"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Separately, I add only the interesting facts that about a month before Germer's death, he affirmed in writing that Motta was no more than a 1=10, whereas a decade earlier he had affirmed (and discussed in lengthy correspondence) that Phyllis was at least a 5=6. If (note the 'if') these were the only two choices on who was "the member of the A.'.A.'. highest in rank (and then in seniority)" at Germer's death, it seems an easy choice."
indeed it stands, Jim! Phyllis was far more advanced than Motta. However, I think in the rebuttal there is a danger of being forced into a false position due to the falsities of the claimant.
The only point I wish to make is probably a new one to you (whilst being old to me). But I believe you will recognize the providence as it's not the first time I have spoken of the subject, but I hope this will provide extra clarity.
I assert that the only head of any A.'.A.'. lineage is Crowley himself.
I also assert that the inspiration for the A.'.A.'. came from the work of Florence Farr when she sought to establish 'the Sphere', and that the A.'.A.'. is a direct successor of the Sphere conceptually, and I channel that from my own lineage.
Thus - we should not judge the A.'.A.'. as if it were a mundane organisation shaped with a pyramid power structure. We must look to the Sphere. There can be no head but Aleister Crowley as the Magus of the Aeon. There can be no 'true lineage' - as members of the Sphere will arise across the formal boundaries of lineage just as they do across the artificial boundaries of countries. Or they may arise from no known lineage as they will. The current will die, and be reborn, and live again, and die again.
And I know you know this in your heart Jim, as did your teacher, as did Jane Wolf, as did Crowley, and as did a thousand initiates afore these.
Today, a young man wrote to me and asked me where he could find a proper affiliation with the A.'.A.'. I wrote him this reply, which I think is pertinant generally to everyone that would seek an education from the A.'.A.'. :
93 Dear XXXXX, I believe you must have misunderstood the article.
There is no real head of the A.'.A.'. except perhaps Aleister Crowley as the Magus of the Aeon, and the only test of whether an A.'.A.'. is proper or not is whether they teach the material that A.C. placed in the public domain from the very beginning, and whether they produce Adepts and foster the cultivation of new Magisters (i.e. the accomplishment of the two main tasks of every magician).
You see, unlike organisations such as the OTO which has a pyramid structure and is concerned with mundane and worldly things like power and influence (as is the nature of all such pyramid organisations) - the inspiration for A.C.'s 'A.'.A.'. arose from a little known of group within the old Golden Dawn that was called at that time 'The Sphere'.
The members of the Sphere were purely interested in individual spiritual progression and work. The true A.'.A.'. are the successors of The Sphere and it may not be ruled by the mundane concerns of the pyramid organisations, but neither does it deny the validity of such organisations. It's initiates may derive from the Yellow, White and the Black schools of Magick and Philosophy without any one school dominating the other, but rather they counter-balance each other as interlocking parts of the whole. You will never find these true initiates as members of only one branch or mundane lineage, and you may find them as members of no known lineage at all.
If you are with a group claiming it is A.'.A.'. and it asks you for money, or does not tailor it's education to you as an individual, or if it is overly concerned with group work and social dynamics rather than providing you with a mentor that can fast track your spiritual progression, then I would advise you to look for another group. If you find yourself in a situation where you are censored or threatened, or abused in any way, shape or form and you feel guided by your Angel to do so - then leave. But if you are looking of some kind of status symbol to identify with which will please your ego and think there is any group that does not have it's faults and it's flaws, and is some type of 'one and only' then I shall not encourage you further along that pointless path.
If you want to truly affiliate with the A.'.A.'. or the Sphere, then look within yourself. YOU are the proper A.'.A.'. and how much work you do to manifest that as a light to your brothers and sisters of the OTO, who are still seeking refuge from their discontent and 'aloneness' is up to you. Your ultimate work at the moment is to resolve the matter of the duality between the Self and the Not-Self, and to come into your own. People can help you along the way, but they cannot do the work for you.
Best of luck Brother,
A .'. 93 93/93.
-
@Alrah said
"
The only point I wish to make is probably a new one to you (whilst being old to me). But I believe you will recognize the providence as it's not the first time I have spoken of the subject, but I hope this will provide extra clarity.I assert that the only head of any A.'.A.'. lineage is Crowley himself."
Not new, and I've entertained it (and even used it) at times. No need to go off-topic to elaborate now, but I'm not averse to what you say, at least in certain applications. - Although, in the sense that I think you mean it, I probably would say Aiwass instead.
