College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

"He indicated that his sparse note at the time of dictation"

Hang on a minute! The note was scribbled in pencil. Since Crowley's description of items in the room excludes a pencil, I think it reasonable to assume that the note was added later. Besides, what point was Aiwass possibly trying to demonstrate by deliberately omitting verse two, then getting Crowley to nip into the next room for a pencil, then ordering him to insert a note that invalidates the manuscript's internal rules? Huh!

As previously noted - Aiwass is corrected (illegally) by Crowley, who is then (illegally) corrected by "yours truly." Deal with it!

Hang on a minute. Best we don't lose sight of the fact that the note causing all the ferkukkle is not an instruction to a typesetter, typist, copyist, or even Crowley. It is not even a proper part of Liber L. vel Legis. It is a correction!!!

As per the manuscript scan, Aiwass begins with the initial word of the third verse of Crowley's stele versification, "Unity."

From this are we to suppose that Aiwass was fallible and forgot the second verse, or that he/she/it specifically omitted it?

At some time afterwards, Crowley (not Aiwass) decided to include the second verse, and affixed a note to that purpose.

So, really, the "change not so much" rule demands that verse two of the stele paraphrase should NOT be included. Nor should Crowley's correction (change of mind). We have here a situation in which Aiwass is corrected (illegally) by Crowley, who is then (illegally) corrected by "yours truly." Magikal succession, eh!

See: "A pratererhuman entity with short-term memory loss - How's that work?" (www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=5940.0)

"In my travels I have learned to be cautious. “The Great Invocation” and the Paraphrase were both “corrected” by yours truly in Magick (Liber ABA) (1994 and later editions) to change their original readings of "kill me" to “fill me”—a woefully misguided attempt to make these non-Class A texts agree with what I had every reason to assume was the correct reading in Liber Legis. I think I originally picked up the “fill me” version by “picking up” (a term of art for cutting and pasting from another electronic document) part of the Paraphrase from Liber CCXX to save time, and failed to catch the different wording. In a later revision I decided to let it stand, and just annotated it as such, thinking that one of the readings had to be wrong, and it couldn’t be the Class A, could it? This was an object lesson for me: wait for the source material. You might have to wait a hundred years, but it may turn up."

An object lesson evidently not learned! We're still waiting for the source material (vellum notebook) to show up, so it looks like "yours truly" is heading for another woefully misguided attempt.

BTW: Isn't the word you're looking for 'abject?' "object" is what everyone is doing to another woefully misguided attempt.