Path: Supernews69!kudonet.com!not-for-mail From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.order,alt.magick,alt.thelema Subject: BHeidrick: AC, Liber Al and The Comment Date: 9 Jul 1997 16:18:14 -0700 Organization: KudoNet On-Line Services Lines: 105 Sender: tyagi@bjt.net Message-ID: <5q167m$79a@kudo20.kudonet.com> Reply-To: heidrick@WELL.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.227.52.9 X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV) Xref: Supernews69 alt.magick.tyagi:13514 alt.magick.order:768 alt.magick:106953 [from thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org: Bill Heidrick ] 93, nigris wrote: >Fr. Heidrick (heidrick@well.com): >#>...is this a novel way of refering to what Crowley called, after the >#>Masonic VSL, _The Book of the Law_ aka _Liber AL vel Legis_? > >please explain something of the Masonic "VSL" or perhaps provide at >least a reference. You would need to consult published Masonic ritual, possibly a good Masonic dictionary. "VSL" = "Volume of the Sacred Law". This is the language in the scripts for denoting the book of religious matter that is used for taking the oaths in Craft Masonry. In most places, this is whatever religious Bible, Torah, Koran etc. the candidate reveres. In OTO usage, we don't continue the landmark of changing the book with the candidate; our VSL is the BoL -- same terms used. Recall that Liber AL is named "Book of (the) Law" in text, but came after this masonic practice. >according to Fr. Duncan, AC's text in _Magick Without Tears_ indicates >that sectarian dissent is precisely the DANGER of study and discussion >of the Evul Book. is this also your understanding? do you find some >difference with AC in this concern, if so? Crowley was raised a Plymouth Brethren child, and there was much cant about the evils of "sect" -- which meant several things, but most especially "not Plymouth Brethren". "Sect" in those days meant much the same thing "cult" does today in abusive talk -- except "sect" tended to be applied more to the bigger than to the smaller groups. In my way of thinking, sectarian difference is normal and even healthy. Sectarian dissent is fine. However, sectarian dogmatic dominance games are not good. So long as the obcession is to keep an open mind for the existence of other viewpoints, the danger of a worse sectarian obcession is lessened. To argue over much is perhaps the problem of such study, but that's better than demanding obedience to one point of view. >by 'in particular role' I gather that you mean Ankh-f-n-Khonsu, the >consciousness intrinsic to this identification, or the entity which >may be considered encapsulated by it somehow (perhaps channeled to >AC via his Holy Guardian Angel, Aiwass, or something). I'll go with "or something". Apparently that was in the role of Prophet and sometimes designated by Ankh-f-n-Khonsu. Perhaps Aiwass was not directly involved in that, but rather Crowley talking to the multitude. >#In OTO, we hold that > >as a member of the Caliphate OTO I would point out that this comment >by Fr. Heidrick does not represent me, nor does it necessarily represent >the body of initiates of COTO as a whole. more likely it represents the >doctrine which the Officials of the COTO have seen fit to espouse. >whether that applies to anyone outside that Order is up to the reader. Usually, when I pontificate, it's to a pontifectual matter. In this case a general rule or tradition presently held to be correct by the principle officers of OTO and a basis of more explicit rules or decisions. >does the COTO, as such, ascribe any validity to The Comment, That Crowley wrote it, with editorial help. As that of the Prophet of Thelema, that makes his work a good starting place for study of the book he received. In short, the validity of providence and authorship. >does it define what the "risk and peril" the Priest of the Princes is >mentioning therein includes? Not the place of OTO to determine. >does that same Order thereafter recommend >against study and discussion of the Book? if not, why not? OTO enjoins study of Liber AL from before Minerval and onward through each degree. Discussion by any other word is the natural providence of the student. >is "exploration of possible meanings in Liber AL" the same as "study"? >if so, do you consider it to be "forbidden" in some fashion by some person? Study, among many other modes. How forbidden and in what way? The one page comment by Crowley as A-f-n-K mentions that the study is forbidden, but does not say by whom. The word "study" does not appear in the text itself. Death is forbidden, as is argument. >when is a definition 'sectarian' and when does it merely display that >diversity which you proclaim to be valuable and 'balancing'? Sometimes, as in the case of Duncan's item on the Web page for another organization, a sectarian view is so stated as to give the appearance of being the only view on the subject to a layman. Either identifying the group/individual more narrowly or mentioning that there are differing views would be better in such a situation. 93 93/93 Bill -- (emailed replies may be posted) ------- join the AMT syncretism!!! see http://www.abyss.com/tokus ---------- call: 408/2-666-SLUG!! "sa avidya ya vimuktaye" -- "that which liberates is ignorance"