A Petition on please-do-not-change-the-book-of-the-law
-
@Bereshith said
"To implications:
It's been so interesting and difficult here, during the course of morphing from Christian/Osirian mystery to that of the New Aeon, to be brought back again and again to the idea that it's all the same Logos-energy and heart under a different primary metaphor.
It's no longer dying to be raised, it's living and pouring out one's life-blood into Babalon's cup. The change in metaphor is the primary emphasis of the New Aeon. Over and over again, it has been emphasized that the spiritual metaphor has to be changed in order for the instruction to be consistent, for the New Aeon to actually represent a change - something really new that departs from Osiris..
Yet this departs from that consistent presentation and places the metaphor of spiritual death and rebirth right there in RHK's chapter.
It honestly has me dumbfounded. It makes all the other emphasis on living and killing seem so pointlessly illusory.
For what did Christ do in knowingly, willfully going to Jerusalem but pour out his life-blood into Babalon's cup? It was a supreme act of Will.
It has me pondering the point of being all these years out of the fellowship and the vocation of my early training and my native spiritual tongue. For what? To serve a smoke and mirrors version of the same old, old story for the instinct-driven and skeptical? For whose sake? No one I come into conract with, that's for sure.
"Aum let it kill me." Ankh-af-khonsu, thou art Jesus the Christ."
Yeah..
The words were inspired as they reflect knowledge, altering the message in some form of seeking reparation speaks from the ego.. so instead of affirming it, it disclaims knowledge and is thus disspiriting.
As Jesus went voluntarily to his bodily death, the message is that this is the ego's last useless journey.. (it is done) ..and that such repetitions are endless until it is voluntarily given up, until this is done.. we are free to crucify ourselves as often as we choose.
By redacting the message, theyve made the pathetic error of clinging to the old rugged cross. -
Rugby. It's rugby at King's Cross.
-
@he atlas itch said
"One is tempted to conclude Crowley wanted "fill me" for *Liber Legis *and "kill me" for initiatory ritualistic purposes, but there is no evidence for such interpretation.
"I think there is some evidence for such an interpretation. The Great Invocation is a ritual of identification with Ra-Hoor-Khuit; in sections A-C, the speaker is identified as the "Priest"; the final act of section C says "Aum! Let it kill me!", and he emerges in section D "as God".
The human part, the invoker, is killed in C, and the God takes his place in D.
(It might be that this invocation was used in the Beelzebub working in Boleskine in the summer of 1904, since he describes the purpose of that ritual as "General idea of ceremony to become R.H.K., also to devote oneself to him by a Grand Method; thence directly to vivify Avenger" (Invocation of Hoor, p. 36). Note also the similarity of "Great" and "Grand", and that Crowley experimented with methods from the book, like III,25, which brought beetles as the book said it would.)
-
@he atlas itch said
"
@belmurr said
"Historically, "fill me" has priority, both in manuscript and printed forms, in Libers XXXI and CCXX."Belmurru
There is absolutely no evidence that "fill me" has priority over "kill me." Threefold31 notes the following about The Great Invocation:
TGI – The Great Invocation – A ritual that includes the third and fourth verses from the obverse Stele Versifications, (including the reading "kill me!"), as well as the whole of the versifications from the reverse of the Stele. Composed probably during the 1904 Cairo period, but after Liber L vel Legis was received, as it includes terms unique to that book. This was never published, but appears in galley proofs in the Appendix to CW III. The original manuscript copy is no longer extant.
The aide-memoire "fill me" was written in the margins of Liber 31 following the reception of Liber Legis, possibly a few days afterwards.
""Fill me" is in the manuscript of 1904; "kill me" does not appear until 1907. It doesn't matter whether the pencil-note was written minutes, hours or days after chapter III was received, it is simply an incontrovertible fact that is has priority over the version of the poem with "kill me".
A supporting fact is the Cairo typescript whose readings survive in the 1907 and 1909 versions of CCXX, which read "fill me". The simplest explanation is that this is what the poem originally said, and that "kill me" is a later version of this line.
"
The Great Invocation containing "kill me" was probably written during the Cairo Working, but following the reception of Liber Legis.
