"Khabs" & "Khu" in Stele 666 and Lib
-
Hello, and Happy Holidays.
It came to my attention a few weeks ago, while flipping through Appendix A of The Holy Books of Thelema, that there were some interesting differences between Crowley's poetic paraphrase of the Stele of Revealing and all other translations of the heiroglyphs listed in that book. It didn't really strike me before as important that Crowley, in his paraphrase, uses the word "khabs", when the word on the Stele is actually "Khab" (no 'S')- I just figured they must be the same thing. However, they are not.
@Stele Inscriptions/rough translation said
Ar uaut n ba, n khu (akh), n khab (shwt).
(general rendering: "Open the way for my Ba, for my Khu (akh), for my khab (shwt).")
(Crowley's rendering: "Open the ways of the Khu! Lighten the ways of the Ka! The ways of the Khabs runs through, To stir me or to still me!")
Now, it is known that Crowley's Stele Paraphrase was written before his reception of Liber L. It seems reasonable that in writing his paraphrase, he chose to use the word "Khabs" for the following reasons:
A) He was no expert on egyptology and did not know there was really a difference between "khab" and "khabs", and
B) He'd had prior familiarity with the word "Khabs", as stated in Stephen Cranmer's post, Origins of "Khabs am Pekht".E.A. Wallis Budge was a popular researcher of the Egyptian language during Crowley's time, and as far as I can tell, the Golden Dawn's and Crowley's rendering of "khabs" as "Star" or "Light", came from Budge's English-Coptic dictionary, which has several listings for Coptic words pronounced "Khabs"- to shine like a star; a star/luminary; lamp or light; the pavilion of a ship; a kind of goose; a long beard.
None of those coptic words, however, are symbolized by the hieroglyph of a fan or shade, which is the hieroglyph we see on the Stele of Revealing denoting the word "Khab" as seen in context above. "Khab", the word on the Stele, is in fact defined very differently than "Khabs". After searching as wide a variety of sources on the internet as I could find, I learned that the Khab (also pronounced "Khaibit" or "Shwt") is, along with Ba and Khu (also pronounced "Akhu", "Ikhu", or "Akh"), is the aspect of the manifold Egyptian soul which is commonly called the Shadow or Shade. Some occultists seem to refer to this Shadow as the "astral body", but I don't think the Egyptians thought about it in those terms. One similarity with the astral body is that statues and images of a person/god were sometimes called their Shadow, but for the most part, statues and images, being magical expressions or manifestations of one's essentialness, spirit, or individual energy, were said to be or to house the person/god's Ka and Ba. Appropriately, the Shadow is intimately connected with the Ka (the breath of life and spiritual doppelganger) and the Ba (the immortal 'essentialness' or 'soul'), and leaves the body with those two aspects after death. Most significantly, I think, is the fact that this Shadow seems to have been seen as a protective element, as it offered respite from the mighty light of the sun. An example of this aspect can be seen on the Stela found between the sphinx's paws, wherein Tutmosis IV, rested from the sun in the "Khab" (Shadow) of the Sphinx and had a dream wherein he was granted Kingship.
I think it can safely be said that this is not what Crowley had in mind when he spoke of the "khabs". He most assuredly meant "Star". This being the case, I think it can be accurately said that
- Crowley's Stele Paraphrase, though great on its own terms, is not an accurate translation of that part of the "Stele of Revealing", and
- The "Khabs" as mentioned in Liber AL, ch. I v. 8&9, ch. II v. 2, and Ch. III v. 37 (though I don't think this counts because Crowley's Paraphrase is not Class A, and not dictated from Aiwass, am I right?) are not referring to the word "Khab" found on the Stele of Revealing, as many people seem to think.
Another interesting thing I discovered when searching for the definitions of these Egyptian terms found on the Stele, was Crowley's definition of "Khu" as found in The Law is For All seems to be quite off from almost every single definition I could find on that particular aspect of the Egyptian soul.
@Crowley said
This 'star' or 'Inmost Light' is the original, individual, eternal essence. The Khu is the magical garment which it weaves for itself, a 'form' for its Being Beyond Form, by use of which it can gain experience through self-consciousness, as explained in the note to verses 2 and 3. This Khu is the first veil, far subtler than mind or body, and truer; for its symbolic shape depends on the nature of its Star.
