Liber Al Vel Legis

It's fake. Might as well read the Necronomicon. It only has power insofar as you allow it to.

>>18151201
You fell for the meme

>>18151309
What do you mean by fake?
It's an actual book (unlike the necronomicon, at least what people talk about when they mention that book)
Do you mean Crowley just made it up while in Egypt?
Doesn't ANYTHING have only as much power as you lend it?

>>18151324
Did I?
It wasn't a big investment. An as a book of poetry/prose it wasn't bad.
Maybe posting this on /x/ was a bad idea.
Actually, maybe veiling my questions in the form of roleplay would have probably been the best route.

>>18151329
More like he probably recreated it using "Ritual to have any knowledge" sometime in 1907 or 8 after Rose burnt a pile of important papers.

Besides, Liber L is just a declaration of the Aeon. The other Class A texts have more metaphysical weight. Liber 65 is about the Angel. Liber 7 is about Magistry.

>>18151337
>Maybe posting this on /x/ was a bad idea

Yes, and so it was believing a word of Crowley's mouth.

>>18151346
Interesting.
I was going to start Book 4 today.
I've read a few pages and it looks interesting. I just can't shake the feeling that Crowley is kind of... full of shit.

>>18151367
Then ignore him.

>>18151353
I don't necessarily believe it. I'm naturally a pretty hardcore skeptic.
That being said, I like to gather as much info on a topic as possible.
So it's not so much that I BELIEVE him as much as I CONSIDER him.

>>18151371
I don't want to.
He had his fingers in so many different pies when he was alive.
I feel he must have had some very effective knowledge on how to manipulate people.
The esoteric stuff I'm not too sure about.
Either way, getting into it is kind of fun. Maybe my brain is a bit too impressionable, though.

>>18151372

If you are just reading for curiosity, go ahead. But keep in mind he was a very flawed man with charisma. Never take what he says as truth, not like you would do with other books.

File: image.jpg (75KB, 450x329px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 450x329px

1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.

3There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.

4Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,

5Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.

6Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

7The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

8The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

9The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.

File: image.jpg (114KB, 636x534px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 636x534px

New American Standard Bible
The Works and the Word of God.

For the choir director. A Psalm of David.

1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.

3There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.

4Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world.
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,

5Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.

6Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

7The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

8The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

9The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.

10They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.

11Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;
In keeping them there is great reward.

12Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults.

13Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins;
Let them not rule over me;
Then I will be blameless,
And I shall be acquitted of great transgression.

14Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer.

>>18151403
Isn't that the point of Alister Crowleys books?

He wrote a book called the Book of Lies. It's not like he was being subtle.

>>18151329
>What do you mean by fake?
The backstory is made up.
>It's an actual book (unlike the necronomicon, at least what people talk about when they mention that book)
There are fake copies of the Necronomicon too.
>Do you mean Crowley just made it up while in Egypt?
Crowley was performing the time-honored task of parting fools from their money. As evidenced by you buying the book, he succeeded.
>Doesn't ANYTHING have only as much power as you lend it?
Genuine transmissions of esoteric knowledge are more than purely personal.

>>18151504
Intuitively, I could sense that Crowley was a shyster. It's that basic tactic of mixing in little bits of realness that interests me. Like sifting for bits of gold.
I'm not really a money type of person, so I came by the book through a friend.
What do you define as a genuine transmission?

>>18151504
Liber L was mostly in private circulation at under binding cost considering it came with a silk robe, save as a chapter in one of the Equinox volumes, until like the mid-80's.

>>18151502
Some people make a dogma out of them.

>>18151546
>What do you define as a genuine transmission?
Philosophy.

Not theosophy. Not theology. Not occultism.

>>18151573
I hope you realize that Crowley produced a number of pure philosophical papers ranging from ontology to formal logic.
>implying philosophy isn't largely personal
>implying dialectic isn't rhetoric

>>18151585
His musings are undergraduate at best.

File: IMG_4523.png (364KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1280x720px

>>18151504
Troll moron detected.
It wasn't made up moron. Crowley was contracted by Winston Churchill to help the British government fight the nazis and their own esoteric agenda.
This is public declassified knowledge pleb.
Trolls like you should be sent to isis.
He took old knowledge from other older texts and put it in a series of books and writings.
Do us all a favor and kill yourself.

