The Strange Egyptomaniacal Origin of Hadit
-
@Tarotica said
"This articledetails my search for the Thelemic deity "Hadit"; that is the origin of the name, and how it came to be popularly (but falsely) understood to be on the Stele of Revealing."
Just for the benefit of other members of this excellent Forum, it's worth noting that you've done this one to death already on three Forum threads on LAShTAL.COM. I can do no better than refer readers to www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=26506#26506
-
Thanks, Paul.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
" I disagree entirely (vide infra). Nuit, for example, has essentially nothing to do with the Egyptian goddess Nut. Or, rather, She has no more to do with Nut than she does with, say, the Christian Madonna.
I should mention that the form Nuit was used by Crowley in his poetry from IIRC ~1901."
As a side note, the thought that Nuit is a new diety/concept, is contradicted by A Litany, the work you referred to from the Collected Works, published in 1905. Crowley mentions Nuit, Hathoor, and Tahuti in the work, but in his footnotes, he describes Nuit as the arched figure depicted in Egyptian art. If A Litany was written before the Cairo Working, the reference to Nuit in it would have to be of the Egyptian goddess Nut.
The strange thing about the description of Nuit in A Litany, is it contradicts the name Crowley attributed to the arched figure on the Stele of Revealing in his intial description of the figure, whom he calls Isis. It all makes me suspect that A Litany might have been written after the Cairo Working, and thrown into the pot for publication with earlier writings. Is there any evidence of the date of authorship of A Litany?
Crowley did not concoct the name Nuit, it was used by Maspero as the name for the Egyptian goddess Nut.
To assume that Crowley concocted the name Hadit discounts the possibility of the central figure of the Cairo Working, Aiwass, having a part in determining the name, through direct influence on Crowley, or using Rose as a medium for communicating the spellings used in the paraphrases of the Stele of Revealing. The fact is, no one knows for sure, but considering the end result of the Cairo Working, I doubt there is any portion of Liber Legis that was not a product of the influence of Aiwass.
-
@Heru-pa-kraath said
"If A Litany was written before the Cairo Working, the reference to Nuit in it would have to be of the Egyptian goddess Nut."
I'm at work and don't have immediate access to my copy of Collected Works at home. The greater work of which A Litany is part is dated, and my recollection is that it's ~1901 - could someone please look that up and verify?
"It all makes me suspect that A Litany might have been written after the Cairo Working, and thrown into the pot for publication with earlier writings. Is there any evidence of the date of authorship of A Litany?"
The editing of Collected Works was probably the single best editing of Crowley ever done, and was done with high integrity. I would seriously doubt any falsification. - If someone could confirm what larger work A Litany comes from, we might have more concrete earlier publishing history to cite.
"Crowley did not concoct the name Nuit, it was used by Maspero as the name for the Egyptian goddess Nut."
Thanks. I didn't know that. Fortunately, all I said was that he used it
With all of these names, their pre-existence in Crowley's psyche isn't surprising. Aiwass (1) had to use the language and brain patterns of his receiver and (2) likely had been setting things up long in advance. (That last statement is based on how such HGA intervention commonly works.)
"To assume that Crowley concocted the name Hadit discounts the possibility of the central figure of the Cairo Working, Aiwass, having a part in determining the name, through direct influence on Crowley, or using Rose as a medium for communicating the spellings used in the paraphrases of the Stele of Revealing."
Not at all. See above. It only discounts the possibility that the influence was during the actual hours of dictation. It's clear even from the immediate history of the three weeks leading up to the dictation that there was a great deal of foreshadowing and setup occurring.
[qiuote]The fact is, no one knows for sure, but considering the end result of the Cairo Working, I doubt there is any portion of Liber Legis that was not a product of the influence of Aiwass."
*
Agreed.* -
Thanks.
I think there's an earlier one, too, but I'm not in a place to look it up right now. (Maybe not all week, in fact - since I'm getting ready for the New York trip and writing a talk, overseeing the coordination of initiation events, etc.) Anyone else want to do some digging in the first two volumes of Collected Works?
-
There are two poems titled "A Litany." That's the confusion here.
The relevant one is in the section "The Holy of Holies" from The Temple of the Holy Ghost, which was published in 1901 as I remembered. The fifth verse (Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 212) reads:
My sorrows are more manifold
Than His that bore the sins of man.
