Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Thank you for including me in this conversation; it's changed my life!...
Well, what else can I say? I see now Hymenaeus Beta's a Genius! - obviously
in touch with the Secret Chiefs... "Aum! Let it KILL me" is Superior Genius
Speaking! There is the "Death of the Ego"; all Higher Spiritual Practices
focus on "Egolessness" - Aum! let the Light KILL my Ego! That's SO
Genius!... and very scary! I don't think death of any kind is ever easy -
especially the EGO whose Name is SATAN doesn't go down easy, maybe never -
How could HE? - HE Rules the world!
Love is the Law, Love under Will.
Sister Sacred Heart
Behalf Of nagasiva yronwode
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:38 AM
Subject: [t93] Re: Kill Versus Fill
>>> I'm interested in hearing the opinions pro and con regarding the
>>> decision by the USGL of the OTO to change the wording of Liber CCXX
>>> verse 3:37 to say "Aum! let it kill me!" to replace "Aum! let it fill
finally emitted as a decision? oh good. there were many summations.
thank you, so far, those who have posted on this issue. marvelous.
I've been following it on web-boards and trying to make heads, tails.
>> Let me see if I can briefly summarize the arguments on both sides.
>> First, Crowley receives the Book of the Law, and at some point writes
>> (in pencil, so this is some time after the reception proper) in the
>> holograph "I adore thee in the song "I am the Lord of Thebes" etc. from
>> vellum book Unity etc. ---"fill me.""
some amendations from The Scarlet Woman also appear, and some odd
anomalies (such as the initial "Had!" and the line "- and thy comment
upon this the Book of the Law" (Ch. III, pg. 11, V. 39, line 5 of Liber L)).
>> The vellum book he is referring to is apparently lost, so there is no
>> going back to check *it*.
though it was apparently found by Crowley at points after he lost it the
first time, prior, and then later it was lost again (by whom?), mixing
things up. did Crowley lose it both times? or was it more like his ashes?
>> In the 1909 Equinox I, 7, Crowley published a very tiny copy of the
>> holograph, with pictures of the Stele of Revealing and its
>> versification. In this versification, he has "kill." So the first
>> printing of the versification, which Crowley presumably copied from the
>> vellum book, has "kill." ...
>> So the first printing of 220 has "fill." ...
name one 220 that doesn't?
>> In 1936, Crowley published "The Equinox of the Gods." It contains both
>> the versification as it appeared in the Equinox I, 7, and Liber 220 as
>> it appeared in the Equinox I, 10. In other words, with both readings,
>> "kill" and "fill" together. ...
an abundance of Paraphrases ("versifications") with "kill", yes, no 220s.
>> Now, the rationale for changing the verse is that it's a simple matter
>> of failed proofreading. Crowley intended "kill," wrote "kill" in his
>> vellum notebook, and was instructed to copy out the verse as it existed
>> in said vellum notebook when he published the typescript. This he did
>> not do faithfully, accidentally writing "fill" instead of "kill" in the
>> holograph, and missing the fact that it was printed as "fill" in 220, so
>> restoring "kill" is simply correcting an error that unfortunately
>> existed in even the very first typeset versions of Liber 220.
what's not being detailed here are the sheer number and style of the
problems inherent to the first (and how many later?) Liber 220s.
that is, these change through time by detail as 'corrected', mostly
with Liber L (the holograph) as the standard, which is the problem.
the explanation included for the change also is that the direction given
to the Scribe is to quote it from his previous vellum book. therefore it
becomes important not what Crowley wanted but what he was being
directed to do (what the vellum Paraphrase actually contained).
>> ...Liber 220 says "fill" in every version Crowley published in his
precisely. are there any other CONSISTENT ERRORS during his lifetime?
>> ...Now, the rub is that I don't think there's a way of logically proving
>> either of these hypotheses with the current (public) evidence....
agreed, nothing conclusive. for this reason we should begin to look for
REASONS THAT THIS IS BEING CHANGED (such as that the OTO, in
so doing, is able to seal 75-100 years around a particular configuration
of text; the ONLY versions which say "kill" in them, a scriptural banner).
>> You can, for example,
>> give a lot of weight to the fact that 220 was published several times by
>> the Prophet under the class A imprimatur, and that means *it can not be
>> changed* even if it was, objectively speaking, a typo.
again, this gives the impression that typos weren't being corrected all the
time along the way. with the exception of exact photographic reproductons
there were "corrections" to at least the standard of the manuscript several
times. this kind of "change" is not covered by the Class A system, since
it is an effort to CONFORM to it. and that is the explanation by the OTO
for the current adjustment (correction).
>> ...Or, you can give a
>> lot of weight to the likelihood of human error and the fact that Crowley
>> was instructed by Aiwass to copy the versification from the vellum book,
>> which he evidently did imperfectly.
any way to tell if he did or not? there are many speculations about what
vellum book contained, but since it no longer exists, are there copies of
or can typescripts of it be compared somehow? I'm not sure i understand
the lack of citation of derivative works of this vellum. either they don't
or there is reason not to pay attention to them. does the Paraphrase
resolving to 'kill' imply that the original vellum was also 'kill' or not?
> I think Fr. RIKB has accurately summarized the basic arguments pro and
> A couple of notes to add.
> It is true that the phrase in question reflects nothing that is actually
on the stele,
> so there is no going back to the hieroglyphs.
helpful, thanks. the speaker is "the self-slain god", so something is said
this with respect to pro and con in argumentation ("Osirian!"
> ...in the paraphrases of the obverse, he (Ankh-f-n-khonsu) twice mentions
> that he is a dead man.
a man not a god? ok. is it important that he is self-slain? does 'letting
him' constitute him kiling himself? I gather this is somewhat irrelevant and
askew the meaning of the versification/Paraphrase.
> Another point is that certainly the paraphrases were written before the
> dictation and are not the utterance of Aiwass.
this is the reason that they can be referred to by the priest of the princes
then reported as direction for quotation to the Scribe by Aiwass, yes.
> I believe that the idea that somehow the Secret Chiefs have provided this
> copy of Thelema at an opportune time when the Holy Books are being
> republished, in order to indicate an editorial change, is hardly a
> premise, and certainly unprovable. ...
true, but it makes for a dramatic story and gives the impression that the
is in the heat of Thelemic attentive focus, receiving direction from the
Chiefs themselves! what a good sign that is.
I'd love to hear more about what character of natural phenomena *should*
be seen as 'chiefly intervention' and what to rule out, how this applies to
this particular evaluation of events, etc.
> What is certainly true is that whenever the paraphrases were published,
> the word was kill, and whenever 220 was published, the word was fill.
the precise set of facts, yes.
> Why then is it justified to change 220 based on what appears in the
> paraphrase? Do they necessarily have to match?
the argument is that they imply the vellum was 'kill' and that the direction
quotation was for 'kill' to appear in 220. why it did not is anybody's
and Brother Hymenaeus Beta has provided his analysis of it.
> Why shouldn't the presumption be that when AC jotted the pencil note
> indicating what parts of the paraphrase to include in verse 37, ha
> had the vellum book at hand and consulted it and decided that's how
> much should go in that space? (after all, the reverse of the stele never
> made it in at all).
> This might be nothing more than a forensic and editorial exercise if this
> were simply an edition of Ulysses or The Great Gatsby, but this is a
> Class A book, one which specifically states that not a letter of it should
> be changed. So if one is going to do exactly that,
your logic is good to here. the dispute centers not around whether the book
to be changed (everybody agrees that it should not), but whether there is an
error which has been let to continue despite insufficient attention to
> there ought to be very persuasive reasons for it....
in any case generally agreed, but not because the intention is to contravene
a Class A directive. that's the red herring being used to criticize Frater
you could say he is faking his motivation, but then you're second-guessing
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I don't see such
> evidence in this case. And doesn't the book also say that a copy f the
> holograph must accompany all editions of it in typeset form? Why?
I mentioned a few reasons above. I also recommend examining as many
notes and variations on Commentaries to this as possible so as to get a
round picture. Equinox of the Gods, The Djeridensis Working, XXXI, CCXX.
> For precisely this reason, so that those in control can't just change it
> when it suits their desire for revisionism or editorial prominence, and so
> that the original can always be consulted about questions of the Law,
> each to himself.
> The question of intent is the key. And not the intent of Crowley, but the
> intent of Aiwass.
for Crowleyans in particular. a matter of faith. you can ditch all this
based stuff, however, and proceed according to your True Will.
> He was the minister of HPK who delivered the Law, and he is the one
> who gave precise instructions on its content,
the interpretation of which have become the focus of dispute.
> its publication, its
> commentary, and its preservation. Are we to conclude that one letter
> jotted down by an unconfirmed person
true, we know that Rose Edith Kelly wrote "The shape of my star is
The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red."
we could presume that Crowley wrote the other parts before pencil.
> trumps what is written in the ms itself,
if it is Crowley then 'what is written in the manuscript itself' appears to
be a directive to quote another document that people are supposing
had a different content. why they are supposing this i leave for them
to explain. it would be Aiwass or Ankh-f-n-khonsu who trumps Crowley.
> and published under AC's imprimatur many times over?
there's the rub, but the Paraphrase was also published with kill many times.
> If there is any reasonable doubt left, then the court rules that the
> defendant must be found not guilty. And there is certainly an ample
> amount of reasonable doubt in this case.....
in which case, start looking for other motivations than reason.
> I'm interested to hear others' opinions,
remember, you asked.
I think scriptures are best relegated to cultists with an interest in them,
and that those who who are predisposed to Thelemism should take
complete control over them themselves rather than complain if their
imperious religious leaders decide to ravage and corrupt them in the
name of perfecting or correcting.
I think that Hymenaeus Beta should do whatever the fuck he wants,
revise any Class A document and call it something else if he wants
to, and under the proviso of "Do what thou wilt" and his contention
that he is illuminated.
I think that the emphasis should be taken OFF of scriptures except
for Troglodytes who have no orientation excepting according to out of
phase Beasts and their Scarlet Monkeys pasting up Shakespeare.
my opinion is alike to yours that the reason behind the publishing
change, without bolstering as to the vellum content, is lacking,
> and what implications they think this change might have,
> if it indeed is put into effect.
is this really a "decision by the USGL of the OTO"? if so, then
it seems already to have begun to go into effect, since those
copies of Liber CCXX online are already shifting to include
the 'kill' term in place of the 'fill' in III:37.
as always, a beautiful confluence of diverse opinion here. thank you.
I am I!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]