"There is no basis for the assertion that the Great Invocation was even "probably" written during the Cairo Working. "ZERO evidence", to use your categorical characterization of the situation. It is possible that it was composed within days after April 10, 1904, but probably is far too strong a position to take on the textual evidence. Read it carefully and see if you can find anything that places it in Cairo before, say, April 20 (presumably, give or take a couple of days, when they left the city).
The Egyptianizing flavour of the text seems to put it in the same general mood or atmosphere, but this atmosphere extended into the summer at Boleskine (where, for instance, he adds "Sekhet!" to the formula "Balasti! Ompehda!"). In other words, while I am content to give it to 1904, I cannot date it with any more accuracy than "before summer 1904".
In any case, whatever conjectures we have about the date of the composition of the Great Invocation, XXXI's "fill me" his indisputable priority. It is simply acknowledging the truth to say that it does.
Even if the manuscript of the poem as Crowley was working on it in the lost Vellum Book turns up, and "kill me" is shown to have priority, it remains that Crowley wrote "fill me" in the manuscript, and let "fill me" survive in every edition of the printed version. It isn't a typo or a mistake, it is a real word, which Crowley could not have just slipped up and written if he had not had it in his mind.
The default position should be that "fill me" is what he meant in 1904, and it should stay in CCXX. Windram's "K" does not prove otherwise, either that "kill me" has priority, or that Crowley made a mistake in 1904. It only proves that Crowley once thought of changing III,37 to the other version of the line.
"
The above facts demonstrate ZERO evidence that "fill me" has priority over "kill me."
"No, "fill me" REALLY does have priority (1904 versus 1907).
-
Your dates are misleading.
The date of 1907 for The Great Invocation is when the unpublished galleys were printed, not when it was composed. The exact date for Crowley’s composition of The Great Invocation is unknown.
Let’s agree it was sometime in 1904. Or as you suggest “before summer of 1904.” Threefold31 notes The Great Invocation was probably composed during the "Cairo period." There are Egyptian formulas in The Great Invocation. Most notably, the lines "I am Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow" from the Egyptian Pert Em Hru. This would date the "kill me" of The Great Invocation far closer to the Cairo Working than your date of "1907".
Similarly, the exact date for the penciled aide-memoire “fill me” in Liber 31 is unknown. It probably followed the reception of Liber Legis, but before Liber 31 was typed up. However, we do not know for certain.
Therefore to make assertions of “1904 versus 1907” imposes belief on to facts.
-
@he atlas itch said
"Your dates are misleading.
"No, they're just the facts as facts. You are presenting a misleading account of my argument. Please read it more closely.
I assume you tacitly agree with my defense of your speculation that "kill me" may be a ritual adaptation of the original poem.
"
The date of 1907 for The Great Invocation is when the unpublished galleys were printed, not when it was composed. The exact date for Crowley’s composition of The Great Invocation is unknown.
"This is exactly what I have said. We don't know when the Great Invocation was composed. But we cannot say with the same degree of confidence, anywhere near it in fact, when it might have been composed, in contrast to the "fill me" of the manuscript of Liber L.
For "fill me", the period of uncertainty is a few days at most after April 10; for the Great Invocation, the period of uncertainty in which it might have been composed is, at least, several months, and, at most, three years. The last position is unlikely for a number of reasons, but since the text itself is not known before September 1907, there may be a case to be made that the period of uncertainty lasts a couple of years.
"Fill me" in the manuscript of Liber L has priority, both as fact and as reasonable conjecture (when speculating on the date of the composition of the Great Invocation's version of the line).
I don't know how anyone can see it otherwise. Is there someone who holds that both the pencil "fill me" and the Great Invocation's "kill me" were possibly written on the same day? If so, how thoughtless do we have to imagine the composer of the poem to have been? And, if so, which version is "right"?
"
Let’s agree it was sometime in 1904. Or as you suggest “before summer of 1904.”
"You did read my argument, then
" Threefold31 notes The Great Invocation was probably composed during the "Cairo period."
"Here RLG seems to be merely restating HB's own estimation of the date: "a ritual entitled “The Great Invocation” that probably dates from the Cairo Working..." (and in any case, this is a highly technical debate, which requires proofs to be offered for every assertion; arguing from authority is a logical fallacy or rhetorical mistake in this kind of argument).