From a private paper internal to the Soror Estai lineage, authored by Soror Meral and me, from a section discussing the A.'.A.'. traditional office of Praemonstrator-General:
"Inasmuch as there is, at present, no world head of A.'.A.'., Aiwass (“93”) is regarded by the Sor. Estai lineage as the functional Praemonstrator-General. This may be changed in the future should one of the Adepts of the lineage who is of the 7=4 Grade be appointed to this Office by the Silver Star. Nonetheless, it being the firm policy of this lineage that there is no world head, it is not anticipated that even a Praemonstrator-General recognized in this lineage would assert, or attempt to assert, General Authority over the Order outside of the lineage. (This note is incorporated herein by agreement of Sor. Meral and Fra. Aur Heru as an instruction for those who come after.)"
I have no objection to the idea that Crowley's G.D. Praemonstrator and initiating Hierophant had an influence on the A.'.A.'. formation, though I probably wouldn't go much further than that - and I'm not sure that I care where the "inspiration" came from. (I can as easily, and at least as accurately, joke that Vivekananda is the inspirer, and have often joked that when he died in 1903 he changed his name to Aiwass and looked around for his next assignment.) - But I get why that distinction is important to you.
(Starting to get OT on the rest, so I'm being careful not to engage it.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Azidonis said
"That is, "I am grateful to the the Officers of the A.'.A.'. for consenting to the release of part of this ritual material. This was done in the public interest, so as to further our understanding of Crowley’s intention with Liber Legis". - H.B.If someone wouldn't mind helping me understand English, saying "the Officers of the A.'.A.'." implies one of two things: 1) ALL of the Officers of the A.'.A.'., or 2) THE Officers of the A.'.A.'. (as in, the 'main ones'). Maybe it implies a third thing. If someone would please help me understand this not-so-subtle wording, I will be grateful."
As the imprimaturs on the recent Equinox volumes he released would testify, there are three people that he regards as the A.'.A.'. Chiefs.
For myself, I would call them Chiefs of a particular lineage. In the past, Bill has said that my book, The Mystical & Magical System of the A.'.A.'. is flawed specifically because it speaks of lineages, and I've gone on to say that if that's the worst criticism I get, I'm happy to embrace the role of tolerant pragmatist
Regardless, he has his point of view, and I'm sure that's where he's coming from.
I also respect his not publishing the excerpt from a confidential A.'.A.'. initiation ritual without some such justification. That would create a far worse new precedent."
Thanks for the reply. I have been content to view them in the same way for quite some time, although I have at times in the past (falsely) hoped for some sort of union between lineages.
It does seem that they are out to commit only themselves as "THE A:.A:. lineage", which I know beyond all doubt to be a complete and total lie.
And that all of this is being put "on the back of the A:.A:.", as it were. That particular 'lineage' (if it can even be called that!), is a clear indication of fraud, in my humble opinion.
Not even Motta stooped so low... or did he? I don't remember hearing of him doing so.
As for your book, I don't care what the say - the masterpiece that you presented was far more worthy of Class B than Gunther's trash, and I'm really trying to put that nicely.
@Metzareph said
"
There is a difference between claims regarding the OTO and claims regarding the AA. Two very different orders with very different purposes.
This whole thing (including the Fill/Kill debacle) boils down to control and not the "spiritual reality of A.'.A.'. nor tradition of OTO"."This appears true, unfortunately. And to be quite honest, it's sickening.
-
I've written a critical review of HB's recent third article, which is available to read on Scribd.
-
@Alrah said
"I've written a critical review of HB's recent third article, which is available to read on Scribd.
Liked the article.
Unfortunately, no articles or discussions are going to change H.B.'s mind. At the moment, he's just gathering information and objections, and doing his best to come up with as solid of a case as possible - but the outcome of that case will continue to be in favor of "kill" in his eyes, no matter how much anyone reasons with him.
And then there are people who are "on his side" no matter what he chooses - a quaint little Bill Breeze army.
He wants it to be "kill". He wants a (c)O.T.O. and a (c)A:.A:.
What he fails to realize is that a (c)A:.A:. is impossible.
So, let the B.B. continue to reason and 'debate', and do as much as he can to confuse the symbols. It ultimately means nothing more than him spreading a big stain across the pages of Thelema that will last until it is removed, for all things are impermanent.
-
@Azidonis said
"
@Alrah said
"I've written a critical review of HB's recent third article, which is available to read on Scribd.Liked the article.
