College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Aion said

"Too bad there's not a drug that would do the same thing to the brain. That way, everybody could have the same experience and be Ipsissimi."

Maybe propofol puts the body "out", but it does not perform the necessary inner tasks.

Regardless, no one person will ever have the same experience as another. See Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

@Aion said

"
Or... Is there more to it than that? If so, then it might matter what one has previously attained."

Yes, there is more to it than that... or should I say, less.

@Aion said

"
Maybe this discussion would be better served by considering all that one has achieved before such an extinguishing of it into the irrelevance of nothingness."

Well, depends on what we are talking about. If we are talking about the Abyss, it's one type of a thing. Magus is quite another. Ipsissimus is still another.

One way I first learned to look at them in tandem is by considering them as Modes of Expression. That view, however, is only a very partial view of the entire picture.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
There are, of course, even deeper ideas about oneself that one hasn't yet mined. What seems to be a perception - perception! - of extinction at one point ("Wow, I'm really not that thing / idea / creation at all!!!") leaves room for (and is usually replaced by), "There is some deeper thing, more persistent, that I am," i.e., "There is a Self behind that self." Buddhism, of course, seems to deny that this is so, or at least to make way for the progressive discovery of the inexistence, changeability, and insufficiency of each layer that we discover; I'm not sure that some final opinion on whether there is a "final" self really matters to the present question, which addresses more the perception of extinction.

In short, nirodha-samapatti isn't a final attainment. (Finality of anything implies existence, permanence, and staying satisfied with the answer. Buddhism doesn't really support the idea of a thing's existence, its unchanging existence, or unchanging satisfaction with its existence.)

I think Liber I is simply hitting a different (higher, deeper) level. At one point in time, the species (like an individual) had one seemingly deepest level to go to "pop" the illusion of a particular kind of satisfactory unchanging persistence of self. In time, the species (like an individual) has found (or constructed) other ideas of selfhood behind that, deeper than that, more persistent than that; so, today, when we talk about the beginning of the perception of extinction, that has a different (deeper) meaning."

I would venture to say that what you have described is not nirodha-samapatti (ie. the Initiating Trance of Ipsissimus).

I would also say that 'attainment' of nirodha-samapatti is not expressly possible within the bounds of any specific system. Its very definition, 'attainment of extinction' necessarily implies that the "chain of systems" has previously fallen away.

Of course, individual mileage may vary. The Beauty of Chaos...

@Takamba said

"In answer to the above question given to the "General Reader," here is my answer.

The consciousness of humans has changed. You can use words like "enlightenment" if you wish, but I find most people misunderstand that word. It really means having one's load (spiritual & psychological issues) "lightened." Not "knowledge," but certainly wisdom. You can use language concerning "super-consciousness" if you like. I avoid both those words. Let's just stick with examining how consciousness has advanced as it is."

Metastasized might be a fitting word for it.

@Takamba said

"
As Jim pointed out, and I won't overstate, the basic levels of consciousness have changed since caveman times. Consciousness then was focused mostly on survival and other base concerns. In fact, a "tribe" probably existed in such isolation at the dawn of humanity that to even IMAGINE another tribe would have seemed impossible. Over time, as Nostradamus would write it, "the world would grow smaller." The world today has grown incredibly small. A European is reading these very words written by a prairie lovin' Midwesterner (possibly in the blink of an eye)."

I continue to maintain that consciousness itself has not significantly changed, for the mechanism itself has not significantly changed (the body). What has changed are the many ways in which we perceive the universe.

Gravity exists whether or not Einstein developed his theory. But since he did, we are able to explore many new avenues in relation to his theory, and in relation to gravity. It does not mean that gravity itself has somehow changed.

@Takamba said

"
This is more than just "acquired knowledge," this is new experience (experience being the formula of going, being the formula of Hadit). Do you know that roughly 200 years ago humanity change it's sleep pattern? We didn't always sleep straight through the night, we slept... woke up for a bit (enough to write a letter and eat a small snack or collect some timber for the fire) and then went to sleep again. Almost twelve hours of sleep in all. There was a thing called first sleep, followed later by second sleep. It was the routine. It's a very natural method too and I know this because before I learned of it, I actually practiced it (quite by accident, as I was wandering and travelling America's wildernesses in a solitary pilgrimage I found it natural to just go to sleep in the dark whence I had nothing more for myself to do, wake up when the body did, hang about, nibble, and then go back to sleep). If you don't believe such a cultural explosion as the light bulb can change how a society thinks (not just what it thinks, but HOW it thinks), you aren't thinking as deeply as you could about humans/society/consciousness building."

How it thinks? It functions in the same way as it has functioned for thousands of years. The brain itself has not changed that drastically.

