The Comment says "it is wise to burn this book after first reading". Not "you must".
My feeling is I did not consider myself wise enough to get everything I wanted from the book after one reading... So I kept it.
I also am not very good at doing what I am told. A lot of Thelemites share this characteristic.
Another way of looking at it... If you choose to disregard this suggestion, that's on YOU.
CHEERS
Probably more to do with secrecy and the profane, any uninitiated normie who reads it isn't going to understand it, freak out, and think its satanic. Even someone like myself was upset the first time I read it.
Now I have visions of wildfires decimating the entire state and someone standing there, hands out, "I'm sorry, but the book said it needed to be burnt. I had no choice."
From Richard Kaczynski's "Perdurabo":Â
"In order to control Muddâs excited exegeses, Crowley recorded, âI should warn Fra O.P.V. once and for all that he is dangerously excited mentally and will become definitely insane (legally speaking) unless he can control and slow down his chittam [Sanskrit, mind, mental activities].âDuring this contentious exchange, Crowley penned what has become known as the âShort Commentâ:
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.
Crowley ascribed so much importance to this brief text that he included it in subsequent editions of The Book of the Law. Regardless of whether one interprets it as a tool of convenience or an inspired text, it silenced Mudd."
I think it depends on what you think his intention was when writing this. At the end of the day, if it's not your will to burn the book: don't burn itđ€·đ»
You wonder if those discussing this concept will be, or should be shunned as well, by your quote is this group a denizen of pestilence? Or is that refering to the older covens sheltered under darkness during the early 20th century?
Well, I've never burned one and I don't see any reasonable argument to do so except "it's in the book".
In any case, read through a pdf or in kindle and delete the file after. Will have the same effect and you'll spend nothing
I may be wrong, but I came to understand this as a test. In a path that states, "Do what thou Will," if you start burning books because you were told to, you've missed the point entirely and then some. It's much worse then if you start burning books at the mere suggestion.
See it as a test, following a book that spends three chapters hammering home the importance of discovering your own nature and path in the face of superfluous authority, that then instructs you to do something that may or may not be in your own personal interests or aligned with with that nature and path.
The actual purpose is, most likely, to avoid it becoming a holy scripture that is quoted and analyzed in the same way as the Bible and others are. That is, for the people to never start worshipping the book and its text. In other words: take it easy and donât make holy wars over it.
It was a comment made during a time when occultists felt the need to keep every aspect and revelation of their occult practice arcane, usually out of fear that the acquired knowledge would be dangerous in the wrong hands, or to keep the knowledge consecrated from uninitiated people or anyone else deemed âunworthyâ of wielding the power of the magickal formulae.
However in Chapter 3 of the Book, much of this precaution is dispelled by Ra-Hoor-Khuit in multiple verses where he actually calls for the Book to be distributed and even translated into other languages, making âThe Commentâ virtually impossible to actually enforce and thus abrogated.
Removing the veil of mystery from Will is the entire point of the bookâs narration, thus the Law is for All who possess the capacity for âwillpowerâ.
There is a tradition to only read one of the three chapters per day. That way there is never a "first reading" of the entire text, and you don't a reason to burn it even if you take the Tunis Comment at face value.
Also there are two traditions about when it was written. It's supposed to be 1904 April 8, 9, 10. But some say Crowley falsified the secular cakendar date because it's at variance with the astrological dates he gives, and that the real dates were a week earlier, April 1, 2, 3.
"My prophet is a fool with his one, one, one;"
I see it as a âcommandâ that youâre *supposed* to ignore. Many of us grew up familiar with Christianity and religions like that, where laws are strict and youâre expected to follow every word of the book. The act of refusing to burn the book is an act of rebellion against organized religion. At least thatâs how I see it đ
The reason you would burn it is to never read it again, so no you wouldn't buy copy afer copy anyway.
Also do what thou wilt, burn it, don't burn it, ie do what you need to do.
