DELETED

Q&A and discussion on the world view encapsulating humanity's current stage of evolution

Moderator: Moderators - Public

The true name of the Book of the Law

Postby DELETED » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:16 pm

DELETED
DELETED
 

Postby DELETED » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:32 pm

DELETED
DELETED
 

Postby DELETED » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:09 pm

DELETED
DELETED
 

Postby Jim Eshelman » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:01 pm

And yet the original manuscript says only Liber L. and advises us not to change so much as the style of a letter - which would include all parts of the dictation, including the title page.

So I hold that the real name is Liber L. vel Legis.

The Aleph-Lamed spelling I accept as an esoteric title, a comment on the title, a Qabalistic analysis or key, etc. etc. etc. - but not as the actual title of the Book.
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in L.V.X.,
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" - CCXX 3:42
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Lost His Marbles
 
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby spaceman » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:19 am

So that's why you always write "Liber L" when referring to it on the forums! That's a good point though about not changing the style of the letter. But then what of all the printings of Liber AL and the titling the manuscript in Crowley's hand Liber XXXI? I mean wouldn't 31 sort mean less to Thelemites if in fact "AL" were not the correct title? I guess you CAN still accept it as an esoteric title and leave it at that but "AL" & "LA" seem so significant and 31 fits so nicely. :?:
"I am the Hawk-Headed Lord of Silence & of Strength; my nemyss shrouds the night-blue sky."
User avatar
spaceman
Silver Member
Silver Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Williamsburg, Brooklyn, NYC

Postby Jim Eshelman » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:44 am

Yes, I think they are terribly important keys - the real meaning (or A real meaning) behind the title. I simply distinguish from "the real title" that the Book gave to itself.
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in L.V.X.,
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" - CCXX 3:42
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Lost His Marbles
 
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby DELETED » Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:16 am

DELETED
DELETED
 

Postby Jim Eshelman » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:05 pm

Ave de Prata wrote:The title page is not part of the original manuscript, which comprises
only 65 pages.

It is clearly a further elaboration by Crowley.

The Book of the Law begins with the word Had and finishes with
the word Ha.

That's a nice theory, except that it doesn't match the facts.

The cover exists as part of the original manuscript as a 66th page (or page 0, if you prefer). I have seen it. It has been published in reproduction. And Crowley's New Comment on Liber Legis addresses it and make clear what the original said.
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in L.V.X.,
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" - CCXX 3:42
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Lost His Marbles
 
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby DELETED » Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:47 pm

DELETED
DELETED
 

Postby Jim Eshelman » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:24 pm

Ave de Prata wrote:This title page was not written during the three hours period of Aiwass dictation.

That's simply wrong. It was. That's what you're missing.
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in L.V.X.,
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" - CCXX 3:42
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Lost His Marbles
 
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby DELETED » Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:48 pm

DELETED
DELETED
 

Postby Gideon Jagged » Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:00 pm

Is there a good quality scan of the title page available online? I've seen it before, but I don't think any of the books I have show it.

Dan
—Gideon Jagged
Omnes deos sunt daemoniorum.
amazon.com/author/GideonJagged
User avatar
Gideon Jagged
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Astoria, Atalanté, Glyph

Postby DELETED » Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:08 pm

DELETED
DELETED
 

Postby DELETED » Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:14 pm

DELETED
DELETED
 

Postby Gideon Jagged » Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:30 pm

I've just read the commentary regarding this page in the introduction to Magick and it does seem to support the contention that it is an integral part of the manuscript of Liber L., as the notes at the bottom indicate that it was part of the manuscript when found by Crowley at Boleskine. It was produced as part of the Cairo Working with at least as genuine a provenance as the text supplied by Rose, for instance.

Just my 2 cents

Dan
—Gideon Jagged
Omnes deos sunt daemoniorum.
amazon.com/author/GideonJagged
User avatar
Gideon Jagged
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Astoria, Atalanté, Glyph

Postby DELETED » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:05 pm

DELETED
DELETED
 

Postby Jim Eshelman » Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:18 am

Yes, that's one of the passages to which i was referring.

And yes, there's no doubt that AC came to regard the name as El. I simply don't agree, because I don't grant him the right to rewrite Liber Legis after the fact any more than the Book itself did.
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in L.V.X.,
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" - CCXX 3:42
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Lost His Marbles
 
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby __THE_HERMIT__ » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:30 am

You know Jim i was just about to tell you that you shouldn't worry about Ave de Prata, and that Frater_AVV and I were going to take care of him over in the nuts department, where he has to defend some very outrageous claims about spaceships and the New Jerusalem. However after reading your last post i can't say for sure who belongs more there, you, Ave or Crowley himself?!

Either way the nuts department may end up being more popular than the main forum itself.

