Changes to Liber Al?
-
@Takamba said
"I use the versification of the Stele in my Resh."
Yeah, me too. I think most people who practice Resh do that. I've had eleven years of "fill me" four times a day now.
""Kill me" implies, as you've pointed out, ego death. "Fill me" to me expands the "ego" (not to be confused with one's sense of grandiosity and pride, but then those aren't considered bad qualities in my system of magick anyway, so in a way, they are also included)."
Well, I was taking "fill me" to mean something like "fill the vessel of the Khu so that the Khabs shines forth and dissolves the restrictions of the Khu."
Read that way, its meaning is identical to that of "kill me." As someone pointed out in the Lashtal.com thread on the subject, the line "run through," earlier in the poem, could be taken as being "run through" with a sword (the sword of light of RHK), in which case "kill me" fits even more perfectly (in addition to suggesting a sexual element that also resonates with "fill me," obviously).
It's a "killing" of one's identification with the prefereces of the mind, a coming into awareness of the eternally-shining essence of one's actual, true Nature.
"My point being, contrary to what you seem to be saying that they make no difference either way, as practice, they do make a difference."
I would agree that there is a difference in terms of the imagery suggested and, accordingly, in the appeal of the different phrases to an individual's personal taste. I'm certainly sticking with "fill me."
-
As long as I'm writing about this, it's worth noting that neither the idea of being "filled" nor "killed" is actually on the Stele of Revealing (see the appendix of The Holy Books of Thelema for a literal translation of each hieroglyph: the Stele literally says something more like "make way [...] that I might shine forth as an equipped one").
So we're not talking about something on the Stele of Revealing itself: we're talking about one line of Crowley's poetry.
-
@Archaeus said
"Your thoughts?"
Archaeus,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
This what you talk of is quite upsetting indeed… but I am not at all suprised. I have seen editions of the book of the law, with “forewords” explaining different concepts through out the book and that is enough to upset me…
Is Hymenaeus Beta our new Pope? Because this is what this proposed change makes him to be… He has no more authority to interpret certain “happenings” as a sign of the gods than I do... He only has the authority to do so within the limits of the order itself… But… The book of the law is no special property of the O.T.O. – belonging more to this order than to anybody else. The book itself makes no mention of the O.T.O anywhere in the text…
It’s like that shipment were sent to me and I would have yelled: “let’s change the book” – no one would have cared or listened! And then I mean: No one! And since that book is no property of the O.T.O, we shouldn’t pay more attention to Hymenaeus Beta and his talk about secret chiefs – than me talking about the same thing…
This damn new Catholic Church should know it’s limits! I tend to agree with Los:
@Los said
"As much as I admire the OTO for their publishing efforts, I think they'll always be held back by the weird pseudo-Thelema supernaturalist religion that seems to dominate the group.""
The book of the law is in no way a property of the O.T.O. – and the O.T.O. has in no way, any right to edit or make any corrections more than I do. As I have said: I have great respect for what the order has done for bringing Thelema into this new age, but I don’t want another Pope and another Catholic church...
I tend to respect the time that has passed and tradition itself (If it is a flaw that flaw is divine and holy holy!
). Crowley the prophet himself, made no effort to bring any changes to the holy book, and so shouldn’t we.“Change not so much as the style of a letter.”
Love is the law, love under will.
Peace
-
"I have seen editions of the book of the law, with “forewords” explaining different concepts through out the book and that is enough to upset me…"
You mean like the introduction Crowley wrote and that is published at the beginning of most editions?
Or "The Comment" Crowley wrote much later that is appended to the end of practically all editions?
"Is Hymenaeus Beta our new Pope? Because this is what this proposed change makes him to be"
There have been no proposed changes -- outside of the hysterical anticipations of some people on this thread -- and even if there were, it wouldn't make anyone a "pope" to suggest changing something based on a piece of textual evidence.
"The book of the law is no special property of the O.T.O. – belonging more to this order than to anybody else."
I think copyright law would disagree with you.
" I tend to agree with Los
[...]
The book of the law is in no way a property of the O.T.O."
Just to be completely clear, I accept that the OTO owns the copyright to the Book, and I think that is a good thing on the whole.
-
I have no intention of accepting this proposed 'correction' myself because it's the result of a penciled in letter 'k' in one copy of the Holy books and although we don't know exactly when this was written (or even by whom?) AC certainly never saw fit to add 'kill' in any subsequent editions of the book, which could be (Conveniently)interpreted as an oversight but which he nevertheless had ample time to alter had he Willed to do so.
It has been 'fill me' for over 100 years now and in my view neither HB nor anybody else has any right to make 'corrections' on the basis of a note found in one single copy of the Holy books that was never followed through in subsequent editions.
Nonetheless there are as Los pointed out various other things in the manuscript that do not appear in the typescript, albeit mostly for the sake of clarity more than anything else so I can see the reasoning behind it, I just happen to disagree based on the fact that the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that 'fill me' was the phrase that AC eventually settled on.
-
Yeah, I think it's one of the stupider things I've heard. Arguments in favor of changing it are pretty flimsy, and I would expect a whole lot more than flimsy before changing it.
Plus, seems in violation of the oath to accept the book of the law without wishing to change it.
-
My two cents is that whatever view one takes on the book, whether it was received or created by Crowley; whatever has been in there this long, has already been established. Of course my opinion is that it was received, and so it stands to reason that *'fill me' was used by AC, and used in the book for so long it should remain. AC actually mentions before that "harder" could have been "harden", yet in order to not "change so much as the style of a letter" *he left it as it was written.
-
@Archaeus said
"My point is: if the manuscript says 'fill' then the typescript should say the same thing Those saying otherwise are relying on a rather weak technicality that in my opinion should not even be an issue."
It's not quite that simple IMO. BTW, I do agree that it should remain "fill," but that conclusion is not the point I'm addressing at the moment.
'
Crowley may well have written "kill" in the original versification, which was done in advance of Liber Legis' reception. My position would be, then, that whatever got written down at the time of the dictation is what goes with the book - just like "Hadit" was written down, and it makes no difference that the Egyptian on the Stele is now known to say Bedehty, or that the Egyptologist translating it wrote "Houdit." "Hadit" is in the manuscript, and that's that.Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
By the time Thelema was published in 1909 (the three-volume set - the same typesetting from which Crowley's personal one-volume copy was made), the text said "fill." (I just checked my personal copy of that 1909 edition.) This isn't definitive, because that volume had numerous typographic errors.
The question IMHO is whether Crowley's best assessment was to trust the notes jotted down (at some unknown point before 1913) in his personal copy, or whether it was to go with the way he had published it repeatedly for decades (in at least three distinct editions). I know that my own copies of books have all sorts of notes I initially jotted down, and that I regret some of those marginalia
. I also know, from copies I have of Crowley's personal grimoire, that he changed his point of view on many things over time.So... once upon a time he noted that the word should be "kill." He addressed this in subsequent commentaries as a point of defiance of his memory against the text. And he continued to publish "fill" in edition after edition of CCXX. That tells me that - at the very least - he was sure that what the manuscript itself said is "fill." (f he'd had any doubt that the "f" was a "k," and his memory insisted it should be a "k," then he'd have gone with the "k.") To my mind, the matter is settled by what the manuscript says.
FWIW.
-
Los,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
@Los said
"
@The_Hawkheaded_child said
"I have seen editions of the book of the law, with “forewords” explaining different concepts through out the book and that is enough to upset me…"You mean like the introduction Crowley wrote and that is published at the beginning of most editions?
Or "The Comment" Crowley wrote much later that is appended to the end of practically all editions?"
It was many years ago, and the introduction that I saw wasn't written by the prophet as I understood it then... If it was my apologize (Even if it was, I still don’t like it
)... Also I mentioned no comment; why should I? Why should I argue with that which is even prophesied in the holy book it self?I see the Black Brother mischief that you are up to, trying to picture me as a fool – squeezing me into this corner of losing my face – since you like to have me look like someone not understanding “the comment” as a “legal” part of the holy book.
You are very good with words, so good that all discussions with you seem to halt with you not understanding “feelings”, “nuances of words”, “words of expressions” etc. I have had these tiresome discussions with “about to be BB’s” and BB’s before, marking my words, having their reason taking us down into the pit called “Because”, due to their failure of understanding the “tacit knowledge” of the author etc. This failure of understanding seem to be a flaw inherent in shutting up one’s blood in one’s heart, and thus making “knowledge/reason” the crown of all.
But mostly it has to do with the grandiosity of their egos… their constant need of having other people losing their faces…
These discussions never seem to bear any fruit because of the tiresome burden of always having to explain that which isn’t relevant for understanding the topic currently discussed. It is tiresome to always having to guard against discussing endless loops of irrelevant points – points always made by you – only to have me look like a fool.
Let me give you an example of you making the wrong turns; with you trying to pick a fight where there is no fight to pick (?); with you not understanding the simplest of things; when you feel the need to bring up the copyright connected to the book of the law:
I don’t care if the O.T.O. is in the possession of the copyright! The book of the law wasn’t given to the O.T.O – the O.T.O was the first order to accept the law. That’s it. Nothing else. You simply can’t understand that I don’t have to agree with them having any authorization “in heaven” to make any changes to this class A document – even if they have a copyright? It’s not their “property”. Even if you keep claiming their copywright – I tell you the truth:
*It is not their property! *
Of course I couldn’t take my argument to court. But even so it is still not their property... Because it’s “legal” to pollute our farmlands with chemicals, doesn’t make it right – does it? Can you understand this most simple argument of mine? Don’t bother. I simply refuse to have this sandbox discussion with the ignorant, always always having to explain the simplest of concepts... I don’t like you and the likes of you, and see no point in continuing our present discussion…
Thank you and good bye.
Love is the law, love under will.
Peace
-
"It was many years ago, and the introduction that I saw wasn't written by the prophet as I understood it then... If it was my apologize (Even if it was, I still don’t like it
)... Also I mentioned no comment; why should I? Why should I argue with that which is even prophesied in the holy book it self?"You were saying that you were "upset" by a "foreword" explaining some of the content of the Book, so I pointed out that Crowley himself wrote an introduction that explained some of the content of the Book...if you are saying you object to any kind of introductory material that explains some of the Book's content, then you would also have to object to Crowley's introduction that does just that.
I brought up the Comment because it's another example of something separate from the Book of the Law that is usually published with it, suggesting that there's really not a problem with publishing extra material with the Book.
"I see the Black Brother mischief that you are up to, trying to picture me as a fool – squeezing me into this corner of losing my face – since you like to have me look like someone not understanding “the comment” as a “legal” part of the holy book."
Have I even spoken to you before on these forums? I honestly don't recall. Anyway, I also have no idea what you're on about here. "The Comment" isn't a part of the Book...it was written well over a decade later.
"*It is not their property! *"
Well, look, you said that you "agree with Los," then you quoted me, and then you followed my quote by saying, "The book of the law is in no way a property of the O.T.O." From the context, it could be inferred that this was your paraphrase of my position, the one that you just said that you agreed with.
I wanted to make it clear that I disagree that the Book is "in no way a property of the O.T.O." because, as I said, it is their property in at least one way. And since a lot of people use your kind of arguments to denounce the idea of the OTO holding copyrights, I thought this was a good time to clarify my position that I think the copyright -- along with the OTO publishing work -- is generally a good thing.
"I don’t like you and the likes of you, and see no point in continuing our present discussion…"
Then stop reading and replying to my posts. I'm not forcing you.
-
Liber Al vel Legis is a concealed book. It has hidden content. If you change or disturb such a book by even one letter then you risk ruining it for subsequent generations. Unless HB knows how to decipher Liber Al then he has no business changing so much as the style of any letter in the book because he will be in ignorance of the real consequences of his changes.
This change could have ruined the book for Thelema.
It could have been catastrophic.
-
@Off the Wall said
"Liber Al vel Legis is a concealed book. It has hidden content. If you change or disturb such a book by even one letter then you risk ruining it for subsequent generations. Unless HB knows how to decipher Liber Al then he has no business changing so much as the style of any letter in the book because he will be in ignorance of the real consequences of his changes.
This change could have ruined the book for Thelema.
It could have been catastrophic."
That's definitely a main reason in my opinion. Although I think the purpose is also there to prevent others (even AC himself) from making changes to the original thought and philosophy, sometimes inherent in something very simple, if they later have a change in views etc.
Great point though.
-
@Jason R said
"
@Off the Wall said
"Liber Al vel Legis is a concealed book. It has hidden content. If you change or disturb such a book by even one letter then you risk ruining it for subsequent generations. Unless HB knows how to decipher Liber Al then he has no business changing so much as the style of any letter in the book because he will be in ignorance of the real consequences of his changes.This change could have ruined the book for Thelema.
It could have been catastrophic."
That's definitely a main reason in my opinion. Although I think the purpose is also there to prevent others (even AC himself) from making changes to the original thought and philosophy, sometimes inherent in something very simple, if they later have a change in views etc.
Great point though."
Thanks. The O.T.O. has banned me from using it's Facebook fan page and it's community page to make exactly the same point (and also deleted the posts).
Apparently the Law is for All but O.T.O. censorship of the wider Thelemic community is reserved for those making good points?
-
@Off the Wall said
"
@Jason R said
"
@Off the Wall said
"Liber Al vel Legis is a concealed book. It has hidden content. If you change or disturb such a book by even one letter then you risk ruining it for subsequent generations. Unless HB knows how to decipher Liber Al then he has no business changing so much as the style of any letter in the book because he will be in ignorance of the real consequences of his changes.This change could have ruined the book for Thelema.
It could have been catastrophic."
That's definitely a main reason in my opinion. Although I think the purpose is also there to prevent others (even AC himself) from making changes to the original thought and philosophy, sometimes inherent in something very simple, if they later have a change in views etc.
Great point though."
Thanks. The O.T.O. has banned me from using it's Facebook fan page and it's community page to make exactly the same point (and also deleted the posts).
Apparently the Law is for All but O.T.O. censorship of the wider Thelemic community is reserved for those making good points?"
Really? I'm not in the O.T.O., but I have heard stories. That seems to be a bit unfair, I don't see that as any reason to ban you. Strange.
-
@Jason R said
"
@Off the Wall said
"
Thanks. The O.T.O. has banned me from using it's Facebook fan page and it's community page to make exactly the same point (and also deleted the posts).Apparently the Law is for All but O.T.O. censorship of the wider Thelemic community is reserved for those making good points?"
Really? I'm not in the O.T.O., but I have heard stories. That seems to be a bit unfair, I don't see that as any reason to ban you. Strange."
It's censorship - plain and simple, and it's grossly unfair as this matter affects all Thelemites. I don't know why they resort to censorship. Perhaps they prepare a set of scripted responses for the moderators when they pull a trick like this - but if the mods can't answer you from the script then they censor you instead? You'd have to ask them why they favor censorship.
Apparently, Man has the right to think what he will, to speak what he will and to write what he will... as long as man doesn't disagree with Bill Breeze on FB.
-
@Off the Wall said
"It's censorship - plain and simple, and it's grossly unfair as this matter affects all Thelemites."
This is no violation of any Thelemic "rights," as you implied at the end of your post: it just sounds like they banned you from one specific area over which they have control, which is absolutely their right to do, for any reason at all.
If I had to guess, I would wager that you were banned for making loopy comments that not-so-subtly insulted the organization.
You have every right to make your comments, and they have every right to ban you for making those comments, and you have every right to go elsewhere and make those comments again. No one's oppressing any make believe "rights" you think you have.
-
@Los said
"
@Off the Wall said
"It's censorship - plain and simple, and it's grossly unfair as this matter affects all Thelemites."This is no violation of any Thelemic "rights," as you implied at the end of your post: it just sounds like they banned you from one specific area over which they have control, which is absolutely their right to do, for any reason at all.
If I had to guess, I would wager that you were banned for making loopy comments that not-so-subtly insulted the organization.
You have every right to make your comments, and they have every right to ban you for making those comments, and you have every right to go elsewhere and make those comments again. No one's oppressing any make believe "rights" you think you have."
As far as rights go, the community page entitled 'Thelema' is a public space set aside for people with like interests. All members (including the mods that set up, run and supervise these pages) are expected to abide by the community standards set out here:
www.facebook.com/communitystandard
My post there expressed the opinion given in my first post here, and was not in violation of the community standards expected by FB.
I think you may be confusing 'rights' with 'power'. Just because an O.T.O. member running a general Thelemic community page has the power to ban dissenting opinions does not give them the right to do so except when that opinion does not meet the standards of the community (set out in the above document). They are not privileged by FB with the right to ban people from community pages for "any reason whatsoever". And of course, I have the right to report that page owner for misusing their power, (which I shall do after breakfast).
Good day.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
" Plus, seems in violation of the oath to accept the book of the law without wishing to change it."
excellent point: which would surely make them in breach of the Oath if they implement it?
Plus Liber al clearly states: *Change not so much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou o prophet, shall not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.*I:54
Can it get any clearer than that?
-
Los,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
@Los said
"
@Off the Wall said
"It's censorship - plain and simple, and it's grossly unfair as this matter affects all Thelemites."This is no violation of any Thelemic "rights," as you implied at the end of your post: it just sounds like they banned you from one specific area over which they have control, which is absolutely their right to do, for any reason at all. "
Now this that you are "once again" trying to do, is exactly what I were talking about when I said:
"You are very good with words, so good that all discussions with you seem to halt with you not understanding “feelings”, “nuances of words”, “words of expressions” etc. I have had these tiresome discussions with “about to be BB’s” and BB’s before, marking my words, having their reason taking us down into the pit called “Because”, due to their failure of understanding the “tacit knowledge” of the author etc."
You keep repeating that Black Brother pattern... You simply fail to grasp the very point of the discussion - the "tacit knowledge" of the author. The point here is NOT about "rights"; it's NOT about violating some man-made abstract ideological "right". The man was offended, his pride was hurt, they treated him like a criminal when they removed his commonsense comments without no special reason at all.
It's about the O.T.O. showing uncanny communist/faschist-tendencies...
The man has "emotional concerns" here, he is upset (he has it under control though
) and he is asking questions about that which has brought alot of people out of balance - including myself... But you don't see this, you try to make this to be some abstract discussion about "rights". We are not talking "ideological abstractions" here. We are talking REALITY... But you are blinded by ignorance, and can't seem to make a diffrence between the two...You also repeate the pattern of wanting to have another man look like a fool by making irrelevant points:
@Los said
"If I had to guess, I would wager that you were banned for making loopy comments that not-so-subtly insulted the organization."
You don't know what he really said, do you? But still you insinuate him being clumsy, brutish, foolish etc. Let me quote myself once again to show what you are up to:
"These discussions never seem to bear any fruit because of the tiresome burden of always having to explain that which isn’t relevant for understanding the topic currently discussed. It is tiresome to always having to guard against discussing endless loops of irrelevant points – points always made by you – only to have me look like a fool."
Voila! The points you are making are "once again" not at all relevant for understanding the current discussion. They are (as I have pointed out) only made to have another man look like a fool. You rude creature!
It's easy to know what to expect from you. You are very easily predicted. This is exactly why I wouldn't have any further discussions with you (Perhaps I would use you as a libary of reference [like this rainman thing] that's about it.)... To have any further discussions with you would be like walking down to that huge desert sandbox; that pit called "Because"...
One last question: What happned to that Angel of yours? Since I don't want to side-track this discussion any further - please let me have your answer in private!
Love is the law, love under will.
Peace