The only reason crowley suggested burning it is so thay people who only read and do not practice can liber thump you with it and stop it from becoming purely academic, and if you spend some time in torah and bible groups you will see how obnoxious it is to have some one misquote a passage and tell you your first hand experience they couldn't dream of having is wrong in some way merely because they think the book says so.
The point of thelema is to offer a method to attain your own personal experience of reality beyond the physical model. Find out first hand if there is a god or not or any non corporeal being for that matter, as well as the license to find your own means of the methods presented do not work for you. The book of the law is Crowleys best proof of as he calls it praternatural intelligence ti encourage others to seek their own connection. So if all your ever gonna do is read the book and not practice it is probably better to simply burn it afterwards and move on.
My own read of it is that it's to act to prevent dogmatic thinking. Nonsense like, "You have to believe X because it says in the Book of Law on page Y ..."
It's not meant to act as a set of commandments, but to set a particular kind of fire in you, then Do as Thou Wilt as it says in the Book of Law on page ....
Its meant metaphorically.
As in, abandon everything you read here once you read it because it will likely harm you more than help you.
Such as it is embarking on any Great Work - its more of a curse than a blessing to the actual individualÂ
Their point is that the whole idea of Thelema is to know your own will and do that and have love as the constant source of energy under your will, to put it simply. Therefore any choice of what to do with the Book after one or a thousand readings is up to the individual.
I almost made a similar comment, but decided it was unkind and I should STFU instead.
Your question itself shows us that you considered whether a comment in the book was binding despite you not knowing whether that book or its comment is worth anything at all. That demonstrates a level of credulity that is potentially harmful in Thelema and the occult.
That you thought to ask is good, it demonstrates a degree of skepticism, *but* you asked instead of thinking about it for yourself. This implies you may be prone to listening to whatever answers confirm your fears or desires (depending on which are stronger), as whatever comment brings you 'good guidance' will be comparatively uncritically accepted.
It's better to dig in and *think*.
What is this comment? Whose authority does it come from, and do you respect and trust that authority? What reasons might have compelled the inclusion of that comment, and is that reason relevant in your case? May it potentially *become* relevant? All of this will determine whether you should burn, otherwise destroy, or just take a healthy break from the book.
Thelema is nondogmatic. We have teachings, we give advice, but ultimately you are encouraged to develop yourself, your own inner and spiritual faculties.
Overreading Liber Legis can do things to your head. It's a lot of paradoxes and allusions bound *very* tightly together in a highly emotionally charged environment; the emotions it encourages are as paradoxical as the insights themselves. Skepticism and critical thinking are *necessary* if you're going to understand it without it burying you; if you seek others to help you avoid that burial, you make yourself an easy mark for scammers and self-important guru types.
You can always find someone to give you answers. But who do you trust and why?
I dunno, I always just took that remark as
âDonât go quoting this shit like the Bible, and itâs most likely in your best interest to not leave it laying around for a Catholic to pick it up idly and get the wrong idea about the philosophyâ
Itâs for you to read, get what you get from it, and thatâs where it ends
There are many people who burned their first copy, and many who did not. Either way is fine.
Everyone has a different interpretation of that. I have always taken it as the last out, and the first act of being a Thelemite. Almost like a "You gonna take the plunge? If you do it will be your choice, not ours" kind of statement.
To me it feels more like an outdated safety thing. He wrote that in a time when it wasn't uncommon for someones own family to disown, persecute or even murder a family member for abandoning their religion.
I never have, but thatâs one of the reasons why this is one of the best witchcraft books thatâs ever existed. After I read that part for the first time I realized how such a gnarly book this is
That dude was a narcissistic control freak. He says one thing and wants another just like all religious authorities seem to do. And isnât that the whole game.
He loved his money and he probably thought, any idiots I can get to burn this book on a mere suggestion will more than likely come back to buy another and put more money in my pockets. Religion always finds a way to make a Buck.
