MichaelStaley wrote: › It's all very well quoting that, Aleisterion, but one wonders just what this phrase meant. After all, we have the passage which Crowley doubted would be understood, which produced the rejoinder on the lines of "write this in whiter words, but go forth an . . .", indicating a certain elasticity concerning the injunction to change not so much as the style of a single letter. Again, Rose rewrote certain passages. So when were the letters to be regarded as being fixed?

herupakraath wrote: › If my theory is true, then Crowley may have never actually heard Aiwass call the book Liber L, but rather just assumed Rose misunderstood what was conveyed to her, and changed the name to Liber Al.

faustian wrote: › For this thread I say
II - 27

MichaelStaley wrote: › It's all very well quoting that, Aleisterion, but one wonders just what this phrase meant

MichaelStaley wrote: › After all, we have the passage which Crowley doubted would be understood, which produced the rejoinder on the lines of "write this in whiter words, but go forth an . . .", indicating a certain elasticity concerning the injunction to change not so much as the style of a single letter. Again, Rose rewrote certain passages. So when were the letters to be regarded as being fixed?

phthah wrote: › The meaning of AL i 36 and i 54 seems pretty clear to me. Don't change the letters "lest there be folly" and because of the "mysteries hidden therein".

Erwin wrote: › But it also says "and a reproduction of this ink and paper for ever" in AL III, 39. If it's just a case of being able to figure out the "mysteries", and avoiding risking "folly" by altering things, then there's no risk with the changes that were made, since the manuscript is still there and the original writing is still easily visible, including the original "non-white words", for instance. If these are preserved intact in the manuscript - even if some of the original text has been struck through - then the purpose of those verses is fulfilled and the "changes" are not problematic in that regard. The fact that people are quoting the original "non-white words" and wondering whether or not they should have been "changed" demonstrates that.

Aleisterion wrote: › "I would think that verse 36 ch.1 means to be a prohibition against changing the book period."

Of course I should have added, "except as otherwise instructed..."

Erwin wrote: › Which, let us remember, includes the instruction to completely rewrite the book from the ground up several hundred different times in order that it should be "translated into all tongues." The questions of the "whiter words" and a single letter in the Latin title (which does not itself appear in any of the three dictated chapters to which AL III, 47, AL II, 36 and AL I, 54 applies - "This that thou writest is the threefold book of Law") pale into utter insignificance when you consider the extent of the "changes" that would be necessary in order to accomplish this. Any translation inevitably wholly reflects the translator's own personal interpretation of the meaning of the words, and that is all the "whiter words" change is doing. The author of The Book of the Law obviously had no problem with anyone doing this with each and any of the verses if he gave that kind of instruction, so let's keep this in its proper perspective.

threefold31 wrote: › The suggestion that the dictation of Liber L actually took place on April 1st, although possibly an error, cannot be completely discounted.

phthah wrote: › Which is why it is important to keep the original text in tact!

phthah wrote: › Remember, what it also says in AL iii 47 about the translation, "but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another". I think this is an important injunction to remember since, as you say, "Any translation inevitably wholly reflects the translator's own personal interpretation of the meaning of the words". So any translation, no matter how good, could not maintain all the subtle meanings etc of the original.

phthah wrote: › In that case, I would think that any translation could not be considered to be a class A document.

threefold31 wrote: › Personally, I remain skeptical that the writing, (regardless of what day/s this happened on), did NOT take place more or less as AC claimed, partly because the original manuscript is in less-than-pristine condition.

If the document were a fraud, it would seem to be much more convincing to offer up a virtually flawless handwritten text, penned all at one sitting, with clear evidence of its origin in his diaries, that was then distributed to several acquaintances in a well-edited typescript. But none of that is the case here. If he were deliberately perpetrating a fraud, he doesn't seem to have gone about it very sensibly.

Quote: › I have to say, I continue to find the old "it must be true, even if there's no evidence for it, because if it wasn't true, somebody would have manufactured some convincing evidence to cover up the lack of truth! The lack of proof proves it!" argument to be as charmingly and desperately creative as ever, but unfortunately as completely contemptible and risible as ever, also.

threefold31 wrote: › You've made a very convoluted statement there, none of which I actually said.

threefold31 wrote: › As for evidence in favor of the claim that Liber L was dictated to Crowley, we have a document in his own handwriting, and his story of the reception. These are necessary but not sufficient to prove it.

Against this claim, we have what evidence exactly?

threefold31 wrote: › Your opinion that it couldn't/didn't happen?

Is there any evidence to disprove Crowley's claim that is any less circumstantial and any more persuasive than the account that he gives?
Please inform me of such evidence, if you have any.

threefold31 wrote: › You've made a very convoluted statement there, none of which I actually said.

Erwin wrote: ›
That's exactly what you said: "the lack of proof proves it!" You just put it in very slightly different words.

threefold31 wrote: › As for evidence in favor of the claim that Liber L was dictated to Crowley, we have a document in his own handwriting, and his story of the reception. These are necessary but not sufficient to prove it.

Against this claim, we have what evidence exactly?

Erwin wrote: ›
For starters, the burden of proof is on the party making the affirmative claim, so this "where's the evidence to doubt it?" approach isn't going to fly, not even for a moment. I challenge you to find any evidence against the claim that I'm the consciousness reincarnation of Crowley and that I'm simply telling you it didn't happen that way. Once you come up with that evidence, then we can talk about exactly what evidence we have against Crowley's claim.

threefold31 wrote: ›
Is there any evidence to disprove Crowley's claim that is any less circumstantial and any more persuasive than the account that he gives?
Please inform me of such evidence, if you have any.