@Takamba said

"
Today we know the Universe (Thoth Tarot so predicted the shrinking of the World that now it is called Universe) to be vast and filled with star systems, other planets, when once those were just pin holes God had placed in the sky and the Earth was the center of everything. Yes, that is WHAT people thought - but not only that, it developed HOW they thought about other things as well (consciousness building). Not only do we have more and newer and hopefully more accurate WHATS to think about, but it's these very WHATS that inform our minds HOW to think."

The universe - vast and filled with star systems - did not come into being because we thought of it... it was already here. We only began to recognize, and name, and categorize, etc.

@Takamba said

"
That's what advancing consciousness is about."

It's about recognition, naming, and organization.

@Takamba said

"
The only people in this thread that I see acting judgmental about this or about people are those using the words "enlightenment." You seem to project that if someone advances the idea that a "further level of consciousness" is available that they must also be saying "nah nah nah I'm better than you." I don't see it, but you seem to believe it's there. Think on that before responding because that is not of the nature of what I'm talking about when I describe above my ideas about humanity's changing consciousness."

I could care less about "enlightenment", to be honest. It doesn't actually exist anyway.

My only point in this thread these past couple days has been to say that Thelema is not the only path, the A:.A:. is not the only way, and Crowley writing Liber AL is not responsible for the birth, life, and death of say, Ramana Maharshi, D.T. Suzuki, or Nagarjuna, as examples.

@Frater Horus said

"
So the more variables the better.
"

Is it easier to see the bottom of the pond when the particles within it are busy, or calm?

And when it is calm, the particles are still there. They have not been forced out, or forced to change from their nature. They have simply fallen into their place, whatever place it may be.

@Frater Horus said

"
@Azidonis said
"The "New Aeon, broader horizons" thing is an implication that somehow human consciousness has gained or otherwise unlocked something which would somehow make such "lofty above-the-Abyss" states possible, where it were not possible in the past...

...and this is demonstrably false, as evidenced by the many people who have attained to the very 'lofty states' that Crowley said were previously only for an elect few. And they had done it before Crowley was even a thought-form."

Look, things have changed since cavemen, right?"

Sure. We come across what we call knowledge, and we continue adding to it, increasing the variables by which it may operate, thereby allowing more specific fields in which to operate at all.

We may say that we have "added to" reality, but really we are just constantly rearranging the place.

It is so within as well. Nothing is added, just rearranged, re-perceived, re-imagined.

Therefore, to say that all of a sudden we have an overwhelming capacity for enlightenment as a species - which apparently we did not have before - just because some guy sat down and wrote a book... is asinine.

Nothing has been added. The capability has always been there, and people have always found a way to unlock it.

@Frater Horus said

"
Also, pure mystical achievement is different than magick, mystical and philosophical ones combined."

Mystical achievement is the sharpening of the intellect on the inner. On the outer, scientists have attempted to measure it via EEG machines and such, as it very highly relates to the shutting down and restarting of the human brain.

@Frater Horus said

"
@Azidonis said
"To say that only the A:.A:. can bring one to enlightenment, or whatever, is more of a sales pitch than a reality."

Only you said such a thing at least in this topic ! "

Where?

@Jim Eshelman said

"
I haven't a clue where you are getting the idea that "many people" have done this in the past."

Many as in, more than just the people Crowley wrote about. Many as in, many people... more than a few. "A large number of" people.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
I think it unlikely that in the entire history of the human race more than a few hundred ever ever done this."

I don't disagree with that. But it's definitely not 8, or however many Crowley pointed out in Heart of the Master. So, in relation to Crowley's small mention, there have been many others.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
Until the last century or two, even that which A.'.A.'. calls K&C of the HGA was a rare, rare thing, evident in (crudely estimating) a thousandth of 1% of 1% of the population."

This I consider a different type of quantity, as a ratio. In response to this, I propose an open question...

Do you (general you, the reader) think that the capacity for enlightenment has gotten greater, or do you think that the potential for enlightenment is greater in relation to the number of human beings living at any one time?

In other words, a part of the "initial outbreak" numbers for AIDS were from newly discovered cases, cases that had already been so, but only then being recorded. But those numbers, while they won't always be 100% accurate, represent a fair amount of the actual human population that has AIDS today. Point being, that learning how to identify AIDS did not increase the actual number of AIDS cases, but rather the number of reports.

With the dawn of the information age, we will undoubtedly see more reports of enlightenment, both legitimate and fraudulent, but that will not change the actual number of "enlightened beings". Be that as it may, this is still an important factor to consider when dealing with ratios of this type.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
Yes, the premise is indeed that a fundamental shift in human consciousness has occurred. Brain functions have been tracked that neurologists think were not present in there human species (except for a miniscule percentage of outliers) a century ago. Life conditions have altered in a way to free up new layers of consciousness opening - only a little over a century ago was the first time in the history of the world that more than half of all people went to bed nightly not knowing they would eat the next day. This frees up huge psychological resources to address something other than primitive survival."