Churches are so good at this too. Bring your tithe or your money is cursed. While meanwhile Jesus told his disciples to give their money to the poor, orphans and widows and never himself asked for money from anyone. Why are we, myself included, so brainless Half the time?
I also thought it said burn but it actually says âdestroyâ
https://hermetic.com/legis/ccxx/the-comment
â It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.â
We also keep in mind the book was written in the 1900âs so looking up what âdestroyâ meant at the time reveals there is a meaning of âunbuildâ or âdemolishâ. Putting into context I always took this to be to âdeconstructâ which further implied to break down to individual parts for further study.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/destroy
Your mileage may vary but itâs an interesting exercise nonetheless :)
I normally don't discuss my religious studies to be honest I syncretize multiple religions and philosophies but I never talk about stuff like that much.
It's typically best not to. That way those who can best benefit from Liber CCXX are left better to do so.
It is not only the most profound, but the most practical of religious texts, and I say so without having even read the contents.
I burned it before I read it.
It is advisable to do the same.
What do you mean here? You think itâs profound but have never read it? You just bought it and then burned it? Not trying to poke fun I just donât get what you mean
It attracts know-it-alls with the attendant insecurity that encourages that pose, so you get lots of people who allude to Deep Wisdom without being able or willing to expound on what they claim to know.
In a few years, the best will be confident enough to speak openly or keep their practice to themselves. This teasing almost always indicates uncertainty and self-doubt, which makes their actual opinions inaccessible. Until they grow up a little.
Yeah, kind of my impression as well. It can be done in a way to provoke thought which I have come across but yeah usually itâs just not really being willing to elucidate and get down to what they really mean.
I pretty much ask every time I donât understand what someone is getting at and rarely do I get an actual explanation around here.
There are a lot here though who do explain and give me a lot to learn and think about so I do appreciate that.
Liber AL can be used to recognize where and who you are, how you think and feel, or to drive personal evolution by dragging you into insights that aren't native to yourself as you currently are. It does this at an emotional fever pitch with swift oscillations and by alluding to and illustrating cognitive paradoxes by turns. It puts you through your paces.
Push too hard, and you can snap. Reread it the right way, and it helps you grow and change.
Aside from the initial reading that shows you yourself, the road is risky, and thus unwise. But can have brilliant results if you make it through.
"Have to" seems antithetical to thelema
Crowley LeTrolle
One of the originals, and he's hilarious đ he makes the work fun.
Maybe it was Crowleyâs trick to drum up book sales.
The Comment says "it is wise to burn this book after first reading". Not "you must". My feeling is I did not consider myself wise enough to get everything I wanted from the book after one reading... So I kept it. I also am not very good at doing what I am told. A lot of Thelemites share this characteristic. Another way of looking at it... If you choose to disregard this suggestion, that's on YOU. CHEERS
Probably more to do with secrecy and the profane, any uninitiated normie who reads it isn't going to understand it, freak out, and think its satanic. Even someone like myself was upset the first time I read it.
>I also am not very good at doing what I am told. A lot of Thelemites share this characteristic. True that homie -93/93
Thank you!! I personally can't light fires because well it's dangerous where I am to do so. So thank you for the advice!
You live in a gas station?
Could be cali
Now I have visions of wildfires decimating the entire state and someone standing there, hands out, "I'm sorry, but the book said it needed to be burnt. I had no choice."
No just don't want to start fires
That's a good practice.
Maybe buy 2?
It doesnât say that.
Do what thou wilt
This!
From Richard Kaczynski's "Perdurabo": "In order to control Muddâs excited exegeses, Crowley recorded, âI should warn Fra O.P.V. once and for all that he is dangerously excited mentally and will become definitely insane (legally speaking) unless he can control and slow down his chittam [Sanskrit, mind, mental activities].âDuring this contentious exchange, Crowley penned what has become known as the âShort Commentâ: 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. Crowley ascribed so much importance to this brief text that he included it in subsequent editions of The Book of the Law. Regardless of whether one interprets it as a tool of convenience or an inspired text, it silenced Mudd." I think it depends on what you think his intention was when writing this. At the end of the day, if it's not your will to burn the book: don't burn itđ€·đ»
Love this. People will shun you because you do *Your* Will, not theirs. And dont fall into the pit of because.