>>18151595
Explain to me how "Gospel of St. Bernard Shaw" is undergraduate.

Speaking as a graduate, the vast majority of undergrads I see can't even approach the vast majority of AC's studies.

>>18151605
o ok so it's not lies it's just propaganda and inferior rehashings of ancient knowledge

File: IMG_3677.jpg (21KB, 680x299px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 680x299px

>>18151309
This guy is a moron y'all!
Do not listen to this shill. All you have to do is 20 minutes of research and you know Crowley was a very unique guy and not making it up.
Wheather it was real or not is up for discussion, but Crowley was NOT making anything up.
You sir are a fucking cunt though.

>>18151617
That is your narrow minded uninformed opinion pleb. You obviously are just a shill who wants to troll a legitimate discussion.
People like you are the worst.

>>18151605
Kek, rekted!

>>18151309
>It only has power insofar as you allow it to.
And thus did Anon learn the secret truth of all belief systems.

>>18151618
20 minutes of research wow maybe read a wikipedia article amirite? so scholarly so academic definitely trust the egotistical cult of personality shyster instead of realizing the situation might be more complex
>>18151625
>>18151630
kek would not approve of pro-degeneracy propaganda, indeed only plebs would

>>18151618
>>18151625
Lots of animosity.
I didn't necessarily agree with the guy either, but at least we discussed it rationally.
All you're saying is that Crowley didn't make it up; what's the basis for The Book of the Law?
Where do the esoteric elements come from?

>>18151611
So I guess I should look into some of his philosophical dissertations?

>>18151649
If you believe in an angel called Aiwass then why not Xenu next? Surely L Ron had a lot of esoteric knowedge -- he was acquainted with Thelema

>>18151653
No. You should start with the greeks and if you really want magic look into theurgy, goetia, and the greek magical papyri.

>>18151653
Up to you, really.

>>18151643
You've still yet to demonstrate to me how "Gospel" is 'undergraduate at best'.

>>18151605
How does name-calling and general aggressiveness advance the conversation?
You can words your points effectively without all the negativity.
The book I'm referring to was written in 1904.
Long before national socialism was reigning in Germany.
Old Knowledge from old text... which?
Genuine curiousity here.

>>18151658
^This too.

That said, the matters of the GMP are integral to understanding Crowley's system of magick, given one of the more important rites is a revision of Headless One.

Moreover, Crowley ends up integrating a LOT of materials from Chaldean Oracles, so much so that some passages become expanded into longform initiations in the unpublished documents (all in Ape of Thoth's library).

Fuck reading

>>18151656
That's what I'm saying.
It seems like he could have just invented these beings.
Is Aiwass based on something out of the ancient mysteries?
I'm starting to think Crowley was a brilliant philosopher and enigmatic/charismatic guy. Instead of spreading the truth ( which is purely perception based reality ) he spun up some pretty esoteric tales.

>>18151658
>>18151668
Cool. I kind of have, in a way.
I started reading The Secret Teachings of All Ages last week.
It starts with the origin of philosophy and the ancient greeks who spread a lot of these concepts.
There is so much reading to be done.

>>18151659
Isn't that a bit moving goalposts? Like we're supposed to be talking the veracity of the book of the law not whether the gospe of whosoever is cool or not. I have not read all his texts and he is clearly more literary than most undergrads so perhaps I am guilty of trolling but at the same time I find his work immature and his central importance in the western canon of magic to be overstated and perhaps even harmful in some ways. Then again, I liked him and chaos magic when I was a teenager so maybe I'm just being old and jaded.

>>18151371
I fucking love you

>>18151706
I already spoke to the lack of veracity of Liber L. Then someone said actual transmissions are philosophy.

I then asked what about AC's philosophical materials, which got the reply of 'undergrad at best'.

I don't think highly of L. I do think highly of Crowley's other work. The poster and I appear to be in agreement about L so there's no goalpost to be moved, because the game was over.

As such, I decided to ask about the thing that was in mutual play...namely, what about "Gospel" made it undergrad at best. To which I got the sound of crickets chirping.

Do try to keep up, mate.

