higher self (Aiwass). So our HGA is more than just our link to divinity, its the way that we move towards realizing that we are The Divinity. Then in the second section he identifies himself with Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the prophet of the HGA/creator, and a previous incarnation of Crowley's.

In Crowley's explanation of the verse from Liber Samekh referencing Ankh-f-n-Khonsu he says:

Crowley said:
The Adept asserts his right to enter into conscious communication with His Angel, on the ground that that Angel has Himself taught him the Secret Magick by which he may make the proper link. "Mosheh" is M H, the formation in Jechidah, Chiah, Neshamah, Ruach, - The Sephiroth from Kether to Yesod - since 45 is Sum 1-9 while Sh, 300, is Sum 1-24, which superadds to these Nine an extra Fifteen numbers. (See in Liber D, the meanings and correspondences of 9, 15, 24, 45, 300, 345.) 45 is moreover A D M, MDA, man. "Mosheh" is thus the name of man as a God-concealing form. But in the Ritual let the Adept replace this "Mosheh" by his own motto as Adeptus Minor. For "Ishrael" let him prefer his own Magical Race, according to the obligations of his Oaths to Our Holy Order! (The Beast 666 Himself used "Ankh-f-n-Khonsu" and "Khem" in this section.)
Click to expand...

which seems to suggest someone else using the ritual, would replace "Ankh-f-n-Khonsu", with their own magical motto, as a stand in for the name of the HGA; the HGA being a stand in for Ra-Hoor-Khu-it (by who's wisdom Crowley is authorized to comment on the text), who is a stand in/personification of deity.

This is a very long and convoluted post and I'm not sure I know what I'm trying to say either :laugh: But it seems Liber Samekh could be read to say that Ankh-f-n-Khonsu is a lower version of Aiwass, also a lower version of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it, who is a lower version etc...

So my paraphrased version of the line:
As a lower version your not authorized to make any changes to the text, but as an expression of something higher you should say something so that no one else stuffs it up either
Click to expand...

I also noticed that in this line, Crowley is described as the "priest of the princes", which is a little different to the previous description in line 15 as the "prince-priest". I'd read the "prince-priest" to imply a degree of hereditary to this role (maybe via successive incarnations), "priest" signifying spiritual authority and "prince" being an inherited (and maybe more temporal) authority. If reading the current line instead, it seems to say that the role is priest of the princes (plural). So a group (maybe all us stars) have the same position of inherited authority cause there are multiple princes, but in his role as scribe of the BoL, Crowley gets a little promotion in terms of spiritual authority by being the only scribe/priest who transmits the BoL. But at the same time he's reminded that he's still a fallible little star and warned not to make the slightest change in case he screws up, because the authority is only to transmit and preserve the book accurately, not beyond that or to change that.
 

RLG

similia said:
I also noticed that in this line, Crowley is described as the "priest of the princes", which is a little different to the previous description in line 15 as the "prince-priest". I'd read the "prince-priest" to imply a degree of hereditary to this role (maybe via successive incarnations), "priest" signifying spiritual authority and "prince" being an inherited (and maybe more temporal) authority. If reading the current line instead, it seems to say that the role is priest of the princes (plural). So a group (maybe all us stars) have the same position of inherited authority cause there are multiple princes, but in his role as scribe of the BoL, Crowley gets a little promotion in terms of spiritual authority by being the only scribe/priest who transmits the BoL. But at the same time he's reminded that he's still a fallible little star and warned not to make the slightest change in case he screws up, because the authority is only to transmit and preserve the book accurately, not beyond that or to change that.
Click to expand...

Dwtw

Your comment made me realize something. I had always read the priest references this way: The first reference is to AANK as a 'prince-priest', i.e., a priest who was also royalty, (possibly by heredity); and the second to AANK as 'priest of the princes', i.e., a priest who serves royalty.

But this actually makes the two references mean two entirely different things, and I had never realized that before. So if both references are to be harmonized, then the way you are seeing this makes more sense; AANK is a priest 'among' all the princes, not a priest who is 'serving' all the princes.

I guess the simplest way to express this is that in the phrase 'priest of the princes', the emphasis is on priest, whereas I had always put the emphasis on princes. So thanks for that alternative outlook :)

Litlluw
RLG
 

Aeon418

RLG said:
I had always read the priest references this way: The first reference is to AANK as a 'prince-priest', i.e., a priest who was also royalty, (possibly by heredity); and the second to AANK as 'priest of the princes', i.e., a priest who serves royalty.
Click to expand...
I thought prince-priest was an epithet of the Beast and therefore a higher/different office? (AL 1:15) AANK is the priest of the princes. The former is obviously a royal title. But the latter does not appear to be. AANK is merely a priest, but he's not a prince.