My sins are like the starry fold,
My hopes their desolation wan,
O Nuit, the starry one, arise,
And set thy starlight in my skies!There isn't any question of the date due to the publication history of the components later published together as The Temple of the Holy Ghost. ("The Holy of Holies" was originally part of The Soul of Osiris .)
-
Actually Nuit does appear in A Litany found in the collected works Vol. I published in 1905. Here is the verse:
My sorrows are more manifold
Than His that bore the sins of man.
My sins are like the starry fold,
My hopes their desolation wan.
O Nuit, the starry one, arise,
And set thy starlight in my skies!The Sword of Song appears in Volume II and dates from 1904. Volume I collects works from 1898 to about 1905. A Litany is grouped in his poetry from 1898.
Maspero mentioned Nuit in his L'Archéologie égyptienne published in 1907.
So who really wrote of Nuit first? If we are going by published dates, then Crowley has him beat by several years.
(I was writing this prior to Jim's last post so he beat me to the punch.)
-
@Nudor said
"Maspero mentioned Nuit in his L'Archéologie égyptienne published in 1907.
So who really wrote of Nuit first? If we are going by published dates, then Crowley has him beat by several years."
Well, I was a little misleading when I wrote that Maspero used the spelling Nuit; it was actually Amelia B. Edwards in her translation of Maspero's Manual of Egyptian Archaeology, published in 1887, but she does point out that Maspero supervised and approved the spellings used for Egyptian names in her translation of the book. Maspero used the spellings Nouit, and Houdit. At any rate, the spelling **Nuit **precedes any of the published writing of Crowley by at least a decade.
-
I think it stands to demonstrate how much the Egyptian revival (and plunder) of the turn of the previous century had on everything.
But what the key point here is that Aiwass' revealing of Nuit was radically different than any Egyptologist's use of the word.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The facts you cite aren't new or unknown. They've been pretty well known for decades to those who have been concerned to dig into the matter. (I remember showing most of this to Lon DuQuette around 1979 or '80, and his pointing out that he'd figured it out years before.)"
Well, I haven't spoken to Lon about this, but I did quote him, and his position in his Thoth book was that "Hadit" is on the stele, which of course it isn't. So, are you saying Lon was aware the word "Hadit" was based upon an error in translation of the hieroglyphics on the stele, or what exactly?
@Jim Eshelman said
"I don't agree with your main conclusions and I think you've argued excessively complexly. I may be misinterpreting your style, though. I'm unclear whether you are building up an argument to knock down at the end, or are adhering to that argument; so please forgive me if I think we disagree when, in fact, we agree."
The question and its answers are both technical, in a number of ways, and certainly potentially quite complex. A number of people have read into my articles views of mine I do not necessarily possess, such as that I am saying Liber AL is worthless or uninteresting because "Hadit" is Crowley's literary invention, and not a word given to him by Aiwass.
@Jim Eshelman said
"(1) When Crowley found Stele 666 in Boulaq, he ordered a translation of the hieroglyphs on it. The transliteration he was given used Hud-t or Hudit. It doesn't matter if this was correct (it wasn't). It was, however, what he was given."
Just for the record, it was the Cairo Museum. And he was given a number of things, including a prose translation in which "Houdit", the French version, is used.
@Jim Eshelman said
"(2) Crowley took the transliteration and French translation and composed his own poetic paraphrase. This was sometime after the discovery of the stele and before the dictation of Liber L. In this poetic paraphrase, he included the phrases, "The secret ardours of Hadit," and, "O wingéd snake of light, Hadit!" One can speculate variously on why he did it,"
Actually, he tells us why he did it, or how it came to be, though he only hints at this being relevant to the production of the word "Hadit", but if you refer to EOTG, he talks about a process he went through of working out the Qabalistic values of the stele names. So "Hadit" was a Qabalistic calculation, as I pointed out in the article.
@Jim Eshelman said
"But the Thelemic deities are not Egyptian. I call them Egyptoid."
A lot of euphemisms for Egyptomaniacal.
@Jim Eshelman said
"They are newly expressed deity ideas that have an Egyptian style and semblance, but are not any gods known to or worshipped by the ancient Egyptians."
This must be a personal understanding of yours.
I quote the US Grand Lodge website:
"In the Book of the Law, the divine Principles are personified by a trinity of ancient Egyptian Divinities: Nuit, the Goddess of Infinite Space; Hadit, the Winged Serpent of Light; and Ra-Hoor-Khuit (Horus), the Solar, Hawk-Headed Lord of the Cosmos."