In contrast (maybe?), every single definition of Khu ("Akhu", "Ikhu", "Akh" Akhti" compaired to the older "Ra-Hoor-Khuit"- yes it is the same character, refer to the Stele]), calls it the "spirit", or "bright/shining/brilliant one". The hieroglyph for Khu is a Crested Ibis. The "brilliance/radiance" of the Khu seems to be synonymous, according to a few sources with "effectiveness". One can be said to have varying levels of Khu, or one can BE a Khu, presumably upon attainment. In fact, it is the duty of the Ba and Ka, two separate soul-aspects which leave the body upon death, to unite together, creating the Khu, the immortal, radiant "oversoul", which then inhabits the Sahu (the immortal "spirit-body"), and thus equipped, ascends to live amongst the stars with the gods. This sheds some light, if you will, on a verse in the Stele:
@Stele Inscriptions/rough translation said
Ar wawt n ba, n khu (akh), n khab (shwt).
Aw eprkwa, wbn am epr.(general rendering: "Open the way for my Ba, for my Khu (akh), for my khab (shwt).
I am armed/equipped, that I may shine forth as an armed/equipped one")(Crowley's rendering: *"Open the ways of the Khu!
Lighten the ways of the Ka!
The ways of the Khabs runs through,
To stir me or to still me!
Aum! let it fill me!The light is mine, it's rays consume
me:...etc"*)This definition of Khu which seem contrary to Crowley's does seem to add some strange twists on a few things:
First of all, if Crowley were correct in believing that Liber L's "Khu" is merely the magical garment/veil/form, then what does that say about the name of Ra-Hoor-Khuit?
Second, "The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs" might take on a very different meaning if "Khu" is more of a radiant, immortal essential effectiveness than merely a temporary veil as Crowley suggests. Another issue: this historical definition of "khu" sounds awfully like a definition of a "star". But if Khabs is the "Star", then what exactly IS this "Star" which we're supposed to be worshiping and which is Hadit's house? OOH so confusing!
It is possible, however, that just as Crowley/AL's "Khabs" is different from the similar word found on the stele, Crowley/AL's "Khu" might also be an entirely different word from that found on the stele. Just to make sure, I looked up "Khu" in E.A. Wallis Budge's dictionary, which gives the following various listings for words pronounced "Khu": evening/night; up high; steppes/terraces; to make an exception; cattle for sacrifice; fish; dirtiness/nastiness; to dress; vases/pots.
So, for finality, according to these renderings, I offer a few possible alternative translations of Ch I v 8:
-The beard is in the nasty, not the nasty in the beard.
-The goose is in the fish, not the fish in the goose.
-The ship's pavilion is in the sacrificial cattle, not the sacrificial cattle in the ship's pavilion.
Anyway, I guess I should cite my sources so you folks can look this shit up yourself if you're interested:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_soul
www.touregypt.net/featurestories/soul.htm
www.kheper.net/topics/Egypt/egyptian_soul.htm
www.egyptiandreams.co.uk/egyptian-soul.ph
erendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web1/asinger.html
Also, Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary by E. A. Wallis Budge,
Western Lands by William S. Burroughs,
The Holy Books of Thelema.Any thoughts, objections, or expletives on this subject?
-
Interesting post!
@saintbryan said
"After searching as wide a variety of sources on the internet as I could find, I learned that the Khab (also pronounced "Khaibit" or "Shwt") is, along with Ba and Khu (also pronounced "Akhu", "Ikhu", or "Akh"), is the aspect of the manifold Egyptian soul which is commonly called the Shadow or Shade."
I've got about a half-page of notes on this that I've been meaning to write up into something coherent...
In short, I think a fruitful interpretation of "the Khabs is in the Khu" can be something like "the NOX is in the LVX." In other words, at the culmination of the Adept's full identification with the Whole Self (the HGA, Star, or the akh/khu or "shining one") is the ultimate realization that this Star is surrounded by the perpetual night of Nuit (symbolized by the khabs/shwt or shadow), or Nothingness. Frater Achad seemed to hint at such imagery in his essay "Stepping out of the old aeon and into the new" (Equinox III:1).
Of course, this goes against accepted Thelemic practice of interpreting the Khabs as the Star-like symbol of the HGA and the Khu as the conscious ego (which is only a tiny fraction of the Whole Self). Symbols are fluid things, though -- I don't think it needs to be one or the other.