This is your take on it. You are welcome to that. I saw it that way once. Now I see it as more ingredients in the soup.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
There have been changes... and it is interesting that they center around a time roughly a century ago.
"

Rearranged, sure.

If you want to try and give Crowley credit for the Industrial Revolution, I really won't know what to say...

@Jim Eshelman said

"
The fundamental growth task of human consciousness changed accordingly. For many thousands of years, the essential task was first to forge, and then to develop, self-conscious mind and all the faculties Qabbalists group under the name Ruach. That task is essentially complete: We've passed our class omen Ego. We got an A. Time for a next step."

I don't know which "we" you are talking about.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
The next step is birthing, occupying, and maturing N'shamah, Superconsciousness. Were will be spending the next few centuries-to-millennia working on this, most likely."

This is your take as well. And again, you are welcome to that.

The "New Aeon, broader horizons" thing is an implication that somehow human consciousness has gained or otherwise unlocked something which would somehow make such "lofty above-the-Abyss" states possible, where it were not possible in the past...

...and this is demonstrably false, as evidenced by the many people who have attained to the very 'lofty states' that Crowley said were previously only for an elect few. And they had done it before Crowley was even a thought-form.

To say that only the A:.A:. can bring one to enlightenment, or whatever, is more of a sales pitch than a reality.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@Azidonis said
"Do you not agree that the Four Noble Truths, and the system founded thereon, are capable of producing "Masters" as such? "

Again, what definition are we using for "Master"? Osiris Aeon or Horus Aeon? What the Golden Dawn would have called an 8=3 (Master) a century-plus ago is literally what A.'.A.'. calls 5=6 (Adept) today. We have crossed a line from a vast period of time when the fundamental developmental step of the human species as a whole was the awakening and maturing of Ruach to a time when the fundamental step (resting atop a stability awakened and matured Ruach) is to open N'shamah. The technical term master does not mean the same thing now that it did, say, a century and a half ago, let alone two and a half millennia ago.

Since you asked for my opinion: In today's terms, the Four Noble Truths can at least take one to the threshold of adepthood. "Master," as I use the term, is far, far, far outside their purview.

"I'm not seeing a correlation between the ratio of "Master vs non-Master" as having anything to do with what Aeon it is. I just don't by into such artificial restrictions as "old Aeon", I suppose."

It's not a restriction, it's a functional definition of where the species sits."

This is going nowhere.

I know what Crowley's writings say, re: new Aeon and the "new mastery". It's crap.

Even if we discount the "Magi" that Crowley listed in Heart of the Master, there are still plenty of actual Masters (on the A:.A:. level) throughout history.

I have seen zero data proving that more people have achieved this Mastery since 1904 than before.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@Azidonis said
"Are we still saying that Buddhism wasn't/isn't capable of producing legitimate Masters, or that the "Thelemites" just aren't up on their game?"

I'm saying neither. I did say that "Master," as currently understood in A.'.A.'., represents a state of conscious that wasn't active in more than a trace of human consciousness in the 6th C. BCE and, therefore, Buddhism defined as "what Buddha taught didn't address it. However, as little as a century and a quarter or so ago, the term "Master" had a much lower threshold - what A.'.A.'. would call Adeptus Minor - and Buddhism as Buddha appears to have taught it can take one to (and across) that particular threshold."

Do you not agree that the Four Noble Truths, and the system founded thereon, are capable of producing "Masters" as such?

I'm not seeing a correlation between the ratio of "Master vs non-Master" as having anything to do with what Aeon it is. I just don't by into such artificial restrictions as "old Aeon", I suppose.

@Jim Eshelman said

"The best Buddhism (as voiced by Buddha) could hope to achieve is the stabilization of Yetziratic consciousness and liberation from it to Briah; in other words, what the G.D. would have called the threshold of the Abyss and A.'.A.'. marks as Dominus Liminis. It's damn fine D.L. work.

Today, we can take the same principles and see some other things to do with them. I wonder, though, if those nouveau applications are rightly called "Buddhism.""

Nagarjuna is said by some to have been the "Second Buddha".

I have yet to see such works as the Mulamadhyamakakarika come from any other "Thelemite" than Crowley.

Are we still saying that Buddhism wasn't/isn't capable of producing legitimate Masters, or that the "Thelemites" just aren't up on their game?

@kasper81 said

"
@Azidonis said
"
@kasper81 said
"93

If the HGA is akin to Atman then would you say that Buddha would dismiss the Western magical tradition and Thelema? He would have encouraged aspirants to take off the ten fetters, including a sense of a spiritual Self, and aim for Nirvana?"