@Jim Eshelman said
"Since your arguement rests on the idea that the Thelemic pantheon is Egyptian"
Again, this does not seem to be a wildly heretical notion, although I think my argument is more multi-faceted than you allow.
Crowley says: "With the Egyptian initiate we [Thelemites] exclaim 'There is no part of us that is not of the Gods;" and add the antistrophe: "There is no part of the Gods that is not also of us.'"
This does suggest there is an essential identification of Thelemites with whatever Crowley understood to be the nature of the "Egyptian initiate", and a desire to express this in modern terms.
@Jim Eshelman said
"and since I dispute that premise unequivocally, I'm required to disagree with your conclusions (and, for that matter, the relevance to Thelema of your entire line of argument)."
Then I think you are dismissing what Crowley said about the importance of his claims about the Cairo Working being demonstrably true and not necessary to be accepted on faith. If we discover that the names on the stele were not really that important to him as correctly pronounced ancient Egyptian names, it leads one to view the process of the writing of Liber AL as a conscious and deliberate literary production, not a work of spiritual channeling from the Secret Chiefs.
@Jim Eshelman said
"You are continuing to presume that what was on the stele (or, in the alternative, an Egyptian god of any sort) is what Aiwass wanted to communicate."
That begs the question of whether there was any Aiwass. And that is something Crowley always said had to be demonstrably evident, and not merely something he would claim and demand people to accept on faith.
So, again, if we have an ancient entity communicating to Crowley, and the word Crowley has devised for an ancient Egyptian deity is incorrect, indeed is a corruption of an incorrect translation, why shouldn't we expect Aiwass to wince in pain at the expectation Crowley would have concerning this? It is certainly not the case that Crowley did not expect to be corrected. He asked for correction, for example concerning the correct Tarot Key, a point which itself suggests some prior calculation on Crowley's part or again a great deficiency in Aiwass's knowledge.
@Jim Eshelman said
"We know for sure that Crowley concocted the names "Nuit" and "Hadit" - there's no doubt about it."
You might want to affirm that at Lashtal. They seem to have a lot of doubts about it there.
@Jim Eshelman said
"But Aiwass then told him to insert Crowley-written passages wholesale"
Do you not understand that any skeptical person will find that notion convenient to a disquieting degree?
@Jim Eshelman said
"This is plain silliness on your part. You still presume there was an error."
How would Crowley's misunderstanding not be an error?
Further, looking at the explanations offered by OTO personnel, such as Bill Heidrick, suggests there was a concern to address this, and perhaps even cover it up, by devising a false hieroglyphic explanation, even going so far as to claim the error of spelling was on the stele.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Arguments fall flat when resting on the idea that the stele's text is somehow directly relevant to Liber L."
Crowley's admittedly imperfect understanding of the stele's text is in Liber L. Upon what basis would you say it is not relevant?
@Jim Eshelman said
"I won't address your questions about O.T.O. - I leave that to current representatives of that organization. I'll only mention that, IF it is their position that the Thelemic deities are Egyptian ones, then I disagree."
Then apparently you disagree.
I think the evidence is clear that OTO certainly thought it was important to establish that there was a valid hieroglyphic justification for "Hadit".
Unfortunately, there isn't one.
(jk)
-
@Tarotica said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"The facts you cite aren't new or unknown. They've been pretty well known for decades to those who have been concerned to dig into the matter. (I remember showing most of this to Lon DuQuette around 1979 or '80, and his pointing out that he'd figured it out years before.)"Well, I haven't spoken to Lon about this, but I did quote him, and his position in his Thoth book was that "Hadit" is on the stele, which of course it isn't. So, are you saying Lon was aware the word "Hadit" was based upon an error in translation of the hieroglyphics on the stele, or what exactly?"
I think I can almost verbatim quote the initial conversation:
Me: Hey, I just found Hadit in Budge.
Lon: Really? Where? Show me.
Me: Except it's really 'Behdety.'
Lon: Oh, heck, you had me excited for a minute. We know about that one."
@Jim Eshelman said
"But the Thelemic deities are not Egyptian. I call them Egyptoid."A lot of euphemisms for Egyptomaniacal."
Whatever. "Egyptoid" just means "Egyptian-like," as distinct from "Egyptian."
You have an axe to grind and I don't give a shit.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"They are newly expressed deity ideas that have an Egyptian style and semblance, but are not any gods known to or worshipped by the ancient Egyptians."This must be a personal understanding of yours.
I quote the US Grand Lodge website..."