"I think, is the fact that this Shadow seems to have been seen as a protective element, as it offered respite from the mighty light of the sun."
Hence the image of the fan or shade. Indeed, isn't there ultimate Rest once one crosses into the City of the Pyramids?
"("Akhu", "Ikhu", "Akh" [as in the modern "Ra-Hoor-Akhti" compaired to the older "Ra-Hoor-Khuit"- yes it is the same character, refer to the Stele]),"
Cool. This was new to me, despite my having looked up the hieroglyphs for RHK a few months ago. The Akhte/Khuit part is often given as a determinative (which is an image of the horizon) and not spelled out in full. The fuller phonetic spelling in the Stele is unusual, but extremely conclusive!
"First of all, if Crowley were correct in believing that Liber L's "Khu" is merely the magical garment/veil/form, then what does that say about the name of Ra-Hoor-Khuit?"
Red emphasis added above. I suggest that any time a Thelemite is tempted to use the words "correct" and "belief" in the same sentence, some serious alarm bells should go off...
Anyway, I've got to go read me some Chapter 1... before it's not the 8th any more...
Steve
-
@saintbryan said
"It came to my attention a few weeks ago, while flipping through Appendix A of The Holy Books of Thelema, that there were some interesting differences between Crowley's poetic paraphrase of the Stele of Revealing and all other translations of the heiroglyphs listed in that book."
That's why it's called a paraphrase
"This being the case, I think it can be accurately said that
- Crowley's Stele Paraphrase, though great on its own terms, is not an accurate translation of that part of the "Stele of Revealing", "
No. But it is what Aiwass told him to insert into the Book.
I struggled with this when I did my first large analysis ab=nd meditation cycle on the verses of CCXX many years ago. I came into the analysis thinking it was, of course, best to find out what these verses actually meant and use that as my guide. But I came away with a very different opinion. Aiwass' instructions were to insert the verses Crowley had written in the prior days. These, therefore, have the same force and requirement of invariability of any other passage of Liber L. From the point of view of CCXX, it doesn't matter at all what was on the stele - it matters what Crowley wrote based on it 104 years ago last week.
BTW, I find your discussion terribly interseting. I just don't think it has anything to do with anything in Liber L.
"Crowley's Paraphrase is not Class A, and not dictated from Aiwass, am I right?"
I take them as a subset of a Class A document because they are the explicit text he was instructed to insert. As you pointed out, Crowley's understanding of these terms is quite a bit different from the likely historic meaning.
But maybe that's one of the points being made. Ours is not, for example, the religion of ancient Egypt. It might be egyptoid but it certianly isn't egyptian. It's a 20th Century original that inherits some style and particulars from a defunct old religion of the area where Crowley was situated at the time of the dictation.
"First of all, if Crowley were correct in believing that Liber L's "Khu" is merely the magical garment/veil/form, then what does that say about the name of Ra-Hoor-Khuit?"
It says that He is a deity specifically in human form. (I mean His essential nature, not so much his image.) Ra-Hoor-Khu-it is the solar-phallic-self-god. He is the visible object of worship because He has a form compatible with the formative (Yetziratic) aspect of the human psyche.
BTW, Crowley's understanding of these terms almost certainly came from Florence Farr, probably through her book on Egyptian magick. (She was his original G.D. Praemonstrator and IIRC the Hierophant at his initiation.)
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"In short, I think a fruitful interpretation of "the Khabs is in the Khu" can be something like "the NOX is in the LVX." In other words, at the culmination of the Adept's full identification with the Whole Self (the HGA, Star, or the akh/khu or "shining one") is the ultimate realization that this Star is surrounded by the perpetual night of Nuit (symbolized by the khabs/shwt or shadow), or Nothingness."
Aiwass, however, reveals that the "khabs is in the khu", not the "khab is in the khu". Note that "khabs" and "khab" are different things. Though it may be possible that the similarity of the words is intentional. A play on words perhaps.
@Steven Cranmer said
"
"First of all, if Crowley were correct in believing that Liber L's "Khu" is merely the magical garment/veil/form, then what does that say about the name of Ra-Hoor-Khuit?"Red emphasis added above. I suggest that any time a Thelemite is tempted to use the words "correct" and "belief" in the same sentence, some serious alarm bells should go off...