HGA is closer to "Buddha Nature". The HGA is just as essential to Buddhism as to any others, with the difference being on where the emphasis is placed within the respective system."

HGA isn't a Buddhist concept at all is it?"

Neither is Atman, if you want to get technical. The closest thing you will find to the HGA in Buddhism is the Mahayana concept of Buddha Nature, and even then only in certain schools.

Madhyamika, for example, is a Mahayana school that would most likely care less.

Even so, taking the HGA as Atman is placing the sense of the 'core' in a decent enough location on the Tree. But then we get into little rhetorical things like - if the Light in Yesod is a reflection of the Light of Tiphareth, as the Atman, then what is there to say about the Anatman in Kether?

@kasper81 said

"93

If the HGA is akin to Atman then would you say that Buddha would dismiss the Western magical tradition and Thelema? He would have encouraged aspirants to take off the ten fetters, including a sense of a spiritual Self, and aim for Nirvana?"

HGA is closer to "Buddha Nature". The HGA is just as essential to Buddhism as to any others, with the difference being on where the emphasis is placed within the respective system.

If you miss the point, you are lost.

The point is, there is no point. The mind cannot "kill" itself. The very purpose of the mind is to continue its seeming existence.

In the Abyss, the continuity is shattered. The more you clamor to try and piece it back together, the harder the ordeal, and the longer the journey through it.

You have to shed EVERYTHING... hence the symbolism inherent in the "Babe of the Abyss". However, you cannot actively shed anything. So, you are stuck with that paradox. And that is the paradox of the Abyss.

You have to find your own answer, and your own question.

@nigris said

"
@Alrah said
"
@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! ..."
it does not. the problem of evaluation within an esoteric and non-centralized manifestation beyond the Third Order (into manifestation) are sufficient so as to avoid the whole enterprise, and this is just one of the reasons that severe restraints are set on A.'.A.'. social descripts.

granted the premise that this retains a streaming throughput from the Third Order of the Great White Brotherhood, and that this holds meaning on par with Eckhartshausen or other sources, then there is every reason to think that personal evaluations of these kinds are counter-indicators of reliable connection thereto. thus if someone goes on record in some public way evaluating one "lineage" over against another or one person who is "part of" some "lineage" or "order" and these are supposed to be related to the Third Order, we may conclude deductively that they have disqualified themselves from authority.

"...the only head of any A.'.A.'. lineage is Crowley himself."
there is no 'head' of a sphere.

"...the inspiration for the A.'.A.'. came from the work of Florence Farr when she sought to establish 'the Sphere', and ...the A.'.A.'. is a direct successor of the Sphere conceptually, and I channel that from my own lineage."
if it is and was based on the Third Order, then its manifestation is older, by form, or work, than anything Miss Farr may have conceived.

"...we should not judge the A.'.A.'. as if it were a mundane organisation shaped with a pyramid power structure...."
of any kind. the fresh reed of the A.'.A.'. is constantly rigidifying and becoming Secondary.

"...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."
the term 'lineage' gives the impression of a single trajectory or origin of authority to esoteric content. this is distinctly at odds with how such content is mediated from their source-points as Mysteries and through the experience, psychology, and expressive output of incidental exponents (in specific interactions). these are constellated in an 'atmosphere' (similar to your assertion about the sphere) of indeterminate cause. were that cause determined, it would solidify into a Second Order and become known and defined (as might have Crowley's construct if it effectively 'died' at some point after his initiation of it with George Cecil Jones).

{from a letter}

"...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,"
this sets the Second(ary) Order in place, guaranteeing ossification. like the cosmos and cosmology where people invert the notion of manifestation to derive the material world from some unseen and transcendental dimension, so people invert the authority of the Third Order and place emphasis on the terrestrial streams of carriage rather than to pay attention to the resonance these have with that transcendental originating source and their Mysteries.

" and whether they produce Adepts and foster the cultivation of new Magisters (i.e. the accomplishment of the two main tasks of every magician)."
so easily misunderstood and badly assessed that it has become a cult of its own, disconnected from the real excepting as it vies for supremacy of reputation.

"...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..."
there are no "successors" to the Third Order. this is one of the fallacies of Second Order fallouts. they self-disqualify each time they begin to do Second Order work, thereby effectively requesting that they be looked past to the Secret Chiefs, Celestial Masters, or Order of Guardian Angels who may engage the sincere and interested aspirant approaching them in her own way.

those who base their social weight upon lineages or Second Order proclamations out of sync with their referents (as in esoteric networks where certain standards are said to apply, personal evaluations are issued as part of reputation-swaggering, and a 'hardening of the arteries' of esoteric current has set in) do themselves and their associates a disservice by engaging in this kind of expression."

