Crowley and his dis...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley and his discrepancies

Page 3 / 15

ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3840
 

If, as belmurru says & Cole's posts as to the diaries seem to indicate, the argument is that production of AL must surely have been recorded in AC's diaries and that the absence of such a diary record for the claimed dates indicates it was produced at some other time, are we entitled to assume that Cole identifies the relevant diaries recording those sure-to-be-recorded-in-the-diaries events at that other time of production?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Yes, I think RTC is saying that OS23 & OS27 are the diaries that will show the relevant information.
The question is - will EVERYONE who is interested in this particular subject get to read them - UNEDITED?
We shall see....


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5353
 

Moderator's Note

RTC has written to me to suggest that my earlier post in this thread raises questions regarding the impartiality of my editing of LAShTAL.COM, in that it can be read as relaying what is 'evidently' an official OTO statement, thus suggesting that I am acting as 'official spokesperson' for that order:

"lashtal" wrote:
"morphon" wrote:
Where can we read the contents of OS23 & OS27?

Both are listed in the index to the Yorke Collection microfilms released by the OTO, but OS23 is missing from the microfilms themselves.

The omission of OS23 from the microfilms was an error outside the control of OTO or the Warburg Institute and arrangements have been made to include it in a "miscellaneous" supplemental reel. It will be sent to all purchasers and will also include the two AC scrapbooks assembled by Yorke.

Members will know how highly I rate the impartiality of LAShTAL.COM and this inference is therefore both potentially damaging to the site and hurtful to me personally.

For the avoidance of doubt, I did what the membership would have expected me to do on hearing about the absence of OS23 from the microfilm: I asked someone who would know the answer. In other words, I consulted the leadership of the Order that published the microfilm in the first place. He was open in his response and provided an explanation of the circumstances that led to the omission, together with a commitment to put it right. I demonstrated the courtesy of seeking his approval to forward this information and published the post as a result.

I would have thought that all this was self-evident from my post: as 'editor' of LAShTAL.COM it's my job to represent the membership in this manner. However, in the interests of transparency and the avoidance of doubt, the information I provided in the post was intended to provide facts in addition to the conjecture that has appeared in this thread.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 2037
 

93, belmurru!

And thanks for the answer. No wonder I was so puzzled. I did not have the time to look it up. I guess we will all have to wait for the book, hopefully he can quote freely from the diaries. Churton in his excellent biography also deducts some strange happenings with the dating (Crowley using a ritual that he presumably only have written later and so on) and I sincerely hope that Richard's book can really shed some light. I guess nobody wil be surprised that Crowley fiddled with the diary entries (for whatever reason, I could guess some), but I would be very surprised if real proof for the writing of the book at a later date will be shown. But - I love surprises! Was the release date of the book mentioned here already? Don't want to miss it.

Thanks again

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

LAShTAL - "He was open in his response and provided an explanation of the circumstances that led to the omission"

Could you tell us what his explanation was?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5353
 

I think I've written enough on this matter for now, to be honest. After all, I'd hate to be considered any sort of 'spokesperson' for any organisation.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"morphon" wrote:
Herupakraath asked - "Also, are there extant diaries for April 1904 that are not part of The Equinox of the Gods, meaning never published?"

I noticed that 5 pages are missing from item 'C' in OS27. These are dated 1904. Yorke makes a note that it pertains to Crowley's summer 1904 work at Boleskine with Beelzebub. 
Could there be any sensitive info in those "missing" pages? Especially due to that fact that it is dated just shortly after the reception of AL (summer 1904).

My wild guess would be that if the missing pages pertained to the Beelzebub operation against Mathers, then they probably had nothing to do with the events of April in Cairo. Perhaps they contained some pretty black magic that Crowley either wanted to retain no trace of, or actually needed in the rituals (e.g. sigils, curses, etc. that needed to be burned or otherwise disposed of).


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"lashtal" wrote:
I think I've written enough on this matter for now, to be honest. After all, I'd hate to be considered any sort of 'spokesperson' for any organisation.

More than fair, imo.

If the horse wants to speak on the matter, let him come here and speak for himself.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 316
 

Hear hear.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Member’s Note

lashtal - "on hearing about the absence of OS23 from the microfilm: I asked someone who would know the answer. In other words, I consulted the leadership of the Order that published the microfilm in the first place. He was open in his response and provided an explanation of the circumstances that led to the omission, together with a commitment to put it right."

I disagree! On reading the Moderator's Note it appears to me that 'the Order's leadership,' when consulted about the omission of OS23, did not provide an 'open response and explanation of the circumstances.' They merely stated 'we didn't do it!' Personally speaking, I think it questionable that the Order's first priority was a knee-jerk defence of a 'crime' nobody was actually accusing them of! As Morphon noted, "Could you tell us what his explanation was?" Are we talking of an act of God, spontaneous combustion, or other? I also think it disappointing that the Order elected to distance itself from this issue by not addressing it directly.

lashtal - "...together with a commitment to put it right." Assuming a supplemental reel is actually released (at some indeterminate time in the future) to the few who can afford $1,000 for a copy of the microfiche reels, where does this leave individuals without access to this material?

I feel it important to mention that the Order's leadership has not refuted my suggestions relating to a multiplicity of serious discrepancies in the two notebooks (OS23 and OS27). Indeed, they have not commented at all - Save for a 'we didn't do it' murmur issued by proxy. Since these issues are of major significance to everyone with an interest in Aleister Crowley, I cannot emphasise strongly enough that each person need study this material and form their own conclusions. However, as matters currently stand, the Order's stranglehold on Crowley material has effectively rendered this impossible for the vast majority. With respect to this point, and to end all further speculation, I request that the Order's leadership immediately place the content of both OS23 and OS27 into the public domain (i.e. as hosted on www.lashtal.com), or release an 'open explanation' as to their reasons for withholding material of major significance to all with an interest.

lashtal - “I think I've written enough on this matter for now, to be honest. After all, I'd hate to be considered any sort of 'spokesperson' for any organisation.” Without wishing to appear discourteous, this smacks of ‘burying your head in the sand.’ As a highly-respected and impartial member of the Thelemic community, and owner of www.lashtal.com, I feel strongly that is your responsibility to insist that the Order’s leadership either publically address the issues raised by OS23 and OS27, or provide an explanation as to their disinclination to do so.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"R.T.Cole" wrote:
Member’s Note

lashtal - "on hearing about the absence of OS23 from the microfilm: I asked someone who would know the answer. In other words, I consulted the leadership of the Order that published the microfilm in the first place. He was open in his response and provided an explanation of the circumstances that led to the omission, together with a commitment to put it right."

I disagree! On reading the Moderator's Note it appears to me that 'the Order's leadership,' when consulted about the omission of OS23, did not provide an 'open response and explanation of the circumstances.' They merely stated 'we didn't do it!' Personally speaking, I think it questionable that the Order's first priority was a knee-jerk defence of a 'crime' nobody was actually accusing them of! As Morphon noted, "Could you tell us what his explanation was?" Are we talking of an act of God, spontaneous combustion, or other? I also think it disappointing that the Order elected to distance itself from this issue by not addressing it directly.

lashtal - "...together with a commitment to put it right." Assuming a supplemental reel is actually released (at some indeterminate time in the future) to the few who can afford $1,000 for a copy of the microfiche reels, where does this leave individuals without access to this material?

I feel it important to mention that the Order's leadership has not refuted my suggestions relating to a multiplicity of serious discrepancies in the two notebooks (OS23 and OS27). Indeed, they have not commented at all - Save for a 'we didn't do it' murmur issued by proxy. Since these issues are of major significance to everyone with an interest in Aleister Crowley, I cannot emphasise strongly enough that each person need study this material and form their own conclusions. However, as matters currently stand, the Order's stranglehold on Crowley material has effectively rendered this impossible for the vast majority. With respect to this point, and to end all further speculation, I request that the Order's leadership immediately place the content of both OS23 and OS27 into the public domain (i.e. as hosted on www.lashtal.com), or release an 'open explanation' as to their reasons for withholding material of major significance to all with an interest.

lashtal - “I think I've written enough on this matter for now, to be honest. After all, I'd hate to be considered any sort of 'spokesperson' for any organisation.” Without wishing to appear discourteous, this smacks of ‘burying your head in the sand.’ As a highly-respected and impartial member of the Thelemic community, and owner of www.lashtal.com, I feel strongly that is your responsibility to insist that the Order’s leadership either publically address the issues raised by OS23 and OS27, or provide an explanation as to their disinclination to do so.

