"Indeed...I recall the entry - I am just pointing out that the spelling is not compatible with Amalantre's instruction. I'm assuming that the proper spelling was added to the Aug. 29 entry after the Amalantrah Working on Jan. 19-20 the following year - why then doesn't it follow the Wizard's instruction & add O as Vau?"

Crowley would have been more likely to view it as a suggestion rather than instruction. The messages being relayed through the Camel and thence repeated by her to Crowley, and communication between Amalantrah and the Camel sometimes being fitful, Crowley wouldn't have regarded much if anything as gospel. He clearly became dissatisfied with the given spelling, and modified it.

One of the interesting things about the Amalantrah Working is how often Crowley switches between enthusiasm for what's being received, and scepticism as to any value it has, sometimes real anger.

Best wishes,

Michael.

"
@Lapis said
"...tack an Aleph on the end of that & we have BAVVMIThRA which equals 666...it seems like the Beast would've went straight for that one!"

...especially with its Mithraic connotations."

And the fact that it's Baphomet + Ra !

(I think I have seen BAVVMITh-RA somewhere before... maybe something by good ol' Ike Becker???)

Steve

"
@KRVB MMShCh said
"[then we have BAVVMIThR which equals 665"

...tack an Aleph on the end of that & we have BAVVMIThRA which equals 666...it seems like the Beast would've went straight for that one!

L.Lazuli"

...especially with its Mithraic connotations.

616

"[then we have BAVVMIThR which equals 665"

...tack an Aleph on the end of that & we have BAVVMIThRA which equals 666...it seems like the Beast would've went straight for that one!

L.Lazuli

"BAVOMIThR is not my spelling. It's Crowley's. See the entry for 29 August in Rex de Arte Regia."

Indeed...I recall the entry - I am just pointing out that the spelling is not compatible with Amalantre's instruction. I'm assuming that the proper spelling was added to the Aug. 29 entry after the Amalantrah Working on Jan. 19-20 the following year - why then doesn't it follow the Wizard's instruction & add O as Vau?

616

"The Wizard gave BAFOMETH(in Hebrew, not Greek), and explained O as Vau and E as Yod."

...your spelling 'BAVOMIThR' does not take into account the "O as Vau". I failed to count F as Vau & rather counted it as Peh, which would've worked except E is counted as Yod...if E wasn't counted at all then the spelling would equal 729 & would include the O counted as a Vau. If we, as you suggest, count F as Vau instead of Peh & count O as Vau & E as Yod as Rex de Arte Regia suggests, then we have BAVVMIThR which equals 665...

616

Where are you finding the extra 10?