Talk:The Book of the Law

Occult Origins

I've just read the article, it's very good but IMO could do with a little more sceptism. I can't see any mention of the many critics, sceptics, historians and many other individuals who have heralded Crowely as nothing more than a self-proporganderist and a charlattan. There is no mention of this sceptism, which in light of the fact that Crowely has founded more than 1 religious doctrine seems very... well, flakey. I'm happy to knock something up but I don't want to tread on anyones toes, I just think this guys religions need to be viewed with a healthy dose of common sense. Perhaps the section on changes to the text could be expanded to include some references to sceptics comments etc? 90.152.12.130 (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's only started one -- Thelema. He started a couple groups up, each with their own unique purpose, which adhere to Thelema. What's flaky about it? You don't seem to know much about Thelema at all, so how can you criticize it properly?

74.46.61.51 (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the editor the philosophy is sound, there is a concerning lack of criticism or in fact any word from a knowledgeable skeptic on such a controversial subject. Witchcraft, summoning Gods and magic belongs with fiction yet this article seems to state that Crowley has somehow achieved some degree of success with these things and without any question of plausibility??... It's absurd and this article needs to be flagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.148.77 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which article you are referring to, but this is an article about a BOOK, not about Witchcraft. As I have pointed out several times on this page, do the articles on The Bible or the Koran feature a discussion about the validity of angelic beings or divine revelation? Until they do, neither does this one. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about the Christian bible does have sections called “Biblical critcism” and “Archaeological and historical research”. Furtheremore, not all Thelemites believe that Crowley actually received the scripture prophetically rather than came up with it poetically. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can find some knowledgeable and verifiable good sources for textual criticism and historical research of Liber AL beyond what is already mentioned here, by all means let's have them. The original comment however was about the veracity of Crowley's magical claims, which have nothing specifically to do with this article. My point still stands that articles about the Bible and the Koran do not (and do not need to) delve into the supposed claims of the existance of Jehovah and all his angels, or into whether or not Christian Saints could perform miracles. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel Regardie's biography of Crowley, The Eye in the Triangle presents a thoughtful, sceptical account of the origins of the Book of the Law. His argument is that Aiwass was an unconscious aspect of Crowley's personality and the circumstances of the Book's dictation were probably much less remarkable than Crowley let on. For example, although Crowley claimed that Rose was entirely ignorant of the Qabala, Regardie argued that after living with Crowley for two years she probably acquired more than a passing knowledge of the subject. Regardie repeated these arguments in his Introduction to The Law is for All. I don't have a copy of either of these books, but if any editors do, I think they provide a decent source of information for a critical and sceptical view of this topic to balance Crowley's rather credulous and self-serving version of events. Smcg8374 13:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcg8374 (talk • contribs)

Links to manuscripts

I was looking a the site to which the Manuscript link was recently pointed, and I think the original link was the better choice. While the AOTOA site provides somewhat clearer copies of the text pages, the OTO-USA site provides more accurate scans in all their flawed and aged glory, and includes the title page as well, making it more complete. However, since they both have advantages in the eyes of different readers, I will edit the links such that both remain available. --Geoff Capp 20:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

What else to add?

I think that there could be a section covering the non-AL material that often accompanies its printing. The centennial edition reprints some material Crowley added to earlier printings, which could be interesting to note. –Frater5

• Also there were changes in the introductory chapters from time to time and place to place. For example, "Democracy dodders" was censored from some editions...On another matter, anyone know where the actual manuscript is these days? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Additions

Why is there no mention of the connections between The Book of the Law and certain "cult" (or "occult") organizations, like Britain's O.T.O, and modern Wicca? The latter was obviously influenced by Crowley but, in their Rede, distorted "the law" to say essentially "Do what thou wilt as long as you do not harm others".

Further, at least some editions of the book, such as one with a red cover published by the O.T.O., include drawings that are loaded with clear and indisputable Satanic symbolism. An inverted pentagram containing a goat's head is just one obvious example.

These would seem to bear mentioning. -- Jane Q. Public 18:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Influenced 'occult' organizations

It would be quite easy to find references to Liber AL in Wiccan writings like the 'Charge to the Goddess.' As for 'Britain's OTO,' this is less about Book of the Law specifically and more about Thelema as a whole. The Wiccan reference seems to me to warrant a mentioning or twoPsionicpigeon (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's a little confusing to me when phrased like that. Thelema took influence (or at least is heavily similar) to what the christian view of occult & wicca is. If anything it would be good to draw out comparisons between Thelma and previous religous doctrines simply to show the naivity of those who listened to Crowleys increasingly unlikely tale and subsequently highlight the nonsense that he choose to put to paper. Tie that in with the fact that the author openly admits to changing some lines throughout the work after the initial notation and I begin to wonder if the people who write this article are all Thelemites or something. This is one of the cons of the century so why is there no references to all these blatant discrepencies, the history of the man (as Crowley had prevously launched a completely different religion) and the similarities between Crowley's story (i.e confirmed by the "wife"; no confirmation at all if you think about it) and the Mormons story (i.e. confirmed by the guys "friend"; no confirmation at all if you think about it).... this article reads like it's accepting the doctrine as fact when every other religous article has a healthy dose of sceptism. There are many more sceptics than supporters but I can't find many references to these well known works, instead there are lot's of implications throughout the article that seem to take it seriously... I still think Crowley was a comidian and no ones got the joke yet. 90.152.12.130 (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Satanic symbolism?