HB offers no proofs for this dating, as there are none to give, which you can see from reading it. Even if "Cairo Working" is taken to extend to about April 20, 1904, there is nothing in the text that places it in Cairo before that date. It could just as easily be a few weeks or months afterward. The degree of uncertainty over the dating of the Great Invocation, and its "kill me", is far greater, several months at least, than that for "fill me", which must be a few days at most.
"
There are Egyptian formulas in The Great Invocation. Most notably, the lines "I am Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow" from the Egyptian Pert Em Hru. This would date the "kill me" of The Great Invocation far closer to the Cairo Working than your date of "1907".
"I'm happy to have inspired you to look for Egyptian formulae in the Great Invocation. This is why I am happy to put it "before summer 1904", as you noted before.
However, I don't understand how you then go on to characterize my claim as "1907". It is a fact that "kill me" appears for the first time in 1907, and "fill me" in 1904. The best conjecture of a date for "kill me" might be around summer, 1904 - I am the one who just made that dating!If you agreed with my dating at the beginning of your paragraph, why are mischaracterizing it at the end of the same paragraph? It is, quite simply, not a "fact" that the Great Invocation was composed before 1907. It is the best guess, it is my best guess at least, that it was. But even the best guess cannot bring the actual date into any better focus than a few months, whereas "fill me"'s fuzziness is a few days.
"
Similarly, the exact date for the penciled aide-memoire “fill me” in Liber 31 is unknown. It probably followed the reception of Liber Legis, but before Liber 31 was typed up. However, we do not know for certain.
"We know with a great deal more certainty, a much smaller window of uncertainty, when "fill me" was written in the manuscript (a few days at most), than the degree of uncertainty hanging over "kill me" (a few months at least). Not all uncertainty is the same, there are greater and lesser degrees of it. Do you disagree, and, if so, why?
"
Therefore to make assertions of “1904 versus 1907” imposes belief on to facts."1904 - "fill me"
1907 - "kill me".That's the just the fact of the matter. No belief at all.
Conjecture - educated guesses, argument, not belief - must resolve the dates of composition. For "fill me", it is before the typescript was made in Cairo, that is, within a week or so of April 10. For "kill me", my best guess can only place it within the context of Egyptianizing vocabularly and concepts that would have been foremost on his mind in 1904. That is, within a few months of April, 1904.
-
Bloody crikey on a bun.
-
If we had a poem or work of art over 100 years old and found out later that something was MEANT to be different, would we change it? Would the fact of this mistake or oversight warrant us to retouch a masterpiece? What if this changed the masterpiece's message, inherent message or beauty that we found within it? I highly doubt one would change Shakespeare if they found out a word should have been different. These mistakes themselves, over time, develop their own veracity.
For those who believe in the dictation, and Awaiz then, as AC mentions, these "mistakes" have worth of their own. What has ultimately ended up printed, and that we ALL know and have accepted and internalized from the Book is Liber Legis. I say that ALL the details one can argue over is a moot point, that for over a 100 years,* Liber Legis* has been using "fill me", and not "kill me". This is totally different than a correction of a misspelled word, capitalization, or verse number. Changing this Book to include "kill" is changing the meaning of the phrase, and what purpose that paraphrase using "fill me" within the book may serve.
-
@Jason R said
"If we had a poem or work of art over 100 years old and found out later that something was MEANT to be different, would we change it? Would the fact of this mistake or oversight warrant us to retouch a masterpiece? "
If this were a poem, it wouldn't be an issue. What most people surprisingly know is that poetry is edited all the time. (Publishers edit poetry on roughly the same criteria that they edit prose.)
Of course, if it were, say, Shakespeare, then we'd at least need an unmolested version somewhere.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Jason R said
"If we had a poem or work of art over 100 years old and found out later that something was MEANT to be different, would we change it? Would the fact of this mistake or oversight warrant us to retouch a masterpiece? "If this were a poem, it wouldn't be an issue. What most people surprisingly know is that poetry is edited all the time. (Publishers edit poetry on roughly the same criteria that they edit prose.)
Of course, if it were, say, Shakespeare, then we'd at least need an unmolested version somewhere."