I like what you are saying here, Mr. Cole, but I don't necessarily see where it is Paul's position to demand such actions.

I can see where the community at-large has a right to demand such actions, especially if, as you seem to say (or at least imply), OS23 and OS27 really serve to change the entire scope of Crowley's legacy. In that case, anyone having access to something such as OS23 and OS27 and sitting on it, especially an organization, is reminiscent of "Vatican secrets", and I'm not particularly certain that Thelema should spend its beginning centuries veiled in that manner.

But I don't necessarily think that it's Paul's job to get that ball rolling, unless of course you are implying since he is the one with the 'connections' that he should take it upon himself to make it happen, but that falls within the jurisdiction of 'telling Paul what to do', and we can debate the ethics of that for a lifespan.

I do however, see where such actions as you suggest, either by the Caliphate O.T.O. or by Paul, would be a welcome addition to this site, in the interest of impartiality and scientific observation.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6466
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
If the horse wants to speak on the matter, let him come here and speak for himself.

Well, he has (come here and spoken for himself).

But he's not giving away any particulars. If he told the tale on a forum, then who would buy the book?

This thread started with a simple announcement of an upcoming publication. Since the publication presumably deals with the (partial or full) truth or falsehood of that most touchy scenario, The Cairo Working, we have seen some historical material presented - along with a great big bunch of speculation, maybes, perhapses, what-ifs, and "I thinks."

Obviously, as it has been suggested, we are going to have to wait for the book - and THEN it'll be time to examine the evidence (obscured to date), and AFTER THAT we can make decisions in a more rational manner.

There are two distinct schools of though in pre-publication liberdom:

(a) Say absolutely nothing and simply announce "This book is now available - send your money & get the book."

(b) Pre-announce the upcoming tome and get folks talking (or thinking) about it in order to generate interest - and (hopefully) sales.

(c) A third option is available: Somebody else announces your book, but the book is not available ( see: Queer Mass ).

When you publish your book, you'll have to decide which format to use.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
If the horse wants to speak on the matter, let him come here and speak for himself.

Well, he has (come here and spoken for himself).

I was referring to the horse that Paul quoted, not to Mr. Cole.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

I'd be very surprised if that horse showed up in this here town (spoken in an obligatory Texan drawl).


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3840
 

So we are to rise as one voice & demand the OTO cease their stonewalling over the discrepancies Cole has identified with these two notebooks & make them available, although we are not entitled to know what those discrepancies might be until his book is available?
Have I got it right?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"ignant666" wrote:
So we are to rise as one voice & demand the OTO cease their stonewalling over the discrepancies Cole has identified with these two notebooks & make them available, although we are not entitled to know what those discrepancies might be until his book is available?
Have I got it right?

I was thinking about that too. I wonder why Mr. Cole would say such a thing, when he has a book soon to be published, that declares what we would presumptively discover on our own were the documents in question made publicly (and readily) available.

This makes me wonder that perhaps Mr. Cole doesn't simply seek to sell copies of a book, but rather that the information he has uncovered is not only revealing, but perhaps vital to the scenario, and supports his assertion.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5353
 
"R.T.Cole" wrote:
On reading the Moderator's Note it appears to me that 'the Order's leadership,' when consulted about the omission of OS23, did not provide an 'open response and explanation of the circumstances.' They merely stated 'we didn't do it!'

That's an odd interpretation of things! Since you appear to be confused here, I'll clarify. I received an 'open response and explanation' for the omission. However, as is clear from my post, I didn't repeat it here. An explanation was received and I was satisfied by it and chose not to post it.

"R.T.Cole" wrote:
Personally speaking, I think it questionable that the Order's first priority was a knee-jerk defence of a 'crime' nobody was actually accusing them of!

What 'knee-jerk defence'? You stated your belief that the absence of OS23 was significant so I asked OTO for an explanation. An explanation was provided at my prompting - not as their 'first priority' - and they explained their plans for a course of resolution that I considered worthy of mention. No 'crime' and no 'knee-jerk defence'.

"R.T.Cole" wrote:
As Morphon noted, "Could you tell us what his explanation was?" Are we talking of an act of God, spontaneous combustion, or other?

'Other.'

"R.T.Cole" wrote:
Assuming a supplemental reel is actually released (at some indeterminate time in the future) to the few who can afford $1,000 for a copy of the microfiche reels, where does this leave individuals without access to this material?

Where does it leave us? It leaves us in exactly the same position as anyone else wishing to view any 'unpublished' Crowley material. The absence of $1,000 makes it difficult - but nowhere near impossible - to view these documents. But that's the same as the many thousands of pages of other 'unpublished' material at the Warburg. Or are you suggesting that the copyright holders are obligated to provide free access to the entire corpus?

The contents of OS23 and OS27 are described in great detail in Kaczynski and Churton, not to mention the three talks I've given - publicly - on the Cairo Working. You are being disingenuous here, I fear, in ignoring the facts: the material has been summarised in published biographies, is published in part in the microfilm (pricey, but available) and, as I mentioned in my email to you, will apparently be published in the 'Collected Diaries'.

"R.T.Cole" wrote:
I feel it important to mention that the Order's leadership has not refuted my suggestions relating to a multiplicity of serious discrepancies in the two notebooks (OS23 and OS27). Indeed, they have not commented at all - Save for a 'we didn't do it' murmur issued by proxy.

'Refuted' which suggestions, exactly? There's little or no detail in this thread. I have copies of both OS23 and OS27 and, as we have discussed offline, I fear that you are exaggerating the 'discrepancies'.

"R.T.Cole" wrote:
The Order's stranglehold on Crowley material

'Stranglehold'?! 

"R.T.Cole" wrote:
I request that the Order's leadership immediately place the content of both OS23 and OS27 into the public domain (i.e. as hosted on www.lashtal.com), or release an 'open explanation' as to their reasons for withholding material of major significance to all with an interest.

Have you asked the copyright holder? Is a website Forum the best place to make this 'request'?

"R.T.Cole" wrote:
Without wishing to appear discourteous, this smacks of ‘burying your head in the sand.’

And that's without wishing to appear discourteous? Crikey!

"R.T.Cole" wrote:
I feel strongly that is your responsibility to insist that the Order’s leadership either publically address the issues raised by OS23 and OS27, or provide an explanation as to their disinclination to do so.

Sorry, Richard, but you're wrong: it's not my responsibility to insist that the leadership of an Order of which I am not a member does anything.

"ignant666" wrote:
So we are to rise as one voice & demand the OTO cease their stonewalling over the discrepancies Cole has identified with these two notebooks & make them available, although we are not entitled to know what those discrepancies might be until his book is available?
Have I got it right?

😉

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 516
 

For the benefit of those unaware as to what the OS23 and OS27 documents consist of, OS23 is a notebook that was started at the time of the Cairo Working, containing some things that have been published and few things that have not. The published items are The Ritual of Passing Through the Waters, Name Coincidences of the Qabala, and How Rose Knew Ra-Hoor-Khuit.

OS27 is the notebook titled Invocation of Hoor, containing the rituals Rose Crowley helped her husband write for invoking Horus in March of 1904. Based on statements made by Marcus Katz, his publication, The Invocation of Hoor, contains all of the OS27 material, which makes Mr. Cole's request that the O.T.O. release the information into the public domain somewhat puzzling; perhaps he will elaborate. 


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"herupakraath" wrote:
For the benefit of those unaware as to what the OS23 and OS27 documents consist of, OS23 is a notebook that was started at the time of the Cairo Working, containing some things that have been published and few things that have not. The published items are The Ritual of Passing Through the Waters, Name Coincidences of the Qabala, and How Rose Knew Ra-Hoor-Khuit.