I daresay, all this coming from a self-professed "Black Brother"?

@Jim Eshelman said

"Nigris' post, of course, has essentially nothing to do with the Order called A.'.A.'.. He explicitly dismisses some of the most concrete, specific principles articulated in writing by the only person authorized to do so."

Agreed.

@nashimiron said

"
@Archaeus said
"I think that this whole thing merely puts us into the mouth of Choronzon"

An inevitable result of people who were expelled from, or never members of an Order claiming to be it's Heads? The cracks are starting to show."

Touche'.

@Diogenos said

"Hello everyone, this is my first post on this board, I hope my english isn't as bad as I think it is and you'll understand my question... So, first at all, what was exactly Aleister Crowley's opinion on buddhism ?"

I would say that he deeply respected the Buddha, if not all of Buddhism. In The Urn, we find Crowley using both Buddhism and Jung in order to help him understand his Magus initiation, for instance.

That said, I honestly think that Crowley had a fairly narrow view of Buddhism early on, at least as shown from his early writings.

Later on, he appeared not to write much about it directly, although he has based even Grade descriptions of the A:.A:. on Buddhist principles in some cases. These later cases show a much more developed understanding of Buddhism.

That said, Crowley wrote about Buddhism in spurts, aside from works like Science and Buddhism, which were early works. If you want to get your hands on Crowley's later, more initiated views of Buddhism, you really have to do some homework.

@Diogenos said

"
I know that he was a buddhist when he received Aiwass's revelation in 1904 and that it was at the begining against his faith and philosophy, but did his opinion on buddhism changed with time ?"

As in, did he stop 'believing in Buddhism'? I don't think so, and not according to The Urn. But, after his 10=1 Initiation, I'm sure many things changes that we will never know about.

@Diogenos said

"
I mean, I know that Buddha is one of Thelema's saints, but does buddhism gets along with Thelema's philosophy ? The Book of the Law seems to me closer to Nietzsche's states of mind, but I hope you'll contradict me "

Thelema and Buddhism can go hand-in-hand in many cases. In fact, they appear in some instances to be two poles of another system. Of course, outer teachings and practices are similar but different between the two, and that is where most of the distinctions are, in my opinion.

The more inner teachings of both Thelema and Buddhism coincide quite beautifully, and make for a wonderful ride along the way. The distinctions are often less obvious, more subtle, and appear to be mainly a matter of perspective.

Some may say that Buddhism is "abrogate", but I would call shenanigans on that, with one exception.

The finger pointing to the moon is abrogate to the moon itself. Any teaching, or system, is but a finger pointing to the moon, and the line between the finger and the moon. At the moon, neither the finger nor the path between the two matter one bit. So in that sense, all systems are "abrogate", even Thelema.

@Alrah said

"I've written a critical review of HB's recent third article, which is available to read on Scribd.

www.scribd.com/doc/145231364/Response-to-the-article-%E2%80%9CON-THE-FILL-KILL-CORRECTION-3-%E2%80%9D"

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.

@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 got about 8 pages into H.B.'s third document, and do plan on going over some remarks within it, when time permits. For now though, I would like to point out a statement made in his second argument.

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 I said, even though English is regrettably my first and only fluent language, I still have a hard time understanding what may appear to others as "clear".

@nigris said

"
@Azidonis said
"A change in versions? Are we going to have a Baptist version, Catholic version, etc.? Slippery slope, when you mention versions."
yes, it's just the way of cults. I agree it's a slippery slope. I tend to select my own preference as you do and proceed accordingly, unless i am trying to put forward an educational or study document, in which case i'll want to reflect as much variation is included in tradition."

Honestly, I try to have no preference. It's definitely not an easy task. Nor is it a hard task.

It's easy to do in an isolated environment, much harder to do in the social cultural trappings of a 'modern' environment.

In the current case though, I don't mind making a preference of "fill" over "kill". I think it has more to do with maintaining the integrity of the text than any 'scholarly findings'.

@nigris said

"

"What was it, the 1938 version that Crowley considered correct?"
that would be for Fr. Eshelman to answer, as i have only seen him refer to it. I have no reason to doubt this and think it is interesting."

I think this is an appropriate place to cite: An Essay Concerning Liber CCXX and the Fill vs Kill Debate.

@nigris said

"

"...I've had the habit, for years, to call the book (both the MS and the TS) Liber L. I've pretty much always only called the MS Liber L."
a helpful clarification. since it is not my scripture i tend to refer to the numbers (XXXI, CCXX) so as to remain clear or refer to the both as "Crowley's scripture" and imply by the more exalted term outside a context of reference a category transcendent to both (and inclusive of other Lawbooks, Volumes of Sacred Law, etc., including my own, The Gospel of Satan)."

