Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Kill Versus Fill

Expand Messages
  • josephwilliammarek
    In the context used, does kill actually make sense to anyone?
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 22, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In the context used, does "kill" actually make sense to anyone?
    • walden418
      ... I m in concurrence with you, Mr.Kent, re your points made; that the OTO is not Thelema; that either word s value/meaning is valid in that consciousness
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 22, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, Jake Stratton-Kent <jakestrattonkent@...> wrote:
        >
        > On 21 June 2013 08:38, nagasiva yronwode <nagasiva@...> wrote:
        >
        > > >>> 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
        > > >>> me!"
        >
        > two points, nearly convergent with one another though not tied together:
        >
        > 1) Thelema is not the OTO. Every previous edition of AL has had 'fill'
        > & obviously these fed into Thelema as a modern 'folk tradition', or
        > Thelema as an influence on such 'folk traditions'. These are *by
        > definition* independent of authority, or at least the particular one
        > involved here. They are as valid as any other expression or
        > involvement of Thelema in modern magic.
        > Much the same might be said of Babalon as a 'modern folk magic
        > goddess'; its gone beyond the reach of the 'authorities'; it will
        > either sink or swim in the 'melting pot' process that determines what
        > becomes important and influential and what doesn't...
        >
        > 2) throughout the 'fill' years and its influence, commentaries and
        > publications of the Stele verses have included the 'kill' variant. So
        > both readings have been available to those who went deep into such
        > things, and both readings could potentially influence understanding -
        > either simultaneously or separately. Plumping for just one - for those
        > who conform to such rulings - is not a useful clarification but a
        > contraction of potential.
        >
        > The former, more fluid situation, was preferable, as well as more realistic.
        >
        > I'd add that overwhelming consciousness - as in ritual - is as valid a
        > technique as contracting and focusing it - as in yoga. In this
        > respect, and likely in others, to 'fill' and to 'kill' have equal
        > value & are potentially convergent. So again, the former situation was
        > preferable and more replete with meaning.
        >
        > ALWays
        >
        > Jake
        >
        > http://www.underworldapothecary.com/
        >

        I'm in concurrence with you, Mr.Kent, re your points made; that the OTO is not Thelema; that either word's value/meaning is valid in that consciousness contains All (if that is a proper interpretation of your statement). However I've never heard before of the kill word being on any interpretation/reading of the sTele before. Therefore i cannot comment on that.
        I find NO value in the corporate OTO "declaring" that "this" is what it should be, whatever it is, and not "that," whatever it is, from some lofty oh so illuminated authoritarian announcement to, well, whatever the corporate mindset may declare. I was "in", sort of, the OTO for years; I had nothing but bad social experiences & no fraternity at all,to just put it mildly. Giving up the illusions that it touts in order to get people to join & give the corporate entity money it doesn't need, was the best thing I ever did for myself in recent years.
        I'm an original Occupier; I don't con to corporatism. For all we really know, they just made it up in order to sell more stuff & create more attention. Create the need for the "correct" copy of the stele or other book/document & voila, some more sales. It's been done before.
        These days, corporatism has only the trust and loyalty of the sheeple. I am NOT one of them. Sor Stellae
      • threefold31
        Dwtw I couldn t agree more with JSK. spot on. Absent any solid evidence in the first place, there is no compelling reason to change CCXX. Especially because
        Message 3 of 7 , Aug 24, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Dwtw

          I couldn't agree more with JSK. spot on.

          Absent any solid evidence in the first place, there is no compelling reason to change CCXX.
          Especially because the variant reading has been around all along. It's not a new discovery to find the word 'kill' used in the Paraphrase. The mistake is in thinking that this pencil correction in Crowley's copy of Thelema somehow 'proves' that the Paraphrase was really correct after all. And if it is, then why is there no call to change the wording of Nuit and Hadit in the Stele verses of CCXX to Nuith and Hadith, as they are in the Paraphrase?

          If the Paraphrase is the correct transcription of the vellum book, and what Aiwass intended to be inserted in CCXX, then there would have to be more changes than this one letter of Fill to Kill. But in fact, just the opposite happened!

          The original printing of CCXX (1909) had Nuith and Hadith; then in 1912 the Paraphrase of the Stele was published in the Temple of Solomon the King with the same spellings. Then a year later, CCXX was changed to read Nuit and Hadit. This was AFTER the Paraphrase was published, and thus any evidence Crowley needed to justify changes would have been right in front of him. So explain why he would have reverted Nuith and Hadith to Nuit/Hadit if they were not in the Paraphrase?. One can't, because it makes no sense. The OHO has no valid argument in this case. So, as 333 suggests, one has to look elsewhere for reasons that the correction is being implemented.


          Litlluw
          RLG


          > 2) throughout the 'fill' years and its influence, commentaries and
          > publications of the Stele verses have included the 'kill' variant. So
          > both readings have been available to those who went deep into such
          > things, and both readings could potentially influence understanding -
          > either simultaneously or separately. Plumping for just one - for those
          > who conform to such rulings - is not a useful clarification but a
          > contraction of potential.
          >
          > The former, more fluid situation, was preferable, as well as more realistic.
          >
          > I'd add that overwhelming consciousness - as in ritual - is as valid a
          > technique as contracting and focusing it - as in yoga. In this
          > respect, and likely in others, to 'fill' and to 'kill' have equal
          > value & are potentially convergent. So again, the former situation was
          > preferable and more replete with meaning.
          >
          > ALWays
          >
          > Jake
          >
          > http://www.underworldapothecary.com/
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.