It's a work of art, it's like a poem, and so what if it isn't? It has endured this way, and came down to us through time as it is. My point wasn't that the author COULDN'T, or SHOULDN'T, edit a poem, but that would we CARE, or CHANGE, a poem already published and passed down to us over time? A work of art that has endured and ended up within the public as it is, is what it is. The fact the author INTENDED to edit it, or made a mistake is a moot point at this stage. How much more pertinent is this fact when dealing with literature that is HIGHLY symbolic, and even described as divinely inspired?
-
Personally Jason i dont see it as art unless you want to conclude it was created by man or wanted to discuss its beauty.
Its received knowledge, but hang on.. "it's wrong now.. it has to be changed.. lol.It's not that i dont see your point, imagine if it was concluded the Mona Lisa now needs a moustache.. "we are sure thats what Leonardo intended"
-
@chris S said
"Personally Jason i dont see it as art unless you want to conclude it was created by man or wanted to discuss its beauty.
Its received knowledge, but hang on.. "it's wrong now.. it has to be changed.. lol.It's not that i dont see your point, imagine if it was concluded the Mona Lisa now needs a moustache.. "we are sure thats what Leonardo intended"
"I'm not arguing it's only "art", this was simply a comparison for an example. What I am trying to say, is that what we ultimately arrived at, and what has been read by all of us over the last hundred years is the Book of the Law. We wouldn't care in the end is we found out the author of ANY book, intended for some change in a word etc., if in the end we had it as it was for so long, and it STILL had worth and meaning.
Liber Legis, in my opinion, IS what has endured.
-
@Jason R said
"...that would we CARE, or CHANGE, a poem already published and passed down to us over time?"
sure, pending the establishment of authorial intent. in this case it becomes a religious issue because the author is presumed to be discarnate and giving dictation to a scribe who is supposed to have previously written a paraphrase of the Stele around which the entirety of the scripture is poised.is there a question as to whether the original paraphrase by Crowley read as 'kill'? if it did not, why were the 1912 Equinox and the 1936 Equinox of the Gods Paraphrases wrong as they included 'kill'? what's your story?
"A work of art that has endured and ended up within the public as it is, is what it is."
in terms of XXXI this is surely accurate. in terms of the intention for publication by cults with an interest this is not agreed."The fact the author INTENDED to edit it, or made a mistake is a moot point at this stage."
not for a scripture, especially once you're talking about gods and getting what they intended right, neither unintentionally or intentinally corrupting the thing, and, when you find a problem, correcting it as soon as you know about it. what puny zealots in the trenches what got used to a particular religious Magic Book might want is unimportant."How much more pertinent is this fact when dealing with literature that is HIGHLY symbolic, and even described as divinely inspired?"
ultimately that's the issue for modern times with young cults settling it in courts (because the author has the ability to determine its form). Scientologists leveraged some good degree of control over their scripture using the weight of L. Ron Hubbard's estate. I am not sure that Crowley's writing is recent enough in the case of Liber CCXX that a legal cap may be obtained. otherwise, whoever isn't putting resources into the actual republication has no call to complain. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. religions being what they will, they erupt in sectarian disputes and each faction does as it can. is this the Law of the Strong? -
Let it be that state of manyhood bound and loathing. So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will.
@Jason R said
"...After reading about it more, I saw that AC had turned the "f" into a "k" by penciling over the letter."
that didn't happen to the original manuscript, but arguably it should have. the issue you have with changing letter styles is what I was talking about having happened in abundance previously and you can see clear evidence of that in the holographs."Isn't this then "changing the style of a letter"...? ..."
no, the explanation is that a stabilized Magic Book took form and this is just one of the remaining details due to the inexpert attentions of the Beast to copyediting details. it seems clear that the author directed a quote. the dispute appears to be whether the quote was fulfilled. the contention is that the Stele paraphrase read 'kill' and this is to be seen in several publishings of it, as well as a few proofs and copyedits. see the PDFs!"...{in the ms.} It certainly looks like "fill" to me,"
indeed it is. several things as they originated were changed due to 'getting the reception right'. the explanation was that these sizable changes to the original manuscript were necessary to nail down before freezing the manuscript in place. the contention is that there was an oversight during this freeze (relating to 'quote of the paraphrase' which the Beast had written). it is said that he was misremembering it during the writing of the scripture."and he is told to keep the original in the writing of the beast, and this is what is there, ultimately in his writing."