Erwin wrote: ›
Are you seriously asking me what evidence there is to suggest that some super-powerful "praeternatural being" of non-corporeal consciousness might not have appeared audibly to Crowley at the same time on three separate days as a result of some arbitrary ritual ceremony, and might not have forced his hand to write words and other marks, and might not have appeared visibly to him even though Crowley never turned to look at him, and might not have forced him to write exceptionally suspicious non-dictated-looking remarks like "v.1. of the spell called joy", "&c from vellum book _______ 'fill me'" and "'The light is mine &c'" in the manuscript, and that Crowley might have had some small reason to suspect all of this, if true, was just a tiny bit strange and worthy of mention at the time? Are you going to ask me what evidence there is to suggest that goblins and unicorns don't exist, next?

Erwin wrote: ›
I've already addressed all this in previous posts; I suggest you read them.

Erwin wrote: ›
What the actual circumstances of the "reception" were, I have no idea, but what I do know is that the published version is sufficiently bizarre and unlikely given our knowledge of the universe that it can be safely discarded out of hand without the appearance of a whole lot more evidence than we currently have, regardless of how much or little we know about the actual circumstances.

Erwin wrote: › That being said, if anybody produced an English version that did just randomly change the current wording, obviously people are going to be up in arms about it, and for good reason. Regardless of anything else, if we have Crowley's version in English, that's the only English version I want to read, even if the essential meaning did survive a rewrite.

Erwin wrote: › As an aside, this instruction to translate the book into other tongues, and the fact that interpretation will be unavoidably involved in that process, also completely knocks on the head the silly idea that the comment prohibits public interpretation of the book.

Erwin wrote: › Yes, but the "original in the writing of the Beast" refers specifically to the manuscript, not to the printed English text, as the second part of your quotation shows, and as the rest of that verse shows when it talks about the line and the circle on the manuscript itself. It never says anything about "mysteries" being in the printed version, only in the handwritten manuscript.

Erwin wrote: › Well, since printing "changes the style of a letter" from the original handwritten manuscript, I'd say even the English printed version doesn't qualify as a "class A document" if we're going to get that picky about things. Fortunately, I don't consider the A.A. classification of documents to be anything remotely relevant or meaningful to anybody who's not a member of the A.A., and arguably not even to them.

Erwin wrote: › Irrelevant to the question at hand, but frankly, I find this whole idea of people sniffing around for "super secret hidden meanings" in these sorts of texts to be an idea rather worthy of contempt, especially when those same people seem to have inordinate difficulty grasping the meaning of even the plain words in front of them. Anybody who's read Book Four will know that you can find "super secret hidden meanings" in anything if you're prepared to look hard enough, but that these can hardly be expected to be indicative of the author's intent. Whilst that may be a valid mystical experiential technique for people who are inclined to do such things, any "super secret hidden meanings" they find are not going to have much or any meaning for anybody else, so anybody who believes themselves to have found such things may consider themselves relieved of any constructive obligation they may have otherwise felt they had to tell me anything about it.

Patriarch156 wrote: › The fact that the original typescript for the Equinox of the Gods lists "April 7." is also an indication that the 7 was misread as a 1 and spelt out in full during the editing process.

zain wrote: › Erwin if you think the written account of the reception is "unlikely" and "ludicrous" then why are you here on this forum at all? Would your time not be more productive elsewhere?

threefold31 wrote: › No, that's not what I said. I did not make any definitive statements about proof. I offered my own opinions.

threefold31 wrote: › I'm not sure where you hail from, or what the legal system is like there, but in America, a defendant is allowed to stand mute, while the prosecution has to prove their case against him/her.

threefold31 wrote: › It's clear you don't think such beings exist and that such a thing is impossible, but thinking doesn't make it so.

threefold31 wrote: › But not being there I only have a certain bit of evidence to go on, and my reasons to disbelieve him have so far not outweighed my reasons to accept the report until proof to the contrary surfaces.

threefold31 wrote: › What I don't understand is why you are so vehemently opposed to his account when you have little or no evidence to the contrary.

threefold31 wrote: › I've read all of the posts on this thread. And in the process, I have not misquoted anyone or misrepresented their positions.

threefold31 wrote: › I'm happy to be agnostic about the whole affair and take the received account at face value until solid evidence convinces me otherwise.

MichaelStaley wrote: › The idea that "first of April" is a mistaken rendering of 7th April stretches credulity a little too far, I think.

phthah wrote: › I think this paragraph sums up your stance on this. Clearly your preference is the manuscript.

phthah wrote: › I would argue that it is also important to keep the English printed version as close as possible

phthah wrote: › I don't consider it being picky. Actually the English version does qualify as class A and has been so every time I have seen it in print.

phthah wrote: › Also, I think "worthy of contempt" is a bit harsh, don't you?

threefold31 wrote: › It is important to note that in 1904, the dates of April 1, 2, & 3 corresponded to Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday.

Quote: › For an apocalyptic Beast to have his holiest Book written on the three holiest days of the Christian litugical year would certainly be an appropriate slap in the face to the dying god.

Quote: › I also pose my perennial question: does anyone know where the original manuscripts of the other Holy Books are?

SteveCranmer wrote: › Well, I think the switch from L to AL was years after the reception, but this does bring up yet another key question: When was the title Liber L first conceived -- and by whom? I've always assumed that Aiwass' only direct "communications" with Crowley were the three dictation sessions, and that assigning the Book to L (and Lamed, Libra, etc) was something he came up with afterwards. None of the published phrases that "came through" Rose in the weeks leading up to the dictations ("they're waiting for you," "all about the child," etc.) mentioned the title of what was to come, nor did they even clearly say that a Book was coming at all.