I see no "satanic symbolism" on the cover of the Book of the Law. Anton LaVey's satanism should not be conflated with Crowley's Thelema or even the 'old school' satanism. To say a goat with a pentagram on his head is Satanic is to miss the majority of the symbolism - it is included on the 15th card of the Thoth Tarot as well and is a symbol of man attaining Godhead, according to Crowley.Psionicpigeon (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It can be viewed merely as an inverted pentagram...which can be a bad thing depending on the magick or rite performed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.17.246 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true, besides "Satanic symbolism" is a subjective, christian based term. I think this is a case of the term satanic being thrown around by people who have been influenced by christian idealogy rather than people who have read a dictionary. I would suggest that people use known and well defined terms rather than using a subjective christian term that automatically implies a negative quality. 90.152.12.130 (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, these symbols were adopted into the Christian symbolic canon after the fact. Many of the images associated with Satanism were in fact in use thousands of years before the advent of Christianity. Tri7megi7tu7 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion is irrelevent, since as far as I know there has never been an edition of Liber AL with a pentagram or goat's head on the cover in the first place - and certainly not one published by OTO. If someone has a picture that proves differently, let's see it, or drop this entire topic. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was no consensus. Vassyana (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Book of the Law → Liber AL vel Legis — "The Book of the Law" is a general term used in more than one religion. In Judaism it refers to the Torah; in Mormonism it refers to "The Book of the Law of the Lord". Suggest we move it to its actual distinguishable title —84.74.3.179 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• support since according to the article, the full title is "Liber AL vel Legis, sub figura CCXX, The Book of the Law, as delivered by XCIII=418 to DCLXVI", the change would seem justified. We should then do as dismab. page rather than just a redirect. DGG (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• oppose: Book of the Law is the title of this specific book. It is not the specific title of the TaNaK. It is not the specific title of the Mormon work. Liber AL vel Legis, sub figura CCXX. is an alternate title of this work. jonathon (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not true. Liber AL vel Legis is the official title of the work. "The Book of the Law" is essentially a nickname. 58.91.14.173 (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Crowley typically gave his work three titles. One in English, one in Latin,Greek,or Hebrew, and one that was simply a number. In this instance the number is 31 (holographic manuscript), 220 (printed version), with Liber Al Vel Legis being the Latin title andThe Book of the Lawbeing the English title. As to which title is the most official, that depends upon which list one considers to be "authoritative".jonathon (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Here's the detail, originally named Liber L vel Legis and name officially changed. Noted on this page. 62.141.50.141 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And here is the title page of the book. 62.141.50.141 (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. The actual name is Liber AL vel Legis. Valtyr (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:UE. Even if "The Book of the Law" is a nickname, wrt this article I think it is a name that most users would understand, so it would be best for it to remain at the current name. – Axman (☏) 15:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, a book should be listed under its actual title. Since the proposal seems to be that a disambiguation page be put here, the user would easily be able to find the several possible books of the law they might be looking for. Will in China (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. People above make the false claim that Book of the Law is a 'nickname' of Liber AL vel Legis. If anyone knows basic Latin, Liber Legis means Book of the Law. I believe it would be best if Book of the Law was retained as this is the name that is spoken quite often and many people refer to it by this name.Psionicpigeon (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Added an additional interpretation on the identity of "The Beast" based on both the appearance of Therion in The Star Ruby and the Old Comment by Crowley himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.151.90 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to have been done already, should we remove the discussion point from the "Open tasks for the Thelema WikiProject" box? I'm new to this whole thing (editing on wikipedia; although I understand the rules and such), so not sure how long these things stay up, when things are changed in cases like this, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr.333 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sub figura CCXX?

= "under the figure 220"? What does this mean? Maikel (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To way oversimplify, think of it as a catalog number. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

These can be helpful if you're into gematria at all.

Fr.333 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Automatic writing

Should something be added to note the discrepancy between AC's denial that Liber AL was "automatic writing" despite having written on the manuscript (see scans) that it was an "excellent example of automatic writing"? It seems worthy of noting in that it gives a different spin on Crowley's ever changing/growing understanding of the text.

about the proposed move

Hi I know I've come to this late but just a comment that it definitely shouldn't be moved. Arguments thhat it is the full name are not in accordance with policy; what wikipedia names articles after, per WP:MOS is the most commonly used name, and people usually call it this. If it was going to be used to disambiguate it from other things called TBotL, the way it would be named according to wiki custom would usually be The Book of the Law (Thelema), similar to if we have Dissection and Dissection (band). Sticky Parkin 02:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Teachings???