that is false. several things were changed and some of the writing was that of his wife. as i said, the argument amongst those who accept the initial "corruptions" is that these were all necessary to 'get the reception completed'. once you accept that, then this leaves the possibility that the scribe made errors which were never corrected, and one of these, it is said, is surfacing here to be ironed out.it is NOT being suggested that the manuscript itself is to be corrected or changed, only that, establishing the authorial and scribal intention regarding the word in question, future publishings of this document (Liber CCXX) should be corrected accordingly. those who establish as their scripture and have the wherewithall to effect its publishing ultimately have the say over what happens to it, especially when we're talking about corporate leverage (dare i say 'Will'?) as compared to individual interest (::shudder:: 'whim').
the slaves shall serve. yay, the slaves shall serve.
-
"sure, pending the establishment of authorial intent. in this case it becomes a religious issue because the author is presumed to be discarnate and giving dictation to a scribe who is supposed to have previously written a paraphrase of the Stele around which the entirety of the scripture is poised.
is there a question as to whether the original paraphrase by Crowley read as 'kill'? if it did not, why were the 1912 Equinox and the 1936 Equinox of the Gods Paraphrases wrong as they included 'kill'? what's your story?"
Well, yes. Personally I believe in the story provided by AC. I don’t know about it being a religious thing, but that it was “received”. I feel that what the actual stele says is irrelevant; I feel what matters is what ended up within the Book all these years; especially what was noted within Liber XXXI. I am against the idea of changing it to “kill” - if that’s what you mean by my “story”.
"in terms of XXXI this is surely accurate. in terms of the intention for publication by cults with an interest this is not agreed."
I have no judgement about whether or not they are "cults"; but I do say they shouldn’t meddle with it. I don't think should have “authority” over whats in it, i.e. changes. I realize they don’t agree of course.
"not for a scripture, especially once you're talking about gods and getting what they intended right, neither unintentionally or intentinally corrupting the thing, and, when you find a problem, correcting it as soon as you know about it. what puny zealots in the trenches what got used to a particular religious Magic Book might want is unimportant."
Actuality I feel no one CAN change it. Yes, they can change theirs, or the new versions; but the original is there. Liber XXXI does not use “kill”; all the copies until now use “fill”. What is “out there” already, and has been ingrained in MOST Thelemites, is the Book using fill. The problem using "kill", is with new Thelemites, and the division among Thelemites, and how we view the OHO.
"ultimately that's the issue for modern times with young cults settling it in courts (because the author has the ability to determine its form). Scientologists leveraged some good degree of control over their scripture using the weight of L. Ron Hubbard's estate. I am not sure that Crowley's writing is recent enough in the case of Liber CCXX that a legal cap may be obtained. otherwise, whoever isn't putting resources into the actual republication has no call to complain. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. religions being what they will, they erupt in sectarian disputes and each faction does as it can. is this the Law of the Strong?"
I wouldn’t join the O.T.O. because of this. It may be silly, IDK; but I feel it is a show of bad judgement. Perhaps, this is something that the author (if you’re a believer) saw and is using to expose those who are not fit? This whole ordeal does make one scratch their head, and question these folks “fruits”.
-
@Jason R said
"
"sure, pending the establishment of authorial intent. in this case it becomes a religious issue because the author is presumed to be discarnate and giving dictation to a scribe who is supposed to have previously written a paraphrase of the Stele around which the entirety of the scripture is poised. is there a question as to whether the original paraphrase by Crowley read as 'kill'? if it did not, why were the 1912 Equinox and the 1936 Equinox of the Gods Paraphrases wrong as they included 'kill'? what's your story?"