OS27 is the notebook titled Invocation of Hoor, containing the rituals Rose Crowley helped her husband write for invoking Horus in March of 1904. Based on statements made by Marcus Katz, his publication, The Invocation of Hoor, contains all of the OS27 material, which makes Mr. Cole's request that the O.T.O. release the information into the public domain somewhat puzzling; perhaps he will elaborate. 

Thanks very much for the information herupakraath.

It seems Katz's book is no longer for sale - I rushed to Lulu willing to buy it immediately! (hopefully as a download)
http://www.lashtal.com/portal/news/1369-1368-old-news.html

I'm very interested in the Tarot divination. I'd like to see how Crowley used Tarot (and what Tarot he was using, among other things). Questions about his practice of Tarot arise from time to time on Tarot forums.

According to the "Catalogue of Crowleyana"
http://www.100thmonkeypress.com/biblio/acrowley/references/YorkeOS1-OSE21.pdf
- the things you mentioned as already published from OS23 seem to be the most interesting out of the 10 headings listed by Yorke. "Rose skries for Capt Rost 19 Oct 1907" also sounds intriguing.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Herupakraath - "For the benefit of those unaware as to what the OS23 and OS27 documents consist of, OS23 is a notebook that was started at the time of the Cairo Working, containing some things that have been published and few things that have not. The published items are The Ritual of Passing Through the Waters, Name Coincidences of the Qabala, and How Rose Knew Ra-Hoor-Khuit."

Yes, but there are several other ambiguous sections in OS23 that could be of great importance.
There are no less than four sections that are entitled 'Notes'. A very open-ended title indeed. The content could be anything we wish to speculate on.
There's also a section called ‘How the S{carlet} W{oman} knew R{a}-H{oor}-K{huit}’. This sounds like it could be close to what we're looking for.
There are only 13 sections to this notebook and I have already listed four of those (with ambiguous titles) that could contain the information relevant to the discussion in this thread.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"morphon" wrote:
Herupakraath - "For the benefit of those unaware as to what the OS23 and OS27 documents consist of, OS23 is a notebook that was started at the time of the Cairo Working, containing some things that have been published and few things that have not. The published items are The Ritual of Passing Through the Waters, Name Coincidences of the Qabala, and How Rose Knew Ra-Hoor-Khuit."

Yes, but there are several other ambiguous sections in OS23 that could be of great importance.
There are no less than four sections that are entitled 'Notes'. A very open-ended title indeed. The content could be anything we wish to speculate on.

The basic point is, why all the suspicion? The only fact I know of that could lead to a suspicion of some discrepancy between Crowley's consistent account of the writing of Liber L in Cairo on April 8, 9, 10, 1904, was the annotation he himself made about it coming into his possession in July 1906. I have to thank Richard Cole for indirectly bringing this up and leading to a very satisfying explanation for this comment (obscure and ultimately trivial though it is), for me at least.

It seems very unhealthy, verging on paranoia, to suspect there is some great secret being withheld in Crowley's unpublished literary remains, which all previous biographers, friendly and hostile alike, have conspired to cover up or been too stupid to see. For one thing, John Symonds, who knew all of this material, never wasted an opportunity to catch Crowley in a lie or otherwise cast him in the worst possible light, and he never suggests that Crowley made up the account of what happened in Cairo in April, 1904.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing to be suspicious of in the facts, certainly not the chronological facts, as Crowley gives them.

For the record, here is Yorke's list of the contents of his catalogue number OS23, from the "Catalogue of Crowleyana in the G. J. Yorke (1951) and Francis King Collection" noted above
http://www.100thmonkeypress.com/biblio/acrowley/references/YorkeOS1-OSE21.pdf

"OS23
Hardback notebook, Japanese vellum notebook, 1904-7, in A. C.'s hand
Contents page by Yorke
(a) The Rituals, ordeals and rites of the secret and public worship of Ra-Hoor-Khuit
(b) Name-coincidences of Qabalah
(c) Notes
(d) The initiation message for Mabel Maryham
(e) Notes
(f) `Correct designs of Tarot Trumps' as published in 777 col. CLXXXI.
(g) Rose Skries for Capt Rost, 19 Oct 1907
(h) Notes
(i) How the Scarlet Woman knew R.A.K.
(j) Notes, including temple ground plan and illustration of painting, the sign of night,
the dark waters, ? ??
[Mic. 66pp]"

There's also a section called ‘How the S{carlet} W{oman} knew R{a}-H{oor}-K{huit}’. This sounds like it could be close to what we're looking for.

Crowley already published this himself, in Equinox of the Gods, pp. 71-73.

There are only 13 sections to this notebook and I have already listed four of those (with ambiguous titles) that could contain the information relevant to the discussion in this thread.

I only count 10 (ten) sections, a-j, in the list above. Do you have a different list?


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3840
 

Perhaps the book will change my mind, but thusfar i'm reminded of the sort of folks who insist Shakespeare's plays were not written by him but by someone else with the same name; a strong whiff of crankery couched in tabloid tones.
belmurrru's point with regard to all previous biographers & especially Symonds having somehow not noticed these allegedly very blatant discrepancies in these two notebooks is well taken. Of course, since Cole won't say what they are, or post the promised pdf chapter on his site, or release his book, we have only his word that there are any.
As they say in Missouri, "Show me", or, translated, "Put up or shut up."


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Here is the OS23 list I have:

OS 23
Hardback notebook, Japanese vellum notebook, 1904–7 In A. C.’s hand. With a contents list by Yorke {Title from cover:}
[Mic. 79pp]
{A Rough Note-book telling the Rituals, Ordeals and Rites of the Secret and Public Worship of R[a]-H[oor]- K[huit], H[adit] and N[uit]}
a. Ritual of Passing through the Waters
b. Notes on Ritual of Passing through the Earth
c. Notes
d. ‘Name-coincidences of Qabalah’
e. ‘Initiation Message for Mabel Maryham’
f. Notes
g. Tarot Trumps
h. ‘Rose Clairvoyant for Capt Rost’, 19 Oct 1907
i.  Notes
j. ‘How the S{carlet} W{oman} knew R{a}-H{oor}-K{huit}’
k. Drawings of part of Stele of Revealing and a temple layout Yorke Collection Papers — Yorke Film 9 49 [Mic. 99pp]
l.  Ritual notes 
m.Qabalistic notes on The Book of the Law, May 1904


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5353
 
"belmurru" wrote:
Crowley already published this himself, in Equinox of the Gods, pp. 71-73.

Thanks, belmurru.

"RTC" wrote:
I request that the Order's leadership immediately place the content of both OS23 and OS27  into the public domain (i.e. as hosted on www.lashtal.com), or release an 'open explanation' as to their reasons for withholding material of major significance to all with an interest.

So, how much 'material of major significance' is perhaps being 'withheld' from these two small notebooks, with a combined page count of less than 120 pages?

For the record, from the research notes for my own forthcoming tome...

OS23:

Name-coincidences of Qabalah was published in The Equinox I:7 and Magick.

Correct designs of Tarot Trumps was published as column CLXXXI in 777 Revised.

Rose Skries for Capt Rost is unpublished but is irrelevant to the present discussion as it relates to events in October 1907.

How the Scarlet Woman knew R.H.K. was published in The Equinox I:7 and Magick.

Notes, including temple ground is unpublished.

Ah, but what about the intriguingly titled The Rituals, ordeals and rites of the secret and public worship of Ra-Hoor-Khuit? Even this has been 'published', or at least printed, twice. Once in Naylor's OTO Rituals and Sex Magick, and again in Koenig's How To Make Your Own McOTO compendium. The latter also reproduces Name-coincidences of Qabalah.

OS27:

The whole notebook was published in the microfilm and was transcribed in Marcus Katz's Invocation of Hoor. It was discussed in detail (including excerpts) in biographies by Symonds, Churton and Kaczynski. Much was reproduced in Naylor and Koenig's works (see above).