"DOH- ya caught me being UnThelemic! I guess I should try harder.
@Jim Eshelman said
"ab=nd meditation cycle"
Unfamiliar with this term. What is this?
@Jim Eshelman said
"I struggled with this when I did my first large analysis ab=nd meditation cycle on the verses of CCXX many years ago. I came into the analysis thinking it was, of course, best to find out what these verses actually meant and use that as my guide. But I came away with a very different opinion. Aiwass' instructions were to insert the verses Crowley had written in the prior days. These, therefore, have the same force and requirement of invariability of any other passage of Liber L. From the point of view of CCXX, it doesn't matter at all what was on the stele - it matters what Crowley wrote based on it 104 years ago last week... As you pointed out, Crowley's understanding of these terms is quite a bit different from the likely historic meaning. But maybe that's one of the points being made. Ours is not, for example, the religion of ancient Egypt. It might be egyptoid but it certianly isn't egyptian. It's a 20th Century original that inherits some style and particulars from a defunct old religion of the area where Crowley was situated at the time of the dictation."
Hmm. You're right. The case of AL's "Khabs & Khu" being entirely different from the Stele's "khab & khu" is the same as the case of AL's "Hadit" being entirely different from the Stele's "Behedite". With Aiwass supposedly being Crowley's HGA, it would make sense that He would speak Crowley's language... sort of. There's obviously a lot in AL that Mr. Beast didn't understand though. If Crowley is capable of misunderstanding AL, then how can we trust his commentary on it? Might the entirety of The Law is for All be a "center of pestilence"?
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"First of all, if Crowley were correct in believing that Liber L's "Khu" is merely the magical garment/veil/form, then what does that say about the name of Ra-Hoor-Khuit?"It says that He is a deity specifically in human form. (I mean His essential nature, not so much his image.) Ra-Hoor-Khu-it is the solar-phallic-self-god. He is the **visible **object of worship because He has a **form **compatible with the formative (Yetziratic) aspect of the human psyche."
Hmmmm! iinnnteresting interpretation there! Here's something I've not considered. You've just given me something quite juicy to chew on. Thanks for your reply, Jim. I think noticing the "Khu" in His name is perhaps the most ripe thing I've discovered in this research.
-
@saintbryan said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"ab=nd meditation cycle"Unfamiliar with this term. What is this?"
It's kinda complicated. It's a specific example of a broad category called typographical error and, in this instance, masking the phrase "and meditation cycle" <vbg>.
"There's obviously a lot in AL that Mr. Beast didn't understand though. If Crowley is capable of misunderstanding AL, then how can we trust his commentary on it? Might the entirety of The Law is for All be a "center of pestilence"? "
He was ordered to comment on it by the same book that admitted that he wouldn't understand it all.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,
@saintbryan said
"There's obviously a lot in AL that Mr. Beast didn't understand though. If Crowley is capable of misunderstanding AL, then how can we trust his commentary on it?"
IMAGE DELETED BY MODERATOR - OVERLY LARGE AND DISTORED DISPLAY OF FORUM - HERE IS THE LINK TO IT. - JAE
i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg179/AC666AC/believebuddha.jpgSorry, Jim. How 'bout a small one?
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg179/AC666AC/believebuddhasmall.jpg -
@saintbryan said
"
@Steven Cranmer said
"In short, I think a fruitful interpretation of "the Khabs is in the Khu" can be something like "the NOX is in the LVX.""
Aiwass, however, reveals that the "khabs is in the khu", not the "khab is in the khu". Note that "khabs" and "khab" are different things. Though it may be possible that the similarity of the words is intentional."I agree that the "Khabs/Light" from the GD's Neophyte ritual doesn't have the same origin as the "khab/khabit/shadow" from the Stele. The GD's "Khabs am Pekht" is likely to even be completely bogus from an ancient Egyptian standpoint. (I don't know if Budge's Coptic dictionary should be trusted either...) Thus, I don't know how useful it is to consider the two words Khabs and Khab "in parallel" as two different Egyptian concepts.
To Crowley, they were the same thing. I think that should probably carry some weight, too, if Liber AL exegesis is what we're after. It was all filtered through his brain, whether you believe it was dictation, automatic writing, or a scam.
