Authorship of the Holy Books aside from CCXX
-
When I read the other Class A documents (aside from Liber Legis), they seem to have a dramatically different style of diction - in short, they appear to be exponentially easier to understand, almost like they weren't created by the same Author. I'm not aware of any major multi-language Qabalastic TO MH!-esque puns in the other Books, and I see Liber Legis quoted and debated (in public) far more than all the other Class A documents combined.
(I specify in public because I do not know what goes on behind the closed doors of Orders.)
Do we know if Aiwass is the sole author of all the Class A books? Do we know how much of Crowley-the-human bled into them, if any?
93, 93/93.
-
Let's start with this one off the bat, because it seems the rest of your question is rooted in it: You seem to be starting from the premise that Aiwass is the author of Liber Legis. I don't know that we can start from this premise.
I'm not neccessarily saying it isn't the case. I'm saying that there is no evidence in Liber L. itself on which to base this. Verse 1:7 says He "delivered" it. That doesn't mean He wrote it.
I'm sure I've read Crowley remarks attributing the authorship to Aiwass. (I'd have to dig to find them, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be horribly hard to find.) But for this particular discussion, since it seems fundamental to your question, I just wanted to introduce some preliminary agnosticism by saying that Liber L. only talks about the messenger, not the author of the message.
@Ash said
"Do we know if Aiwass is the sole author of all the Class A books? Do we know how much of Crowley-the-human bled into them, if any?"
For all of these, including Liber L., Crowley's mind appears to have been the language matrix through which the writing emerged. This can be looked at as a slap at Crowley ("We could have had a purer book if it had come through someone else, AC's mind must have distorted it") or as high praise of him (I tend to think that his mind, areas of knowledge, formulation of language, etc. had been uniquely crafted for 28 years in preparation for that one event; alternately we could argue that he was chosen from all available because his mind and its contents were best suited for this specific task - the old "took the best we could find" approach of the Third Order).
But, in any case, the precipitation of Neshamic content into explicit human language requires this reliance on the mind of the receiver. We can find it, for example, in simple telepathy: The communication is via subconsciousness, and the meaning comes across, but not necesarilty the specific form (original words). Or in various spiritual experiences, one rather easily encounters this condition where one has the meaning easily, and has to draw it down into specific words. Other times, it appears that what one is getting is blunt, direct, obvious words - though usually, I think, this is when the meaning is straightfoward, direct, and above all simple; and, in these straightforward cases, I think it is necessarily true that those blunt, direct, obvious words are still only necessarilly "obvious" to the hearing of the particular recipient.
Why would this not necessarily be so? After all, in order speech and writing we can routinely find examples of people picking perfectly good English words (also true in other languages, of course) which the listener or reader doesn't understand quite the way that the speaker or writer intended. Despite the universal meanings of words within a language, we each have a fairly unique relationship to those words and their patterns due to our individual histories.
This is necessarily true neurologically, also. The functions of the brain which ascribe meaning are late in the process of the neurological path of our receiving a communication. Also, meaning is not intrinsic to the communication anymore than it is intrinsic to an event - meaning is something we each drape over an experience after the senses register it.
So... since I haven't answered your direct question yet, I suppose I should offer an answer... I don't know that we can ascribe authorship of any of the Holy Books to a specific source; and yes, I think AC's mind was a necessary component in the formulation of all of them, including Liber L. I think the often-quoted passage (available in the Hymenaeus Alpha essay in the front of the Holy Books) wherein Crowley describes the process of receiving them is as close as it comes.
One can speculate within this, though. For example, I observe that it appears in many cases that the Books were being written by V.V.V.V.V. who, at the time, AC regarded as an external source. He later took this as his 8=3 motto, evidently identifying everything he had called V.V.V.V.V. with his own Neshamah. Fine enough, and this answers many questions by itself. But... the nature of Binah, and of Neshamah within it, is to be instantaneously responsive to the impulses from Chiah - so to speak, to unthinkingly and unresistingly translate the Chiah originations into a child (by impregnation, gestation, and delivery; and sometimes by nurturing it thereafter). So, whatever V.V.V.V.V. appears to have been originating can't be an origination but, rather, a receiving of its own - from "Adonai" (as we can see in Liber LXV over and over), i.e., the HGA experienced in Chokmah. Even this, though, is merely the Word - in terms of Liber L., the messenger-as-message, the consequence of the necessary motion of something higher or deeper than even that.
Which steps us back to Kether and the stillness and silence of Hoor-Paar-Kraat, of Whom Aiwass is... the messenger. (Kinda what we just disovered, right?) And how could a message intended to be universal originate from any lesser source? It's common to observe that, from any point on the circumference, there is a direct route to the center. But the complement is true, too: From the center, there is equally easy access to any point on the wheel of experience.
-
Thank you for the very in-depth response, Jim. I think I'll need to read it a few more times to really get the full importance of it, but I think the main idea can reduce to: Since this is a message from Silence, ultimately, to say that "there is no author" is as accurate as saying "the author is Kether."
... Which is as accurate as saying that there is no author.
I'm just struggling to justify to myself why I believe these books are special in any way or "legitimate" in the face of probably thousands of other books that are just subconscious crap exalted unnecessarily. I'd like to have a more rational understanding of it (hopefully to pave the way for an even deeper understanding).
93, 93/93.
-
@Ash said
"I'm just struggling to justify to myself why I believe these books are special in any way or "legitimate" in the face of probably thousands of other books that are just subconscious crap exalted unnecessarily. I'd like to have a more rational understanding of it (hopefully to pave the way for an even deeper understanding)."
I can't speak for your reason...
My reason has almost nothing to do with where they came from. My reason is: They are beautiful. almost beyond comparison. (Most of them, anyway. And the others that seem a bit more prosaic came from the same same human source, who said he got them in the same way; so I at least don't have to hassle myself excessively about how he catalogued them.)
I understand your question, though - where does one draw the line etc.? I can tell you that my own Liber Amoris vel Calicis came from my HGA, but I've never had any reason to hint it was a Class A work. (And you have no reason even to accept my statement on its origins.) It speaks for itself, well or badly.
-
I see your point. I naturally tend to think of these things in terms of "well, either it's right or wrong, inspired or non-inspired," and the fact that it's a lot more of a grey area than that is something I'm still struggling with.
Not that I think that the Class A books aren't beautiful or inspiring on their own merits, but I have many decades less experience with them than you do - they haven't really found root in my mind yet.
As an example, Liber Legis really didn't make that big of an impression on me the first time I read it. It took a lot of read-throughs before I really began to see something unique and beautiful in it (which I do now).
93, 93/93.
-
"Since this is a message from Silence, ultimately, to say that "there is no author" is as accurate as saying "the author is Kether.""
Just shooting from the hip, I'd say the author would be that which came prior to Kether.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Jim Eshelman said
"My reason has almost nothing to do with where they came from. My reason is: They are beautiful. almost beyond comparison."
This was refreshing to read. I've seldom found anyone who reads Crowley to enjoy masterpieces of the English language, as I most astutely believe them to be. It seems most spend time with his writings to be able to say they've spent time with his writings, to justify entitlement to the Grades. If I've learned anything from Crowley, its a deeper understanding of English and how to appropriately apply mythological imagery to religious allegory.
But I digress as I can see that I am derailing the thread; I couldn't leave without showing some appreciation for your appreciation.
Love is the law, love under will.