Invocation of Horus was published in The Equinox I:7 and in Magick. The latter includes most of The Book of Results.

Ritual B2 was published in Magick.

Of course, all of this focus on two notebooks is just a minor distraction if, as claimed by RTC, the paper on which Liber AL is written wasn't manufactured until 1906. It's evidence for this, based on watermark design, that I look forward to seeing in the book that he has announced. I've not seen the evidence but, if it exists, then that would be explosive!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6466
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
I was referring to the horse that Paul quoted, not to Mr. Cole.

But there are so many horses running in this race that I can't keep track of them.

I firmly believe that each horse should come forth and tell the truth.

[/align:t76n2y0r]


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6466
 
"ignant666" wrote:
So we are to rise as one voice & demand the OTO cease their stonewalling over the discrepancies Cole has identified with these two notebooks & make them available, although we are not entitled to know what those discrepancies might be until his book is available?
Have I got it right?

Right. Here's one horse that's speaking the truth.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I was referring to the horse that Paul quoted, not to Mr. Cole.

But there are so many horses running in this race that I can't keep track of them.

I firmly believe that each horse should come forth and tell the truth.

But that's actually helpful, not dramatic, and it doesn't sell well.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"lashtal" wrote:
How the Scarlet Woman knew R.H.K. was published in The Equinox I:7 and Magick.

Right, thanks Paul. I forgot about Crowley's original publication of the relevant material from his diary and the Book of Results in The Equinox I,7 (for "How W. knew R.H.K." in particular, see pp. 366ff.)

OS27:

The whole notebook was published in the microfilm and was transcribed in Marcus Katz's Invocation of Hoor. It was discussed in detail (including excerpts) in biographies by Symonds, Churton and Kaczynski. Much was reproduced in Naylor and Koenig's works (see above).

Speaking of Katz's edition of OS27, it's no longer for sale at the original publisher http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/farawaycentre , and I can't find it anywhere else. Does anyone know where I can get a copy?

If someone has a copy they'd like to sell, please contact me privately. As I said, I'm very interested in the Tarot divination part especially. I'm a scholar, not a collector, so I'm willing to pay the list price plus postage to France, and a premium for your trouble, but if you're going to gouge me for "rarity", then I'm not interested. If you're interested in Tarot history, then we might make a trade. I have a book that is similarly an edition of previously unpublished historical texts, but in this case from the 16th century. At 72 pages it's somewhat longer than Invocation of Hoor, but I think it'd be a fair trade.

Of course, all of this focus on two notebooks is just a minor distraction if, as claimed by RTC, the paper on which Liber AL is written wasn't manufactured until 1906. It's evidence for this, based on watermark design, that I look forward to seeing in the book that he has announced. I've not seen the evidence but, if it exists, then that would be explosive!

It would be explosive, but I think he has given up on that angle, since as far as I can tell the paper cannot be dated by year. RTC has already warned us that the issue is "incidental" to his book, so I don't expect any special revelations about the watermark.

I do, however, expect that facts and clarifications made on this thread will appear in the book, if the book itself ever appears.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"morphon" wrote:
Here is the OS23 list I have:

OS 23
Hardback notebook, Japanese vellum notebook, 1904–7 In A. C.’s hand. With a contents list by Yorke {Title from cover:}
[Mic. 79pp]
{A Rough Note-book telling the Rituals, Ordeals and Rites of the Secret and Public Worship of R[a]-H[oor]- K[huit], H[adit] and N[uit]}
a. Ritual of Passing through the Waters
b. Notes on Ritual of Passing through the Earth
c. Notes
d. ‘Name-coincidences of Qabalah’
e. ‘Initiation Message for Mabel Maryham’
f. Notes
g. Tarot Trumps
h. ‘Rose Clairvoyant for Capt Rost’, 19 Oct 1907
i.  Notes
j. ‘How the S{carlet} W{oman} knew R{a}-H{oor}-K{huit}’
k. Drawings of part of Stele of Revealing and a temple layout Yorke Collection Papers — Yorke Film 9 49 [Mic. 99pp]
l.  Ritual notes 
m.Qabalistic notes on The Book of the Law, May 1904

Interesting. Slightly different list of contents, from a different catalogue (the microfilm one - http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/fileadmin/images/yorke/Yorke_Microfilm_Index.pdf - pp. 49-50)

The two rituals of Passing through the Waters and the Earth are not mentioned in the 100th Monkey Press PDF; perhaps they are part of the "Ordeals and Rites", subsumed under "a" in the first PDF; and your k and l seem to be both conflated into the "j" of the first list (the "painting" being the Stele, your "k"). Only "m", the "Qabbalistic notes on Book of the Law, May 1904" seems not accounted for the in first PDF catalogue. I wonder if this is the same as "Name coincidences of Qabalah"? So we just have two versions of the same thing in the notebook?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

I noticed another possible discrepancy between different factual versions of events brought up by the_real_simon_iff in Reply #93, where the following is mentioned:

"Neuburg underwent a Magical Retirement and was conferred the Neophyte degree of the A.A. [...] Neuburg's very detailed Record of his Magical Retirement which lasted until June 27. [...] Neuburg's signature on his Probationer Oath suggests a totally different style [...] This would make 1906 a good candiate for the edits, he made up the A.A. then, was ready to destroy the G.D. ..." [My emphasis]

I was always under the impression that Crowley formed the A.A. in 1907 along with George Jones, as it is listed in several sources as such (including that fount of knowledge, Wikipedia) whereas I cannot recollect the year 1906 being mentioned elsewhere at all.  It could be that I am mistaken, but would it be possible to provide any evidence (insofar as any evidence can be reliable!) to corroborate the year being so?

Also, I am not sure Crowley’s intention was to “destroy the G.D.”, as apart from anything else the G.D. was meant to be the Outer Order to the A.A. (constituting the Probationer grade up to Dominus Liminis preparatory to Adeptus Minor).  Could “destroy Mathers’ version of the G.D.” or “destroy other groups purporting to represent the G.D.” be what was meant instead?

In addition to & other than this, I thought the summary:

"It [Liber Bogus] won’t change a thing of what Liber AL is.  It won't change a thing of Crowley's thoughts on the supernatural.  It won't change a thing for any Thelemite.  It's just quite interesting historical playtime, and the speculations why Crowley left us with these discrepancies (the amateurishness and lack of any systematics surrounding the alleged fake make - in my opinion - a deliberate fraud which he held on to for 43 years pretty unlikely) will remain just that: speculations.  My guess is that what happened was more or less what he told us: a dictation in Cairo... after an improvised ritual with Rose... the presence of a praeterhuman entity... and so on.  He later just added some entries in his diaries to spice things up or make them more plausible or believable”

was most effectively expressed and managed to condense the issue well in a few lines.

Enquiringly yours,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

I've never read so much horseshit in my life. They say Cole has an agenda. That's what was said by fake psychics who failed to spot a crystal skull he asked them to examine was actually cheap plastic (as detailed in his book Crystal Clear). When he says watermark issues are incidental, all he's saying is the upcoming book is about other issues. And what's this crud about black magic/white magic? We aint living in 19th century Paris with Boullan and co. You expect Cole to present his evidence in an advert? That's what the book is for. I yield to no one in my admiration of Paul F*****, but it's very odd that he chooses not to share an explanation for the archive error that satisfied him - why not, Paul? Michael Staley is about the only sensible poster in this entire thread. People will say I'm biased as I wrote the introduction to RTC's last Crowley book, but I have never met him in person. I can say, however, in my dealings with him I've found him to be a scrupulous researcher and an honest man. He predicted to me months back that the mere announcement of this book and it's theme would bring opprobrium down on his head. The man's a prophet! Wait for the book before you judge his work - anything else is pretty fucking stupid and pointless.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3840
 
"sandyboy" wrote:
Wait for the book before you judge his work - anything else is pretty fucking stupid and pointless.