Well, referring to the number is fine. In my opinion, we should not have to though. Liber CCXX should textually mirror Liber XXXI. I think the 'corrections' should be limited to typos that have occurred during printing, and the few corrections that Crowley himself cited in The Equinox of the Gods.

@nigris said

"

"...there is a difference between Crowley (or Rose) making any changes or alterations to the book, and other people.... Thus, it is the changes from 'scholarship' that I question."
again, completely supportable, wisely questioned and even opposed. I'm gleaning at this point that our primary obstacle was semantic, since i am agreeing, based on the premises you're specifying, with your conclusions (i have little invested in the matter myself since it isn't my scripture, and my role is to be sure i have the details in mind when helping others to get a clear picture of what went on prior to it arriving online)."

The link I provided should help with some of the available details. Not sure if you've seen it yet or not.

@nigris said

"

"...the TS should reflect the MS. If some typist could not read or proof-read Crowley's handwriting correctly, that's not my problem."
understood, and so since you do not have the vellum book, how will you fill out the Stele lines? will you leave it as it is to be found in the manuscript? or do you want to complete it using some standard? is that standard supposing 'kill' in the vellum book? (why does Fr. Eshelman suppose it likely that the paraphrase has 'kill' in what was lost, yet still ignore this direction from Aiwass to quote the vellum, and to leave it as 'fill'? I never understood the logic, aside from the fact that, like you and many others have reasonably concluded, since no correction was issued in any Liber CCXX, then it ought remain as is?)"

Honestly, I could care less what the vellum book, or any other book aside from Liber XXXI says. Further and again, that "fill" was written in pencil, and never changed, says more for Crowley's thoughts towards the integrity of the MS than a side note in a printed copy.

@nigris said

"

"...to say that Crowley "really did want to change 'f' to 'k', but he didn't," implies either incompetence or negligence on his part. I find him guilty of neither."
yes it does seem so. the argument, to be fair, was that the paraphrase was changed to kill in more than one instance of printing and proofreading. the most i can follow can be inferred is that Crowley wanted the paraphrase to be different than Liber CCXX."

Well, both "fill" and "kill" have certain implications. But, Crowley definitely maintained "fill" when dealing with Libers XXXI and CCXX. Whatever he did with his poetry and his rituals are another subject, although closely related.

@nigris said

"

"
@nigris said
"not that everyone has one, only that there are variations in ideal amongst the Thelemic subculture as to what this ideal "The Book of the Law" does and does not include."
Because a couple of cronies saw a 'k' somewhere in a side note?"
hey, i won't bother to try to justify, support, or deny the "inspired" reasons that cultists will arrive at their ideal versions. I know better than that. all that i am attempting to do is to participate in a 'fair hearing' of the logic where it can be known. in the instance of Hymenaeus Beta he has given a pretty clear set of data explaining why he will want to refine his ideal and may do so if he doesn't get a lot of opposition from interior to his order and church."

As I said before, H.B. is asserting that Crowley was either negligent or incompetent, if he is trying to say that Crowley really did want it to say "kill". That Crowley had worked with both versions in rituals and other renderings, but never once changed The Book of the Law itself, other than a side note which could mean anything, the 'logical' conclusion is that he drew some sort of conclusion, at some point, that both XXXI and CCXX should be "fill". On top of that, he made no mention anywhere of it being a discrepancy, and had over 30 years and many printings to make a change had he saw fit to do so.

@nigris said

"
I'm guessing based on previous implementation that 1) the issue isn't that important to some of those affected and
"

Well, I'm not going to be hypocritical and call for "non-judgement" in one case and "judgement" in another. I do think that evidence exists more in favor of "Crowleyanity" than "Mastery" in relation to the masses though.

@nigris said

"

2. capitulation from inferiors will be consonant with oaths and vows already secured."

It is my understanding that O.T.O. members take an Oath to not change the book.

Such an Oath does not exist in the A:.A:., but in the A:.A:. it is understood that it's quite simply a "no no", in any lineage of the A:.A:. that I have been affiliated with, at least. It's not even a question of changing the Book.

Hell, had I mentioned wanting to change the Book in my earlier years, I can see it now... "Get back to Work! You are letting yourself become too idle if you have time to think of frivolous nonsense like that!"

@nigris said

"
ideas beyond this that Thelema is somehow coincident with the OTO seem, to me, completely unfounded. hey, they'll be doing us a favour. they'll stigmatize their Thelemic flavour by sigilizing (an Osirian quality to?) their scripture. yes, this is the slide down a slippery slope into sectarianism. set up a sect and expect that events like these will result in sectarianism. if one is not a participant in cults, in sects, then one does not encounter this."

The more sections (divisions) that occur, the further future generations will initially be from the truth.