Etc. You keep going back to one source, with whom you have an issue (to the point of accusing them of various conspiracies), and acting as if that is a definitive source. In other words, you're setting up straw soldiers to look so impressive when you blow them down over and over again. From the responses you've gotten in various places, it should be clear by now that this isn't just a personal understanding of mine, but is widely shared among a significant number of Thelemites who have looked into the matter.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Since your arguement rests on the idea that the Thelemic pantheon is Egyptian"Again, this does not seem to be a wildly heretical notion, although I think my argument is more multi-faceted than you allow.
Crowley says: "With the Egyptian initiate we [Thelemites] exclaim 'There is no part of us that is not of the Gods;" and add the antistrophe: "There is no part of the Gods that is not also of us.'"
This does suggest there is an essential identification of Thelemites with whatever Crowley understood to be the nature of the "Egyptian initiate", and a desire to express this in modern terms."
Uh, no. Read it again.
This no more suggests Thelema is inherently Thelemic than Crowley's various, "We say with Christ" remarks suggest that Thelema is inherently Christian.
I'm skipping over many of your remarks because it would be excessively tedious to answer them, and all over something that doesn't particularly matter one way or the other. Also, most of your remarks just reinforce the original impression of your cluelessness about what you are saying. You don't seem to have an ability to actually look at what you have written and see it independent of your fantasy of what you are saying.
"If we discover that the names on the stele were not really that important to him as correctly pronounced ancient Egyptian names, it leads one to view the process of the writing of Liber AL as a conscious and deliberate literary production, not a work of spiritual channeling from the Secret Chiefs."
See, you're still missing it! You are still presuming (despite all evidence) that Egyptian names were more "real" or "true" or some other way appropriate to Liber L. They weren't. There is a quite explicit break between the stele and The Book. Your own research provides the evidence for this. That discontinuity is itself a message. (Just to make one of several possible points.)
"That begs the question of whether there was any Aiwass. And that is something Crowley always said had to be demonstrably evident, and not merely something he would claim and demand people to accept on faith."
The book itself is the proof. I agree: Take it or leave it.
"So, again, if we have an ancient entity communicating to Crowley, and the word Crowley has devised for an ancient Egyptian deity is incorrect, indeed is a corruption of an incorrect translation, why shouldn't we expect Aiwass to wince in pain at the expectation Crowley would have concerning this?"
Oh, Lordy, this is funny stuff!
Aiwass isn't "ancient" in the sense that "We have a guy from the old country and, oy, does he shake his head when I say 'magilla.'" He's 'ancient' only in the sense that he's ageless or timeless - a superdimensional being. Your idea of wincing also is still stuck on the idea that Aiwass didn't like what Crowley was writing. My point is that "Hadit" (for example) is exactly what Aiwass meant Crowley to take down for the book, and, as is common with HGA communications, had already been coming in over a period of several years to lay groundwork.
That is, my point is that there is no evidence there is a mistake. There is what the words actually are in The Book as a result of Aiwass saying to put them there.
One accepts these unconditionally to the extent of having no desire or intent to alter them in so much as the style of a letter - or one does not so accept them. If one does not accept them literally in this sense, then one has already rejected Liber L. before starting. It's not a matter of faith - it's a matter of taking The Book on its own terms and according to its own rules (or not).
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"But Aiwass then told him to insert Crowley-written passages wholesale"Do you not understand that any skeptical person will find that notion convenient to a disquieting degree? "
No, skepticism doesn't require that at all. I'm only citing our sole first-hand report of what happened. (Your axe is showing again.)
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"This is plain silliness on your part. You still presume there was an error."How would Crowley's misunderstanding not be an error?"
What misundertanding?
By all of the evidence available to us, Aiwass said, "Hadit." Crowley wrote, "Hadit." Where's the misunderstanding?
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Arguments fall flat when resting on the idea that the stele's text is somehow directly relevant to Liber L."Crowley's admittedly imperfect understanding of the stele's text is in Liber L. Upon what basis would you say it is not relevant?"
Crowley's intentional paraphrase of a transliteration he was given is in Liber L. because Aiwass instructed him to insert it there. That's not a mistake, that's being a good secretary and getting the dictation right!
It wasn't the text of the stele that Aiwass wanted to appaer in Liber L., it was the paraphrase that Crowley wrote. How do we know? Because that's what He told him to insert. This demonstrates a very well articulated break from the old Egyptian sources and the introduction of something new.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I think I can almost verbatim quote the initial conversation:
Me: Hey, I just found Hadit in Budge.
