Crowley and his dis...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley and his discrepancies

Page 4 / 15

belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

Section "m" of the contents of OS 23 on microfilm 9 of the Yorke Collection - http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/fileadmin/images/yorke/Yorke_Microfilm_Index.pdf (pp. 49-50) - says "Qabalistic notes on the Book of the Law, May 1904."

If this title is in Crowley's hand, or if the contents of the "Qabalistic notes" deal with names and words only in the full text of Liber L, then it is proof that Liber L already existed by May, 1904, well before the summer of 1904, and also long before the discussion of the Book with Elaine Simpson on April 18, 1906.

Can someone - Paul? - confirm if this date "May 1904" for these notes is written there, and if it is in Crowley's hand?


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"herupakraath" wrote:
"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.

Thank you very much herupakraath!

This confirms that the Tarot divination of March 23rd was actually short, and Crowley himself is responsible for Katz' (and our) confusion about when the "long" one took place, since in the Equinox I,7 and subsequent publications of the Book of Results, he may be taken as implying that a long Tarot divination happened on March 23rd - when in fact it happened long after. It appears that somehow, perhaps in the way the book was kept, laid out or dated, that he himself conflated the two divinations.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 
"belmurru" wrote:
Can someone - Paul? - confirm if this date "May 1904" for these notes is written there, and if it is in Crowley's hand?

In a word: Yes.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"lashtal" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
Can someone - Paul? - confirm if this date "May 1904" for these notes is written there, and if it is in Crowley's hand?

In a word: Yes.

Thank you very much Paul!


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 501
 

A tiny point which has no bearing on the immediate turn the discussion has taken.

Some posts ago was the observation that:

" .....Crowley reports that it was "revealed that the waiter was Horus, whom I had offended and ought to invoke."

This is correct of the version that appears in The Equinox of the Gods and ABA which draws on it but is incorrect for The Equinox Vol.I No.7 where the same information is given on page 365 as:

"revealed that the waiter was Horus, whom I had offered and ought to invoke."

This is probably just a typo with no significance.

OK


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 
"OKontrair" wrote:
This is correct of the version that appears in The Equinox of the Gods and ABA which draws on it but is incorrect for The Equinox Vol.I No.7 where the same information is given on page 365 as:

"revealed that the waiter was Horus, whom I had offered and ought to invoke."

So it is. I'd never noticed that before!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


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

Thank you for all that information about the lectures you gave and your dealings with the OTO over the microfilms. You have certainly been under the lash(tal) on this thread, Paul! I think we might all remember when posting on topics that engage us (and I'm as guilty of breaking this as anyone else), as my late mother used to say, "Civility costs nothing!" Peace be upon you all.


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 144
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"John Griffith" wrote:
But I fear I have wandered far from the topic of the thread!

Perhaps, but it's extremely interesting wandering.

Thank you for your kind words Michael.

"lashtal" wrote:
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."