@nigris said

"

"I've seen your website. It's an admirable venture. If the letters in the TS are faithful to the MS, then there is no issue. Also, I see that you have "fill" on your website. Why do you have it as "fill"?"
because, like you, i have not yet found the argument convincing. however. i am a responsible philosopher and have been attempting to bolster both sides of the argument strongly and find a way to see a way to agree with both before reaching a final decision."

It seems useful to break out a list of logical fallacies, and begin to enumerate.

@nigris said

"
I'll take a long time to examine it and watch general Thelemic response before making that particular decision/change.
"

Best of luck in this.

@nigris said

"
I've been doing radical things with the commentary already (by moving numerological, gematric, and qabalistic explications to an appendix, which research indicates was planned) and to the content of Liber CCXX by trying as completely as possible to provide the manuscript through to the typescript (we seem to share this strong interest)."

I'm interested in it only in the light of the integrity of Crowley's work. It is my opinion that The Book of the Law is the very cornerstone of Crowley's entire system. To think that a person would spend their entire life on a text like this, to the point that they will drop everything they are doing in a split second just to do what they think the Book indicates that they should do, is an admirable display of willpower. And, the compassionate parts of me just cringe when I see people wanting to try and take advantage of his work for their own sake, whether for good or ill. And, when there is money involved, it becomes even more sickening.

@nigris said

"

"This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is, "Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! " "fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not."
please elaborate your reasoning on this point. how does it fulfill this comment and how does 'kill' not do so?"

I am working with time constraints at the moment. But, I will leave you a leading question, and maybe that will get the ball rolling for a later time.

Does "kill" relate better to the Formula of the Rosy Cross than "fill"? If so, how?

I maintain that it does not.

@nigris said

"thank you kindly for your time and attention."

Likewise. Until next time, sir.

@Jim Eshelman said

"FYI position is: What matter is what made it to the manuscript of L., not what was in the original versification. I don't care what was in the original. When (in the immediate aftermath of the reception) he wrote "fill" on the physical manuscript, that (literally) became gospel. I make no room for mistakes at that point. Something impelled him to write "fill." I don't need to know what it was, only that it happened."

Agreed.

@nigris said

"this is a change in versions of The Book of the Law (Liber CCXX). "The Book of the Law" (not versions) is an ideal, and one whose referent varies somewhat."

A change in versions? Are we going to have a Baptist version, Catholic version, etc.? Slippery slope, when you mention versions.

@nigris said

"
because we're talking about Liber CCXX, and that appears never to have received the same content and typesetting since the day it was first typed up (only stabilized when photoreproduced). those changes were errors creeping in from the first typescript through to today."

What was it, the 1938 version that Crowley considered correct?

@nigris said

"
I think if you read my earliest contributions on this subject you'll see that i was pointing out the fact that these kinds of changes (to the manuscript) had been happening from the first days of reception. if you accept those changes (like the Scarlet Woman's addition, or the intruded line from Crowley, or the prepended 'Had!'), then where do you draw the line and why? in the manuscript there are entire lines crossed off and corrected, so this notion of 'not changing so much as the style of a letter' was abandoned long ago. it's always been about some arbitrarily accepted ideal surrounding the manuscript at a given time and the publisher's interpretation of what the 'real' document included, in the best cases based on the expressions of the Scribe."

I'm noting who is making the change. That Crowley and Rose made changes is fine by me. It's 'their' book. Also, those changes were apparently made 'at the direction of Aiwass'. The proposed change does not fit any of that criteria.

@nigris said

"
odd vision, given that i said just the opposite. I do not equate "Liber L. vel Legis" and "Liber Al vel Legis" as titles, though they are close. do you know what "L." stands for?"

"In the first edition this Book is called L. L is the sacred letter in the Holy Twelve-fold Table which forms the triangle that stabilizes the Universe. See "Liber 418". L is the letter of Libra, Balance, and 'Justice' in the Taro. This title should probably be "AL", "El", as the 'L' was heard of the Voice of Aiwaz, not seen. "AL" is the true name of the Book, for these letters, and their number 31, form the Master Key to its Mysteries." - Crowley

And just so you know, I've had the habit, for years, to call the book (both the MS and the TS) Liber L. I've pretty much always only called the MS Liber L.

As for Crowley's change a la Achad, that's Crowley's business.

I've continually tried to point out here that there is a difference between Crowley (or Rose) making any changes or alterations to the book, and other people.

For instance, if he put the 'k' in his copy for some reason, maybe in thinking about changing that letter, that's his business. I'm okay with it. It's his book. But, he printed it every single time with an 'f', and the MS clearly has an 'f'. No typescript version of the book from Crowley has the 'k' printed.

Thus, it is the changes from 'scholarship' that I question.

@nigris said

"
I join with you in opposing such things. I've seen it in every cultic milieu."