Lon: Really? Where? Show me.
Me: Except it's really 'Behdety.'
Lon: Oh, heck, you had me excited for a minute. We know about that one."So, he was disappointed you hadn't really found "Hadit" in Budge. And they (OTO) had been searching for "Hadit" also and failed as well.
If your recollection of that conversation is accurate, it then raises a question about why years later Heidrick and others in OTO would have manufactured a false hieroglyphic explanation claiming that "Hadit" was really on the stele.
Your memory of this conversation suggests that was done knowingly and intentionally, presumably with the object of covering up the error, and making "Hadit" seem genuine in a purely antique way that was not really justified by the facts.
@Jim Eshelman said
""Egyptoid" just means "Egyptian-like," as distinct from "Egyptian.""
OK, Egyptomania has a more pertinent meaning.
@Jim Eshelman said
"You have an axe to grind and I don't give a shit."
What axe is that? And if you don't "give a shit", why even comment?
@Jim Eshelman said
"You keep going back to one source, with whom you have an issue—"
I was simply quoting the OTO US Grand Lodge website, which contradicted your position. I think in this case you would be the one who has the issue with them, as you earlier admitted might be the case.
@Jim Eshelman said
"(to the point of accusing them of various conspiracies),"
Well, if Lon actually understood "Hadit" wasn't on the stele, how do you explain his writing only a few years ago that Hadit is one of the "main figures that appear on the Stéle of Revealing"? Or the fact that Heidrick contended the "misspelling", i.e. "Hadit", was on the stele?
Was Lon just being forgetful, or unintentionally misleading? Was Heidrick out of the "Hadit" loop altogether?
I doubt it.
@Jim Eshelman said
"In other words, you're setting up straw soldiers to look so impressive when you blow them down over and over again."
So, you view OTO's stated positions about the stele and Thelema as "straw"?
@Jim Eshelman said
"From the responses you've gotten in various places, it should be clear by now that this isn't just a personal understanding of mine,"
Agreed there may be different views, but your unsupported refutation of my position suggested that what I was saying was a clearly heretical or bizarre interpretation. I was simply showing you that this wasn't the case, by pointing out to you that the OTO Grand Lodge website plainly contradicted you.
@Jim Eshelman said
"but is widely shared among a significant number of Thelemites who have looked into the matter."
Significant numbers of people can be wrong.
@Jim Eshelman said
"This no more suggests Thelema is inherently Thelemic than Crowley's various, "We say with Christ" remarks suggest that Thelema is inherently Christian."
I presume you intended to write "Thelema is inherently Egyptian". Well, given that Thelema is in large part a Christian heresy, I do not think that observation makes your case either.
Thelema is a patchwork of motifs, as much of the occult is of course.
But Egyptomaniacal components are essential to it.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Also, most of your remarks just reinforce the original impression of your cluelessness about what you are saying."
I think you might get further demonstrating it, than merely claiming it.
Also, if you have something to teach me about the errors of my views, I'm listening (or reading). I'm sure others would appreciate your instruction as well.
@Jim Eshelman said
"You don't seem to have an ability to actually look at what you have written and see it independent of your fantasy of what you are saying."
The problem is most of what I have written is based in facts. Not fantasy. And certainly not a need to believe in anything on faith.
I think my position is actually quite Thelemic.
@Jim Eshelman said
"See, you're still missing it! You are still presuming (despite all evidence) that Egyptian names were more "real" or "true" or some other way appropriate to Liber L. They weren't."
Then why bother having the stele translated? Why continue to treat it as a holy relic? Because Liber L commands it? Why does Liber L command it?
As I pointed out, I think on a Lashtal thread, if the Egyptian names were not important, not appropriate or relevant, why even bother adapting them in the first place?
Why not have the Thelemic trinity of Sally, Bill, and Tom?
Everything in occultism, and certainly everything Crowley had been taught and absorbed, told him that names, and the correct pronunciation of them, were of the most critical importance.
@Jim Eshelman said
"There is a quite explicit break between the stele and The Book."
And by this you mean if the stele says "red" and the book says "blue", then Thelemites must say "blue", because it's in the book. Correct?
But, what if the book says "blue" because Crowley thought that was the correct word for "red", even though it wasn't? Now the error is made perfect by the fact of its being in the book?
Really?