Greetings Paul,

Although I have been familiar with the Aiwass = I Was paronomasia for some time I have never heard it phrased exactly the way you do, as the hunchback and soldier of AL:  Who was the author of AL ?  I Was!  Certainly phrased in this way it nearly dispels all doubts one might have of its origin.  Crowley remarks that any number of words are written paronomastically at times in more than one language.  Given A.C.'s conception of Aiwass as an Assyrian warrior, I examined the dictionary of that Semitic tongue available online at the University of Chicago, but did not discover through a cursory look anything of note.  I think the Assyrian reference may be more in line not with the simple appearance of Aiwass, i.e., what he may have looked like, but what he was garbed in - in this case for the rest of us - no matter how Aiwass may have appeared in any vision of Crowley - real or imaginary - he is essentially garbed in letters - the letters of the text - and one may remark that the principle literal mathematical analysis of the text he engaged in was done primarily through the values of the letters of the Assyrian alphabet.  The Assyrian alphabet is more popularly known as the Hebrew alphabet.  It is one of many alphabets descended from the Phoenician and Proto-Canaanite alphabets, the ultimate source of most of the alphabets of the world, including the Greek and the Latin. It is the Rabbis themselves in the Talmud and elsewhere who denominate the alphabet of their scripture “writing of Ashur”, “writing in the Assyrian style”, - KThBThY AShVR.  They adopted the script for its elegance, hieroglyphic refinement, and literal abstractness, in place of the older, more primitive, and crude characters with which they wrote, around the time of their sojourn in Babylon.  One might call the original of this Alphabet derived from variations of hieroglyphs of Egypt and elsewhere, its primitive form, and its elegant and abstract perfection in the Assyrian characters, the "old letters" of the book of Nuit - here signifying not only the Book of Thoth - that is those historical, artistic, syncretic reflections on archetypes and symbols - which developed through creative imagination to be something quite other than what it was in its origin - but also reading "all these old letters of my Book" as the very letters being written at the time.  Be this as it may, given that Aiwass is a "minister of Hoor-paar-Kraat" - that is a minister of an Egyptian god - one of their few actually human gods compared to the number of animal headed gods multiplied through the land of Khem - and a child god at that - one might think that the name of this minister reflects an ancient Egyptian etymology.  Examining Faulkner's Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, and the smaller dictionary at the end of the Grammar of Gardiner, there are a couple of good candidates.  By the way, I may have posted some of this stuff on this site some 4+ years ago under the initials of the nom de plume jd - but it appears a number of those posts have been deleted.    I think the best candidate is the word was - signifying the Was sceptre - the fabulous Set-headed sceptre wielded by Ra-Hoor-Khut on the Stele of Ankh-af-na-Khonsu.  Tipped with an animal head, the bottom of the wand forks into curving double prongs.  The head atop it is usually thought to be canine - albeit a fabulous canine.  "An ivory comb of Djet shows two such sceptres supporting the vault of heaven, symbolized the outspread winds of the celestial falcon."  Other depictions, for instance from the reliefs of Djoser at Saqqara, show the was-sceptre holding a fan, and even dancing.  The sceptre is a symbol of dominion and power, especially divine power.  It has been shown wielded by a variety of gods, among them Wsr, Hrw, Anpw, and Djhwti.  It is thought to have originated as a type of animal goad be it mule or donkey, and the forks might work well with a snake.  See Toby Wilkinson's interesting section on it in his work Early Dynastic Egypt[sup:2ng06fkg]1[/sup:2ng06fkg]  This sceptre itself is connected with Thebes through its name Wast – City of the Was-Sceptre – which is aprope the name of the one city mentioned in AL, outside of Cairo, in Arabic the Victorious - El Qahira.  If there is an intended ancient Egyptian etymological signification of the word Aiwass – the consonantal root of the Was sceptre appears to be the most likely.  If so, Crowley was not the first to employ word puns – as far back as the Old Kingdom and the Pyramid Texts it appears the ancient Egyptians delighted in such word play, and they later employed it to excess at the end of their era, when they sought to bedazzle and mystify their conquerors, be it the Persians, Greeks, or Romans – at which time – with the possible sole exception of Horapollo – an impenetrable veil covered the hieroglyphs until the time of Champollion and the Rosetta Stone.  I actually got to see this remarkable stele in the British Museum in 1980 at the end of my Pershing Nuclear Missle service in Deutschland – the beginning of the end of the Cold War as these missles were the first nuclear missles destroyed in history in accordance with the Treaty signed in Iceland.  This period of the paronomasia of the obscuration of the Egytpian tongue is closest to the period of Ankh-af-na-Khonsu, the last great flowering of ancient Egypt prior to their subjugation by the nations which surrounded them.  The spelling of Thebes in ancient Egyptian is composed of the hieroglyphs of the Was sceptre, the T hieroglyph of a loaf of bread, homonymous with the Egyptian word – Ta – Earth – and the circle squared hieroglyph signifying City, Town, Lower Heaven – phonetically Niut.  However, even if the root of Aiwass is Was – it is important to see if perhaps other signfications enter into the composition of the word – either through the root WS – or through the vowels which precede it.  And indeed, we find that there are a number of other roots which may enter into the formation of the word.  I will mention first the IW of AIWASS – as the root IW is rich in ancient Egyptian.  On the one hand it is the veritable hunch-back of AL – the famous Ear of AL of the title page of AL – in which an exclamation mark and an interrogation mark are conjoined to form the Ear of the Beast into which the word of Aiwass is said to have been uttered, as one of the restricted meaning if IW in A. Egyptian is that of hump-back, the hieroglyph denoting it is a hump-backed man.  Reading Aiwass as the Hunch-back of the Was Sceptre is to read it as the Question Mark of Power, and Origin.  However, IW also signifies dog in ancient Egyptian, in which case Aiwass is the Dog – that is either Set or Anubis – of the Head of the Sceptre.  In a less literal and restricted sense, the verbal sense of the root IW is that on the one hand of extending, and on the other of being.  In the first sense then Aiwass is the Extension of the Sceptre – that is – the application of its power.  It is remarkable that the Hebrew letter L, the original name of the work in question signfies the very idea of Extension.  The root IW in its purest verbal sense – that of being and to come and perhaps to go – is thought to be connected to the identical verbal ideas of being contained in the final three letters of the Tetragrammaton.  Massey, in his Lectures, thought IW or IU to be a name of Heru – the Ever Coming Son.  The Alpha and the Omega of the letters Crowley assigned to Trigrammaton are I and U.  If the IW of AIWASS signifies being then the meaning of Aiwass is that of the Being of the Was-Sceptre - that is the minister of the power of the god.  Finally, and yet quite to the point we discover in the identical lexicons of ancient Egyptian that the word IWSW signifies BALANCE.  Given that the original name of the work is L and in the Arcana of Tahuti it is the Atu of Balance a more fitting denomination of the Author – who after all was a Libran – could not be found.

