THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.order,alt.magick,alt.thelema
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva)
Subject: BHeidrick: AC, Liber Al and The Comment
Date: 9 Jul 1997 16:18:14 -0700

[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"