I see: anything else is premature, such as the author insisting we demand the OTO release the [mostly already published] documents that purportedly prove his (as-yet-unstated) case?


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

Cole asking for documents to be released is perfectly reasonable in my view, regardless of the book or his "case". After all, the documents might disprove anything he has or hasn't asserted in said work. All I'm saying is the assertions re a book nobody here has read yet are worthless. And before anyone asks, no, I haven't read an advance copy so am in the same leaky boat. 


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5353
 

Hi Sandy,

"sandyboy" wrote:
You expect Cole to present his evidence in an advert? That's what the book is for. I yield to no one in my admiration of Paul F*****, but it's very odd that he chooses not to share an explanation for the archive error that satisfied him - why not, Paul?

Look, I'm genuinely very sorry that I ever got involved in this thread. I seem to have offended absolutely everyone with my post confirming the OTO's intention to issue a microfilm with the missing document. If you knew the circumstances, then you wouldn't think it 'odd' that I'm not sharing the explanation, but of course, you don't so you do. If you see what I mean! It's no great mystery, but I'll leave it to the publishers to provide the explanation: here would be nice!

As for RTC's skills and effort: I agree. That's why my first post in this thread said:

"LAShTAL" wrote:
I've spent some time researching the Cairo Working, AC's various accounts of the process, the Egyptological basis (or at least theogeny) of much of Thelema, the life of Ankhefenkhons I, and so on. As such, I was surprised during the course of a lengthy and detailed correspondence with R T Cole to see that he has discovered much that is interesting, intriguing and, to my knowledge, previously un-noticed. I eagerly await his publication and look forward to watching the course of its ripples, as it were.

He's done good work on this project. I hope he doesn't feel too hurt by the response from other members, and that he doesn't feel at all hurt by my posts.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
𓍶
 𓍶
(@jg)
𓂀
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 175
 

Paul F***** wrote

"Name-coincidences of Qabalah was published in The Equinox I:7 and Magick"

Around a decade ago when I was more active in thelemic forums I was led to a site whose name if I remember correctly was "Radio Thelema", which was hosted in the Netherlands.  It had a number of interesting and rare works, one of which was a digital copy of a handwritten manuscript of Crowley's entitled "Name-Coincidences of Qabalah".  The relevant section of the Equinox I:7 reads:

"During the period March 23rd—April 8th, whatever else may have happened, it is at least certain that work was continued to some extent, that the inscriptions of the stélé were translated for Fra. P., and that he paraphrased the latter in verse. For we find him using, or prepared to use, the same in the text of Liber Legis.  Perhaps then, perhaps later, he made out the “name-coincidences of the Qabalah" to which we must now direct the reader’s attention. The MS. is a mere fragmentary sketch.

Ch = 8 = Ch I Th = 418 = Abrahadabra = RA-HVVR (Ra-Hoor).
Also 8 is the great symbol I adore.
(This may be because of its likeness to [infinity symbol] or because of its (old G. D.)
attribution to Daath, P. being then a rationalist; or for some other reason.)
So is 0.
0 = A in the Book of Thoth (The Tarot).
A = 111 with all its great meanings, [sun symbol] = 6.
Now 666 = My name.
= the number of the stele.
= the number of the Beast. (See Apocalypse.)
= the number of the Sun.
The Beast A Ch I H A = 666 in full. (The usual spelling is ChIVA.)
(A = 111 Ch = 418 I = 20 H = 6 A = 111.)
HRV-RA-HA.
211 + 201 + 6 = 418.
(This name occurs only in L. Legis, and is a test of that book rather than of
the stélé.)
ANKH-P-N-KHONShV-T = 666.
(We trust the addition of the termination T will be found justified.)
Bes-n-maut B I Sh-NA-MAVT = 888
Ta-Nich TA-NICh. } = Ch x A.
Nuteru NVThIRV = 666.
Montu MVNTV = 111.
Aiwass AIVAS = 78, the influence or messenger, or the Book T.
Ta-Nich TA-NICh = 78. Alternatively, Sh for Ch gives 370, O Sh, Creation.

His memory, however, assures us that the coincidences were much more numerous and striking than those we have been able to reproduce here; but his attitude is, we understand, that after all “It’s all in Liber Legis. ‘Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!’ ” And indeed in the Comment to that Book will be found sufficient for the most wary of inquirers.  Now who, it may be asked, was Aiwass? It is the name given by W. to P. as that of her informant. Also it is the name given as that of the revealer of Liber Legis. But whether Aiwass is a spiritual being, or a man known to Fra. P., is a matter of the merest conjecture. His number is 78, that of Mezla, the Channel through which Macroprosopus reveals Himself to, or showers His influence upon, Microprosopus.  So we find Fra. P. speaking of him at one time as another, but more advanced, man; at another time as if it were the name of his own superior in the Spiritual Hierarchy. And to all questions Fra. P. finds a reply, either pointing out “the subtle metaphysical distinction between curiosity and hard work,” or indicating that among the Brethren “names are only lies,” or in some other way defeating the very plain purpose of the historian."

What I found striking is that the contents of the digital manuscript "name-coincidences of Qabalah" are not identical to the contents "name-coincidences of the Qabalah" in the Equinox.  I do not remember all of the contents of the digital manuscript, and it is buried on the hard-drive of an old laptop to which I do not presently have access, what I do remember are the key differences between the two documents.  I had been quite familiar with the latter from the white bound Equinox of the Gods which flooded a number of bookstores in California in the early eighties, as well as from a copy of the Equinox volume I-X which I had purchased in 1980, and being a quite fanatic Thelemite interested in the Qabalah of the Book of the Law at the time, the differences between the two documents have remained fairly indelible in memory.  In fact they were sufficiently enlightening to the writer to motivate a new non-Trigrammaton analysis of AL along the lines suggested by Crowley in the comment on verse II 55 in the Djeridensis Working.  Three differences between the two documents which stand out in memory are

1) his sum of AYN AYN through the names of its letters so that it equals 474 = Da'ath

2) his statement the "Great Thesis must be 418 = 666"

3) his inclusion of the title sheet of AL in the count of the sheets so that there be 66 sheets - which is a triangular number - which he then lays out in a triangle each side which has 11 sheets and then traces a continuous line through them - no doubt a "connect the dots" approach to "paste the sheets"

Although all three proved fruitful to a Qabalistic analysis along the lines of the "old letters" of Nuit - an analysis I had once thought impossible to resolve due to the ambiguity in the assignment of values - I discovered through the serendipity of two specific identities which exist in AL which are in accord with statement 2) an avenue of analysis which has borne much fruit.  Would the writer have developed the Qabalistic analysis along the lines he did in the last decade if he had not had access to the digital work in question?  I do not know.  But it only goes to show how work not generally available to the public can be fruitful for scholars ( or aspiring scholars ) working in the field.  The upshot of my own analysis is that Crowley knew quite well the values he used when he designed the Qabalistic structure of his work - and he left clear and unambiguous traces of the knowledge - specifically in the "Line to be Adopted" in the 1936-37 publication of the Equinox of the Gods which is the last line of the left hand column of the final handwritten page "First Sketch of a Qabalistic Key to Liber AL – A Few Indications for the Student of the Line to be Adopted in his Elucidation of Liber AL" - its chapter and page title - as well as in the P.C. he sent to Achad in response to the latter sending a copy of his Liber XXXI in 1919 to A.C. in New York.  Achad revealed the existence of the P.C. in his first edition publication of Liber XXXI in 1948.  In it we discover Crowley wrote

" = 418.  "Thou knowest not."  Your key opens Palace.  CCXX has unfolded like a flower.  All solved, even II.76 & III.47.  Did you know PI = 3.141593?  And oh!  lots more! 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Al’Ain the Priest....666"

On the subject of Crowley and his discrepancies, unless we choose to judge him deluded at the time of writing above, and at the time of his comment on the Adjustment Key of Thoth where he writes

"the letters Aleph Lamed constitute the secret key of the Book of the Law, and this is the basis of a complete qabalistic system of greater depth and sublimity than any other. The details of this system have not yet been revealed. It has been thought right, nevertheless, to hint at its existence by equating the designs of these two cards."

