College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Azidonis said

"You also forgot to add that even after all of this, for over 30 years after, he did not publish a change in Liber CCXX from "fill" to "kill" not one time."

The logical conclusion is that Crowley did not want discrepancies to appear between Liber 31 and Liber 220:

III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast

Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis.

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The date of 1907 for The Great Invocation is when the unpublished galleys were printed, not when it was composed.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.

That sounds logical enough. However, the following facts need to be taken into consideration:

1. Crowley wrote the poetic paraphrase of the Stele prior to the reception of Liber Legis.

2. He penciled the aide-memoire “fill me” in the margins of Liber 31 *after *the reception of Liber Legis.

These facts raise questions on whether Liber Legis 3:37 should be classified as falling under the “dictation” of Aiwass. The argument could be made that the debate over fill/kill arose *precisely because *its Class A status was uncertain. Crowley may have felt license to revise the wording of the paraphrase because he was the author.

The Temple of Thelema’s position on this issue is worth noting.

The TOT has drawn a time-frame around the reception of Liber Legis that extends beyond April 8, 9, and 10. Anything falling within this time-frame constitutes “dictation” by Aiwass and therefore Class A. That means Rose Kelly’s correction of two passages in Liber Legis, along with Crowley’s aide-memoire of “fill me” in the margins of Liber 31, both of which occurred after April 10th, are part of the “dictation” of Liber Legis by Aiwass and hence Class A.

The underlying assumption here is that, within the above-described time-frame, a vastly superior and transcendent intelligence (Aiwass) acted upon and through various human actors, coincidences and so-called “mistakes”, to transmit Liber Legis to humanity.

Under this scenario, even if Crowley incorrectly recalled or miswrote "fill me" in the margins of Liber 31, this human error is nonetheless correct and Class A. Moreover, under this scenario, Crowley is far more of an unwitting tool and instrument of Aiwass. The TOT’s position contrasts strongly with HB’s thinking:

As the editor of Liber Legis, Crowley had the requisite authority, knowledge, experience and access to all the necessary primary materials to decide this matter; we do not. Or, to back up the timeline and put it more bluntly: Crowley was at the Cairo Working; we were not. He marked what he wanted clearly. Who are we to second guess him?

oto.org/legis1.pdf

@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.

www.lashtal.com/portal/library/texts/background/2798-an-essay-concerning-liber-ccxx-and-the-fill-vs-kill-debate.html

The aide-memoire "fill me" was written in the margins of Liber 31 following the reception of Liber Legis, possibly a few days afterwards.

The Great Invocation containing "kill me" was probably written during the Cairo Working, but following the reception of Liber Legis.

The above facts demonstrate ZERO evidence that "fill me" has priority over "kill me."

While I seriously do not care if one chooses "fill" over "kill," I do care about the truth. You have tried to continually minimize the impact of Crowley's correction in the margins of Windram's Thelema and to shape the evidence in favor of "fill." But this Windram correction is not an isolated incident that occurred without context. There is a history behind this correction, namely the "longstanding textual uncertainty" over fill/kill. Moreover, it is absurd to claim this "uncertainty" is a manufactured problem on the part of HB. There is ZERO evidence that Crowley meant to generate two readings of the paraphrase. 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.

It's important to keep in mind that HB 1) has priviledged access to Crowley material and 2) has been deeply involved in editing his writings for decades. Until HB brought it to our attention a month ago, most of us were not even aware of this uncertainty over fill/kill.

First, let me clarify some points:

1. It makes no difference to me whether another Thelemite decides on “fill” or “kill.”
2. HB’s editorial decisions do not affect my spiritual evolution.

That noted, I have been following this fill/kill online debate with keen interest for other much larger reasons…

I have explained my reasons on why Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema overrides his penciled “fill me” in Liber 31, but proponents of the “fill me” camp clearly disagree...

Perhaps it would be more to the point to ask proponents of the “fill me” camp what they see in Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema?

@Alrah said

"But to date, not one of the 'kill me' quickly fans have managed to refute the 'two typo theory' that you were left with after the 'fill me' in the Evocation of Batzabel showed up."

Alrah - I have no idea what you mean by "two typo theory." As far as I’m concerned, the Bartzabel Working or The Giant’s Thumb do not prove anything decisive. They merely add more weight to either “fill” or “kill.” Taken by themselves, they do not indicate which word Crowley really intended. On the other hand, his marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema is hard to explain away.

Takamba – Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema overrides his “fill me” in Liber 31 because 1) both comments are in his handwriting 2) the Windram correction occurs later and 3) it is the only textual example where “fill” is clearly corrected in favor of “kill.” Should evidence arise demonstrating that Crowley suffered from multiple personalities, was absurdly absent-minded, or deliberately generated two readings of his paraphrase, I will be happy to amend my understanding of the above facts.

All other published examples of “fill me” or “kill me” could be explained away as typos, bad proofreading, poetic indecisiveness, etc. The reason being, the issue of “fill” versus “kill” is not directly addressed.

It's funny you say that I am "interpreting" when I am only looking at the facts and avoiding speculation on "what Crowley really meant."

@belmurr said

"Given the pattern of revising the paraphrase, I think that the evidence of the original manuscript of Liber L and the typescript made from it far outweight the significance of a marginal note made probably as late as 1912, from what was almost certainly a revision of the paraphrase made after April 10, 1904. In other words, what Crowley wrote in 1904 was what was in the paraphase as of April 10, 1904, the words "fill me", and only later did he change it to "kill me", for whatever reason he liked (since it was a work in progress, his own poem). He liked "kill me" more when he wrote the Great Invocation, and, apparently, when he wrote the marginal note in Windram's ΘΕΛΗΜΑ. But he never implemented the change in a printing of Liber CCXX, which strongly suggests he thought better of it."

Changing “fill” to “kill” substantially differs from changing “Ankh-af-na-khonsu" to "Ankh-f-n-knonsu" or “Inscriptions” to “Hieroglyphs.” So, categorizing Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema as a “pattern of revising the paraphrase” downplays the significance of the discovery.

It is important to keep in mind that Crowley’s position on the “longstanding textual uncertainty” of "fill" versus "kill" was unknown until the discovery of his marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema. The significance of the correction is that it clearly shows his position on “fill” versus “kill” within one document. It directly addresses the uncertainty, in Crowley’s handwriting, in favor of KILL.

If so, his marginal correction in Windram's Thelema overrides his penciled aide-memoire of "fill me" in Liber 31.

What is so difficult to grasp about this fact?

Hi Jim, you're right and I apologize (tried sending you a pm). I should focus on manifesting my own ideas and work rather than commenting on other people's works. I hope this incident doesn't hinder future discussion.

[Edit]

@Jim Eshelman said

"The word adam just means humanity. (Only later did it become a male human's name.) Humanity is inherently created "male and female." But, separate from that, yes, I do read the creation story as first a Briatic and then a Yetziratic formation, subsequently incarnated in flesh when they wrapped themselves in skins"

That’s interesting. It suggests the second creation story of Yetziratic formation and subsequent incarnation in flesh and wrapping of bodies in skin = restriction of spirit. Curiously it is only in the second creation story that Adam “became a living soul”. That suggests the consciousness of First Adam was identical to an animal or elemental.

I had always assumed First Adam had a physical body but was unaware of such fact. In other words, following the second creation story and upon eating from the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and Eve fell from the Supernals into duality (alienation from God) and became ashamed of their nakedness. This is when the first recorded event of animal sacrifice – not for eating, but for symbolic/totemic purposes - occurs in Genesis. Strangely it is God, not Adam, who performs the first sacrifice and clothes Adam and Eve in the “skins of the animal”. I trace the mythical origins of civilization back to this first act of sacrifice in the Garden (cf. the work of Rene Girard).

Whether “skins” refer to human skin covering our bodies or animal skins clothing our nakedness, the fall of Adam may be summarized as Restriction. The “skins” forbid us from looking at the obvious answer – that there is something hidden and mysterious about the physical body.

If I may add a twist to the above story:

We know Nephythys was attracted to Osiris and that Isis and Nephythys were twins. What if Osiris' slept with Nephythys unintentionally and fathered Anubis? Osiris is a Christ-figure insofar as he is the First Mummy to go into the Underworld and become vindicated and resurrected - completing the solar cycle. The wrapping of the body, the Opening of the Mouth ceremony, the 42 Negative Confessions, the truth signified by one being ma kheru ("true of voice") and final vindication of the soul attests to the innocence of the First Mummy.

The implication being that if everyone knew the full truth of our actions, we would not make the mistakes that we did while alive - the 42 Negative Confessions being nothing less than a disavowal of EVERYTHING.

That means Set was justified in dismembering and castrating Osiris AND Osiris was innocent at the same time.

