Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
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.
Love is the law, love under will.
//Ankh-f-n-Khonsu
93
The short statement reproduced above was received by Crowley in November, 1925 e.v. in Tunis. It is occasionally referred to as "The Short Comment," "The Tunis Comment," "The 1925 Comment." or "The Class A Comment." Crowley referred to it simply as "The Comment," as distinct from the "Commentaries." It is typically included at the end of all printed editions of The Book of the Law. These days, The Comment is sometimes regarded as a bit of irony, or an anachronism, or an example of "reverse psychology," or even a joke. But Crowley took this statement quite seriously, even if not perfectly literally. Crowley recounts his reception of The Comment in Chapter 50 of Magick Without Tears ("MWT," 1939).
"As to Part IV, The Book of the Law section, the idea was that the volume should comply with the instructions given in AL III,39: "All this and a book to say how thou didst come hither and a reproduction of this ink and paper for ever—for in it is the word secret & not only in the English—and thy comment upon this the Book of the Law shall be printed beautifully in red ink and black upon beautiful paper made by hand; and to each man and woman that thou meetest, were it but to dine or to drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds. Do this quickly!" I mistook "Comment" for "Commentary"—a word-by-word exposition of every verse (and much of it I loathed with all my heart!) including the Qabalistic interpretation, a task obviously endless.
"What then about AL III, 40? (1) This problem was solved only by achieving the task. In [Tunis],(2) in a mood of blank despair about it all, out came the Comment. Easy, yes; inspired, yes; it is, as printed, the exact wording required. No further cavilling and quibbling, and controversy and casuistry. All heresiarchs are smelt in advance for the rats they are; they are seen brewing (their very vile small beer) in the air (the realm of Intellect—Swords) and they are accordingly nipped in the bud. All Parliamentary requirements thus fulfilled according to the famous formula of the Irish M.P., we can get on to your other questions untroubled by doubt.
"One Textus Receptus, photographically guaranteed. One High Court of Interpretation, each for himself alone. No Patristic logomachies! (3) No disputed readings! No civil wars and persecutions. Anyone who wants to say anything, off with his head, and On with the Dance; let Joy be unconfined, You at the prow and Therion at the helm! Off we go."
Notes:
(1) AL III:40: "But the work of the comment? That is easy; and Hadit burning in thy heart shall make swift and secure thy pen."
(2) "Paris" appears in the text of MWT. Historical records indicate that the document was received in Tunis.
(3) 'Patristic' refers to the fathers of the Christian Church, or their historical period. A "logomachy" is a dispute over words. Crowley was probably alluding to the sort of schismatic dispute typified by the Arian Controversy.
The "famous formula of the Irish M.P." probably refers to the formula of "boycotting" an individual, first developed by Charles Stewart Parnell (1846-1891 e.v.), M.P., founder and leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, and agitator for land reform. In a speech at Ennis on September 19, 1880, Parnell declared:
“When a man takes a farm from which another had been evicted you must shun him on the roadside when you meet him, you must shun him in the streets of the town, you must shun him in the shop, you must shun him in the fairgreen and in the marketplace, and even in the place of worship, by leaving him alone, by putting him in a moral Coventry, by isolating him from the rest of his country as if he were the leper of old, you must show your detestation of the crime he has committed.”Parnell and his associates used this formula of social ostracism effectively against Capt. Charles C. Boycott ( a County Mayo land agent for an absentee landlord) during the Irish "Land War" of 1880. This incident served as the origin of the verb "to boycott." There is no doubt that Crowley was familiar with Parnell: he mentioned him by name and referred to him as Ireland's "greatest leader" in Chapter 48 of "Confessions," and Parnell's boycott appears to have served Crowley as an admirable example of the type of treatment Crowley envisioned for potential "heresiarchs."
Crowley's "mood of blank despair" preceding the reception of the Comment was likely a result of the failure of Charles Stansfeld Jones, a key participant in Crowley's plans for establishment of the Law of Thelema, followed by Crowley's break with a promising but relatively minor player, C.F. Russell, and finally by a major crisis precipitated by Crowley's close associate Norman Mudd. In all three cases, the common factor was an attempt to usurp Crowley's authority and set themselves up as competing authorities ("heresiarchs") regarding the correct interpretation of The Book of the Law. Crowley was concerned that Russel would even commit murder in the name of The Book of the Law.
It is evident that, in Crowley's mind, the reception of The Comment resolved these problems, neatly and permanently, by removing the environment within which such problems could develop and ferment. In 1926 e.v., the year following the reception of the Comment, Crowley forcefully demonstrated to Karl Germer how serious he was about the injunctions of The Comment:
"Will you please attend to the Work, and leave all speculations about The Book of the Law out of it. Haven't you read "The Comment"? You are simply heading for the same disaster that overtook Jones and Mudd; only it will be worse, because you had your eyes wide open. You idiot! You miserable driveling idiot!! Please understand once and for all that I will not tolerate any such nonsense. This is the last warning. Our relations simply come to an end at once unless you can be sensible."