Yet, Crowley repeatedly affirmed that what was in the book was not merely necessarily true, but demonstrably so. And demonstrably so not merely to true believers, but to skeptics too.
@Jim Eshelman said
"The book itself is the proof. I agree: Take it or leave it."
OK, but that's Jim Eshelman's policy, not Crowley's.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Aiwass isn't "ancient" in the sense that "We have a guy from the old country and, oy, does he shake his head when I say 'magilla.'" He's 'ancient' only in the sense that he's ageless or timeless - a superdimensional being."
Aiwass is alleged to be the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat.
Who is Hoor-paar-Kraat, Jim?
Who is Horus?
Why is this, now, his Aeon?
Yes, a very old country.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Your idea of wincing also is still stuck on the idea that Aiwass didn't like what Crowley was writing."
No, my idea is that your arguments are circular, as I will credit you with knowing.
You claim the book is approved by Aiwass because after all he channeled it through Crowley. How do we know this? Because the book is proof.
But again, that isn't what Crowley believed, or he wouldn't have stressed the ability of the book to demonstrate its alleged proof.
@Jim Eshelman said
"My point is that "Hadit" (for example) is exactly what Aiwass meant Crowley to take down for the book,"
And that is circular, and unconvincing to anyone except a faith-based believer.
@Jim Eshelman said
"One accepts these unconditionally to the extent of having no desire or intent to alter them in so much as the style of a letter - or one does not so accept them."
And that's because the book says so, right?
And we're supposed to accept that commandment because the book is allegedly the product of a praeternatural intelligence, Aiwass, and not a man, Aleister Crowley.
And according to you the reason we're supposed to accept that is faith.
Again, that isn't what Crowley said.
In fact, he spent a lot of his life trying to make the book prove itself, because he didn't take it on faith, and knew others wouldn't either.
And that is ultimately why seemingly small points like this "Hadit" question are relevant in determining what may prove or disprove the book's authority.
@Jim Eshelman said
"It's not a matter of faith"
Yes, it is. No different than a Christian unquestioningly believing in the Resurrection.
Except, here we have a lot more examinable facts that have not yet faded into the dusts of time.
(jk)
-
93,
I have the 1988 paperback edition of The Holy Books of Thelema, edited by Hymeneaus Alpha in or before 1985. It quotes the Gardiner-Gunn translation of the Stele, as well as another, anonymous one.Sir Alan Gardiner died in the early 1960s, BTW. His version says: "Behdet (?) Hadit (?)" That is, he felt there was some question about pronunciation. I don't know who Gunn is/was.
The second translation says "The Behedite."
So an OTO-sponsored publication 20 years ago acknowledged the variant spellings. What the current leadership thinks may be different, but Jim's view on this, at least, is at least supported by the view of an earlier generation of OTO management.
93 93/93,
EM
-
The real reason the Stele is important to Thelema: It is the only photo of Crowley, Aiwass, Nuit and Hadit all together in the same room!
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o221/monster_of_kitsch/thesecretofthestele.jpg
The question then becomes, where is Ra Hoor Khut?
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
Sir Alan Gardiner died in the early 1960s, BTW. His version says: "Behdet (?) Hadit (?)" That is, he felt there was some question about pronunciation. I don't know who Gunn is/was."Actually, there was some question about whether or not the correct word "Behdet" was the one Crowley had changed to "Hadit". Gardiner-Gunn would no doubt have well understood there wasn't any "Hadit" on the stele. It seems likely if their client had asked about this, they would have explained it to him. In any case, there are no notes to this question explaining its significance.
And this seems to have been Battiscombe Gunn.
@Edward Mason said
"The second translation says "The Behedite.""
But again no explanation concerning what that means nor why "Hadit" is missing.
@Edward Mason said
"So an OTO-sponsored publication 20 years ago acknowledged the variant spellings."
"Hadit" is not a variant spelling. It isn't anything Egyptian.
@Edward Mason said
"What the current leadership thinks may be different, but Jim's view on this, at least, is at least supported by the view of an earlier generation of OTO management."
I don't see any indication Jim's generation thought anything differently than Crowley's or later ones.
None of them have been forthcoming about this question.
(jk)
-
@Uni_Verse said
"The question then becomes, where is Ra Hoor Khut?"
That would be the figure you've identified as "Aiwass".
See, for example. Click on the first picture, "Funerary Stela". That is "Ra Hoor Khuit", or Re-Harakhty.
