The study of this Book is forbidden.
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.
It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
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.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril.
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
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
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.
All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.
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.