ANNK is also identified as a scribe. The one who physically writes down the Law. As a priest his job is to teach/preach the Law. But he has no authority to change the Law. And if he wishes to comment upon it he must do so under guidance.
 

Grigori

Aeon418 said:
ANNK is also identified as a scribe. The one who physically writes down the Law. As a priest his job is to teach/preach the Law. But he has no authority to change the Law. And if he wishes to comment upon it he must do so under guidance.
Click to expand...

I've just noticed Crowley's signature on the commentary, he's taken the name and title from this line which authorizes the commentary, and used it to sign the commentary.

Crowley said:
The Comment

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

The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.

Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.

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.

There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.

Love is the law, love under will.

The priest of the princes,
ANKH-F-N-KHONSU
Click to expand...
 

ravenest

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwass
36. 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-Khu-it.


Seems to be two parts; 1) not changing even a letter - he stuffed that one up. 2) Explaining the thing to us (comment) - he had great difficulty with that too.

Priest of the princes? Perhaps it could mean AC is the minister (as far as integrity and explaination of the text is concerned) to those who have Thelemic aspirations - in the context of Thelemic 'slaves and kings' - the princes being potential kings?
 

ravenest

'The Comment is a different matter though.

Quote:

" THE COMMENT.
... It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading. ... "


Is the Short Comment really Class A? Or was it a mere device invented by Crowley to get Norman Mudd off his back? The debate rages on that one. '

Ahhh! To get rid of Norman Mudd? And I always thought it was a marketing stratergy :laugh:
 

RLG

Aeon418 said:
I thought prince-priest was an epithet of the Beast and therefore a higher/different office? (AL 1:15) AANK is the priest of the princes. The former is obviously a royal title. But the latter does not appear to be. AANK is merely a priest, but he's not a prince.

ANNK is also identified as a scribe. The one who physically writes down the Law. As a priest his job is to teach/preach the Law. But he has no authority to change the Law. And if he wishes to comment upon it he must do so under guidance.
Click to expand...

You're right that it's from 'the prince-priest the Beast'. But AANK is called the scribe, and then there is a reference to the 'scribe and prophet', so i guess i end up lumping together all the references to AC in the present or previous incarnation.

On your view, my original attitude would be correct, that a 'priest of the princes' would be a priest who serves the princes, and not a royal person himself, which I presume is the case with the actual AANK. That's why I had always thought that way in the past.

But if there IS a valid conflation of the two titles, then maybe a revision is in order?

The trouble is, Crowley may have been the beast, but he was not a 'prince' in reality, although, now that I think about it, he did style himself 'Prince Chioa Khan' while in Cairo in 1904, and Chioa means 'beast', so maybe Aiwass is making a sly reference to that?

Note that the name KHAN here is a re-arrangement of the word ANKH, and AC warned us to look out for little puzzles like this in the text. If the word ANKH is a sort of shorthand for Ankh-af-na-khonsu, (who is described as a priest), then the title Crowley gave to himself, 'Prince Chioa Khan' could be translated as 'prince beast priest'.

Hmmm... that's rather like 'the prince-priest, the Beast'.

So that would throw me back to my original view, but with modifications and rearrangements along the way ;-)

Aleister Crowley the scribe, aka Ankh-af-na-khonsu
is 'the priest of the princes', i.e., a spiritual man of the royal house.

Aleister Crowley aka Prince Chioa Khan
is 'the prince-priest the Beast', i.e., a spiritual man who is also royalty,
and holds the office of the Beast.
 

Aeon418

RLG said:
The trouble is, Crowley may have been the beast, but he was not a 'prince' in reality, although, now that I think about it, he did style himself 'Prince Chioa Khan' while in Cairo in 1904, and Chioa means 'beast', so maybe Aiwass is making a sly reference to that?
Click to expand...
Crowley's usage of the name "Beast" changed and developed quite a lot as time went by. His initial identification with the Beast was in defiance of his strict Christian upbringing. In later years he came to see the Beast (and Scarlet Woman) as titles of office in the temple of the New Aeon, not as individual people.

Then there is the conception of the Beast and Scarlet Women as avatars of Chokmah and Binah. I think this is one of the most useful ways to view the use of those titles in Liber AL. If we restrict them to Aleister and Rose, the Book of the Law becomes little more than an historical curio of little value to anyone else.

The Book of the Law viewed predominantly as an archetypal (Supernal) message becomes far more useful and applicable to the rest of us. I'm not saying that the historical angle isn't important. But there is always a natural tendency to want to interpret it on the lowest the plane, Assiah.

Turning back to Ankh af na Khonsu. Yes, in a strict literal sense it is a reference to the man, Aleister Crowley. But how else can we interpret AANK? Well if you had to pick one character on the Stele of Revealing to represent yourself, which one would it be? ;)
 
Blue box Swiss - question Book of Law Study Group 1.37