Lame, lame article. Deosn't even mention what were the real teachings of Crowley.... So confusing and bedeviling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.85.179 (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Partially agree, but one "lame" is enough. The teachings of Crowley would be nice. Yet, the article at least provides a structural description of the book, so there is some profitable work already done. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Language

Was the book written in English, or did Crowley write it in some other language first and then translate it into English? What translations of the book have been made into other languages? These questions should be answered by the article, but are not. allixpeeke (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of it was originally written in English. Some of it was originally written in Moon Language, Enochian, and similar esoteric occult languages. A couple of passages are translations from various Egyptian inscriptions. It has been translated into at least a dozen languages.jonathon (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should point out here that I've never seen anyone use the accented é in this context, whereas I have seen scholarly sources use it to specify the fictional Thélémites of Rabelais. The one accent at the start of our Thelema article came from some Swedish IP address with one other edit on Wikipedia. I don't even know how to pronounce it (French or Greek?) Dan (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The accents need to be removed in my opinion - they aren't used in any of the literature on the subject at all. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It you want to be technical, it should be written as θέλημα (Polytonic Greek). Crowley randomly retained the grave accent in the transliteration. His followers have tended to equally random in its inclusion.jonathon (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but at the end of the day this is an English language article, and the word is being used within an English language context. I see no sensible advantage in using either a French or Greek spelling. Otherwise we get into all sorts of logical absurdity, like having to spell Ankh-f-na-Knosu in hierogyphs --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

sacred text?

I've yanked the qualifier of the text as sacred twice now. No citation actually qualifies this work of fiction by Crowley as part of a religion, or a sacred text. Please bring some citations to the table and discuss the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Class A Texts are the Sacred Texts of Thelema.jonathon (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I asked, do you have a reliable citation to that effect? Otherwise, it appears that we are assessing the text as sacred. Understand that citations from within the religion aren't really going to be notably neutral enough for inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is more than bizarre that not only are you rejecting both primary and secondary cites, but you are pushing a POV that is in conflict with the rest of the articles on Wikipedia about ΘΕΛΗΜΑ. Do you really think that Crowley didn't mean what he wrote, when he said that Liber XXXI was a holy text? I'll grant his normal style of writing does confuse, obfuscate, and otherwise baffle readers, but even then, there is an internal consistency which he clearly describes.jonathon (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of quotes from Crowley himself referring to The Book of the Law as a sacred text (10 seconds on google will find you plenty), and it is considered sacred by thousands of people across the world, including the members of O.T.O., a religious organisation registered in many countries, and which accepts the Book of the Law as its primary sacred text. Any reasonable NPOV must conclude that it deserves the epithet "sacred" as much as other works of fiction such as The Bible. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

AL?

The article does not appear to define "AL" anywhere.
The title of the book in Latin reads as "(The) Book AL or of (the) Law".
Varlaam (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you go back up this talk page you will find that Liber L vel legis was the original name and I just read somewhere that Crowley changed the name to the AL version in 1921. Also, on this talk page someone mentions that "Crowley typically gave his work three titles. One in English, one in Latin,Greek,or Hebrew, and one that was simply a number. In this instance the number is 31 (holographic manuscript), 220 (printed version), with Liber Al Vel Legis being the Latin title". My emphasis.

From The Confessions of Aleister Crowley "It was to be discovered later that the Secret Key of The Book of the Law is the number 31". My emphasis. Also on this talk page you will find people who mention gematria. If you know anything about the Hebrew alphabet, which I assume you don't, each glyph is a symbol, a letter and a number - aleph (A) has a value of 1 and lamed (L) has a value of 30, so AL would represent the number 31, which Crowley discovered at a later date to be the key of the book. There you go, how's that for some pure WP:OR! Captain Screebo (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the even more obvious interpretation? That AL is simply Crowley's idiosyncratic transliteration of the Hebrew letters Aleph and Lamed, more usually rendered into English as El, the name of a Canaanite deity generally identified with God.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Publication Date

This article states that Liber Legis was published in 1904, but there are sources naming the year 1909 as the year when the book was first published. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the article carefully. The claim is that it was written 8, 9 and 10 April 1904. He published it in 1909.p (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Trivia section?

This brief section seems to be about a religious observance among followers of the Book. No sources are cited and it seems blatantly POV. This hardly seems like "trivia" if it is true. Do religious observances related to the Book belong in this article anyway? Perhaps a separate article about Thelemic practices would be more appropriate. Smcg8374 12:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcg8374 (talk • contribs)