(jk)
-
@Tarotica said
"So, he was disappointed you hadn't really found "Hadit" in Budge. And they (OTO) had been searching for "Hadit" also and failed as well.
If your recollection of that conversation is accurate, it then raises a question about why years later Heidrick and others in OTO would have manufactured a false hieroglyphic explanation claiming that "Hadit" was really on the stele.
Your memory of this conversation suggests that was done knowingly and intentionally, presumably with the object of covering up the error, and making "Hadit" seem genuine in a purely antique way that was not really justified by the facts."
I like a good conspiracy theory now and then, but this one is just so silly. There's nothing here important enough here to justify the effort.
I prefer the U.S. Government to be involved in really serious conspiracy theories, and for there to have been real consequences, such as over 4,000 needlessly lost U.S. lives in exchange for vast enrichment of the power elite, or some such. Makes for better dramatic tension and the possibility of an explosive Act III finish.
You're acting like you've discovered the lost map to an ancient native American golden city, but your vast disclosure is about as important as, "Hey, my single male neighboor is starting to have Tampons show up in his garbage every Wednesday." Like, WTF cares one way or the other? (And, really, why are you digging through his bathroom waste basket, dude?)
So, just for the record: All of your supposition above is your spin on my story. It isn't my story and I'm not party to it. You're entitled to your spin, of course. (But anyone who thinks there was a Great Secret Collusion & Alliance between Lon DuQuette and Bill Heidrick in 1979-80 has missed most of the subtext of O.T.O. history of that time.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"(to the point of accusing them of various conspiracies),"Well, if Lon actually understood "Hadit" wasn't on the stele, how do you explain his writing only a few years ago that Hadit is one of the "main figures that appear on the Stéle of Revealing"? Or the fact that Heidrick contended the "misspelling", i.e. "Hadit", was on the stele?"
Lon and Bill would have to speak for themselves.
For myself: I also refer frequently to Hadit being on the stele. I look at the painting, and He's right there. But the name "Hadit" isn't on the stele. IOW Hadit (who doesn't appear before April 1904 and is a newly articulated deity and whose name isn't on the sele) is represented to us by the same image that's on the stele. See, he's right there, under the cute indigo chick's belly.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"In other words, you're setting up straw soldiers to look so impressive when you blow them down over and over again."So, you view OTO's stated positions about the stele and Thelema as "straw"? "
LOL, trying to get good quotes out of me? I didn't say they are setting up straw soldiers, I said you are. I don't mind that you're writing fiction, or even that it's tawdry and petty fiction. I mind that it's bad fiction.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"From the responses you've gotten in various places, it should be clear by now that this isn't just a personal understanding of mine,"Agreed there may be different views, but your unsupported refutation of my position suggested that what I was saying was a clearly heretical or bizarre interpretation."
I don't use the word "heretical" very often in referring to Thelemic topics, and this probably doesn't reach "bizarre." Just seriously uninformed.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Also, most of your remarks just reinforce the original impression of your cluelessness about what you are saying."I think you might get further demonstrating it, than merely claiming it."
You aren't worth the bother and I have to leave for the airport in 55 minutes.
"Also, if you have something to teach me about the errors of my views, I'm listening (or reading). I'm sure others would appreciate your instruction as well. "
So far, there is no clue that you are listening (or reading). Instruction is above. It's all there. Please reread and then ask specific questions if necessary.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"You don't seem to have an ability to actually look at what you have written and see it independent of your fantasy of what you are saying."The problem is most of what I have written is based in facts. Not fantasy. And certainly not a need to believe in anything on faith."
I have no problem with your facts. It's when you start putting interpretations on your facts that you start moving from solid ground. The facts, in and of themselves, have no particular meaning. You then put meaning on them, and your meaning is contentious, baiting, and self-aggrandizing.
"As I pointed out, I think on a Lashtal thread, if the Egyptian names were not important, not appropriate or relevant, why even bother adapting them in the first place?"
You'd have to ask Aiwass. One could conjecture endlessly on the reasons but, bottom line, you'd have to ask the Cosmic Dude who did it.
"Why not have the Thelemic trinity of Sally, Bill, and Tom?"
Bad poetry, bad etymology, not rooted secretistically in the history of threads of deity names etc. (Guessing.)
Besides, Tom looks really silly naked and arched on tip-toe over the sprinkler in the back yard. If you had him arch over Bill, though, while Sally stood on the side and looked bemused, then we might have a religion. Work on it a bit and let us know, eh?