we are forced to conclude at the least that Crowley knew the literal Qabalah of his own work ( the so-called literal Qabalistic appendix of AL mentioned by Crowley at the beginning of the New Comment is lost according Bill Heidrick ) - and one can perhaps hope it was not the mere hodge-podge of it he did reveal.  It makes sense he himself not revealing it - where would the historical fun of someone discovering it be - it would disappear - it would not attract all those students or scholars who were drawn to it - it is qabalistic bait - a puzzle to be solved - it may not even exist in which case everyone who is engaged in it has been played for a fool by Crowley - o magical child! is it you? are you the darling boy of Crowley's bowels?  art thou constipated?  But I jest.  Nonetheless, in the light of the last two quotes by Crowley those statements of his that the Qabalah of AL eluded him throughout his life need to be re-evaluated.  If Crowley revealed it - what happens to the so-called "mystery of the letters" - what happens to the logic of the psychology of the child who is to come?  In regards to the first quote above preceding the "name-coincidences of the Qabalah" I draw attention to the statement

"Perhaps then, perhaps later, he made out the “name-coincidences of the Qabalah" to which we must now direct the reader’s attention. The MS. is a mere fragmentary sketch."

Now if all the name-coincidences were limited only to those names which appear from the translation of the Stele, and their transcription into English characters, the fact that it was "Perhaps then" that he made them out might not raise eyebrows - as this period is from March 23rd - April 8th - whether through the 8th or up to the 8th is not clear.  However, in regards to one of the name-coincidences cited HRV-RA-HA Crowley writes "This name occurs only in L. Legis, and is a test of that book rather than of the stélé" - yet the name does not occur until the 35th verse of the 3rd chapter - which according to the official timeline was not written until the 10th - so why would he have worked it into a number prior to the actual writing of it - if indeed the coincidences were possibly worked out during this period?  Ought not the much touted razor sharp intellect of A.C. have concluded that because HRV-RA-HA appears among those worked out he necessarily must have worked them out later?  Or is this just an editorial error.  Further a similiar question appears in regards to the use of the word Abrahadabra - a word which Crowley states in the Collected Works he created/discovered prior to his writing of Liber AL.  What is the relationship between the use of the word Abrahadabra in the ritual Crowley said he employed prior to writing Liber AL and its appearance in Liber AL.  This ritual is entitled the "INVOCATION OF HORUS ACCORDING TO THE DIVINE VISION OF W. THE SEER".  Is Crowley implying that Rose is the actual author of the Invocation, or only of some of the details of how to invoke Horus?  In regards to the ritual he writes: 

"The MS. of this Ritual bears many internal marks of having been written at white heat and left unrevised, save perhaps for one glance. There are mistakes in grammar and spelling unique in all MSS. of Fra. P.; the use of capitals is irregular, and the punctuation almost wanting."

In actuality, he makes similar statements in regards to the manuscript of Liber AL.  To end this short note I would like to draw attention to the final section of the ritual where Crowley writes it repeats the first section of the ritual in the first person - his usual practice in invoking a god:

1. “Mine is the Head of the Hawk! Abrahadabra!”, and
ends:
6. “I bear the Rose and Cross of Life and Light!
Abrahadabra!”

Now reflect on the three appearances of the word Abrahadabra in AL.  Being the first word of the first chapter it is the word of the hawk-headed sun god, and its second appearance as a key in verse III 47 is immediately preceded by the key of the hieroglyph of the rose cross of the circle squared - so that the appearance of Abrahadabra in the manuscript parallels in a measure the appearance of the word in the Ritual of the Invocation of Horus.  Abrahadabra is not the only word central to the ritual which appears in Liber AL.  One finds 'Head of the Hawk', 'nemyss', 'Harmachis', 'Khep-Ra', 'Heru-pa-kraat', 'wand of Double Power', 'secret name Hoori', all of which appear in the text of AL as respectively, 'Hawk-Headed', 'nemyss', 'Hrumachis', 'Kheph-Ra', 'Heru-pa-Kraath', 'Double Wand of Power', 'Hoor in his secret name'.

I will end with a simple observation.  In light of the well known classical proposition - Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur - What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously - the burden of the proof of the reception of Liber AL vel Legis lies with Crowley as he asserted the entire story gratuitously - without evidence - at least any evidence that would be accepted in a court of law - or by any scientist or mathematician.  Crowley is dead - so the burden of proof if such exists is only upon those who think the dismissal of Crowley's claims is unjustified.  By all the canons of law, science, math, and scholarship one is in one's full rights in dismissing the praeter-human claims of Crowley as he asserted them without a single shred of evidence.  This does not mean it is incumbent upon a believer in Crowley to defend him - everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe - however your belief is unjustified on the basis of the principle above.  This also does not mean that a believer or non-believer in Crowley may not be interested in his work from a scholarly or other point of view, and seek to clarify through scholarship and historical research not only the actual details of the so-called Cairo Working - but also those of the literal Qabalah said to be at the basis of the proof of the above or beyond human authorship of the work in question.  With all the equivocation of Crowley on all these points one hardly is in a position to assert any one particular course of events occurred, for as Aristotle and modern symbolic logic teaches, from a contradiction anything follows. 

John

The Catholic Church employs the principle Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur in an extended sense due to the fact that it accepts the Bible as the Word of God, and the Church Fathers as authoritative, see

http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_citesTUS.htm


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"lashtal" wrote:
I seem to have offended absolutely everyone with my post confirming the OTO's intention to issue a microfilm with the missing document.

Not me.

"lashtal" wrote:
He's done good work on this project. I hope he doesn't feel too hurt by the response from other members, and that he doesn't feel at all hurt by my posts.

If I have any "hope" about this project, it is that it wraps up the argument, and proves beyond reasonable doubt either for or against it's claims.

If the book begins with doubt and skepticism, and ends with doubt and skepticism, then it might as well just be a 'compilation of evidence', presented with the intention of fueling more skepticism. So I assume that he's out to prove either a) Crowley's story is false with 99.9% certainty, or b) Crowley's story is true with 99.9% certainty, and "hoping" that he does one of the two.

"John Griffith" wrote:
The Beast A Ch I H A = 666 in full. (The usual spelling is ChIVA.)

Interesting.

Godwin's gives the Hebrew word for Beast as "Chioa", spelled Aleph-Vau-Yod-Cheth, giving it the value of 25 (p.400).

I wonder what grounds led Crowley to believe he could change a Vau (W/V) to a Heh (H), and have it still mean "Beast". Does anyone know? IT probably has something to do with the vowel "O", and transliteration, but an actual explanation would be appreciated.


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

Thanks Paul. I can understand your frustration at people questioning your inability to explain if you are bound by some kind of promise, which I guess to be the case if I'm reading between the lines correctly. I think, as you say, it'd be best if those who have the ability to explain came forward and did so. In not doing that all they're doing is making their actions look suspicious and giving rise to conspiracy theories.


ReplyQuote
eol
 eol
(@eol)
Member Admin
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 254
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Interesting.

Godwin's gives the Hebrew word for Beast as "Chioa", spelled Aleph-Vau-Yod-Cheth, giving it the value of 25 (p.400).

I wonder what grounds led Crowley to believe he could change a Vau (W/V) to a Heh (H), and have it still mean "Beast". Does anyone know? IT probably has something to do with the vowel "O", and transliteration, but an actual explanation would be appreciated.

This is most interesting. I've noticed Crowley being too much of a freestyler when it comes to Hebrew. The first is חיוא and it's read Cheywa/chêyvâ' and it is a beast or an animal. Word can be found in the Bible. חיהא on the other hand would be read... hmm.. Hiha? And it means absolutely nothing to my knowledge. But this is off topic and we shouldn't be doing that. 😉


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"eol" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Interesting.

Godwin's gives the Hebrew word for Beast as "Chioa", spelled Aleph-Vau-Yod-Cheth, giving it the value of 25 (p.400).