Unfortunately, no articles or discussions are going to change H.B.'s mind. At the moment, he's just gathering information and objections, and doing his best to come up with as solid of a case as possible - but the outcome of that case will continue to be in favor of "kill" in his eyes, no matter how much anyone reasons with him. "
Cheers. I felt that the 220 good folk that have signed the petition so far deserved something a little more substantial from me than Facebook soundbites.
The last time HB made an error like this was when he “corrected” Magick (Liber ABA) (1994 and later editions) to change their original readings of “kill me” to “fill me”. He is able to admit that he was woefully misguided in this, and hopefully he will have learned enough caution from making that mistake to admit to himself that he may be making another in exactly the same vein.
Frater HB needs to learn the proper use of the logical AND statement, instead of overusing the logical OR... and I suggest it may improve his meditations and be a boon to his GW as well. Just imagine the sort of knots the poor fellow is likely to get into if he applies the logical OR instead of the AND to the dualism of the Self vs. the NOT-Self.
-
93,
Some people question the way I relate to the change to Liber AL. They want to know the basis of my argument.
When the Spanish Inquisition was at work they decided that the solar calendar was correct, therefore the Jews could only have a lunar calendar and they sought to make the books and records reflect that fact by 'correcting' them. A 'twelve' in the Zohar was even 'expunged' and replaced with 'thirteen' for the lunar months in connection with this affair. The Inquisition took the line that the Jews were far too degenerate to know of the Solar Calendar and so they must have copied this information down from their betters. Actually, they had known it since 70 BCE or far older in their history. But the inquisition took the view that this wasn't really 'Jewish' information which was of the 13 (and the 13th apostle Judas). Thus ran the 'reasoning' and scholarly judgement of the inquisition when they changed the Zohar.
Prejudice made the change. Prejudice justified it in sweet words. And prejudice went on to burn and censor many other books.
And now I hear... Crowley must have forgot... been lazy... etc... and it smells like prejudice (not teen spirit) to me...
-
-
@seekinghga said
"
@Alrah said
"93,Some people question the way I relate to the change to Liber AL."
What change?"
... Have you been on a retreat in the mountains or something?
... If so - post photographs and I will explain.
If not - read the thread and the Lashtal threads, and then the blogs and please check out the petition and sign!
P.s. - if I were to explain right now... I would only bias you.
-
@Alrah said
"
@seekinghga said
"
@Alrah said
"93,Some people question the way I relate to the change to Liber AL."
What change?"
... Have you been on a retreat in the mountains or something?
... If so - post photographs and I will explain.
If not - read the thread and the Lashtal threads, and then the blogs and please check out the petition and sign!
P.s. - if I were to explain right now... I would only bias you.
"My cynicism opts to decline, thanks.
"Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him."
-
http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae111/alrah/Peculiar_zps45db6063.jpg
I've chosen to select just 5 from many differences between Liber xxxI and Liber CCXX and only from the first few pages of each work. I show the 5 examples featured in the poster in brackets of the verses (below) as they appear in the 1976 Weiser version of the little red Book of the Law.
- AL I,15: Now (ye) shall know that the chosen priest & apostle of infinite space is the prince-priest the Beast; and in his woman called the Scarlet Woman is all power given. They shall gather my children into their fold: they shall bring the glory of the stars into the hearts of men.
3 & 2) AL I, 22: Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name Nuit, and to him by a secret name which I will give (him) when at last he knoweth me. Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars (thereof), do ye also thus. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.
-
AL I, 26. Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one: Who am I, and what shall be the sign? So she answered (him), bending down, a lambent flame of blue, all-touching, all penetrant, her lovely hands upon the black earth, & her lithe body arched for love, and her soft feet not hurting the little flowers: Thou knowest! And the sign shall be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the omnipresence of my body.
-
- There are four gates to one palace; the floor of that palace (is of) silver and gold; lapis lazuli & jasper are there; and all rare scents; jasmine & rose, and the emblems of death. Let him enter in turn or at once the four gates; let him stand on the floor of the palace. Will he not sink? Amn. Ho! warrior, if thy servant sink? But there are means and means. Be goodly therefore: dress ye all in fine apparel; eat rich foods and drink sweet wines and wines that foam! Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me.
Note - the punctuation is also different in Liber xxxi and ccxx, and the punctuation in ccxx at times misleads...
This is not to show that CCXX is 'wrong', but that there are important differences which the prophet deliberately kept in the work and didn't regard their inclusion in CCXX as an error or in need of correction.
The mathematics of CCXX & Liber XXXI are different, and each reveal different hidden content. Thus - the published version of CCXX should remain EXACTLY as the scribe wished it in the last known published and authorized version of CCXX by 'H'im.