>>18151756
Perhaps what is undergrad is the lack of peer-review and editing seeing as so much of what Crowley has written was outside the ivory tower?

>>18151810
9/10ths of philosophical texts published today don't undergo peer review. It's a touch lower through the humanities (I'm talking like "Oxford Guides and/or Brill editions. Solid, but largely unreviewed).

I'll give the lack of long-term editing, though, most of his texts were first-pass diction filtered through a competent secretary.

>>18151201
"The book of the law is written and concealed.
Thus who discuss the contents of this book are to be shunned by all as centers of pestilence"

Did you ACTUALLY fucking read it OP or did you just skim it and decide to come in here for the cliff notes version? For fucks sake.

>>18151901
I did actually read it.
That's different from believing it.
Besides, that could just be a way to induce fear. Maybe he didn't want his work criticised because it was sophomoric.
Not that I necessarily think that.

>>18151910
>Maybe he didn't want his work criticised because it was sophomoric.
>maybe its just to induce fear!
>Maybe all these people who respect this work are actually stupid and I'M the only smart one!

Yes, clearly that's it.

>>18151967
argumentum ad populum

>>18151967
That last one is a pretty big leap. I never implied my intelligence surpasses anyone's, much less a famed philosopher like Crowley.
I can hardly grasp one of his shorter works (the thread topic).
Not sure why so many people want to attack others in this thread.

>>18151901
Um, the Tunis Comment is a later addition tacked on like twenty years after the reception to get...Norman Mudd, was it?, to stop asking retard questions.

The Tunis Comment as worked by OTO policy is bullshit.

Crowley was definitely an interesting guy.

He was definitely full of shit some of the times but not all the time.

If you believe in Occult stuff, Magick and Theory in Practice is pretty much recommended beginning reading.

Liber 777, while mostly stolen, is essential for anyone working with Kaballah.

Book of Lies is also pretty good with Kaballah.

He mostly just compiled knowledge from other beliefs and made them public. This is pretty valuable.

However, he had two huge faults. He practically started his own cult. And he wanted to be a jack of all trades and was probably a master of none.

I actually just got this book yesterday to read out of curiosity. Didn't really get it. It's worth noting this is the book used to start the whole cult-ish thing.

On the second point, reading his other work can definitely reveal some insight. I think he was strongest under the Golden Dawn system which he was trained but you'd be better off getting most of that information from Isreal Regardi.

>>18153008
Great info here, thank you so much.
I was thinking along these lines but I just didn't really understand some of his perspective.

>>18153008
This is the thing 6th day end of creation
6th planet Saturn
6th moon Titan
A Titan named Prometheus in Greek mythology stole fire from the gods of mount Olympus with a bush, the the bible Moses is greeted by a fiery bush.

>>18153189
Greek mythology links a lot of magic, the Hellenistic period is full of folklore, and the pentarchy.

>>18153198
Pagans literally used magic all the time allegedly, so Justinian or some twat cancelled them in Favour of Jesus books.

>>18153179

No problem. Yeah, some of Crowley's writing is pretty dense and he gets a lot of shit for it.

I actually find Crowley easy to understand in quite a few of his books. Even Book of Lies which is written as cryptic poetry makes some obvious sense in parts.

But even for me, Book of Law is still really dense and hard to understand. I read a few pages and didn't really understand it. While I don't believe in Thelema or Book of the Law, I find the 3 Aeons an interesting split and observation with some grain of truth. I just really don't know how Book of Law fits into it yet as I haven't finished reading it.

With everything I said, I don't think he's a bad starting place for most topics. The work he did publishing information from stuff like Golden Dawn is invaluable. And I find the observations he makes on stuff more modern and of value.

I'd recommend him for exposure to topics only because it's the most modern you can get outside of chaos magick which strips things down too much somtimes. However, you'd definitely need to take it with a grain of salt and read deeper from other writers if you like what you read.

>>18151201
you're supposed to abide by the rules of the book
the reason for this is because this book will reveal itself to those worthy of the knowledge

if not i guess try again later

>>18153261
I am the secret Serpent coiled about to spring: in my coiling there is joy. If I lift up my head, I and my Nuit are one. If I droop down mine head, and shoot forth venom, then is rapture of the earth, and I and the earth are one.