I wonder what grounds led Crowley to believe he could change a Vau (W/V) to a Heh (H), and have it still mean "Beast". Does anyone know? IT probably has something to do with the vowel "O", and transliteration, but an actual explanation would be appreciated.

This is most interesting. I've noticed Crowley being too much of a freestyler when it comes to Hebrew. The first is חיוא read Cheywa/chêyvâ' and it is a beast or an animal. Word can be found in the Bible. חיהא on the other hand would be read... hmm.. Hiha? And it means absolutely nothing to my knowledge. But this is off topic and we shouldn't be doing that. 😉

This thread calls the origins of Liber L into question, and the qabalah mentioned is part of it. The proper title of the thread is named "Crowley and his discrepancies"... but I do see your point.

Yes, he was quite a 'freestyler' it seems. I really wish that my college professor would have been allowed to continue tutoring in ancient Hebrew. Alas, I missed the deadline for that.


ReplyQuote
𓍶
 𓍶
(@jg)
𓂀
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 175
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"John Griffith" wrote:
The Beast A Ch I H A = 666 in full. (The usual spelling is ChIVA.)

Interesting.

Godwin's gives the Hebrew word for Beast as "Chioa", spelled Aleph-Vau-Yod-Cheth, giving it the value of 25 (p.400).

I wonder what grounds led Crowley to believe he could change a Vau (W/V) to a Heh (H), and have it still mean "Beast". Does anyone know? IT probably has something to do with the vowel "O", and transliteration, but an actual explanation would be appreciated.

It is certainly the case he constructed it to equal 666 - it is a case of a construction of a magical word which retains the etymological meanings of its roots - while at the same time equaling a number sought for - in the case above Crowley was able to sum it to 666 through the addition and variation of vowels, as well as by spelling it through the names of its letters, with the exception that he spelled the letter H not as HH or HE in the Golden Dawn spellings of Column I of Sepher Sephiroth - but rather as HA - one of a number of normative Rabbinic spellings of the name of the letter H in Hebrew.  The Rabbis are not always consistent in the spelling of the names of the letters of their alphabet, at least in regards to the vowels of these names.  In Hebrew in addition to the vowel points a number of letters do double duty as both consonants and vowels.  One remark en passant is that the appearance of ACh at its beginning adds ideas of equality, fraternity, unity, and equilibrium, all of which are ideas attached to the root ACh in Hebrew - and presumably - depending on the degree to which Crowley allowed etymological considerations to enter into the construction of the word - these ideas ought to be blended in with those of Life, Animality, and Living Being which are attached to the root ChYH.  In Genesis ADM names his AShTh - Wife - Eve - ChVH - Life - Living - because she was the mother of all living - ChY

וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ, חַוָּה:  כִּי הִוא הָיְתָה, אֵם כָּל-חָי[/align:p58k7rhn]

It is similar to the word ChYTh - which in a very literal restricted sense signifies a fence - however, in its primary sense - as used for instance repeatedly in the opening chapters of Genesis, and throughout the Torah - it signifies Beasts, Animality, Living Beings, indeed even the Objectivity of Life itself.  It is the root of the Hayyoth - the animals who run and return in the lightning flash of creation - in the vision of the Chariot and the Kerubim of Isaiah, Ezekial, and John.  The Kabbalah is normally divided into two great branches by the Rabbis, the Work of Creation and the Work of the Chariot - Berashith and Merkabah.  The first is the Creation of Heaven and Earth, and the second is the Ascent to a Vision of the Deity.  It is interesting in light of the injunction of Crowley in the Book of the Law to "unite by thine art" the first half of the Jews with the his second half - 418 perhaps chief among them, that the value of the first word of Creation - BRAShYTh = 913 which when joined with that of ChYTh - Living Beings it equals 1331 - elliptically - AChD AL - Unity of AL - and it equals 11[sup:p58k7rhn]3[/sup:p58k7rhn].  It is also striking that the surface area of this cube equals 726 the Sepher Sephiroth spelling of VITRIOL - the initials of the words inscribed around the ART ATU of Thoth - Visita Interiora Terrae Rectificando Invenies Occultum Lapidem.  HALF is course when transliterated into Hebrew the word for Ox preceded by the determinative article H - The - so that is signifies "The Ox"

But I fear I have wandered far from the topic of the thread!

John


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4221
 
"John Griffith" wrote:
But I fear I have wandered far from the topic of the thread!

Perhaps, but it's extremely interesting wandering.


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

Since it seems okay to wander off-thread, I'd like to ask Lashtal (Paul) a question. And reveal my ignorance at the same time. I recall a lecture where it was said that in the Hag AC mentioned something about food in his Cairo hotel being cooked by a Greek and served by an Armenian. The lecturer asserted, I think, that Aiwass meant "waiter" in some Armenian dialect, and posited AC might be having a joke - something to do with Rose saying Aiwass was waiting for Crowley? Was that your lecture, Paul? I have been unable to find the word Aiwass, or Aiwaz or variant thereof in any language using the web, but then I'm a technophobe who only owns a BlackBerry and no 'puter! Again, apologies if I've contributed some garbled 'horseshit' of my own!


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"sandyboy" wrote:
Since it seems okay to wander off-thread, I'd like to ask Lashtal (Paul) a question. And reveal my ignorance at the same time. I recall a lecture where it was said that in the Hag AC mentioned something about food in his Cairo hotel being cooked by a Greek and served by an Armenian. The lecturer asserted, I think, that Aiwass meant "waiter" in some Armenian dialect, and posited AC might be having a joke - something to do with Rose saying Aiwass was waiting for Crowley? Was that your lecture, Paul? I have been unable to find the word Aiwass, or Aiwaz or variant thereof in any language using the web, but then I'm a technophobe who only owns a BlackBerry and no 'puter! Again, apologies if I've contributed some garbled 'horseshit' of my own!

Check Arabic, iirc.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 516
 

After taking another hard look at The Invocation of Hoor (OS27), I see the so-called discrepancy that  R.T.Cole alludes to on the webpage that advertises his upcoming book. Although I might be wrong, I suspect Cole is using the Katz publication as his source material for OS27, and if so it explains why he would like to see the raw data as it appears on microfilm.

Cole claims the "long and futile Tarot divination" performed by Crowley on March 23rd actually occurred after returning to Boleskine in late April 1904. Assuming Katz arranged the published sheets of the manuscript correctly, he may be responsible for the conclusions drawn by Cole due to a footnote in The Invocation of Hoor. There are no dates provided in OS27 to indicate when the activities took place with the exception of a brief note by Crowley pertaining to work done in the summer of 1904; that date appears on page 37 of the Katz book. Page 39 contains what Katz describes in the footnote below it as the Tarot divination performed by Crowley on March 23rd; the obvious discrepancy is the record of the divination in the manuscript appears after work that began in the the summer of 1904. With no date indicating when the 36 card Tarot spread was dealt, Katz and Cole may both be wrong in concluding the spread is the one dealt on March 23rd. In the Book of Results, which is also included in the Katz book, there is a record of Crowley performing a different Tarot divination on March 23rd, albeit much shorter, consisting of six cards. The question now is, why did Marcus Katz draw the conclusion he did about the Tarot spread on page 39 of his book? As of now, there appears to be no evidence supporting his conclusion, or the ones made by Cole.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"herupakraath" wrote:
After taking another hard look at The Invocation of Hoor (OS27), I see the so-called discrepancy that  R.T.Cole alludes to on the webpage that advertises his upcoming book. Although I might be wrong, I suspect Cole is using the Katz publication as his source material for OS27, and if so it explains why he would like to see the raw data as it appears on microfilm.