-- (Oct. 6th, 1926 e.v. letter from A.C. to Germer)
Crowley justified his own position as sole interpretive authority for the Book of the Law in The Equinox of the Gods (1936 e.v.) as follows:
"I lay claim to be the sole authority competent to decide disputed points with regard to the Book of the Law, seeing as its author, Aiwaz, is none other than mine own Holy Guardian Angel, to whose knowledge and Conversation I have attained, so that I have exclusive access to him. I have duly referred every difficulty to him directly, and received his answer; my award is therefore absolute without appeal."As each of us is our own high court of interpretation on Liber AL itself, we are free to agree or disagree with Crowley; but we are, by the principles being discussed here, to remain mostly silent as to our own insights as they pertain to the Book itself.
Beyond simply confirming Crowley's interpretive authority, and thus, as Crowley believed, safeguarding against schism, The Comment may also function symbolically in a role of more general application, relating to the Four Powers of the Sphinx, and especially the Fourth. In 1939, Crowley recalled the experience of his reception of The Comment in a somewhat different light in Eight Lectures on Yoga ("Yoga for Yellowbellies," Third Lecture):
"...we must never forget that what operated the conversion of St. Paul was the Vision on the road to Damascus. It is particularly significant that he disappeared into the Desert of Arabia for three years before coming forward as the Apostle to the Gentiles. St. Paul was a learned Rabbi; he was the favourite pupil of the best expositor of the Hebrew Law, and in the single moment of his Vision all his arguments were shattered at a single stroke!It is the official policy of O.T.O. to observe the spirit of The Comment as explained by Crowley in MWT, i.e., as functioning to forestall revisionism and unnecessary disputation with respect to the Book of the Law. We circulated a policy statement in 2000 e.v. that included the following language:
"We are not told that St. Paul said anything at the time, but went quietly on his journey. That is the great lesson: not to discuss the results. Those of you who possess a copy of 'The Equinox of the Gods' may have been very much surprised at the extraordinary injunction in the Comment: the prohibition of all discussion of the Book. I myself did not fully understand that injunction; I do so now."
"O.T.O. has no policy forbidding study or [private] discussion of the Book of the Law. These matters are left, largely, to the personal judgment of the individual. However, OTO does take the official position that every man and woman has the sacred right to interpret Liber AL for him or herself with the Master Therion's various writings as guide and reference. Therefore, O.T.O. strongly recommends that any study of Liber AL be accompanied by a study of the Master Therion's various writings on Liber AL. Further, it is O.T.O.'s policy not to endorse attempts to supplant the Master Therion's writings by the publication of alternative commentaries on Liber AL. This means that OTO will not actively assist those who wish to publish such alternative commentaries, and will not sanction any implied O.T.O. endorsement of such commentaries by allowing them to be published under its aegis, such as in an official local body publication. This would include articles that are primarily intended to serve either as comprehensive alternative commentaries on Liber AL, or as attempts to promulgate novel interpretations of, or "solutions" to, various verses of Liber AL. It would not include articles that are clearly not intended to supersede the Master Therion's writings, even if they include incidental expressions of personal opinion regarding Liber AL. Appropriate disclaimers may be needed in some cases to clarify intent.Liber CCC, Khabs am Pekht, published in the Blue Equinox in 1919 e.v.--before the reception of The Comment--states the following:
"As a practical matter, O.T.O. should be an oasis where individual Thelemites can enjoy spiritual fellowship without having to take sides and defend positions in theoretical disputes over how people should interpret our holy books. Each individual has the sacred right to develop his or her own personal relationship with the Book of the Law, and to keep the intimate details of this relationship private. Those who wisely exercise this right while working to extend the influence of the Law of Thelema deserve our respect and encouragement, as they are clearly working in harmony with the express will of the Master Therion."
"Social gatherings should be held as often as is convenient, and there the Law should be read and explained."This remains an important function of O.T.O., and note that the word "explained" is used, not the word "discussed." Even so, in order to comply with the spirit of The Comment, any "explanation" of the Law at such (O.T.O.) social gatherings would, of course, need to be limited to an appeal to Crowley's writings.
There is nothing wrong with studying Crowley's evolving commentaries and writings dealing with Liber AL, such is encouraged by The Comment and was clearly the intent. But we know from experience that group discussion, especially in official contexts within a hierarchical organization, inevitably evokes the dynamic of intellectual leaders and followers, and subtle pressures to conform. O.T.O. is full of what might be considered operative paradoxes, and this is a significant one. We believe that by actively working to discourage the creation of social contexts in which individuals are expected to state their personal views on Liber AL and its meaning, we preserve their freedom.
As for the boycotting or shunning of those who do engage in "cavilling and quibbling, and controversy and casuistry" over the language of Liber AL, we also leave that largely to the personal judgment of the individual.
I'd like to thank the following individuals for their invaluable help in assembling this article:
Hymenaeus Beta
Dathan Biberstein
Kjetil Fjell
Angel Lorenz
Davy Patton
Joseph Thiebes
Off we go!
93, 93/93
Sb