[sup:2ng06fkg]1[/sup:2ng06fkg] http://books.google.com/books?id=cvWKN53jKlkC&pg=PA160&dq=was-sceptre&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qOn6UNjXFOzOigKg2oCwBg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=was-sceptre&f=false


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 

Hi John,

"John Griffith" wrote:
Although I have been familiar with the Aiwass = I Was paronomasia for some time I have never heard it phrased exactly the way you do, as the hunchback and soldier of AL:  Who was the author of AL ?  I Was!  Certainly phrased in this way it nearly dispels all doubts one might have of its origin.  Crowley remarks that any number of words are written paronomastically at times in more than one language...

What a wonderful post! So much information that will take me a while to un-pick!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


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

Maybe Aiwass was Jewish? "Oy-Vay"?! An emissary from the chosen people.Seriously, that was a great post from Mr G. So much more useful than dissing RTC's work pre-publication, dontcha think. 


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 

All,

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

I have placed a copy of the PDF of my presentation in the Downloads section of this website (look for 'Downloads' under 'Resources' in the main menu - the document is in the LAShTAL 'folder'). The file is available to Registered Members only.

This is the PowerPoint slideshow I used as the basis for my talk at Treadwells for Hecate's excellent 'Save The Abbey' event earlier this year at Treadwells Bookshop in London and I am presenting it here with her permission. I have retained copyright to the original material - other copyrights are listed in the Download description - and the document is not to be reproduced elsewhere in any format.

It is still my plan to make available all the material from the day's talks - presentations together with audio recordings or transcripts - available for download from this site.

I would urge anyone downloading today's file to send a donation via Paypal - just send funds to @lashtal.com">webmaster@lashtal.com and include the word 'Hecate' in the relevant online form. I will ensure that all donations so marked are forwarded to Hecate's fund.

There's much that is missing from the presentation, of course. First, my talk included much peripheral and explanatory material. Secondly, I have developed the content substantially in preparation for my forthcoming book. A couple of items are no longer current or have been found to be in error. However, I hope that readers will find much that is suggestive of at least some of the larger mysteries, puzzles and possible solutions.

Finally, please let me know by PM of any problems downloading the document. I don't want this fascinating thread derailed by administrative issues.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"lashtal" wrote:
I have placed a copy of the PDF of my presentation in the Downloads section of this website (look for 'Downloads' under 'Resources' in the main menu - the document is in the LAShTAL 'folder'). The file is available to Registered Members only.

Interesting ppt, Paul. It left me with one question. Is there any indication of when Hamid came into Crowley's (or Crowley/Rose's) life (lives), and what access, if any, he had to Crowley's library/records up until April 1904?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Interesting ppt, Paul. It left me with one question. Is there any indication of when Hamid came into Crowley's (or Crowley/Rose's) life (lives), and what access, if any, he had to Crowley's library/records up until April 1904?

I suspect from the question that you're inferring a more active role by Hamid in the delivery of the text itself than I intended to suggest. He had an active (or, more likely, a 'passive') role in another way that should be clear from the diary extract. A direct answer to your question, though: I don't yet know when he appeared and I very much doubt that he had access to AC's library.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
joe93
(@joe93)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 49
 

First the Carfax Monographs in Magical Mystery Tour, now Aiwaz!


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

Both AC refs in MMT spotted by the amazingly observant Phil Coulthard, Colin Wilson expert and bookman extraordinaire, when they've gone unnoticed by all since 1968! Give that man a round of applause.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3718
 
"lashtal" wrote:
I suspect from the question that you're inferring a more active role by Hamid in the delivery of the text itself than I intended to suggest. He had an active (or, more likely, a 'passive') role in another way that should be clear from the diary extract. A direct answer to your question, though: I don't yet know when he appeared and I very much doubt that he had access to AC's library.

Thanks for clearing that up, as my first reaction was that he certainly did speak "good English", at great length, under distracting circumstances, that might have left a lesser man winded.
A really fascinating presentation I'm sorry to have missed; thanks so much for posting. I look forward to your book (rather more than Cole's, if truth be told, though i will admit to curiosity as to what exactly he says).


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"lashtal" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Interesting ppt, Paul. It left me with one question. Is there any indication of when Hamid came into Crowley's (or Crowley/Rose's) life (lives), and what access, if any, he had to Crowley's library/records up until April 1904?

I suspect from the question that you're inferring a more active role by Hamid in the delivery of the text itself than I intended to suggest. He had an active (or, more likely, a 'passive') role in another way that should be clear from the diary extract. A direct answer to your question, though: I don't yet know when he appeared and I very much doubt that he had access to AC's library.