Cole claims the "long and futile Tarot divination" performed by Crowley on March 23rd actually occurred after returning to Boleskine in late April 1904. Assuming Katz arranged the published sheets of the manuscript correctly, he may be responsible for the conclusions drawn by Cole due to a footnote in The Invocation of Hoor. There are no dates provided in OS27 to indicate when the activities took place with the exception of a brief note by Crowley pertaining to work done in the summer of 1904; that date appears on page 37 of the Katz book. Page 39 contains what Katz describes in the footnote below it as the Tarot divination performed by Crowley on March 23rd; the obvious discrepancy is the record of the divination in the manuscript appears after work that began in the the summer of 1904. With no date indicating when the 36 card Tarot spread was dealt, Katz and Cole may both be wrong in concluding the spread is the one dealt on March 23rd. In the Book of Results, which is also included in the Katz book, there is a record of Crowley performing a different Tarot divination on March 23rd, albeit much shorter, consisting of six cards. The question now is, why did Marcus Katz draw the conclusion he did about the Tarot spread on page 39 of his book? As of now, there appears to be no evidence supporting his conclusion, or the ones made by Cole.

That's good information, herupakraath, thanks.

Crowley says that Ankh-f-n-khonsu is mentioned on March 23 in the Book of Results (Equinox I,7 p. 368), but he isn't mentioned in the entry for that date (p. 376), which merely says "[Wednesday] The Secret of Wisdom (We omit the record of a long and futile Tarot divination)". The name Ankh-f-n-khonsu also does not appear in his diary entry for that date (p. 364), which merely says "Y.K. done".

This led me to assume that the record of the "long and futile Tarot divination" mentioned Ankh-f-n-khonsu. Either that, or some random note on that date that he also didn't reproduce. Does "Ankh-f-n-khonsu" appear on that date, or in either divination? If so, it would confirm which Tarot divination Crowley himself thought occurred on March 23rd.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5353
 

Sandy,

"sandyboy" wrote:
I recall a lecture where it was said that in the Hag AC mentioned something about food in his Cairo hotel being cooked by a Greek and served by an Armenian. The lecturer asserted, I think, that Aiwass meant "waiter" in some Armenian dialect, and posited AC might be having a joke - something to do with Rose saying Aiwass was waiting for Crowley? Was that your lecture, Paul?

Yes, that was my lecture. The first one, delivered to an audience at Treadwells, subsequently expanded at lectures at Dockmasters House and, most recently, at Atlantis Bookshop. Some of this stuff has subsequently - and independently - been identified by Toby Churton and appears in his biography of AC.

Your memory is good, of course, but it's probably best if I recount the basic facts.

On 16 March 1904, Crowley reports that Rose began repeating, "They are waiting for you." He responds with an apparently flippant remark regarding who the “Waiter” might be. On 18 March the Thoth Invocation is repeated, and Crowley reports that it was "revealed that the waiter was Horus, whom I had offended and ought to invoke." He does so and achieves 'startling success' on 20 March.

Now, its often been observed that 'Aiwass' or 'Aiwaz' is a puzzle of a name. Of course, it exists as a name, a human name, but it's also tempting to imagine answering the question 'Who was the author of The Book Of The Law?' with 'Aiwaz' ('I was'). This links in nicely with the suspicious title of the printed work itself: 'Liber AL' = 'Liberal'?

So, real name or typical Crowley leg-pull?

I'm not so sure. 'Aiwa' is, of course, Arabic for 'Yes', which is nicely affirmative in the context of Thelema. But, remembering that Crowley repeatedly mentions 'waiters' and 'waiting' in this context - 'the waiter was Horus' - it's interesting that he refers in Confessions (Chapter 42) to a journey by ship to Egypt for his first visit to Cairo: "I note in my diary that the food was ‘beastly, and abominable, and absurdly dear’. If I remember correctly, it was cooked by a Greek and served by an Armenian."

Now, that's a loaded sentence, with its indirect mentions of Beast and Abomination! But let's allow that to pass and focus on the last part: 'served by an Armenian.' An odd detail to remember two decades after the event, really, but... The Armenian word for a 'servant attending on the guests' is Ayvaz! In Turkish, the word indicates a cook or servant in 'big mansions'.

An interesting little aside lies in the spelling of Ayvaz - it appears as Այվազ which seems to me to be suggestively similar handwritten on the page to θέλημα

I went on in the lecture to name Aiwass - that is, to reveal his actual identity and further to reveal not only not only what he was doing in Cairo but also who he was doing it with!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3840
 

OK, I'll bite: for the benefit of those of us unable to attend those or future lectures, who was Aiwass?
Perhaps pardonable on the site of the ACS, but an awful lot of teasing & mysterious allusions in this thread- I believe you too (Paul) are writing a book about these matters, but in each case, enough already!
Release the books!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5353
 
"ignant666" wrote:
OK, I'll bite: for the benefit of those of us unable to attend those or future lectures, who was Aiwass?
Perhaps pardonable on the site of the ACS, but an awful lot of teasing & mysterious allusions in this thread- I believe you too (Paul) are writing a book about these matters, but in each case, enough already!
Release the books!

Oh no, now what have I unleashed?

😉

Tell you what, I'll post a link to the PDF of my Powerpoint presentation later today - it's all there.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5353
 
"sandyboy" wrote:
Thanks Paul. I can understand your frustration at people questioning your inability to explain if you are bound by some kind of promise, which I guess to be the case if I'm reading between the lines correctly.

Okay - this is my last post on this thread that will mention the microfilms. What follows is what I published previously, combined with additional information received last night. Readers must note that this is not an 'official' OTO statement and I am not an OTO spokesman or even an OTO member. On behalf of the membership of LAShTAL.COM, I simply consulted the person who would know the facts so I could report back. I have permission to reproduce the content of the private email responses.

Both OS23 and OS27 are listed in the catalog/index of the Yorke Collection microfilms published by the OTO, but OS23 is missing from the microfilms themselves.

The omission of OS23 from the microfilms was an error outside the control of OTO or the Warburg Institute and arrangements have been made to include it in a "miscellaneous" supplemental reel. It will be sent to all purchasers and will also include the two AC scrapbooks assembled by Yorke. The leadership of OTO has confirmed that Film 9 Reel 1, which should include OS 23, mistakenly repeats OS 21 instead. The mistake was simple and administrative: notebooks were placed on a shelf in catalog order for photographing and pulled as needed to follow a written plan. The plan was in ‘topical order’ (i.e. Film 9 is ‘Diaries’) rather than catalog order. A photographer from the firm of microfilmers simply pulled the volume next to OS23, which was OS21 -- OS 21 also appears on Film 1.

I have nothing to add to this and no inclination to take it any further, having received several emails and PMs accusing me of acting as part of an OTO conspiracy and several accusing me of attacking the OTO.

I have a copy of each of OS23 and OS27 and I'm satisfied that the 'mysteries' are all already in the public domain. As I said previously, RTC has identified some interesting and intriguing things that have previously gone un-noticed. 'Un-noticed', not 'unpublished' or 'unavailable'.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 516
 
"belmurru" wrote:
Crowley says that Ankh-f-n-khonsu is mentioned on March 23 in the Book of Results (Equinox I,7 p. 368), but he isn't mentioned in the entry for that date (p. 376), which merely says "[Wednesday] The Secret of Wisdom (We omit the record of a long and futile Tarot divination)". The name Ankh-f-n-khonsu also does not appear in his diary entry for that date (p. 364), which merely says "Y.K. done".

This led me to assume that the record of the "long and futile Tarot divination" mentioned Ankh-f-n-khonsu. Either that, or some random note on that date that he also didn't reproduce. Does "Ankh-f-n-khonsu" appear on that date, or in either divination? If so, it would confirm which Tarot divination Crowley himself thought occurred on March 23rd.

Ankh-f-n-khonsu is mentioned in the Tarot divination, as shown below. The next page in the book is recorded while in the museum observing the features of the stele.

1. Mercury or Ankh-f-n-Khonsu = {Ou Mh}
2. Mars in Libra = the ritual is of sex; mars is the house of venus exciting the jealousy of Saturn or Vulcan.
3. Moon in Cancer the 4 of cups means purity in the path.

These produce

1 K of W  = Force
2 P of C  - initiation
3 Mercury = Wisdom in work 

He that abideth in the midst is Mars in Pisces giving as the symbol of Horus as Khephra

But 666 explains all this and more.


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 15
Share: