Wrong footnotes in the Big Blue Brick
-
Quote:
The Blue Brick footnotes suggestThey are partially wrong.
Jim has pointed out elsewhere that some of the BBB's footnotes are wrong, including the Mark of the Beast.
How come? I mean, is it a "blind" (which seems to be quite improbable), on purpose? Could there be a discordance of oppinions between the Temple of Thelema and the Caliphate in such an important subject, or what???
-
You're question makes that more political than it need be. If anything, it is a difference of opinion between two individuals, not between two institutions.
I have a document in Crowley's hand from c. 1909 - an A.'.A.'. official initiation ritual - in which one symbol is used for "The Mark of the Beast."
When Crowley was working on Liber Reguli (something very dear to the heart of some people), subtitled as a ritual of the Mark of the Beast, he gave another symbol which he characterized as the Mark of the Beast - I am as confident of the authenticity of this document as of the one I quoted above. However (I suspect because he realized the conflict and confusion), Crowley's next main reference to it - in The Book of Thoth (Prince of Wands? I'm going from memory...), he called it "the Sigil of To Mega Therion," a very nice shift in the name.
PS - I also don't consider this particular thing as a matter of any great importance <g>.
-
Ah, thanks.
So, to recapitulate:
The Mark of the Beast should in all probability be the N.O.X. sign, however the "sigil of TO MEΓA ΘΗΡΙΟΝ" is to be used in Liber V vel Reguli.Due to the fact that I, having here in Athens no tutor or thelemic order, rely very heavily on the printed information, do you think that there is a really important footnote or piece of information in the BBB that is wrong and the correction could be disclosed to the public???
-
@YHVH said
"The Mark of the Beast should in all probability be the N.O.X. sign, however the "sigil of TO MEΓA ΘΗΡΙΟΝ" is to be used in Liber V vel Reguli."
Yes, it is completely clear from Crowley's hand that when Liber Reguli says to draw the Mark of the Beast it means that same sign called "The Sigil of T.M.T." in Book of Thoth; and when "all or one" A.'.A.'. members present shall show on entering the Temple the Mark of the Beast" for the opening of the A.'.A.'. Second Order initiation, it is the N.O.X. sign.
"Due to the fact that I, having here in Athens no tutor or thelemic order, rely very heavily on the printed information, do you think that there is a really important footnote or piece of information in the BBB that is wrong and the correction could be disclosed to the public???"
First, there's a lot that's right - and a lot was fixed in the second edition. I haven't gone through it carefully in many years (it's never the version of Magick in Theory & Practice that I choose to pull off the shelf to actually use). I could comment on particular notes where you have questions (please cite which edition, since they are different). Yes, I'm sure there are still at least misleading, and possibly outright incorrect, notes. (It was a huge project!)