I like Jim's neologism "Egyptoid" for Thelema's appropriation of the Egyptian names and images. Hadit ain't Horus the Behedite, as you said. Heck, I don't think that Nuit is even Nut!
"
@Steven Cranmer said
"I suggest that any time a Thelemite is tempted to use the words "correct" and "belief" in the same sentence, some serious alarm bells should go off..."DOH- ya caught me being UnThelemic! I guess I should try harder."
You know, I'd also ring alarm bells in my own head if I ever started referring to people as un-Thelemic! Sorry if that attempt to be anti-preachy was itself preachy!
"If Crowley is capable of misunderstanding AL, then how can we trust his commentary on it? Might the entirety of The Law is for All be a "center of pestilence"?"
I love this as jiu-jitsu to use againt Tunis Literalists!
After all, there's not supposed to be an exact equality between Aleister Crowley (who's commenting there) and Ankh-f-n-Khonsu (who wrote the Tunis Comment)!Seriously, though -- just speaking for myself: I probably give Crowley's commentaries more weight than those of others, most of the time. However: (1) the comments of others can be extremely useful, and (2) I don't think I'm ever going to "trust" Crowley's words to the point of not filtering them through some kind of BS filter....
Steve
-
93,
In regards to Crowley's commentaries, I remember reading in his Confessions that he came to believe they were flawed. That's what spurred him to attempt the "Comment Called D," and, finally, the Tunis Comment.
I think Jim hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Crowley was asked to write a commentary on a book he didn't understand.
Love=Law
- C
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
It's kinda complicated. It's a specific example of a broad category called typographical error and, in this instance, masking the phrase "and meditation cycle" <vbg>.
"I was looking at this old thread, and this popped up! Funny I noticed you and another esteemed contributor often make typographical errors, the other in question obviously just intentionally displaces his vowels, you however sometimes do that, but other times you make other types of errors, I couldn't help but suspect that at least some, if not most, and even possibly all were/are intentionally. Well you've just confirmed my suspicions!
"But maybe that's one of the points being made. Ours is not, for example, the religion of ancient Egypt. It might be egyptoid but it certainly isn't egyptian. It's a 20th Century original that inherits some style and particulars from a defunct old religion of the area where Crowley was situated at the time of the dictation."
In direct relation to the thread however, I might be able to accept that Thelema is not an exact mirror of AE religion. But in this case, I think you may be placing over-emphasis in differentiating between egyptoid and (Ancient)Egyptian; there seems to me to be a direct relation between the two, rather that being a mere co-incidence of the circumstances of dictation. maybe AE is a proto-Thelemic religion. Aiwass himself is obviously also egyptoid; There would reasonably be a strong affinity between the two to justify such ubiquitous symbolism and name identity, otherwise Aiwass is but the author of confusion!(in however many different ways you can interpret that statement). I would certainly not categorize it as defunct or entirely obsolete, in many ways AE thought is more integrated than Christian and/or Modern thought. Perhaps even, all in all in all , there is less justification for linking "Qabalah" and "Thelema" than there is for linking Thelema to aspects of AE, religion, culture and/or magical practices, aside from the fact that this was a preferred methodology of AC from the choices available in his time. The old kingdom pyramids are an eternal testament to the precision and technical prowess of that thought system.
-
More thread necromancy.
I have come to consider the same thing and Fr. I-ness, in that Thelema was not intended to be an accurate transmission of AE religion, but utilizes the key points from that art within itself.
That aside, I've also come to understand that the "khabs" and the "khu" are not to be taken within the AE sense, but more within the greater body of Crowley's writing.
Given that we in the post-nuclear age have little problem with a dualistic universe, I think that those around the turn of the previous century had significantly greater intellectual resistance to two things being equal-yet-opposite at the same time.
I've come to term it this way:
"The khu in the khabs or the khabs in the khu: it matters little beyond what you will to do!"The way you perceive the relationship is directly related to the design of your creation. Crowley did not so much "refute" GD doctrine as he added an additional level of understanding of the operations of hermetic systems within the overall GD perspective. This, of course, was not his perspective on the matter; it is mine through the benefit of hindsight.
Truth be told, I believe that much of the modern Western mystery schools have missed (or perhaps "ignored") the past 100 years of advancements in both the temporal and mystic sciences.