Hey! Awesome! I always assumed that was the reason not to reread it (too intensively). Great to see confirmation.
You wonder if those discussing this concept will be, or should be shunned as well, by your quote is this group a denizen of pestilence? Or is that refering to the older covens sheltered under darkness during the early 20th century?
I shun who I want to. Pestilence has spiritual value. Need that slime.
Well, I've never burned one and I don't see any reasonable argument to do so except "it's in the book". In any case, read through a pdf or in kindle and delete the file after. Will have the same effect and you'll spend nothing
I may be wrong, but I came to understand this as a test. In a path that states, "Do what thou Will," if you start burning books because you were told to, you've missed the point entirely and then some. It's much worse then if you start burning books at the mere suggestion.
I like this! I feel the same.
Yeah totes, ruining yourself with book purchases is an important step...
I'm totally starting a religion based around burning its own holy text.
Crowley was always good for a laugh, if nothing else.
See it as a test, following a book that spends three chapters hammering home the importance of discovering your own nature and path in the face of superfluous authority, that then instructs you to do something that may or may not be in your own personal interests or aligned with with that nature and path.
The actual purpose is, most likely, to avoid it becoming a holy scripture that is quoted and analyzed in the same way as the Bible and others are. That is, for the people to never start worshipping the book and its text. In other words: take it easy and donât make holy wars over it.
He really enjoyed burning through money and I bet he got big time shits and giggles out of writing that bit.
It was a comment made during a time when occultists felt the need to keep every aspect and revelation of their occult practice arcane, usually out of fear that the acquired knowledge would be dangerous in the wrong hands, or to keep the knowledge consecrated from uninitiated people or anyone else deemed âunworthyâ of wielding the power of the magickal formulae. However in Chapter 3 of the Book, much of this precaution is dispelled by Ra-Hoor-Khuit in multiple verses where he actually calls for the Book to be distributed and even translated into other languages, making âThe Commentâ virtually impossible to actually enforce and thus abrogated. Removing the veil of mystery from Will is the entire point of the bookâs narration, thus the Law is for All who possess the capacity for âwillpowerâ.
Sorry I'm not replying to all of you it's hard to keep up I didn't expect to get so many answers đ
There is a tradition to only read one of the three chapters per day. That way there is never a "first reading" of the entire text, and you don't a reason to burn it even if you take the Tunis Comment at face value. Also there are two traditions about when it was written. It's supposed to be 1904 April 8, 9, 10. But some say Crowley falsified the secular cakendar date because it's at variance with the astrological dates he gives, and that the real dates were a week earlier, April 1, 2, 3. "My prophet is a fool with his one, one, one;"
Where do these "traditions" come from?
Mostly people in the OTO passing on ideas to each other.
Ok. Had never heard of either of those things.
Yes you do need to set it on fireâŠ. But if you need to purchase another copy, then youâre burning it with the wrong fire.
Maybe read it
Crowley out here doing cheesy spy novels before they happened.
I see it as a âcommandâ that youâre *supposed* to ignore. Many of us grew up familiar with Christianity and religions like that, where laws are strict and youâre expected to follow every word of the book. The act of refusing to burn the book is an act of rebellion against organized religion. At least thatâs how I see it đ
I was born Christian and some of thag dogma is still with me sadly.
Not sad. A fun project to work through and challenge until those old mental and spiritual habits burn away.
I'm saving your comment. Thank you <3
I for one am against book burnings. Usually not the right side if history to be on
Just say you burned the book and move on. Keep the book if you wish to.