Yes.

@nigris said

"
disagreed. we simply disagree about the facts. you are talking about a transcendental or ideal as if everyone shared it and as if there is and was a given trigger-point at which we could observe it was 'changed'. nothing could be further from the truth, and if you were to look at the various editions of Liber CCXX through time then you'd see that they were fluctuating. if that fluctuation doesn't bother you, then you may just be talking about an ideal within a certain cultic context, in which case i can agree that such a small group can and has (at times) arrived at a consensus about what that ideal includes. I see that at this time the OTO does NOT have such a consensus about this ideal."

No. I've read the manuscript itself multiple times. In fact, I've learned to read the MS without referring to the TS, which is not at all easy, considering Crowley's atrocious handwriting.

And what I am saying, all I have been saying, is that the TS should reflect the MS. If some typist could not read or proof-read Crowley's handwriting correctly, that's not my problem.

But, when Crowley goes through pains to make such corrections, and then prints a TS that he considers accurate, and does not even one time bother changing 'f' to 'k' in any rendition of the TS, then there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Crowley wanted it to remain 'f', and not 'k'.

As I said on the other forum, to say that Crowley "really did want to change 'f' to 'k', but he didn't," implies either incompetence or negligence on his part. I find him guilty of neither.

@nigris said

"
not that everyone has one, only that there are variations in ideal amongst the Thelemic subculture as to what this ideal "The Book of the Law" does and does not include."

Because a couple of cronies saw a 'k' somewhere in a side note?

@nigris said

"
INdefinite instruction. we don't know to whom it was given, though we can infer it was to the Scribe. the Class A category didn't arrive with the scripture itself. it was assigned to the work by the Scribe, who then saw fit to break the letter of the rule."

Again, the initial changes were 'directed by Aiwass', according to Crowley.

The MS. shows what has been done, and why, as follows:

On page 6 Aiwaz instructs me to "write this (what he had just said) in whiter words," for my mind revelled at His phrase. He added at once "But go forth on," i.e., with His utterance, leaving the emendation until later.
On page 19 I failed to hear a sentence, and (later on) the Scarlet Woman, invoking Aiwass, wrote in the missing words. (How? She was not in the room at the time, and heard nothing.)
Page 20 of Cap. III, I got a phrase indistinctly, and she put it in, as for "B."
The versified paraphrase of the hieroglyphs on the Stele being ready, Aiwaz allowed me to insert these later, so as to save time. 

These four apart, the MS. is exactly as it was written on those three days. The Critical Recension will explain theses points as they occur.

@nigris said

"
we need to ask at what point in time should have the changes ceased? if at the time of the first pass, then this did not occur. if at the time of the corrections and completions by the Scribe then this did not occur. if at the time of the additions by the Scarlet Woman, then this did not occur. if after all the changes by the Scribe and his Scarlet Woman which seemed necessary, then the typescript was bungled and included many errors. if after the typescript was corrected then this, arguably, has NEVER ONCE OCCURRED, though Frater Eshelman claims that there was a time when Crowley crowed that he'd "finally got it right" (later finding errors that needed correcting). Hymenaeus Beta found another one. why you see that it is necessary to draw the line at instructions rather that literal contents, i really do understand. it does say "fill" on Liber XXXI."

Again, I'm okay with correcting typographical errors. "Oh, that first word is 'Had'. Why did you put Yad? Please change it to Had." or... "Oh, I see you left out a letter here, or made a typo there. Why did you send it to the press like that? Why didn't you call me? Nevermind. We'll correct it in future editions."

In NO edition did Crowley make a change from 'f' to 'k'. The best evidence for that is in a side note, in pencil.

Also, again, the "fill" was written in PENCIL. Had Crowley really wanted to change it, he could have erased the pencil marking 'f', changed it to 'k', and we would be none the wiser. But, he didn't. In over thirty years of publishing the book, Crowley never printed a published version of the book as "kill". And, the MS clearly says "fill".

Point being, there is not enough evidence to even make the change, if one were actually warranted.

@nigris said

"
not demonstrated or immediately apparent. not only did the Scribe claim not to have done so, but we have no access to the author so claimed. did the Scribe claim this? it wouldn't surprise me. he claimed many outrageous things about his scription. I've done so about my own.

again, if you literally mean that, then Liber CCXX has NEVER been printed correctly. the best that i've ever seen at this is what i am now attempting at book-of-the-law.com where i am attempting to showcase the manuscript's exact content as well as the scripture with descriptions of variations and commentary by Crowley and several others."

I've seen your website. It's an admirable venture. If the letters in the TS are faithful to the MS, then there is no issue.

Also, I see that you have "fill" on your website. Why do you have it as "fill"?

This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is,

"Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:

May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! "

"fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not.