Everybody wins (the sun appears over the horizon and new day begins).

Roll credits...

@Jim Eshelman said

"
First point to note is that this is sometimes referred to as "the second creation story of Adam." The first creation of humanity is in 1:27, where Elohim created ha-Adam (male and female) in Elohim's image.

Then we come to a version so different as to seem a different telling of the story, or even a different event. In 2:7 it is not Elohim, but Y.H.V.H. Elohim that is doing the task; and it is not creation (b'ra) for formation (yetzer) that occurs. The simplest (but not only) explanation is that 1:27 tells of the Briatic creation of humanity by Elohim, and 2:7 the Yetziratic formation by Y.H.V.H. Elohim. (We haven't even reached the "making" or Assiah level yet.)"

Questions:

1. Does the male/female aspect of Adam in the first creation story correspond to the active and passive aspects of Spirit - i.e. the First Adam was pure spirit without a physical body and this pure spirit was tempted by the serpent in the Garden?

2. Does the second creation story imply that Second Adam developed a physical body whereupon aging and death entered the world?

3. What do you mean by the comment "We haven't even reached the "making" or Assiah level yet"?

4. Does Adam Qadmon correspond to the first creation story and where does the concept of tzim-tzum and Tikkun Olam fit into all this?

Thanks for feedback.

Its an interesting question in context of Liber Oz and the fact that the Senate recently approved the controversial National Defense Authorization Act for 2012:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html

Castaneda observed that Mexican shamans' powers of magick increased in direct proportion to oppressive regimes as a means of survival.

@Jim Eshelman said

"No. Adam (ADM) is DM, dam, blood, with an Aleph before it. The "redness" is in the DM part, and the whole name shows humanity as blood infused with the life-breath."

What is the interpretation of Genesis 2:7 where it states God formed Adam from the “dust of the ground”? Is there any connection between Adam and the element of Earth?

@Jim Eshelman said

"That's the symbolic reading. The grammatical part is that the Hebrew triliteral root ADM means "make, produce." ADM, "humanity," is "the made.""

That’s very interesting. My own research suggests the concept of “manu” in terms like “manufacturer”, symbolized by the hand, may signify the earliest humans. Namely humans characterized as manufacturers, creators with their hands, handicrafts, etc. We are distinguished from apes by having opposable thumbs. Curiously the five fingers of the hand could symbolize the five elements as well. That suggests another interpretation of the Elohim creating Adam “in Her Image”: in the same way that Adam was made by the Divine Creator, Adam is “a maker of things”.

If Quintessence integrates the other four elements and allows their admixture, it would be identical to the principle of movement and change on the material plane. Moreover if time is measured through changes in form, that would suggest Quintessence partakes of the timeless that creates the perception of time.

Now Paracelsus states that elementals inhabit their respective kingdoms and are similar to humans – they form societies, marry, have offspring, are artisans of their elements. Except they lack souls. When they die, there is nothing left. He believed elementals exist as a Divine warning to humanity. If humans do not take care of their souls and live morally, God can raise up a new species from elementals to replace humanity on the earth. This recalls Genesis where the Elohim are said to have created Adam from the “red earth” before rendering him into the Microcosm. The Sufi view of history is a game between God and Iblis – who the Yezidis worship as the Peacock Angel, Melek Tawus - to determine whether humans contain a divine spark or are composed only of the elements. Iblis, who vowed to worship only God, refused to prostrate himself when God created humanity and commanded all His angels to bow down and worship the new species. Subsequently Iblis’ role has been to tempt humanity and prove there is nothing special about this species, thus vindicating his vow to worship only God, or humanity will evolve until God’s command to his angels is vindicated.

The above suggests the hierarchical difference between elementals and humans, and humans and angels, contains an evolutionary morality tale. Or rather Evolution itself is the moral. Paracelsus’ views on elementals comes from Luke 3:8:

*Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. *

Given that elementals are capable of movement and reproduction, thus fulfilling the criteria of movement and change implied by the Quintessence, but lack souls, it seems more correct to say that “soul” is the point of contact with God. Now many religions warn that when a civilization becomes decadent and materialistic, the spiritual connection to the Creator (soul) becomes lost. Materialistic people with no souls still live, work, reproduce and do a great many things – identical to the elementals – perhaps with dead eyes, but moving nonetheless. So “soul” does not seem to be quite the same thing as Quintessence. I would identify "soul" with notions of intense feeling (wonder, awe, sense of beauty) or heart intelligence.

Now I realize evocation is considered low magick, but I am specifically interested in the evocation of elementals – currently the element of Earth. Our group has been working under the purpose of “gaining insight into the laws of Nature,” as Levi put it, and the insights so far have been interesting, to say the least. One thing that has become clear is that humanity’s loss of awareness of elementals as guardians of their elements following the Age of Enlightenment cannot be separated from the subsequent exploitation and pollution of the planet.

Questions:

Is the “Ad” of Adonai the same root as the “Ad” of Adam and does it signify “earth”?

Why is the Divine Name for Fire (Elohim) and not Earth (Adonai) the creator of Adam in Genesis?

Given Paracelsus' claim that elementals are attracted to humans because we have souls and all the warnings against forming pacts with them, where does the concept of soul fit into this?

Thanks for clarification on the loas. One of the interesting lines of thinking that has opened up with this earth working is the question of what makes us human.

If the Elemental Sovereigns (Paralda, Niksa, Djinn and Ghob) are forces of Nature, is there a deity that corresponds to the concept of “Nature” and where would it be listed in 776 1/2? I am trying to find out who these Elemental Sovereigns answer to.

Elementals are said to exist inside their elemental world, but can they perceive outside of their respective world into the worlds of other elementals or our world?

Are the elementals similar to voudon loas?

Thanks for feedback.

I checked the Wikipedia link on Hebrew vowels and found a section relating to the underlying issue:

Among those who do not speak Hebrew, niqqud are the sometimes unnamed focus of controversy regarding the interpretation of those written with the Tetragrammaton—written as יְהֹוָה in Hebrew. The interpretation affects discussion of the authentic ancient pronunciation of the name whose other conventional English forms are "Jehovah" and "Yahweh".

The authentic ancient pronounciation of Hebrew divine names is what I am trying to recover through researching the relationship between the five vowels and five elements. When I look at the hierarchies listed in the columns of 776 ½, the names and groupings are confusing. What I know is that they share certain elemental correspondences (Assiah – Earth, Yetzirah – Air, Briah – Water, Atziluth – Fire). If we keep in mind the listings were taken from prior sources and that names can become distorted, misspelled or even incorrectly mapped over extended periods of times, there should nonetheless be, taking into consideration human error, a hidden phonetic logic to these hierarchies of names. Even if we no longer know the authentic ancient vowel sound, by looking at the elemental correspondence of a divine name, we should be able to recover that sound. Or at least know where to place the accent when vibrating a divine name.

(Incidentally Jacques Derrida, who drew inspiration for his deconstruction of Western metaphysics from the Tree of Life, made the distinction between the written word and speech. Since the time of Plato speech was always priviledged over the written text as the latter was considered to be deceptive – a text can mislead, contain blinds, etc. Consequently speech was considered to be “closest to the soul” and a higher form of authenticity)

A magician friend working in the Tibetan/Shaivist tradition first brought to my attention the connection between the five vowels and five elements. The five elements are found in all major cultures and likewise variations of the five vowels can be found in languages. As he described it the vowels “open the gates” of the corresponding element. So if the correct vowel sounds are found in the divine names, recovery of the ancient pronounciation should activate the energies signified by the name.

Moreover if niqqud was only invented in the second half of the first millenium to prevent spoken Hebrew from being forgotten during the diaspora, this attests even more to the hidden magickal significance of vowels. The vowels were not written in Hebrew prior to this period to prevent divine names from being accidentally pronounced.

I am still fine-tuning the prior listing of vowel>elements. An advanced Enochian practitioner provided the following alternative schema:

I = Spirit, pronounced “ee”, corresponding to 8th and 7th chakras (akasha and crown)
E = Air, pronounced “eh”, corresponding to 6th and 5th chakras (3rd eye and throat)
A = Fire, pronounced “ah”, corresponding to 4th and 3rd chakras (heart and solar plexus)
U = Water, pronounced “oo”, corresponding 2nd chakra, (seat of kundalini)
O = Earth, pronounced “oh”, corresponding to 1st chakra (from groin to ground)

Question:

Given the ancient prohibition against accidentally pronouncing Hebrew divine names and considering that contemporary A.A. orders work precisely against this prohibition via performance of Pentagram or Hexagram rituals, among others, are there any techniques on how to control and undo any resulting energetic effects from accidentally pronouncing names correctly, such as IHVH, other than just not pronouncing them anymore?