...I believe in the story provided by AC."
so with regard to the paraphrase of the Stele of Revealing, do you think that it was 'kill' or 'fill' in that spot? the reason that i ask is that Crowley's account is that he received an order from his Holy Guardian Angel (and the author of the scripture) that he should quote the paraphrase, and made a note to the typist of "Liber CCXX" that it should be inserted there. if his paraphrase said 'kill', then so should that scripture's typescript."I don’t know about it being a religious thing, but that it was “received”. I feel that what the actual stele says is irrelevant; I feel what matters is what ended up within the Book all these years; especially what was noted within Liber XXXI."
what was noted in the manuscript (Liber XXXI) was that it should contain the paraphrase text quoted, and now the vellum book which featured it is missing. thus i asked what you think it said, because the reception + manuscript indicates that if the paraphrase said 'kill' then so should the manuscript and the typescript."I am against the idea of changing it to “kill” - if that’s what you mean by my “story”."
no, what i mean by 'your story' is your account of how things stood with Crowley, his Holy Guardian Angel, and the author of the scripture he was mediumistically conveying. do you think the paraphrase said 'kill' and this is what was intended by the author, or that it said 'fill'? do you think for some reason that it doesn't matter? if so, why, given what i have said above about the note and the order to quote the paraphrase (exactly?)? wouldn't your interest in seeing to the proper rendering of the event and the manuscript drive you to a similar conclusion?"
"in terms of XXXI this is surely accurate. in terms of the intention for publication by cults with an interest this is not agreed."
... they shouldn’t meddle with {the book}."
that's the point: they already have. the Frater Superior of the OTO is trying to rectify this."I don't think {they} should have “authority” over whats in it, i.e. changes. I realize they don’t agree of course."
FALSE, they DO agree, and only differ from your reasoning about what constitutes 'changing' and how to go about 'keeping it from changes'. Hymenaeus Beta is arguing that he and others mistakenly left it unchanged when in fact it should have been corrected early on."
"not for a scripture, especially once you're talking about gods and getting what they intended right, neither unintentionally or intentinally corrupting the thing, and, when you find a problem, correcting it as soon as you know about it. what puny zealots in the trenches what got used to a particular religious Magic Book might want is unimportant."
Actuality I feel no one CAN change it."
in which case you do not have anything to dispute with them, because what is being disputed is impossible. what they do, therefore, is fine."Yes, they can change theirs, or the new versions; but the original is there. Liber XXXI does not use “kill”; all the copies until now use “fill”. What is “out there” already, and has been ingrained in MOST Thelemites, is the Book using fill."
the argument is that Liber XXXI implies 'kill' by reference to the vellum book. (in?)conveniently the vellum book has gone missing. you are apparently willing to accept that the vellum book had 'fill' and Crowley remembered it properly or that it isn't a typist note with the 'fill' but is a faithful rendering of what should be there (not justifying it)."The problem using "kill", is with new Thelemites, and the division among Thelemites, and how we view the OHO."
he isn't the OHO of Thelema. his 'OHO' position is with respect to a (small?) portion of Thelema. why should he have a directing function with respect to Thelemites? arguably Thelemites are all full of their will and won't actually be swayed by this guy. you are talking about new cultists to the Thelemic religious groups who are likely to fall under the sway of the King of his order, the pontiff of his church, the EGC, and how he may inspire social rifts. does it matter? why should Thelema be monolithic or uninfluenced by social rifts or differences of opinion? wouldn't it BE better to have diffraction and differences of opinion on as many points as we can?"ultimately that's the issue for modern times with young cults settling it in courts (because the author has the ability to determine its form). Scientologists leveraged some good degree of control over their scripture using the weight of L. Ron Hubbard's estate. I am not sure that Crowley's writing is recent enough in the case of Liber CCXX that a legal cap may be obtained. otherwise, whoever isn't putting resources into the actual republication has no call to complain. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. religions being what they will, they erupt in sectarian disputes and each faction does as it can. is this the Law of the Strong?"
I wouldn’t join the O.T.O. because of this. It may be silly, IDK; but I feel it is a show of bad judgement. Perhaps, this is something that the author (if you’re a believer) saw and is using to expose those who are not fit? This whole ordeal does make one scratch their head, and question these folks “fruits”."
absolutely! if you have qualms about any order or organization of that sort i can testify as to the wisdom of stepping back from it, especially when they are apparently struggling with differences of doctrine or minute points of scriptural derivation, or the like. I commend you on steering clear. I'd always think it would be best to be drawn TO such an ordeal-oriented initiatic membership cult and be familiar with many members who are welcoming. outside of that, almost any excuse should be sufficient to give it wide berth (and particularly anything associating itself with the Great Beast).