Not necessarily. I've certain seen my own share of 'coincidences'. Just wondering if there were more extant pieces to the Hamid puzzle.

Certainly, if Hamid would have been standing behind Crowley making up a bunch of things to say (or reading something he had compiled himself using Crowley's notes and Rose's prompting), Crowley would have instantly recognized his voice, and the skeptic in him, we assume, would have put a stop to it right then. Further speculations down that road only lead to the formulations of an elaborate hoax, the 'clues' to which are much too apparent for someone as witty as Aleister Crowley. Saying, of course, that if he intended it to be a scam, he probably could have done a much better job.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4209
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Certainly, if Hamid would have been standing behind Crowley making up a bunch of things to say (or reading something he had compiled himself using Crowley's notes and Rose's prompting), Crowley would have instantly recognized his voice, and the skeptic in him, we assume, would have put a stop to it right then. Further speculations down that road only lead to the formulations of an elaborate hoax . . .

Not necessarily. Even had Hamid been involved, he could have been acting as a medium for communication. There was some discussion along these lines after Paul's talk in April last year, either in the Q&A session or in the evening down the pub afterwards.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Certainly, if Hamid would have been standing behind Crowley making up a bunch of things to say (or reading something he had compiled himself using Crowley's notes and Rose's prompting), Crowley would have instantly recognized his voice, and the skeptic in him, we assume, would have put a stop to it right then. Further speculations down that road only lead to the formulations of an elaborate hoax . . .

Not necessarily. Even had Hamid been involved, he could have been acting as a medium for communication. There was some discussion along these lines after Paul's talk in April last year, either in the Q&A session or in the evening down the pub afterwards.

If he (not just him in particular, but any physical human body) would have been there, do you think Crowley would have said so? If not, then...?

He did say:

Our head servant, Hassan or Hamid, I forget which. A tall, dignified, hansome athlete of about 30. Spoke good English and ran the household well; always there and never in the way.

I suppose I hardly ever saw the servants under his authority: I do not even know how many there were.

This seems to imply that Hamid was not only a part of the 'grand picture', but that he was in Cairo with Crowley and Rose. The listing of people includes his name, and other people that were in Cairo and 'assisted' with the Working only. So I think it is safe to infer that Hamid was in Cairo with them, though I wonder at any reasons why Crowley would have taken his servant on his honeymoon. Perhaps it is a common thing; I wouldn't know.

He then says:

[Emphasis added. Remarks in brackets.]

The three days were precisely similar, save that on the last day I became nervous lest I should fail to hear the Voice of Aiwass. They may then be described together.

I went into the "temple" a minute early, so as to shut the door and sit down on the stroke of Noon.

On my table were my pen--a Swan Fountain--and supplies of Quarto typewriting paper, 8" x I0".

I never looked round in the room at any time.

The Voice of Aiwass came apparently from over my left shoulder, from the furthest corner of the room. It seemed to echo itself in my physical heart in a very strange manner, hard to describe. I have noticed a similar phenomenon when I have been waiting for a message fraught with great hope or dread. The voice was passionately poured, as if Aiwass were alert about the time- limit. I wrote 65 pages of this present essay (at about my usual rate of composition) in about 10 1/2 hours as against the 3 hours of the 65 pages of the Book of the Law. I was pushed hard to keep the pace; the MS. shows it clearly enough.

The voice was of deep timbre, musical and expressive, its tones solemn, voluptuous, tender, fierce or aught else as suited the moods of the message. Not bass --perhaps a rich tenor or baritone.

The English was free of either native or foreign accent, perfectly pure of local or caste mannerisma, thus startling and even uncanny at first hearing.

I had a strong impression that the speaker was actually in the corner where he seemed to be, in a body of "fine matter," transparent as a veil of gauze, or a cloud of incense-smoke. He seemed to be a tall, dark man in his thirties, well-knit, active and strong, with the face of a savage king, and eyes veiled lest their gaze should destroy what they saw. The dress was not Arab; it suggested Assyria or Persia, but very vaguely. I took little note of it, for to me at that time Aiwass and an "angel" such as I had often seen in visions, a being purely astral. [But this is just an impression. He didn't actually see anything, with his physical eyes, as he apparently didn't look.]

I now incline to believe that Aiwass is not only the God or Demon or Devil once held holy in Sumer, and mine own Guradian Angel, but also a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magical link with Mankind, whom He loves, and that He is thus and Ipsissimus, the Head of the A∴A∴ Even I can do, in a much feebler way, this Work of being a God and a Beast, &c., &c., all at the same time, with equal fullness of life.

[Here he talks about Aiwass being a man, that is a physical human being, whom we have no actual record of ever existing as such. So which is it, a 'being purely astral', or 'a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magical link with Mankind.' The common assumption is that Aiwass was writing through Crowley, but could he have been speaking through Hamid?