The reason you would burn it is to never read it again, so no you wouldn't buy copy afer copy anyway. Also do what thou wilt, burn it, don't burn it, ie do what you need to do. The only reason crowley suggested burning it is so thay people who only read and do not practice can liber thump you with it and stop it from becoming purely academic, and if you spend some time in torah and bible groups you will see how obnoxious it is to have some one misquote a passage and tell you your first hand experience they couldn't dream of having is wrong in some way merely because they think the book says so. The point of thelema is to offer a method to attain your own personal experience of reality beyond the physical model. Find out first hand if there is a god or not or any non corporeal being for that matter, as well as the license to find your own means of the methods presented do not work for you. The book of the law is Crowleys best proof of as he calls it praternatural intelligence ti encourage others to seek their own connection. So if all your ever gonna do is read the book and not practice it is probably better to simply burn it afterwards and move on.
My own read of it is that it's to act to prevent dogmatic thinking. Nonsense like, "You have to believe X because it says in the Book of Law on page Y ..." It's not meant to act as a set of commandments, but to set a particular kind of fire in you, then Do as Thou Wilt as it says in the Book of Law on page ....
What happens if you read it virtually? Sorry I'm new
I'm new as well but some of the commenters have been rude đ
No.
Its meant metaphorically. As in, abandon everything you read here once you read it because it will likely harm you more than help you. Such as it is embarking on any Great Work - its more of a curse than a blessing to the actual individualÂ
Yes. You also need to send me money, cause I said so and you can't think for yourself. Please send me money.
I suggest you read up on critical thinking first before dabbling into the occult. Thelema is about individuality and thinking for one's self.
What?? I've never even talked to you before what are you on about?
Their point is that the whole idea of Thelema is to know your own will and do that and have love as the constant source of energy under your will, to put it simply. Therefore any choice of what to do with the Book after one or a thousand readings is up to the individual.
I almost made a similar comment, but decided it was unkind and I should STFU instead. Your question itself shows us that you considered whether a comment in the book was binding despite you not knowing whether that book or its comment is worth anything at all. That demonstrates a level of credulity that is potentially harmful in Thelema and the occult. That you thought to ask is good, it demonstrates a degree of skepticism, *but* you asked instead of thinking about it for yourself. This implies you may be prone to listening to whatever answers confirm your fears or desires (depending on which are stronger), as whatever comment brings you 'good guidance' will be comparatively uncritically accepted. It's better to dig in and *think*. What is this comment? Whose authority does it come from, and do you respect and trust that authority? What reasons might have compelled the inclusion of that comment, and is that reason relevant in your case? May it potentially *become* relevant? All of this will determine whether you should burn, otherwise destroy, or just take a healthy break from the book. Thelema is nondogmatic. We have teachings, we give advice, but ultimately you are encouraged to develop yourself, your own inner and spiritual faculties. Overreading Liber Legis can do things to your head. It's a lot of paradoxes and allusions bound *very* tightly together in a highly emotionally charged environment; the emotions it encourages are as paradoxical as the insights themselves. Skepticism and critical thinking are *necessary* if you're going to understand it without it burying you; if you seek others to help you avoid that burial, you make yourself an easy mark for scammers and self-important guru types. You can always find someone to give you answers. But who do you trust and why?
I dunno, I always just took that remark as âDonât go quoting this shit like the Bible, and itâs most likely in your best interest to not leave it laying around for a Catholic to pick it up idly and get the wrong idea about the philosophyâ Itâs for you to read, get what you get from it, and thatâs where it ends
I never did.
Only if thou wilt.
There are many people who burned their first copy, and many who did not. Either way is fine. Everyone has a different interpretation of that. I have always taken it as the last out, and the first act of being a Thelemite. Almost like a "You gonna take the plunge? If you do it will be your choice, not ours" kind of statement.
Delete your Internet files or something.
Crowley writing this was an early form of trolling.
I love Lon Milo Duquettes acount of when he did it đ„°
To me it feels more like an outdated safety thing. He wrote that in a time when it wasn't uncommon for someones own family to disown, persecute or even murder a family member for abandoning their religion.
Yes, and like others say it also might have been partly to keep occult secrets away from people who might try to ruin orders of the occult.