-
Ps... if you total the letters of Page 1 + page 3 of Liber XXXI then they come to 718 letters.
- 361 + 3) 357 = 718.
I also note that both page 1 and page 5 have 361 letters each.
-
-
Except that your two examples are already capitals whereas the 'f' in fill clearly is not.....?
-
93,
I think it is a k, it looks like a k and is different from the other two examples, I just don't know if it's Crowleys K....
Everyone has seen the arguments presented and I'm fairly certain most of the people here agree that it is is 'fill' and not kill. I have two copies of liber L and quite frankly, even if it sounds a bit rude, I couldn't care less what anyone else has. Then again I do side that noone has the authority to change a class A document, but surely any real seeker would check the manuscript and see that big old 'fill'.....perhaps another organisation will publish a clean copy and advertise it as an 'unchanged' version. I believe at the end of the day Mr Breeze has made his decision and believes he is correct in doing so and so nothing anyone says or does is going to change his decision, especially since he believes it is the will of the universe for this to happen. Hell if I believed that, I wouldn't go against it either!
93, 93/93.
-
@Archaeus said
"Except that your two examples are already capitals whereas the 'f' in fill clearly is not.....?"
In which case it would indicate the f should be F.
Aum! let it Fill me.
But as it was neither changed to a k not capitalized to an F by Crowley it makes no difference.
Some other points of note are:
- Usually Crowley rings spelling changes in his proofing rather than striking them through. I've only found one other occurrence of him striking through a spelling change and that is also in the Windram copy- into > unto
- If it was a k then why is it a uppercase K rather than a lowercase 'k'?
- Crowley (or someone) lifts the pressure between the two characters rather than follows through as he would have done with one character. He does not lift in other instances of the letter K.
- If it was a K then it omits the proofing mark of |. It should be |k. Also unusual for Crowley but also seen in the Windram copy (into > unto again). This again raises the question of whether Crowley really proofed that section or whether Windram or another may have done it.
So it is more likely to be |c than K. If HB really believes it is a K then he should be changing it to a capital and not a lowercase k. Why doesn't he?
There is an assumption being made that the K is really a K, but it's just an assumption. It could as easily be a |c.
-
-
@mark0987 said
"93,
I think it is a k, it looks like a k and is different from the other two examples, I just don't know if it's Crowleys K....
Everyone has seen the arguments presented and I'm fairly certain most of the people here agree that it is is 'fill' and not kill. I have two copies of liber L and quite frankly, even if it sounds a bit rude, I couldn't care less what anyone else has. Then again I do side that noone has the authority to change a class A document, but surely any real seeker would check the manuscript and see that big old 'fill'.....perhaps another organisation will publish a clean copy and advertise it as an 'unchanged' version. I believe at the end of the day Mr Breeze has made his decision and believes he is correct in doing so and so nothing anyone says or does is going to change his decision, especially since he believes it is the will of the universe for this to happen. Hell if I believed that, I wouldn't go against it either!
93, 93/93."
You're right, it doesn't look like the other two editing marks, which is not to say that's not what it is; either way 'd say this is a pretty slim piece of evidence, and unnecessary in the face of the weight of evidence that Breeze's 'correction' is merely his own folly.
-
@Archaeus said
"
@mark0987 said
"93,I think it is a k, it looks like a k and is different from the other two examples, I just don't know if it's Crowleys K....
Everyone has seen the arguments presented and I'm fairly certain most of the people here agree that it is is 'fill' and not kill. I have two copies of liber L and quite frankly, even if it sounds a bit rude, I couldn't care less what anyone else has. Then again I do side that noone has the authority to change a class A document, but surely any real seeker would check the manuscript and see that big old 'fill'.....perhaps another organisation will publish a clean copy and advertise it as an 'unchanged' version. I believe at the end of the day Mr Breeze has made his decision and believes he is correct in doing so and so nothing anyone says or does is going to change his decision, especially since he believes it is the will of the universe for this to happen. Hell if I believed that, I wouldn't go against it either!
93, 93/93."
You're right, it doesn't look like the other two editing marks, which is not to say that's not what it is; either way 'd say this is a pretty slim piece of evidence, and unnecessary in the face of the weight of evidence that Breeze's 'correction' is merely his own folly."
I think Crowley certain wrote in Windram's copy but I don't believe he proofed it, because he uses different proofing conventions in his other works. I think he's made some notes on Qabalah for Windram in the margins, but the capitals by the trigrams don't look like they are written in Crowley's distinctive hand either. They are corse and inelegant. I have zero confidence that the proof-reader and Crowley are the same writer for these reasons.