Also:

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. [He is either saying, "Your guess is as good as mine," (ie. "I don't know"), or "It is not worth bothering about" (which might be a Red Flag to skeptics). I don't recall whether or not he was sober for the events in question.] His number is 78, that of Mezla, the Channel through which Macroprosopus reveals Himself to, or showers His influence upon, Microposopus (I.e. the messenger of God to Man). (But see the miraculous events connected with "The Revival of Magick" described in Magick pp. 257-260, where he is shewn as 93.) So we find Fra. P. speaking of him at one time as of another, but more advanced man; at another time as if it were the name of his own superior in the Spiritual Hierarchy. [Neither of these 'positions' listed infer to Crowley himself, Fra. P, as being connected with Aiwass in any sense as a single unit, or single being, unless an inference is made of Aiwass being Crowley's HGA.] 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," [Important phrase, this one.] or in some other way defeating the very plain purpose of the historian.

The same remark applies to all queries with regard to V.V.V.V.V. (The motto of Fra. P. as a Magister Templi 8○ = 3□; He used it in His office of giving out the "Official Books of A∴A∴" to the word in the Equinox.); with this addition, that in this case he condescends to argue and to instruct. "If I tell you," he once said to the present writer, "that V.V.V.V.V. is a Mr. Smith and lives at Clapham, you will at once go round and tell everybody that V.V.V.V.V. is a Mr. Smith of Clapham, which is not true. V.V.V.V.V. is the Light of the World itself, the sole Mediator between God and Man; and in your present frame of mind (that of a poopstick) you cannot see that the two statements may be identical for the Brothers of the A∴A∴! Did not your greatgrandfather argue that no good thing could come out of Nazareth? `Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him.'"

[Here he seems to equate himself in this "higher picture" not as Aiwass, but as V.V.V.V.V., indicating that Aiwass possibly had a different physical body than Crowley's, which would have to be false, if considering Aiwass to be Crowley's HGA. I say this because if he was really trying to describe the difference between Frater P. and V.V.V.V.V., then he might as well have described a difference between Frater P. and Aiwass, seeing how both "names" (V.V.V.V.V. and Aiwass) are Formulas beyond the Abyss, and either analogy would do to perplex the casual reader. He seems in this case to be treating Aiwass as "other than himself", which again, is false, if Aiwass is Crowley's HGA.]

If it was a hoax, with Hamid hiding in a corner or some such thing, then Crowley either allowed himself to be fooled (doubtful), really was fooled (doubtful), or helped organize and orchestrate the entire thing.

If it was not a hoax, and Crowley physically heard a voice (with his physical ears), then Crowley really did think that there was a being completely separate from his own body telling him what to write. It's pretty much unmistakable in this regard. The whole, "It came from his subconscious" argument really doesn't seem to hold water if he physically heard a voice in the corner. If he actually did hear a physical voice from the corner, and distinctly human, then it must have come from a physical human body, as no other method of dictating the book would have had a decent chance of fooling Crowley, drugged or not.

He does say "the Voice of Aiwass" though, implying that it may not have been a physical voice that he heard, but more like a seemingly distant reverberation of sounds within his own head. If it was in his own head, regardless of how anyone wants to twist it, then Crowley (or 'some part of Crowley') made the whole thing up on the spot, as a result of whatever workings and drugs he was on at the time.

Of course, some want to believe the version that Aiwass was an incorporeal being, quite separate from Crowley, who phased into a little room in Cairo through some type of Stargate, and hung around just long enough to declare Crowley the 'next big thing' in the history of religious prophets.

Surely other options exist.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 

Azidonis,

I rather want the presentation to stand alone as documentation of my research as it stood at a certain point in time, leaving clarification and elaboration for the far more detailed work that is to follow. However...

"Azidonis" wrote:
If he (not just him in particular, but any physical human body) would have been there, do you think Crowley would have said so? If not, then...?

You mean in a comment such as 'always there and never in the way'? 'Always' there, but not 'in the way.' You even include the quote in your own post.

"Azidonis" wrote:
If it was a hoax, with Hamid hiding in a corner or some such thing, then Crowley either allowed himself to be fooled (doubtful), really was fooled (doubtful), or helped organize and orchestrate the entire thing.

That's a couple of times you've mentioned the suggestion of a hoax. I'm not sure what you think you read in my presentation but I'm certainly not suggesting anything of the kind. I neither suggest it was a hoax nor believe it to have been one.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 262
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
If it was not a hoax, and Crowley physically heard a voice (with his physical ears), then Crowley really did think that there was a being completely separate from his own body telling him what to write. It's pretty much unmistakable in this regard. The whole, "It came from his subconscious" argument really doesn't seem to hold water if he physically heard a voice in the corner. If he actually did hear a physical voice from the corner, and distinctly human, then it must have come from a physical human body, as no other method of dictating the book would have had a decent chance of fooling Crowley, drugged or not.

Azidonis, you make a grave error in the quoted statement, viz. you believe the hearing of a physical voice can only originate from a physical source. This is incorrect. Certainly, visual hallucinations (I use the term loosely) are always recognised as physically immaterial - no matter what your state of mind. Auditory hallucinations, however, are simply impossible to tell from true sound. This is why auditory hallucinations are more vexing than the visual ones, and may explain in part why hearing is attributed to spirit, whilst sight is merely fire. Thus, Crowley telling us that he heard a voice, tells us no more than precisely that: he heard a voice. Whether material or immaterial cannot be ascertained.

Markus


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"lashtal" wrote:
Azidonis,

I rather want the presentation to stand alone as documentation of my research as it stood at a certain point in time, leaving clarification and elaboration for the far more detailed work that is to follow. However...

"Azidonis" wrote:
If he (not just him in particular, but any physical human body) would have been there, do you think Crowley would have said so? If not, then...?

You mean in a comment such as 'always there and never in the way'? 'Always' there, but not 'in the way.' You even include the quote in your own post.

Okay then. Hamid was definitely there. I just wanted to make sure it was accurate, before running off and assuming he was.

Makes me wonder if Hamid went with them into the Great Pyramid.

"lashtal" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
If it was a hoax, with Hamid hiding in a corner or some such thing, then Crowley either allowed himself to be fooled (doubtful), really was fooled (doubtful), or helped organize and orchestrate the entire thing.

That's a couple of times you've mentioned the suggestion of a hoax. I'm not sure what you think you read in my presentation but I'm certainly not suggesting anything of the kind. I neither suggest it was a hoax nor believe it to have been one.

I don't think it was a hoax. I've said before that if Crowley actually took a new Motto at 10=1, it was probably Aiwass. I do think it would be dismissive, in a thread dealing with possible discrepancies in the reception story, to not at least mention the fact that it could one day be proven to have been a hoax, even if I do not personally think it was a hoax.

"Markus" wrote:
Azidonis, you make a grave error in the quoted statement, viz. you believe the hearing of a physical voice can only originate from a physical source. This is incorrect. Certainly, visual hallucinations (I use the term loosely) are always recognised as physically immaterial - no matter what your state of mind. Auditory hallucinations, however, are simply impossible to tell from true sound. This is why auditory hallucinations are more vexing than the visual ones, and may explain in part why hearing is attributed to spirit, whilst sight is merely fire. Thus, Crowley telling us that he heard a voice, tells us no more than precisely that: he heard a voice. Whether material or immaterial cannot be ascertained.

We're talking about someone who was quite used to drug use, who considered himself a staunch skeptic, and who is noted many times over for his "adventurous" personality. It seems highly unlikely that Crowley would walk into the room, close the door, not look around, sit down, and then not go "WTF" when he started hearing things.

And that would have to be some pretty strong drugs for him not to know if he was having an auditory hallucination... pretty strong.


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 144
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
And that would have to be some pretty strong drugs for him not to know if he was having an auditory hallucination... pretty strong.

Geez, there is so much that could be said on all these matters, one hardly knows where to start.  I will just cite one passage from the Prelude to the Confessions, where Crowley writes:

"A further difficulty is introduced by the nature of the mind, and especially of the memory, of the man himself. We shall come to incidents which show that he is doubtful about clearly remembered circumstances, whether they belong to ‘real life’ or to dreams, and even that he has utterly forgotten things which no normal man could forget."

Admittedly, this is written is reference to the account given in the Confessions, but given the honesty of the statement, how are we to know whether any account that he gave pertains to the one or the other - that is memory or dream?  If a man if unable to distinguish between the two how enlightened actually is he?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1955
 

Paul, 93!

Too bad I missed this talk. Great stuff. Re. your summary: What do you say to the fact that there is a proof copy of Liber AL (at Harry Ransom) to be included in his Collected Works 1907, two years before the divorce? And complete with the text from the cover of Liber L minus the 1909 addition? Or: Why do you chose to mention that Liber L was published after the divorce?

Curios...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Too bad I missed this talk. Great stuff. Re. your summary: What do you say to the fact that there is a proof copy of Liber AL (at Harry Ransom) to be included in his Collected Works 1907, two years before the divorce? And complete with the text from the cover of Liber L minus the 1909 addition? Or: Why do you chose to mention that Liber L was published after the divorce?

I think that's my point: Crowley prepared for the reproduction of AL in Collected Works - the same Collected Works with the rather intriguing Litany from The Soul Of Osiris and its mention (from 1901) of 'Nuit', by the way. But it wasn't published there and I'm not sure anyone really knows why. He submitted the page proofs of 'The Holy Books' (volume 3!) in September 1909 so that it could appear in print after his divorce was made final less than two months later.