All is vanity

" ..and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.."
"The Declaration of Independence"
User avatar
__THE_HERMIT__
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:42 am
Location: Outside The Time-Machine

Postby __THE_HERMIT__ » Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:01 am

However if a mere babe had the audacity to speak among giants, for convenience he would have to concur with Ave and Crowley on this one, since beginning with Had and ending with Ha, coincides not only with his motto, but the Universe itself which is what "The Book of the Law" according to Crowley purportedly explains.

" ..and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.."
"The Declaration of Independence"
User avatar
__THE_HERMIT__
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:42 am
Location: Outside The Time-Machine

Postby DELETED » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:29 pm

DELETED
DELETED
 

Postby Gideon Jagged » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:55 pm

Ave de Prata wrote:I will make a summary of all that was discussed here, see if you agree with my conclusions:

1 - ...The title page is not part of the Book of the Law.

This isn't a conclusion, it's an assumption; one that's not supported by the available evidence.
—Gideon Jagged
Omnes deos sunt daemoniorum.
amazon.com/author/GideonJagged
User avatar
Gideon Jagged
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Astoria, Atalanté, Glyph

Postby Froclown » Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:59 pm

That "little guy" Seems to be illustrating the sign of Puella.
The other little guy appears to be giving some other new sign than is meant to replace Puella for N, it the NOX signs. It may be than Crowely wanted to create a new goddess image more appropriate to Nuit a Sky Goddess rather than the Earth Goddess.

But I have no way to know what was in his head at the time, it probably relates to the numbers in the upper left corner though.
Froclown
Possible Troll
Possible Troll
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby Jim Eshelman » Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:14 pm

Ave de Prata wrote:I will make a summary of all that was discussed here, see if you agree with my conclusions:

You didn't summarize all that was discussed here, merely all that you wanted to summarize.

And its not even a matter of agreeing with your conclusions. I don't even agree with most of the premises that you use to arrive at your conclusions.

1 - The Book of the Law has 65 pages, dictated in a period of 3 hous. The title page is not part of the Book of the Law.

The text of Liber Legis has 65 pages (a nice, satisfying Qabalistic number). Additionally, the dictation included the cover page.

2 - The name of the Book of the Law is the sound of the English letter "L" or the Hebrew word (אל), Aleph-Lamed, both these sounds are identical.

We agree that it is pronounced like "El," which is identical to one pronunciation of the Hebrew word spelled Aleph Lamed.

3 - When transcripting this sound into writting language the problem appears...

The Book instructed that not so much as the style of a letter is to be changed. Therefore, it doesn't matter if Crowley misunderstood what he heard and used a homophone. It matters what he actually wrote down. What he wrote down was the letter L.

4 - Liber אל vel Legis.

I nice Qabalistic interpretation, and functional "esoteric name," of the Book that was named Liber L. vel Legis.

I think that this is the best transcription of the sound, since it keeps the original sound and the original Qabalistic cypher.

And changes the literal written text of the original document.
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in L.V.X.,
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" - CCXX 3:42
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Lost His Marbles
 
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby __THE_HERMIT__ » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:05 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:And yes, there's no doubt that AC came to regard the name as El. I simply don't agree, because I don't grant him the right to rewrite Liber Legis after the fact any more than the Book itself did.


Jim this is a serious conundrum for me; why would AC deliberately contradict himself and/or the Book of the Law? This puts a big question mark over the sanity of trying to bypass his authority, in an area that would never have existed in its current form if not for the Man himself. Not to say that he was infallible but there are only so many options;

1. Crowley believed the Title page was not part of the Book.
2. Crowley believed he had the right to alter the manuscript.
3. Crowley was insane.
4. We are all insane for following him.

" ..and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.."
"The Declaration of Independence"
User avatar
__THE_HERMIT__
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:42 am
Location: Outside The Time-Machine

Postby Heru-pa-kraath » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm

There are several questions about the title page that are worth addressing.

1. If the title Liber L is part of the dictation, why does L not appear to right of Liber instead of below it--there is room for it to the right, unless the doodling on the page was already there and in the way. The formatting of the title gives the appearance of being written in a confined space.

2. Why is the style of the L in Liber and L so different from the style of the rest of the letters in the title?

3. If Crowley received the title as dictation, are we to assume that he drew (yes, drew) the Liber L portion meticulously, while writing the word vel much smaller and in cursive, followed by Legis in printed form, and small also? There can be little doubt the Liber L portion of the title was written meticulously, while the text of the book was written at breakneck speed.

4. Why is there a + sign between the Liber and L portions of the title?

5. Why are there two periods in the title, one after the L, and one after Legis? L is either an abbreviation, or the termination of the original title, which if true, means the vel Legis portion was added later.

6. Crowley makes no mention of having heard anything but L as the title of the book.

7. It seems odd that Aiwass would dictate a new law to mankind under a Latin title that represents an addition to the official Golden Dawn literature.

Just sayin' :)
Heru-pa-kraath
Copper Member
Copper Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:24 pm

Next

Return to Thelema

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron