An Open Epistle On
Quirks With The Manuscript

by Frater Achad Osher 583

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. - AL I:40.

Liber AL vel Legis is a puzzling little volume. Even Aiwass realized the problems which would face humanity when trying to publish his message. This is why he ordered the original handwritten copy to be included with every edition. This way, when we mere mortals omit one thing and add in another, as we have a tendency to do, we're 'excused' for our folly. In other words, we don't have to worry about the numerous questions plaguing our feeble little minds about the differences between any given published copy to the original handwritten manuscript. We simply accept both equally and acknowledge the inherent problems between them. If we have doubts with what we're reading or require further study, we simply refer to the original handwritten manuscript.

Although the commandment telling us to include the handwritten manuscript should solve most problems, many modern editions of Liber AL vel Legis complicate the issue by not including it. Yes, I have heard the argument that although AL III:47 states the book "shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast", that it does not apply to English editions. Now I won't get into some AA leader's reasoning for claiming this because, besides being plain silly, it borders on ignorance if not laziness. However, I want to remind you, the reader, that Liber AL vel Legis does not mention any exceptions to this rule. It's very straight forward and to the point. The handwritten manuscript must be included in every edition because all tongues includes English. It doesn't say that all published editions must contain "the original in the writing of the Beast, except copies published in the English language." To state this as if it were a fact other than a twisted personal interpretation is blatantly wrong. I have already addressed elsewhere, and at length, the doctrine these same AA leader's proselytize in regards to The Tunis Comment. They're quick to tell us that we can not study or discuss the contents of Liber AL vel Legis or we'll be shunned as a "centre of pestilence." Yet, I'd like to point out that their views in regards to AL III:47 are doing exactly what they warn others not to do. So what gives them the right to comment upon or interpret a verse from Liber AL vel Legis? This type of hypocrisy runs wild in some Thelemic schools. However, common sense dictates why the handwritten manuscript was ordered included with every edition. It is to be studied.

With all this in mind I'd like to discuss just a few of the many quirks with Liber AL vel Legis. There will be no conclusions drawn, nor definitive answers given. Each section in this article is simply meant to make you think.


I'd like to begin by stating, Aiwass is an enigma. On one level he is the minister of the God known as Hoor-paar-kraat. In that capacity he acts as a messenger and descends amongst us to dictate Liber AL vel Legis to the scribe, Aleister Crowley. On another level he is Crowley's personal Holy Guardian Angel, although Crowley would not realize such until July of 1906. Understanding the role of Aiwass as an HGA presents us with a nagging question. Can another person communicate with your Holy Guardian Angel? Some scholars will tell you absolutely not. Others say it's definitely possible but warn that an unscrupulous person could, in theory, control you from afar by manipulating the entity who is supposedly there to guide you and you alone. They stipulate the only way to avoid this from happening is to carefully conceal the name of your angel. This is where we shall begin our inquiry.

In March of 1904 Aleister Crowley's wife, Rose Kelly, began communicating with an entity who directed her to tell her husband to do certain things which would inevitably lead to the dictation of Liber AL vel Legis. She tells Crowley that her informant is not Horus, or even Ra Hoor Khuit, but he is their messenger. She calls him, Aiwass. She knew the name of Crowley's angel. Knowing this it could be argued that she had the ability to evoke Aiwass which, we know for a fact, she did, at Crowley's request.

This is confusing because of what Crowley says in The Equinox of the Gods in 1936. Here he wrote that "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." (1) Exclusive access? His comment could be a defense mechanism against the possibility of Thelemites usurping him by attempting to contact Aiwass themselves. In other words, it might have been his way of avoiding a common parental problem where his children run off to ask mom the same question which he, as dad, had already said no. Equally important, if Crowley had "exclusive access" to Aiwass then how could Rose, or other mediums, communicate with him? All this may seem simplistic or easily brushed off but, it does open up a can of worms.


We know that Aleister Crowley claimed that during the dictation of Liber AL vel Legis he "failed to hear a sentence, and (later on) the Scarlet Woman, invoking Aiwass, wrote in the missing words."(2) This is merely historical information but it is problematic on several points. In the original handwritten manuscript Crowley begins writing the sentence which he could not completely hear as "The shape of my star is  " where it abruptly ends (AL I:60). Later Rose acting as a medium, according to Crowley's own admission, invokes Aiwass and scribbles in her own handwriting, "The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red." Crowley admits to hearing the beginning of the verse but he failed to hear the ending which Rose later, by his own admission, filled in. In other words, according to Crowley, the "Scarlet Woman, invoking Aiwass, simply wrote in the missing words." The key thought here is the phrase 'missing words' with no mention of it being an entirely new sentence. Nor does Crowley mention that what he had already heard was wrong. 

If Rose contributed only the missing words then possibly all published copies of Liber AL vel Legis might be wrong in that they lack the actual beginning of the sentence. I might add that Rose's words seemingly hang in the middle of this verse without it. The error began with Rose. The missing words were written in by her and she capitalized the letter 'T' in the first word 'The' as if to imply the beginning of a sentence. It is quite possible that it should not have been a capital letter. We tend to forget that she was not correcting the sentence, just filling in the missing words which Crowley failed to hear. As a purest looking at the original handwritten manuscript, one could tend to read "The shape of my star is the Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red." One can only wonder if Aleister Crowley mistakenly edited this verse without realizing it, simply because Rose capitalized the first word which she wrote. The bottom line is that although he implies he could not hear the 'missing words' it is obvious in the handwritten manuscript 'that he heard something' because he jots down, "The shape of my star is." This definitely is the beginning of a sentence. Of course, all this is debatable which simply implies, I've made my point. This article's goal is to ask questions that force you to study the handwritten manuscript very carefully. Do not accept the fact that typed or printed copies are exact duplicates of the original manuscript.

Furthermore, in reflecting upon this verse (AL I:60) there is another slight problem. If we are to consider The Book of the Law as a sacred manuscript then Chapter Three, verse 47 clearly states, without mentioning any exception, that "This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine." The problem here is that Crowley's original handwritten 'beginning' to this verse with its "chance shape of the letters and their position to one another", should contain some 'mysteries.' In other words, should we be omitting any of Crowley's writings put down in the actual manuscript? A purest would say absolutely not. A similar problem occurs with AL III:72 where Crowley "got a phrase indistinctly, and she (i.e. Rose) put it in." (3)

Finally, and most perplexing, is that I'd like to remind the reader that AL III:47 states "This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast." The key word here is the 'Beast.' Rose is not a Beast. More properly, she is a Scarlet Woman. Because of such, are there any mysteries contained in what she scribbled in the manuscript in her own handwriting? These are simple questions, but there are no easy, or logical solutions.


We must move on to another verse from Liber AL vel Legis in order to ask further questions. For example, note verse 26 in Chapter One. "Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one: Who am I, and what shall be the sign? So she answered him, bending down, a lambent flame of blue, all-touching, all penetrant, her lovely hands upon the black earth, & her lithe body arched for love, and her soft feet not hurting the little flowers: Thou knowest!  And the sign shall be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the omnipresence of my body." The last lines of this verse were added in by Crowley to replace the original phrase "the unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality." At the time Crowley wrote the original line he tells us that he questioned in his mind, "People will never be able to understand this." (4) To which Aiwass replied, "Write this in whiter words. But go forth on." Crowley then (or a little later) scribbles over what he originally wrote & replaces it with the last five words presently used in all published versions.

Besides pointing out that Crowley was obviously in a conscious state when he received Liber AL vel Legis and not in a deep trance state, this verse also points out another question regarding Crowley's higher genius. Can the 'conscious mind' of an individual from one plane question his 'higher genius' of another as if both were separate entities? Some authorities will tell you absolutely not. For an individual to channel anything from within, his conscious mind must shut down while the higher genius manifests. The only, and I stress, only exception to this rule is said to be if an individual is talking to an independent entity.

Regardless of what you believe about the above, there is a third problem with this verse which I'd like to discuss. This is the comment which Aiwass makes, or "Write this in whiter words. But go forth on." This is actually written in the handwritten manuscript, along with "done later as above" scribbled by Crowley. Again I wish to remind the reader of the commandment in AL III:47. This clearly implies that everything written in the manuscript by the Beast with its "chance shape of the letters and their position to one another" contains real "mysteries." It does not give exceptions to this rule. A purest could argue that the original comment made by Aiwass and the comment to Crowley about whiter words should be included in all published versions of the proper text of the manuscript, in addition to Crowley's 'conscious interpretation' which he later added.


Also, let's reflect upon this:

"Above, the gemm`ed azure is
The naked splendour of Nuit;
She bends in ecstasy to kiss
The secret ardours of Hadit.
The wing`ed globe, the starry blue,
Are mine, O Ankh-af-na-khonsu!"

The problem with this fourteenth verse from Chapter One is that it is not found at all in the original handwritten manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis! Crowley clearly writes in The Equinox of The Gods that "Verse 14 is from the Stele. It seems to have been written in by me as a kind of appreciation of what she had just said." (5) Since it is not found in the original handwriting of the Beast and is not in the actual manuscript, does it contain any mysteries or is it merely "a kind of appreciation" as Crowley claims?

And consider this verse in Chapter Three.

37.I adore thee in the song __
I am the Lord of Thebes, and I
The inspired forth-speaker of Mentu;
For me unveils the veil`ed sky,
The self-slain Ankh-af-na-khonsu
Whose words are truth.  I invoke, I greet
Thy presence, O Ra-Hoor-Khuit!
Unity uttermost showed!
I adore the might of Thy breath,
Supreme and terrible God,
     Who makest the gods and death
To tremble before Thee: __
     I, I adore thee!
Appear on the throne of Ra!
     Open the ways of the Khu!
Lighten the ways of the Ka!
     The ways of the Khabs run through
To stir me or still me!
   Aum!  let it fill me!

The original manuscript only has "I am the Lord of Thebes" followed by a note scribbled by Crowley stating that the rest is, "from vellum book." He then writes underneath this comment the last two words of this verse, or "fill me", as if to imply, that there no need to write the entire thing in now, I'll fill it in later, which he never does. However, he does put it in all the published editions of Liber AL vel Legis. This creates the same problems as previously mentioned with the other verse. Since what is added into verse 37 is not found at all in the original handwritten manuscript, does verse III:47 tell us that there are no "mysteries" contained therein?

The same argument pertains to Verse 38 in Chapter Three.

"So that thy light is in me; & its red flame is as a sword
       in my hand to push thy order.  There is a secret door
that I shall make to establish thy way in all the quarters,
(these are the adorations, as thou hast written), as it is said:

The light is mine; its rays consume
   Me: I have made a secret door
Into the House of Ra and Tum,
   Of Khephra and of Ahathoor.
I am thy Theban, O Mentu,
   The prophet Ankh-af-na-khonsu!
By Bes-na-Maut my breast I beat;
   By wise Ta-Nech I weave my spell.
Show thy star-splendour, O Nuit!
   Bid me within thine House to dwell,
O wing`ed snake of light, Hadit!
   Abide with me, Ra-Hoor-Khuit!"

The above, beginning with the line "its rays consume" all the way to "Abide with me, Ra-Hoor-Khuit!" is also not found in the original handwritten manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis. Crowley scribbles at the bottom of the page "from vellum book to Ra-Hoor-Khuit" again, as if to imply that there no need to write it in right then and that he'll fill it in later. Which he does, but only in the typed copy.

There are many questions regarding the intent behind the wording found in verse AL III:47. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers, just contradictions between what Crowley writes, what the book implies and what scholars have come to consider dogma. Each individual must determine its importance for themselves and what they believe. The bottom line is, that as a Thelemite, you should at least question everything. Do not sit idly by and simply take everything for granted or let other people think for you.


Another, totally different, kind of question presents itself when examining AL III:41; "Establish at thy Kaaba a clerk-house: all must be done well and with business way." In the handwritten manuscript the original word is 'clerkship', with no hyphen. However, the word 'ship' is crossed out and then " house" is scribbled above, as we see it today in all published versions. Although Crowley gives many explanations for the errors and scribbled rewrites in the handwritten manuscript, he says absolutely nothing about this verse as to why, when or what prompted the change. We have no clue as to which word Aiwass really said. We don't even know when the word was changed which is very important. If it was changed immediately it could simply reflect that Crowley was correcting his own faulty, if not over zealous, handwriting in relationship to what he was really hearing. On the other hand if it was changed later, it shows a conscious interference which The Book of the Law warns him not to do. I tend to think that it's something Crowley corrected as he was receiving the manuscript or at least the handwriting regarding both words reflects this due to similarity in style. Furthermore, if you look at the handwritten manuscript you'll notice just after the word 'Kaaba' Crowley begins writing a word but scribbles it out. This implies that he was having some difficulty in receiving this verse.

Still, the over-all question to ask is whether or not the difference in terms between 'clerkship' and 'clerk-house' really matters. We know that Crowley wrote in Khabs Am Pekht that this verse "is a very clear instruction indeed. There is to be a modern centralized business organization at the Kaaba." (6) Crowley automatically assumes clerk-house refers to a modern centralized business, but is he right? He's been wrong before with his analysis of different verses and admits such freely. To obtain a better grasp of this verse we need to analyze the root word 'clerk.' It is derived from the Latin, cleric, which is defined as a church-man or clergy, either a man or woman of book-learning, hence a scholar. It is only in modern times that the term has been reduced to mean anyone who works in an office or business. Is the latter what Liber AL is implying, or did Crowley simply assume such because the rest of verse said that 'all must be done well and with business way?' One of the main questions for an individual to decide is whether or not in modern times we still use the term 'clerk-house' to imply a business or office, or was the term used like in ancient times to reflect the place where clergy worked? Obviously it's the latter. So what does this tell us?

By mentioning clerkship it could be implying either religion or business because the word simply means, in both cases, the position or function of a clerk. Frater Achad (Charles Stansfeld Jones) had an interesting take on this verse. In an unpublished letter dated May 24th of 1948 he writes, "Last night I was thinking of that change in Liber Legis from 'clerk-ship' to 'clerk-house' made by A.C. in manuscript. ... I thought to myself: Just for fun let's add up the letters of 'clerkship' (by Heb.) and see what results. I did so mentally and noted it on cigarette package, then checked again, after looking up Sepher Sephiroth --- 430 --- with figures on package. 430 did not seem very suitable --- yet the idea persisted. I said to myself: if this hunch is correct there should be a real clear reference to Saturn -- then we'd really have something. So I took up my pencil and tried again; this time correctly using 300 for the 'sh' in clerkship. The result: 20 plus 30 plus 5 plus 200 plus 20 plus 300 plus 10 plus 80 = 665. But Liber Legis clearly says : a clerkship. Therefore: 666." (7) What Frater Achad is implying is to take the value of 'a' which is 1 (aleph) and add it 665 giving you 666. Of course the full implications of Achad's remarks, which I didn't quote are rather intricate and, dare I say, typical Achadian sky-piloting. Still, none-the-less, the above comment is amusing in that it could be taken to imply that we are to establish at thy Kaaba, or center, a clerkship or faith around Aleister Crowley the Great Beast 666. Anyway, as far as I see it, taking the two possibilities of 'clerk-house' or 'clerkship' with the fact that 'all must be done well and with business way' is solely an individual's perspective about whether it implies seeking money or religion. I'll leave the reader to muse over the possibilities.

The word 'clerkship' is not the only word Crowley obscured without an explanation. I'd like the reader to note that there was a change in Chapter I:30 which refers to "the pain of division." This is another of those quirks where Crowley crosses out the original word in the manuscript and scribbles another word just above it, in this case "division." What makes this verse even more controversial is that Crowley again fails to mention why he did this or what he scribbled out. In this case the original word is extremely difficult to read and scholars have strained their eyes trying to figure out what it was for years. I have seen a few different interpretations but all have made the wrong assumption. To clear up this confusion you must look under a magnifying glass at the word "division" and then look directly below at the crossed out word. You'll realize both begin with the letter 'd' and end with the same 'n' in Crowley's handwriting. The second and third letters are clearly 'i & s' but the rest is open for interpretation. The actual word is mentioned in another letter by Frater Achad dated March 27th 1948. Here he states, "A.C. changed 'disunion' to 'division', it originally read: pain of disunion, as you can see for yourself." (8) He is, of course, correct. If you need further proof as to the original word being 'disunion' then note that the word 'union' is mentioned only once in Liber AL. Luckily it's in the verse just before this one, or in I:29. This makes it convenient to examine Crowley's handwriting under a magnifying glass in relationship to the scribbled out word. You'll notice they're almost identical, except for what looks like a 't' in the scribbled out word. Ironically that's a Crowley 'u' or v' as he usually draws it when dotting an 'i', if such is the letter before it.

What am I trying to imply by mentioning these two changes? I guess at this point we can only speculate as which of these two words are correct. Of course others will argue that we must follow our Prophet's decision and therefore all published versions are correct. I tend to agree but still recommend studying the original handwritten manuscript in order to come to this conclusion yourself. That is the whole purpose of this Epistle. We want you to realize that you shouldn't blindly accept that all published editions of Liber AL vel Legis are 'exactly' as Crowley received them. They are not. If, according to Aiwass we must accept the handwritten manuscript as being so Sacred & Holy that all published versions, in every language, must contain "the original in the writing of the Beast", then we must also accept that EVERYTHING in that manuscript contains mysteries, including its flaws and quirks and even the scribbled out words. Contrary to what some might like you to believe, nowhere in The Book of the Law does it mention any exceptions to this rule. In fact it implies quite the contrary. Every flaw is important because it's in the handwriting of the Beast!


I'd like to briefly discuss another verse which is found in Chapter One. "Invoke me under my stars!  Love is the law, love under will.  Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well!  He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God. All these old letters of my Book are aright; but (Tzaddi) is not the Star. This also is secret: my prophet shall reveal it to the wise." (AL I:57) More interpretations appear in regards to this verse than any other in the entire book and I'd like to add to pile. The mystery of Tzaddi befuddles us all and many have sought a deeper meaning, although maybe such is not necessary. The verse clearly states 'all these old letters of my Book are aright.' So why does Crowley switch He & Tzaddi when, according to the verse itself, they are all aright? Yes, there is a logic as to why the switch is necessary and justifiable on some levels but it must be remembered that this verse doesn't state 'all these old letters of my Book, except He & Tzaddi,' it states 'ALL' the letters which includes He & Tzaddi. Obviously there must be a deeper mystery herein which has yet to be revealed. Yes, I'm a pain-in-the-ass purest! However, let me throw my two cents in and state that I've often wondered if Tzaddi is not like other letters in different alphabets which have fallen by the Aeonic wayside. In other words, we know the overall Spirit of Humanity goes through its own growth and, in doing such, possibly it no longer requires this particular vibration. This would imply that 'Tzaddi is not the Star' because it is the only old Aeonic letter of the 22 major Thoth cards not found in our English alphabet. Coincidence? In other words, maybe it has no meaning in this Aeon where English Qabalah shall emerge. If this is true then the question one needs to ask is, if 'Tzaddi is not the Star' then what English letter will now represent the Star?


The Book of the Law is very specific about English Qabalah, stating, "Thou shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet; thou shalt find new symbols to attribute them unto." (AL II:55) Of course Aleister Crowley interpreted the command "Thou shalt" to literally imply that he was to obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet himself. In his first Commentary to Liber AL Crowley simply writes that this is "Done." (9) He then refers to Liber Trigrammaton, sub figura XXVII which was written on December 14, 1907. Yet in his diaries on June 17, 1923 he obviously had second thoughts about his earlier attempt and reflects upon other possibilities by writing: "II,55 says nothing of the letters of the English Alphabet. Its 'order' might be in relation with reality, e.g. its 'value' may be in the possibility of using its onomatopoeic energies in invocation, etc, e.g. to construct a spell in which sibilants predominate to call forth the silent swift & venomous vibrations of the Serpent Force, the 'new symbols' are evidently the moral idea necessarily correlative with the vocal organs, e.g. the idea of continuous vibration expressed by None actually feels this when one sounds a continued Nreferable to the Serpent as one who moves by this means." (10) He dictated his ideas to Norman Mudd who wrote them down in a short piece entitled the Order and Value of the English Alphabet. Still, he was not satisfied with this new attempt. Years later, when he wrote the lengthier commentary to Liber AL entitled An Extenuation to the Book of the Law, he elaborates upon his earlier comment by stating: "The attributes in Liber Trigrammaton is good theoretically; but no Qabalah of merit has arisen therefrom. I am inclined to look further into the question of Sanskrit Roots, and into the Enochian Records, in order to put this matter in more polished shape." (11) Unfortunately there are no surviving records which show that he ever attempted such. Ten years later, with the publication of The Equinox of The Gods in 1936, Crowley still believed it was up to him to solve this problem because he writes that "Verse 55 instructs me to obtain the English Qabalah; it made me incredulous, as the task seemed an impossible one." (12) Then toward the end of his life, when he began writing Aleister Explains Everything (a title later changed to Magick Without Tears), he came to a final realization of this 'impossible task', writing: "The Book of the Law itself insists upon the fact that it contains a Qabalah which was beyond me at the time of its dictation, is beyond me now, and always will be beyond me in this incarnation." (13) Still, no English Qabalah of merit has publicly emerged, although many 'codes' have appeared over the years which represent different individual's perceptions of Aeonic Truth. Unfortunately, like the FOOL of the Tarot, the authors of these codes climbed their mountain, saw their Star and want to scream to the masses its mathematical Laws which govern their Universe, thinking that what they've found is the same for all Universes. Ah, yes, the folly of Frater Achad continues on.

Of course, dare I point out another quirk? We know that Crowley originally interpreted the command "Thou shalt" to literally imply that he was to obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet. However, he later admitted that the book "contains a Qabalah which was beyond me at the time of its dictation, is beyond me now, and always will be beyond me in this incarnation." So what does this imply? Obviously if one commandments in Liber AL vel Legis stating "Thou shalt", which Crowley took as a personal reference to something he was suppose to do, turns out not to be the case, then why should we consider any "Thou shalt" to imply him? In other words, does 'thou shalt' simply refer to each and every individual who reads the book similar to such commandments as "Thou shalt" which are found in the Holy Bible?


There is something else I'd like to briefly mention. I have deliberately avoided discussing the Qabalistic code which is found in Chapter II:76 only because it automatically opens up a can-of-worms. Everybody has a solution and everybody can't be correct. Still, there is one point I'd like to make. Did Aiwass tell Crowley to put the ligatures above and below the letters 24 & 89? If not, then is this another example like the grid, of a conscious act by Crowley to the point of 'interfering' with the original manuscript as dictated by Aiwass.


And what about those verse numbers in Chapter One? Where are they on the original handwritten manuscript? Also, what about the page numbers in the upper right corner of the original manuscript? Are these all that important and if so, every typed or published copy to date have simply ignored them. Speaking of numbers, there is one interpretation regarding the code found in II:76 which we must consider. Remember, the original handwritten edition is critical because "in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine." Yet it does not say in the chance shape of the letters and numbers to one another. Are we then to consider all the numbers to be irrelevant unless they are written out in full? This logic would seemingly exclude the number '4' found in II:49, '11' in I:60, '418' in II:78 and '718' in III:19 from containing any real mysteries. Ah, so many questions, with no easy answer.


We have knowingly discussed only the most obvious quirks with Liber AL vel Legis. In fact, one person joked, "You're only telling them the tip of the iceberg." This is true. If we were to publish all the debatable issues, as we see them, then this epistle would be four or possibly five times the length. I did not wish to spoon feed the reader everything. I would much rather have the reader discover for themselves some of the other mysteries. All in all, although there are many, many more quirks which can be pulled from my private writings or Commentary on Liber AL vel Legis, I think it wise to simply say that I've achieved what I set out to do. If you've disagreed with some of my remarks that's perfectly OK. I was never trying to win converts and, in some cases, I was simply playing the Devil's Advocate (no pun intended). In other words, by reading this article I have forced you to debate and study The Book of the Law indirectly. Thus, you've become like mea centre of pestilenceso smile!

Love is the law, love under will. - AL I:57

1. Aleister Crowley, The Equinox of the Gods (London: Privately printed by the OTO
1936), p.127.
2. Ibid., p.119.
3. Ibid.
4. Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law, Edited by John
Symonds & Kenneth Grant (Canada: 93 Publishing 1974), p.111.
5. The Equinox of the Gods, p.120.
6. Aleister Crowley, Khabs Am Pekht, The 'Blue' Equinox Vol.III No.1 (NY: Samuel
Weiser, Inc. 1973), p.178.
7. Unpublished letter by Frater Achad (C.S.Jones) to Yorke & Handel dated May 24,
1948, p.2.
8. Unpublished letter by Frater Achad (C.S.Jones) to Yorke & Handel dated March
27th, 1948, p.2.
9. Aleister Crowley, The Equinox Vol.I No.7 (NY: Samuel Weiser, Inc. 1978), p.397.
10. Aleister Crowley, The Magical Diaries of (England: Neville Spearman 1979), p.70.
11. Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law, p.218.
12. The Equinox of the Gods, p.123.
13. Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears (MN: Llewellyn Publications 1973) p.49.

This article was originally published in
Red Flame, A Thelemic Research Journal, No.8 Liber AL vel Legis.

Copyright (C) Cornelius 2006

Return to Contents Page

93 93/93