Revelation at the divorce court proceedings of evidence of any homosexual activity might have resulted in his incarceration. Or perhaps he wanted Rose 'out of the way' before publishing the text, possibly for her own benefit given her alcoholic delirium. I have to keep some stuff back for the book, you know!

By the way, for clarity: I do not share all of RTC's conclusions regarding AL in that I've yet to see any evidence to cause me to doubt the April 1904 date of its writing. Mind you, I haven't read his book yet!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"John Griffith" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
And that would have to be some pretty strong drugs for him not to know if he was having an auditory hallucination... pretty strong.

Geez, there is so much that could be said on all these matters, one hardly knows where to start.  I will just cite one passage from the Prelude to the Confessions, where Crowley writes:

"A further difficulty is introduced by the nature of the mind, and especially of the memory, of the man himself. We shall come to incidents which show that he is doubtful about clearly remembered circumstances, whether they belong to ‘real life’ or to dreams, and even that he has utterly forgotten things which no normal man could forget."

Admittedly, this is written is reference to the account given in the Confessions, but given the honesty of the statement, how are we to know whether any account that he gave pertains to the one or the other - that is memory or dream?  If a man if unable to distinguish between the two how enlightened actually is he?

Incidentally, the Aleister Crowley Timeline, hosted by lashtal.com, lists the following:

"January 16 [1900]: In Paris, initiated by Mathers 5o=6∀ Adeptus Minor; takes motto Christeos Luciftas"
"? January [1906]: 7o=4∀"

I have failed to find any mention on the timeline given of his initiation into 6=5 occurring between these two dates. I do recall a timeline given as a picture at the beginning of Book 4, but it does not seem to be in any of the web versions I have, and my hard copy is in storage.

Regardless, Crowley was at least 5=6 during 1904. One can see some interesting things by looking at the noted entries on the timeline from 1901.

1901

    August 29: "Began mental muttering of 'Aum Mani Padmi Hum' while meditating on Buddha. This developed into Pratyaharic Dharana; loss of ego and a vision of mysterious power; loss of all objects mental and physical. I do not know how long this lasted. I woke meditating on Anahata. The voice of Nada was like a far-off solumn song; it became Aum only, dropping 'Mani Padmi Hum' and then was more like thunder without harmonics."

    September 6: "Dharana on tip of nose. I obtained a clear understanding of the unreality of that nose. This persists. An hour later whilst breathing on my arm as I was asleep, I said to myself: "What is this hot breath from?" I was forced to think before I could answer "my nose." Then I pinched myself and remembered at once; but again breathing the same thing happed again. Therefore the "Dharanation" of my nose dividualizes Me and My Nose, affects my nose, disproves my nose, abolishes, annihilates and expunges my nose."

    September (a few days after the 6th): "Dharana on tip on nose 9 minutes 50 seconds. I actually lost the nose on one occasion, and could not think what I wished to find or where to find it; my mind having become perfectly blank."

    September (day after above entry): "I did Dharana as before on my nose. I understand one Buddhist conception for now, for: I was (a) conscious of external things seen behind, after my nose had vanished, i.e. alter, etc; and (b) that I was not conscious of these things. These two consciousnesses being simultaneously. This seems an absurd and inexplicable, it is noted in Buddhist psychology, yet I know it."

He was beginning work on 'blurring the lines', so to speak, between inner and outer, at least in 1901. This could have accounted for his 'hazy memory', coupled with the drugs, concerning the inward or outward nature of the reception experience. It does seem like an Adept would have more sense of such things though, or a better handle on them. In some respects, the reception almost seems like an 'acid trip' in this regard.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
[...]
He does say "the Voice of Aiwass" though, implying that it may not have been a physical voice that he heard, but more like a seemingly distant reverberation of sounds within his own head. If it was in his own head, regardless of how anyone wants to twist it, then Crowley (or 'some part of Crowley') made the whole thing up on the spot, as a result of whatever workings and drugs he was on at the time.

Of course, some want to believe the version that Aiwass was an incorporeal being, quite separate from Crowley, who phased into a little room in Cairo through some type of Stargate, and hung around just long enough to declare Crowley the 'next big thing' in the history of religious prophets.

Surely other options exist.

Yes.  That Crowley was linking in with a manifestation of planetary superconsciousness or ‘over-mind’ in a particular form and location as Aiwass, which he later came to associate as being partly the same construct as his Holy Guardian Angel, otherwise his transpersonal Self (that is another definition!)  This ‘intelligence’ can also manifest as Naton, Mahatmas, other Secret Chief types & other similar types of phenomena in the same category.  The question beyond this, for a different topic, is: was/ is Aiwass in any part an extraterrestrial construct as well, or just limited to our Solar system or even the Earth?

