Editorial Review Product Description A purported holy book received by Englishman Aleister Crowley on April 8, 9 and 10, 1904 in a make-shift temple in the drawing room of a flat in Cairo where Crowley and his wife Rose were staying on their honeymoon.In this book Crowley transcribes the words of the Holy Guardian Angel Aiwass who spoke to Crowley there. ... Read more Customer Reviews (81)
The Law is not for All!
Once again we see the mistake made by so many fanatical preachers and spiritual despots: they take a personal revelation and try to tell us that it applies to us as well.Sure, I think that "Do What Thou Wilt" should be the preponderance of the law.True, that this was an important event in Crowley's life and is integral to understanding where he was coming from.Yes, I agree that it is an interesting, nay beautiful, piece of prose and contains a great deal of philosophy that bears contemplation.I just don't believe a word of it. I don't believe in Awiass, I don't believe in the secret chiefs, and I don't believe that there is any meaning whatsoever in 4 6 3 8 A B K 2 4 A L G M O R 3 Y X 24 89 R P S T O V A L.Let's just say that I am skeptical about trusting prophecies of perfect leaders who channel strange beings and deliver proclamations of universal laws from on high.This is a prime example of why Crowley, despite his importance to the development of ritual magic and the insightful nature of most of his work, is ultimately not somebody I can get behind.
On the binding/book itself
I cant comment on the contents.I haven't read it all yet, and from what I have read by others (other books about Crowely that I read to better understand the Thoth Tarot deck, I am not a student of Crowely in any way) they seem to say that this sort of book is the sort that one can only read and interperate for themselves... in other words, it would be useless for me to reflect upon it to you, even if I had read it.
Instead I chose to comment on the beauty of the book.Some people have said that the binding is ugly and I think this refers to an older version of the book.The book that I received is beautiful, bound well, and the print is clear.I think that the formating and the colors are quite stunning.I'm impressed with the look of the book.I think whatever version they bought, perhaps it is an older version, the book I got was quite lovely.
As to whether to buy the book or not... I think its up to you.If you are looking at this, you obviously are curious about it.I think, based on what I have read of other's reflections, that its the sort of book you read and take it with a grain of salt.I think that it is not intended to be a religion, as he says that quite vehemently through out a few things I have read he seems to be rather anti-religion, and it seems to be more of a personal philosophy.I haven't read it, like I said, I cant say much about it.
Simply believe the prophet...
As the old saying goes, "If you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with BS." Aleister Crowley had the concept of baffling with BS down pat. The closer one looks at Crowley the more clear it becomes that he was little more than a garden-variety con man. Of those who actually knew him, very few found anything in him worth emulating. Like most good con artists he was adept at hiding his tracks, but there is plenty of evidence of his chicanery for those who are diligent enough to seek it out.
The Book of the Law is, so it is said, a message to Crowley from the Graeco-Egyptian god of silence Harpokrates. Since a god of silence doesn't speak, it needs a mouthpiece; this is where Aiwass comes in. Aiwass was supposedly a superhuman go-between who actually delivered the message to Crowley. The one and only person who can verify all of this of course is Crowley himself and the reader is expected to simply take his word for it.
The basic outline of the Book loosely follows the design of a funerary stelethat Crowley's wife (at the time) had brought to his attention at the Boulak Museum which was exhibit #666- Crowley's own number as self-proclaimed Beast 666. This was all he needed; he saw 666 and immediately viewed it as a sign that the stele was of immense importance and intended for him personally. He believed the figures on the stele held the keys to the past, present and future. But Crowley was unaware that funerary stelae of this nature with similar design and text were common in ancient Egypt, a "stock" item if you will; there really wasn't anything that special about this one. These stelae were modified according to theneeds of the deceased, but the basic elements- those which Crowley believed were of unique importance to him and his message- remained the same on all of them.
What is of particular interest to me is Crowley's gradual evolution away from his original source of inspiration- the ancient Egyptian deities on stele 666- to the tale of Harpokrates and Aiwass. Writing in the third person in Equinox of the Gods Crowley says:
"During the period March 23rd--April 8th, whatever else may have happened, it is at least certain that work was continued to some extent, that the inscriptions of the stele were translated for Fra. P.(Crowley), and that he paraphrased the latter in verse. For we find him using, or prepared to use, the same in the text of Liber Legis (Book of the Law)."