"Everything in occultism, and certainly everything Crowley had been taught and absorbed, told him that names, and the correct pronunciation of them, were of the most critical importance."
Exactly!
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"There is a quite explicit break between the stele and The Book."And by this you mean if the stele says "red" and the book says "blue", then Thelemites must say "blue", because it's in the book. Correct?"
Exactly! You've managed to capture the basic points.
"But, what if the book says "blue" because Crowley thought that was the correct word for "red", even though it wasn't? Now the error is made perfect by the fact of its being in the book?"
Then there is no Thelema and we're all idiots to begin with; because if this is true, then The Book wasn't literally translated by Aiwass and taken down by Nuit's prophet in a form that must be preserved without changing so much as the style of a letter. And all the copies should be burned.
That's the core here: Regardless of anything that we think Liber L. might mean - regardless of personal interpretations, theology conventional or unconventional, or anything else that we do with its words and phrases - the sine qua non is the accepting of The Book of the Law as it is without altering a single letter - not even so much as the style of a letter. Take things from that starting point, that The Book, in this one sense, is perfect, and go forth from that one stable datum.
You're welcome to question such premises, of course. Non-Thelemites do it quite freely and understandably. But claiming acceptance of The Book of the Law (the foundation of Thelema) is, at best, hypocritical if disregards this primal point that The Book makes about itself at least twice.
"Yet, Crowley repeatedly affirmed that what was in the book was not merely necessarily true, but demonstrably so. And demonstrably so not merely to true believers, but to skeptics too."
Yes - its teachings. Not necessarily its academia. One has to embrace and live The Book of the Law for its instructions to be demonstrably true.
"Aiwass is alleged to be the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat.
Who is Hoor-paar-Kraat, Jim?"
The Egyptian one or the Thelemic one?
"Who is Horus?
Why is this, now, his Aeon?"
Start those as new threads. Good questions for discussion.
"You claim the book is approved by Aiwass because after all he channeled it through Crowley. How do we know this? Because the book is proof. "
The basis for our accepting this is that we had a first-hand witness and he told us this is what happened. One either finds the witness credible or not credible. If that particular witness is not credible on this particular topic, then we're all wasting time on anything we're doing on this forum.
"But again, that isn't what Crowley believed, or he wouldn't have stressed the ability of the book to demonstrate its alleged proof."
And have you read his specific proofs? For example, the extensive demonstrations he wrote in The Equinox of the Gods?
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"My point is that "Hadit" (for example) is exactly what Aiwass meant Crowley to take down for the book,"And that is circular, and unconvincing to anyone except a faith-based believer."
Math isn't "faith-based," but a mathematical system begins with postulates that are unconditionally accepted within the framework of the math system.
The root postulate of Thelema is "Aiwass dictated The Book of the Law to Aleister Crowley, and The Book is to be accepted without changing it insomuch even as the style of a letter." We can argue meaning until the end of the Aeon, but the postulate, from which all the rest emerges, doesn't tolerate changing any of the letters.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"One accepts these unconditionally to the extent of having no desire or intent to alter them in so much as the style of a letter - or one does not so accept them."And that's because the book says so, right?"
Exactly! - Or (as I've added earlier in this present post) one rejects The Book, and you're welcome to do that.
"And we're supposed to accept that commandment because the book is allegedly the product of a praeternatural intelligence, Aiwass, and not a man, Aleister Crowley."
Or for whatever reason. Your reasons don't matter. Only your choices and actions matter. The method of Thelema is karma yoga, and the first word of our Law is DO. So - you accept The Book in toto or not - your choice, your deed. I don't much care what your reasons are for your personal decision either way, because they don't likely match anyone else's reasons.
"And according to you the reason we're supposed to accept that is faith."
I wouldn't apply that word, but I probably use the word differently than you use it. Want to give me your definition?
-
@Uni_Verse said
"The question then becomes, where is Ra Hoor Khut?"
The entity you have labelled "Aiwass" is Ra-Hoor-Khuit. Aiwass isn't in the picture.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
The entity you have labelled "Aiwass" is Ra-Hoor-Khuit. Aiwass isn't in the picture.
"I was thinking of the Stele in terms of Chap III, v 22 (to put it in context).
Where, the others are the "Beast and his Bride" ; so it would be Crowley/Aiwass , Hadit/Nuit.
The stele itself being Ra-Hoor-Khuit as he is the "visible object of worship."
I am aware that this is not the 'normal' interpretation, just fooling around with the imagery in a moment of inspiration