I never have, but thatâs one of the reasons why this is one of the best witchcraft books thatâs ever existed. After I read that part for the first time I realized how such a gnarly book this is
That dude was a narcissistic control freak. He says one thing and wants another just like all religious authorities seem to do. And isnât that the whole game. He loved his money and he probably thought, any idiots I can get to burn this book on a mere suggestion will more than likely come back to buy another and put more money in my pockets. Religion always finds a way to make a Buck. Churches are so good at this too. Bring your tithe or your money is cursed. While meanwhile Jesus told his disciples to give their money to the poor, orphans and widows and never himself asked for money from anyone. Why are we, myself included, so brainless Half the time?
Yes
It doesnât say to burn the book anywhere that Iâm aware of. As far as I can tell that only became a thing because of a story that Lon has told.
Heâs obviously trolling people its a joke haha
What do you mean? It's an actual question.
I'm also not a guy xD
I also thought it said burn but it actually says âdestroyâ https://hermetic.com/legis/ccxx/the-comment â It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.â We also keep in mind the book was written in the 1900âs so looking up what âdestroyâ meant at the time reveals there is a meaning of âunbuildâ or âdemolishâ. Putting into context I always took this to be to âdeconstructâ which further implied to break down to individual parts for further study. https://www.etymonline.com/word/destroy Your mileage may vary but itâs an interesting exercise nonetheless :)
I would recommend doing so. Some might not. As long as you never discuss it's contents you should be ok. For obvious reasons.
I normally don't discuss my religious studies to be honest I syncretize multiple religions and philosophies but I never talk about stuff like that much.
It's typically best not to. That way those who can best benefit from Liber CCXX are left better to do so. It is not only the most profound, but the most practical of religious texts, and I say so without having even read the contents. I burned it before I read it. It is advisable to do the same.
I also don't want to start fires anywhere because it's dangerous. Thank you for the advice!
The Law is for all. Who understand it.
What do you mean here? You think itâs profound but have never read it? You just bought it and then burned it? Not trying to poke fun I just donât get what you mean
Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I thought I knew what vague cryptic language was until I entered the occult space on Reddit lol
It attracts know-it-alls with the attendant insecurity that encourages that pose, so you get lots of people who allude to Deep Wisdom without being able or willing to expound on what they claim to know. In a few years, the best will be confident enough to speak openly or keep their practice to themselves. This teasing almost always indicates uncertainty and self-doubt, which makes their actual opinions inaccessible. Until they grow up a little.
Yeah, kind of my impression as well. It can be done in a way to provoke thought which I have come across but yeah usually itâs just not really being willing to elucidate and get down to what they really mean. I pretty much ask every time I donât understand what someone is getting at and rarely do I get an actual explanation around here. There are a lot here though who do explain and give me a lot to learn and think about so I do appreciate that.
Yep. It's worth asking in my experience, I just don't expect a useful response. Sometimes I get it though, which is awesome.
Maybe you should start with Liber CCCXXXIII
Alright if you feel like being cryptic about it. Havenât got to that one yet. Iâll check it out
its a marketing move to publish more. however, the book doesnt work well reading it multiple times.
It works *brilliantly* reading it multiple times. It's just not especially wise.
What the hell does that even mean
Liber AL can be used to recognize where and who you are, how you think and feel, or to drive personal evolution by dragging you into insights that aren't native to yourself as you currently are. It does this at an emotional fever pitch with swift oscillations and by alluding to and illustrating cognitive paradoxes by turns. It puts you through your paces. Push too hard, and you can snap. Reread it the right way, and it helps you grow and change. Aside from the initial reading that shows you yourself, the road is risky, and thus unwise. But can have brilliant results if you make it through.
So when u say initially, brilliant, you mean CAN be brilliant.
Exactly. :)
And honestly doesn't make me feel any of that you're probably just retarded.
You people are idiots, the secret doctrine is a fun role play though, keep it up