This says that during the time beween his discovery of the stele and his actual writing of the Book of the Law, Crowley had the stele translated and was more or less expecting a "revelation" that corresponded to his paraphrased interpretation of it. What he actually got was a lot of nonsense. For all of his "superhuman" help from Harpokrates and Aiwass, Crowley completely misidentified two of the deities on the stele. Horus the Elder he believed was "Houdit," a nonexistent deity. Ra-Harakhty he misidentified with Amon. He also believed "Houdit" and Nut (the one he got right) were lovers, though Egyptian myth tells us that Nut's lover was Geb. It seems clear, from reading his commentaries, that correctly identifying these deities was important to Crowley. He did try but was ultimately unsuccessful. Only after this failed attempt did he "discover" that Harpokrates' message was not ancient Egyptian after all, but Qabalistic (Hermetic), a subject with which he (Crowley) was vastly more at ease; and one that can be easily manipulated simply by changing the spelling of words and names.
"Prophets" are a penny a dozen; most don't even rate a blip on the radar screen. Occasionally one comes along who is particularly colorful or good at reading trends and attracts a following. The "Aeon of Horus" has come and gone; Crowley's biggest mistake was in claiming to know what the next 2000 years and beyond would hold.
Inconsistent
The heart of Crowley's thinking boils down to "Do what you will."This is coterminous with "we are god" and "the truth is in you" and "trust in your heart."Crowley was a bit of a megalomaniac and indulged in flights of ecstasy about being the originator of this phrase, even claiming to be a better poet than Yeats.Or is it Aiwas that is a better poet than Yeats?After all, Crowley claims that this book was dictated by an angel named Aiwas.In either case, Crowley and Aiwas must be lying since Rabelais is the author of the phrase "Do what you will.""Do what you will" or "fay çe que vouldras" was the rule of the fictional Abbey of Thélème in the classic satire Gargantua by Rabelais.The many different origins of this book given by Crowley reminds me of the occultist Joseph Smith, who also made different accounts of the origin of the book of mormon.The writing is quite ridiculous.And its obsession over English 101 phrases mixed with nonsense gives credence to Crowley's caveat which can be rephrased a la Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."Tell Nuit to put some clothes on: no wonder Crowley couldn't dictate any clear phrases.Alternatively, tell Aiwas to get some lessons on basic sentence structure and grammar."Love" is supposed to underlie "do what you will," yet all religious, especially Christians, are condemned in this book.Hmmm, that sounds like Joseph Smith too when he was told "all of their creeds were an abomination in His sight, that those professors were all corrupt" (PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, JS2:17-19).It seems trashing all that went before and making up your own stuff and claiming spirit guides as the source was the trend of 19th century cultists.If "love" is so important, this book contradicts itself.And Crowley contradicts himself since his hatred of ethnics and Christians belies "love."Quite inconsistent.And why he hates juwes, I have no idea, since the source of all his occultism is the cabala.Compare the biblical inspiration.The Bible is inspired by men over several thousand years that are in complete agreement.The heart of the ten commandments, which "do what thou wilt" is an impoverished rival, is love God with your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself.For, if we loved God perfectly, and loved our neighbor perfectly, we wouldn't lie, cheat, steal, murder, and so on.Jesus reaffirmed this to the juwes who held instead to the Babylonian code of Hammurabi "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth."Matthew 5:38-42.And the Apostle Paul reaffirmed this when he said that if we have no love, our faith and hope is nothing.1 Corinthians 13.This is what St. Augustine meant when he said, "love and do as you please."(Sermon on the Epistle of St.. John, 7:8)However, due to sin, which is lawlessness, which is violating the commandments, which is violation of the love of God and love of man and "desiring to be like gods," mankind cannot "love and do as he pleases."We don't exercise such love and so fall short of the commandments and thus are condemned by the commandments.Instead, we need redemption from Jesus Christ who will transform our hearts to be more and more like him, delivering us from the penalty of sin, which is eternal damnation, delivering us from the affects of sin, as we grow in holiness, and delivering us from the presence of sin, at the final resurrection of the dead.Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins on the cross.That's why it is called "substitutionary" atonment.The wonderful consistency of the Old to New Testaments was becuase it was a story told twice:the sacrifices and lambs blood and symbols and so on in the Old Testament were a shadow or type of things to come; namely, Christ's death on the cross.Believe on Jesus Christ and confess to Him your sins, and don't listen to Crowley.Trust me, where he is now, he probably wishes he could recant.
93 all
This is a great text that is as odd as it is beautiful. I really love reading it, and it is both thought provoking and spooky at times. AC really should have had more commentary in this, but I understand why there isn't any. You can read it on line, but nothing beats having it handy for any time that you'd like to read or refer to it.
... Read more |