"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
@he atlas itch said
"Perhaps it would be more to the point to ask proponents of the “fill me” camp what they see in Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema?"
First of all, people have to understand the nature of marginalia...it's generally a reader's response to emotions or thoughts that arise during the process of reading. In cases where the reader is also the author, it can be self-commentary or a sort of note taking, but it is primarily a process of intimate reflection on the subject matter to be shared by other readers of that text. (If anyone wants to get deeply into this subject, there's some great studies out there. Start with H. J. Jackson's Marginalia: Readers Writing in Books.) So while I can play all day with what Crowley might have been thinking, and speculate on what he may have been intending as a result, or even interpret the circumstances as some sort of significant event, in the end, what we have is a marginal note that indicates that at the time of reading that "fill" in a copy of Thelema, someone (potentially Crowley) was thinking of the related meaning of "kill" that Crowley had used poetically elsewhere and noted it for whomever would be encountering that book. That's it. Anything else is pure speculation, and requires a set of assumptions based on what you can extrapolate from other data...or what you want to believe about it.
@he atlas itch said
"Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema overrides his “fill me” in Liber 31 because 1) both comments are in his handwriting 2) the Windram correction occurs later and 3) it is the only textual example where “fill” is clearly corrected in favor of “kill.”"
Again, it's a huge jump from "marginal notation" to "intended correction to the foundational document of the entire Thelemic belief system." And your comment that it's the "only textual example where 'fill' is clearly corrected in favor of 'kill'" only supports that - had it been more than a marginal thought, it would have been mentioned as a correction in other texts, because he would need to communicate the importance of those thoughts clearly to someone else (as was done in the case of the correction in EG 1(10) as mentioned in Threefold31's essay.) Unless you want to argue that he or the Secret Chiefs or Aiwaz left something of this importance up to a chance "discovery" like this....certainly your prerogative, but far too sketchy for me.
My strong objection to HB's decision to treat this as a correction and start publishing the new version of Liber AL as if it had always been Crowley's intended version is primarily due to the mess it will make for those of us who study Crowley's life and work from a scholarly position (regardless of whatever personal meaning we have for it.) I left the OTO on peaceful terms in '06 after a useful 10 years, and their decisions have long ceased to have any impact on my personal work, life, beliefs, etc. But this would have already turned into a historian's nightmare without the quick and excellent work that has been done by so many already. We do at least have a good current batch of data to keep the evidence intact and can track the changes, and it has opened up a fascinating new area of investigation. So thank you to all involved with that.
But I do agree with Belmurru that this is a watershed moment...it will show whether or not the religious authority of a modern organization is sufficient to make a significant alteration to scriptural authority based on a leader's personal fiat, breaking a taboo that has been in place for a century now. What happens next is new territory for Thelema, since should HB (and thus OTO members) continue to insist on its legitimacy, there will no longer be one Book of the Law common to Thelema. There's been many "dividing lines" before, but not of this caliber (IMO.)
-
The answer to this seems simple to me. As has already been considered here, Crowley continued to work on the poem and made a little change, but as Liber Al tells him not to change a single letter of the Book he felt he was barred from implementing the change in Liber Al itself, but he could implement it when printed separately from Liber Al. After all, he is directly instructed not to make changes so once the ink is on the page that's it, and that's how it stays. The book probably doesn't say "no one else in years to come should change it either" because it's patently absurd for anyone else to do so, and it was inconceivable that anyone would try to.
-
@nashimiron said
"The answer to this seems simple to me. As has already been considered here, Crowley continued to work on the poem and made a little change, but as Liber Al tells him not to change a single letter of the Book he felt he was barred from implementing the change in Liber Al itself, but he could implement it when printed separately from Liber Al. After all, he is directly instructed not to make changes so once the ink is on the page that's it, and that's how it stays. The book probably doesn't say "no one else in years to come should change it either" because it's patently absurd for anyone else to do so, and it was inconceivable that anyone would try to.
"Agreed.
In fact, that scenario makes the most sense, in my opinion. That XXI and CCXX were pretty much "set in stone", so Crowley could not/would not touch them. Therefore, when he got the itch to play around with it at all, he did it within the confines of his own poetry.
It's possible that the child in him wrote the marginal "k" to as to urge Windram (or himself, or someone else) not to forget about the monkey at play.
-
That sounds logical enough. However, the following facts need to be taken into consideration:
-
Crowley wrote the poetic paraphrase of the Stele prior to the reception of Liber Legis.
-
He penciled the aide-memoire “fill me” in the margins of Liber 31 *after *the reception of Liber Legis.
These facts raise questions on whether Liber Legis 3:37 should be classified as falling under the “dictation” of Aiwass. The argument could be made that the debate over fill/kill arose *precisely because *its Class A status was uncertain. Crowley may have felt license to revise the wording of the paraphrase because he was the author.
The Temple of Thelema’s position on this issue is worth noting.
The TOT has drawn a time-frame around the reception of Liber Legis that extends beyond April 8, 9, and 10. Anything falling within this time-frame constitutes “dictation” by Aiwass and therefore Class A. That means Rose Kelly’s correction of two passages in Liber Legis, along with Crowley’s aide-memoire of “fill me” in the margins of Liber 31, both of which occurred after April 10th, are part of the “dictation” of Liber Legis by Aiwass and hence Class A.
The underlying assumption here is that, within the above-described time-frame, a vastly superior and transcendent intelligence (Aiwass) acted upon and through various human actors, coincidences and so-called “mistakes”, to transmit Liber Legis to humanity.
Under this scenario, even if Crowley incorrectly recalled or miswrote "fill me" in the margins of Liber 31, this human error is nonetheless correct and Class A. Moreover, under this scenario, Crowley is far more of an unwitting tool and instrument of Aiwass. The TOT’s position contrasts strongly with HB’s thinking:
As the editor of Liber Legis, Crowley had the requisite authority, knowledge, experience and access to all the necessary primary materials to decide this matter; we do not. Or, to back up the timeline and put it more bluntly: Crowley was at the Cairo Working; we were not. He marked what he wanted clearly. Who are we to second guess him?
-
-
@he atlas itch said
"That sounds logical enough. However, the following facts need to be taken into consideration:
-
Crowley wrote the poetic paraphrase of the Stele prior to the reception of Liber Legis.
-
He penciled the aide-memoire “fill me” in the margins of Liber 31 *after *the reception of Liber Legis.
"
You forgot to add that he was working on the poem for about a month before the reception. As much as he liked to revise his works and poetry, one would think that what he decided on at the time would have been fresh in his memory. Thus, as far as memory goes, he would have had plenty of time to store his decision in both short and long term memory.
You also forgot to add that even after all of this, for over 30 years after, he did not publish a change in Liber CCXX from "fill" to "kill" not one time.
The only changes exist in private revisions of his poetry, and a little side note in Thelema, which he gave no extant reason for making.
-
-
"These facts raise questions on whether Liber Legis 3:37 should be classified as falling under the “dictation” of Aiwass."
Granted.
"The argument could be made that the debate over fill/kill arose precisely because its Class A status was uncertain."
Uncertain to whom? Doesn't matter though. That's a separate point.
"Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization."
At what point are you going to recognize that this redaction is the very kind of "criticism" forbidden to Class A documents?
"But, but, but, but, but.... "
This redaction is nothing but personal opinion and "criticism" not based on any official action of the Adept who penned, classified, and repeatedly published the Class A document as "fill me."
This Class A utterance is beyond his ability to criticize exactly for the reason that he must presume to know the mind of the author to do so. This is precisely what the Class A designation forbids. It's the very thing it was intended to prevent. You don't get to presume to know the mind of the Adept who penned the Class A document and then change the document. I don't know how else to say it. What else do you need to hear to understand that what is happening is the very thing that was expressly forbidden?
It's there already - repeatedly published as Class A. And it's there in the very manuscript that we still have.
"Crowley may have felt license to revise the wording of the paraphrase because he was the author. "
He did not do so.
He did not do so.
He repeatedly did not do so.
And now, the very Visible Head of the OTO justifies his criticism of this repeatedly published and repeatedly "uncorrected" Class A utterance of an Adept based on his personal opinion that the original author *intended *to do so but never actually did so because this same author, this Adept who dared classify and repeatedly publish this as his own official Class A Adept utterance, beyond any future criticism, was lazy.
""Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization."
-
@Azidonis said
"You also forgot to add that even after all of this, for over 30 years after, he did not publish a change in Liber CCXX from "fill" to "kill" not one time."
The logical conclusion is that Crowley did not want discrepancies to appear between Liber 31 and Liber 220:
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast
Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis.
-
@he atlas itch said
"
@Azidonis said
"You also forgot to add that even after all of this, for over 30 years after, he did not publish a change in Liber CCXX from "fill" to "kill" not one time."The logical conclusion is that Crowley did not want discrepancies to appear between Liber 31 and Liber 220:"
Liber 31 clearly says "fill", and Crowley did not change it not one time when printing Liber CCXX.
@he atlas itch said
"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the BeastUnder this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."
And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?
@Bereshith said
"
"These facts raise questions on whether Liber Legis 3:37 should be classified as falling under the “dictation” of Aiwass."Granted.
"The argument could be made that the debate over fill/kill arose precisely because its Class A status was uncertain."
Uncertain to whom? Doesn't matter though. That's a separate point.
"Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization."
At what point are you going to recognize that this redaction is the very kind of "criticism" forbidden to Class A documents?
"But, but, but, but, but.... "
This redaction is nothing but personal opinion and "criticism" not based on any official action of the Adept who penned, classified, and repeatedly published the Class A document as "fill me."
This Class A utterance is beyond his ability to criticize exactly for the reason that he must presume to know the mind of the author to do so. This is precisely what the Class A designation forbids. It's the very thing it was intended to prevent. You don't get to presume to know the mind of the Adept who penned the Class A document and then change the document. I don't know how else to say it. What else do you need to hear to understand that what is happening is the very thing that was expressly forbidden?
It's there already - repeatedly published as Class A. And it's there in the very manuscript that we still have.
"Crowley may have felt license to revise the wording of the paraphrase because he was the author. "
He did not do so.
He did not do so.
He repeatedly did not do so.
And now, the very Visible Head of the OTO justifies his criticism of this repeatedly published and repeatedly "uncorrected" Class A utterance of an Adept based on his personal opinion that the original author *intended *to do so but never actually did so because this same author, this Adept who dared classify and repeatedly publish this as his own official Class A Adept utterance, beyond any future criticism, was lazy.
""Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.""
This is spot on.
-
@Azidonis said
"
@he atlas itch said
"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the BeastUnder this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."
And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?"
Just a reminder: according to Crowley's account of events, Aiwass did not dictate the poetic rendering of the Stele. He says that Aiwass simply indicated to him -- wordlessly -- to insert his paraphrase of the Stele in there (i.e. the poem that Crowley had written just the other day, in the vellum notebook).
The pencil note was written by Aleister Crowley as a reminder or instruction to the typist, probably some time after the dictation. That's the whole crux of this issue: whether Crowley made a mistake when he wrote "fill me."
As people have pointed out, it seems really odd that Crowley would misremember how his own poem ends, especially so soon after having written it, but that's the argument....
-
@Los said
"
@Azidonis said
"
@he atlas itch said
"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the BeastUnder this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."
And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?"
Just a reminder: according to Crowley's account of events, Aiwass did not dictate the poetic rendering of the Stele. He says that Aiwass simply indicated to him -- wordlessly -- to insert his paraphrase of the Stele in there (i.e. the poem that Crowley had written just the other day, in the vellum notebook).
The pencil note was written by Aleister Crowley as a reminder or instruction to the typist, probably some time after the dictation. That's the whole crux of this issue: whether Crowley made a mistake when he wrote "fill me."
As people have pointed out, it seems really odd that Crowley would misremember how his own poem ends, especially so soon after having written it, but that's the argument...."
Over the years there has grown up an entirely arbitrary convention based around when Aiwass was inspiring Crowley and when he wasn't, and people actually go out of their way to make a little timeline of events for themselves. Its been amusing and I suppose it gives commentators somewhere to stand when they debate on forums and newsgroups. But in actual fact we don't have a window into the mind and consciousness of Aleister Crowley and doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to anyone that if Crowley's HGA was Aiwass, that Aiwass should ever go missing or not be around for the entirety of Crowley's life? For all we know Aiwass could have inspired Aleister Crowley everytime he visited the crapper, or Aleister Crowley may have been led to do things under the influence of his HGA without him being aware that he was acting thusly. "Thou hast no choice but to do thy Will!"
I do not think that you can truly separate out the work of Aleister Crowley from the work of Aiwass and I think it is foolishness to try.
-
Yeah, I think questions of timelines and which part of a class A document really is class A and which part can be considered less than A (A- maybe?) are red herrings. What's written down on paper, the tangible manifestation of the impulse that started in Aiwass' consciousness is what cannot be changed or edited. So we have XXXI in it's unchanging form, and anything that deviates from it is a different book, not a true transcription.
-
@Los said
"
@Azidonis said
"
@he atlas itch said
"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the BeastUnder this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."
And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?"
Just a reminder: according to Crowley's account of events, Aiwass did not dictate the poetic rendering of the Stele. He says that Aiwass simply indicated to him -- wordlessly -- to insert his paraphrase of the Stele in there (i.e. the poem that Crowley had written just the other day, in the vellum notebook).
The pencil note was written by Aleister Crowley as a reminder or instruction to the typist, probably some time after the dictation. That's the whole crux of this issue: whether Crowley made a mistake when he wrote "fill me."
As people have pointed out, it seems really odd that Crowley would misremember how his own poem ends, especially so soon after having written it, but that's the argument...."
If we start getting into various timelines and questioning what exact times the Cairo Working is comprised of, we could be in for quite a headache!
I think it's logical, Los, to acknowledge that had Crowley felt he made a mistake in the manuscript when writing "Fill", he did not show this in his actions.
-
"fill" was written in pencil. He could have easily erased it and changed the manuscript, but he didn't. The fact that it was in pencil gives more weight, in my opinion, to Crowley's decision on "fill", as he could have changed "Fill" to "kill" at any time, without marring the rest of the manuscript.
-
Over 30 years, and every publication of Liber CCXX has "fill". The evidence has provided that he did use "kill" in some instances of the poem, but never in an instance of the poem that was going into print as Liber CCXX.
-
-
"Order : a group of people united in a formal way: as (1) : a fraternal society <the Masonic Order> (2) : a community under a religious rule; especially : one requiring members to take solemn vows (Merriam-Webster). "
"Rule: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members (Merriam-Webster). "
"The publications of the A∴A∴ divide themselves into five classes.
Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.
Class “B” consists of books or essays which are the result of ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest.
Class “C” consists of matter which is to be regarded rather as suggestive than anything else.
Class “D” consists of the Official Rituals and Instructions.
Class “E” consists of public announcements and broadsheets.
(lib.oto-usa.org/libri/byclass.html)
"The Rule of the Order is broken.
A Class A document is being altered according to Class B criteria, i.e. those of "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."
This discussion continually centers around such scholarly debate instead of the Rule of the Order.
But what is at stake is very literally and simply acceptance or rejection of the Rule of the Order itself by "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."
And as much as it pains me to say this in its overt dramatic grandeur in an environment of friends and colleagues... the nature of orders and their rules being what they are, the question goes to the divestment of the Visible Head of the Organization, having rejected the Rule of the very Order he heads in favor of his own ordinary scholarship, however enlightened and earnest it may be.
Not that I want that or call for that myself. But these are the facts, and orders have their rules, or they are not truly orders nor do they truly have rules.
-
@Bereshith said
"
"Order : a group of people united in a formal way: as (1) : a fraternal society <the Masonic Order> (2) : a community under a religious rule; especially : one requiring members to take solemn vows (Merriam-Webster). ""Rule: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members (Merriam-Webster). "
"The publications of the A∴A∴ divide themselves into five classes.
Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.
Class “B” consists of books or essays which are the result of ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest.
Class “C” consists of matter which is to be regarded rather as suggestive than anything else.
Class “D” consists of the Official Rituals and Instructions.
Class “E” consists of public announcements and broadsheets.
(lib.oto-usa.org/libri/byclass.html)
"The Rule of the Order is broken.
A Class A document is being altered according to Class B criteria, i.e. those of "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."
This discussion continually centers around such scholarly debate instead of the Rule of the Order.
But what is at stake is very literally and simply acceptance or rejection of the Rule of the Order itself by "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."
And as much as it pains me to say this in its overt dramatic grandeur in an environment of friends and colleagues... the nature of orders and their rules being what they are, the question goes to the divestment of the Visible Head of the Organization, having rejected the Rule of the very Order he heads in favor of his own ordinary scholarship, however enlightened and earnest it may be.
Not that I want that or call for that myself. But these are the facts, and orders have their rules, or they are not truly orders worthy of that name."
I think you are correct that, if the debate were a scholarly one, the rule of the Class A documents is being broken ("fill me" is not a typo, either).
But, the narrative as HB gave it in the News of April 11 - oto.org/news0413.html - places the discovery of the Windram's ΘΕΛΗΜΑ in a spiritual context. That is, the Secret Chiefs, the hidden heads of the Order, brought this volume to the visible head providentially.
HB's claim is not that he is making the change; his claim is that the invisible head(s) are commanding him to do it, as proven by the timing of the volume.
So there's a loophole in the Class A definition - they are beyond the criticism of the visible head of the order - but not the invisible head of the order!
-
This creates an imagined scenario in which the founder of these very same order rules, who repeatedly published and designated his own Class A utterance without this correction, was out of communication with these same chiefs who supposedly now desire this correction.
Who is the Prophet of the New Aeon? Did he really speak for these same chiefs, or was he too lazy and/or closed off from them to hear and take action himself?
The question goes to the authority of the Prophet and Magus of the New Aeon. Was he truly their/its prophet or not? Does he truly carry his own "Class A" authority in his own Class A utterances or not?
-
To be true to my own nature, I will not refuse myself to say this much...
The wind stirs within me against this, but such speech carries no weight here. So why bear the blows of the insane?
My intuitions and elemental passions warn in the language of a Great Truce being broken - of Saturn's bars being bent - of lawlessness - the seditious seek release from their lawful restraints - a deviation from the Prophet and Magus' set boundaries for humanity's collective New Aeonic spiritual dreaming.
It's a bad course to set - a precedent of refuting the Prophet's concrete, official, historically enacted authority.
To say that, I am willing to bear my blows if deserving.
The rest is learning.
Now, back to the scholar's persona for as long as I can restrain this other.
-
@he atlas itch said
" The logical conclusion is that Crowley did not want discrepancies to appear between Liber 31 and Liber 220...."
Bingo! And this is as much a conscious, well thought out decision made by the person in the prophetic office as anything else that has been proposed. That is the whole problem here. The evidence - lack of a corrected publication or direct instructions to that end - supports that Crowley intentionally chose to not regard the matter as one needing to be corrected. HB's entire argument is that he is fulfilling the command of the Prophet by changing Liber 220, even though - for the past 19 years that I've been intimately familiar with Thelema - the "Book of the Law" in publication is both Liber XXXI and Liber CCXX. His scenario proposes a rationalization of why Crowley never made the change as the base of that argument. But it starts from the assumption that Crowley was deciding to make a change when he made the marginal notation. And many of us, regardless of affiliation or even personal relationship to Thelema as a Religion, do not agree with that assumption.
@he atlas itch said
" Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."
Then "Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided earlier, is what constitutes Liber Legis" is equally true.
In that case, the crux of the issue is whether Aiwass was directing Crowley to use the Paraphrase as it was written in the days before the working (which many believe was quite feasibly "kill"),or to use what he was inspired to write down during the transmission itself, which is clearly "fill." If one's desire is to get as close to the original transmission as possible, then it may be indeed necessary to look beyond the words of Liber XXXI, as - just as with any transmission of spiritual Truth - the interface can distort the message. But this also raises some serious problems, the biggest being that Crowley's decision not to publish a version of CCXX which did not conform with Liber XXXI would then reflect his own desires - possibly an ego-based one, perhaps a subconscious resistance, rather than following the explicit instructions of Aiwass. And that leads to the extremely slippery ground of deciding when Crowley was acting under the influence of Aiwass and when he was serving his own purposes. Have at that one all you want!
There is a very simple solution to this, which is that Crowley did not feel that the change of the letter would warrant the problems it would cause for those readers sincerely trying to understand the Book of the Law, as the Liber CCXX is necessary to create a uniform reading of Liber XXXI. The divergence in letters would create an unnecessary dissonance, while the possible meanings of "kill" could be as easily accessed through "fill" if one is working within the Thelemic paradigm. I've never known anyone in my life among Thelemites to stumble over that one, personally - everyone pretty much understood that we were, through the entire practice, aspiring to the moment of surrending our entire essence into the Cup of Babalon, and until that time, were seeking only to be more and more filled with devotion, power, light, and inspiration to get us there. Crowley's writings leave no doubts about that. Thus I feel it's quite feasible that he felt that the direct instruction "not to change a letter" was more important that the matter of the paraphrase.
This does disagree with HB believes and has decided as policy for the OTO. Fortunately, I get to do that all day long. What oaths still bind me are to the Law itself, not anyone or anything else. But those who are under some sort of obligation of friendship or oath to him obviously feel justified supporting his position. Out of respect for the Wills of others, I'm sensing the boundaries of what I can Lawfully say before it becomes persuasion or argument. So, the cases have been made, and each until their own, DWTW.
-
@Bereshith said
" Now, back to the scholar's persona for as long as I can restrain this other."
LOL...the story of my life!
@belmurr said
"That is, the Secret Chiefs, the hidden heads of the Order, brought this volume to the visible head providentially."
But in all seriousness, Belmurru's point is an excellent one, and for that reason, it may be that the debate generated here and now by the "event" is exactly what Thelema needs. Certainly in my life, it's been a positive thing, and served to draw my interest back into an area I'd mostly abandoned and show me some new opportunities for growth, as well as some great new work that I'd been missing out on. This is my favorite of the Thelemic forums, and the exchanges this round have been particularly inspiring.
Hence, though there are assumptions here that I feel honor bound to call out, as both a scholar and practitioner, I do respect all involved. People can publish whatever they will, however they will, and face whatever consequences that entails. If it's useful to my work in either arena, I'll buy it; if not, I won't. Simple as that. The way that this all works out is one of the core reasons I hold the Law so dear.
LLLL,
M -
Re my previous Osirian argument: I admit I'm learning some things as we go. To me, who has had to forsake much of my spiritual past, some of the new has tasted bitterly, artificially "different" while in truth being the same. "Unless a seed falls to the ground and dies..." But I understand the new also brings a further progression that breaks the old wineskins of form of the eternal truth of transformation.
-
@Alrah said
" we don't have a window into the mind and consciousness of Aleister Crowley
[...]
I do not think that you can truly separate out the work of Aleister Crowley from the work of Aiwass and I think it is foolishness to try."
Well, in this one particular case, we can separate them out because Crowley tells us as much:
@Equinox of the Gods, Chapter 7 said
"It is to be noted that the translations from the Stele in verses 37-38 were no more than instantaneous thoughts to be inserted afterwards.
Verse 38 begins with my address to the God in the first sentence, while in the second is his reply to me. He then refers to the hieroglyphs of the Stele, and bids me quote my paraphrases. This order was given by a species of wordless gesture, not visible or audible, but sensible in some occult manner."
So Crowley explicitly says that in this particular instance of the writing, Aiwass didn't "dictate" anything but commanded him "wordless[ly]" to "quote [his] paraphrase" of the Stele.
I take this to mean that Aiwass' intention was for Crowley to insert into that part of the Book those sections of the paraphrase, as they appeared in the vellum notebook (which he had just recently written).
The paraphrases were composed by Aleister Crowley, before the reception of the Book. They aren't the "words of Aiwass" in the slightest.
So the debate is over whether Crowley forgot how the poem ended and made a mistake when he (at some later time) jotted down the brief note to the typist.