Congratulations John Griffith for a most informative and educational delve into the matter of the was sceptre, among other fascinating things.  Further to Reply #157, would anyone happen to know which animal (if any) Horus is actually holding in the was sceptre represented on the Stele of Revealing?  It does not look particularly like a canine at the top of it – it actually looks more like a planed surface if anything, although the two forked prongs at the bottom are clear enough - & I cannot see that any sort of animal at all appears to be indicated.  The question therefore could be expressed as: is a dog to live in a was - yes?

Further enquiringly yours,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
[...]
He does say "the Voice of Aiwass" though, implying that it may not have been a physical voice that he heard, but more like a seemingly distant reverberation of sounds within his own head. If it was in his own head, regardless of how anyone wants to twist it, then Crowley (or 'some part of Crowley') made the whole thing up on the spot, as a result of whatever workings and drugs he was on at the time.

Of course, some want to believe the version that Aiwass was an incorporeal being, quite separate from Crowley, who phased into a little room in Cairo through some type of Stargate, and hung around just long enough to declare Crowley the 'next big thing' in the history of religious prophets.

Surely other options exist.

Yes.  That Crowley was linking in with a manifestation of planetary superconsciousness or ‘over-mind’ in a particular form and location as Aiwass, which he later came to associate as being partly the same construct as his Holy Guardian Angel, otherwise his transpersonal Self (that is another definition!)  This ‘intelligence’ can also manifest as Naton, Mahatmas, other Secret Chief types & other similar types of phenomena in the same category.  The question beyond this, for a different topic, is: was/ is Aiwass in any part an extraterrestrial construct as well, or just limited to our Solar system or even the Earth?

So, you subscribe to the spaceman theory?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Yes.  That Crowley was linking in with a manifestation of planetary superconsciousness or ‘over-mind’ in a particular form and location as Aiwass, which he later came to associate as being partly the same construct as his Holy Guardian Angel, otherwise his transpersonal Self (that is another definition!)  This ‘intelligence’ can also manifest as Naton, Mahatmas, other Secret Chief types & other similar types of phenomena in the same category.  The question beyond this, for a different topic, is: was/ is Aiwass in any part an extraterrestrial construct as well, or just limited to our Solar system or even the Earth?

What aroused my interest in regards to this topic, the possible link between Aiwass/Hamid is a very peculiar one.
The so called 'astral masters' or 'inner plane contacts' are reminiscent of the "ascended masters" theory of theosophy and it wouldn't be that far off to regard Blavatsky with her Mahatmas as someone who started this whole trend.

Compared to much more 'traditional' views that might predate Blavatsky/Theosophy, one can draw a very strict division between some obscure metaphysical superconsciousness and traditional concepts like that of Rosicrucian adepts/Unknown superiors of 18th century Freemasonry for the means of transmission.


ReplyQuote
RHK418
(@rhk418)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 14
 
"John Griffith" wrote:
Although I have been familiar with the Aiwass = I Was paronomasia for some time I have never heard it phrased exactly the way you do, as the hunchback and soldier of AL:  Who was the author of AL ?  I Was!  Certainly phrased in this way it nearly dispels all doubts one might have of its origin.  Crowley remarks that any number of words are written paronomastically at times in more than one language.  Given A.C.'s conception of Aiwass as an Assyrian warrior, I examined the dictionary of that Semitic tongue available online at the University of Chicago, but did not discover through a cursory look anything of note.  I think the Assyrian reference may be more in line not with the simple appearance of Aiwass, i.e., what he may have looked like, but what he was garbed in - in this case for the rest of us - no matter how Aiwass may have appeared in any vision of Crowley - real or imaginary - he is essentially garbed in letters - the letters of the text - and one may remark that the principle literal mathematical analysis of the text he engaged in was done primarily through the values of the letters of the Assyrian alphabet.  The Assyrian alphabet is more popularly known as the Hebrew alphabet.  It is one of many alphabets descended from the Phoenician and Proto-Canaanite alphabets, the ultimate source of most of the alphabets of the world, including the Greek and the Latin. It is the Rabbis themselves in the Talmud and elsewhere who denominate the alphabet of their scripture “writing of Ashur”, “writing in the Assyrian style”, - KThBThY AShVR.  They adopted the script for its elegance, hieroglyphic refinement, and literal abstractness, in place of the older, more primitive, and crude characters with which they wrote, around the time of their sojourn in Babylon.  One might call the original of this Alphabet derived from variations of hieroglyphs of Egypt and elsewhere, its primitive form, and its elegant and abstract perfection in the Assyrian characters, the "old letters" of the book of Nuit - here signifying not only the Book of Thoth - that is those historical, artistic, syncretic reflections on archetypes and symbols - which developed through creative imagination to be something quite other than what it was in its origin - but also reading "all these old letters of my Book" as the very letters being written at the time.  Be this as it may, given that Aiwass is a "minister of Hoor-paar-Kraat" - that is a minister of an Egyptian god - one of their few actually human gods compared to the number of animal headed gods multiplied through the land of Khem - and a child god at that - one might think that the name of this minister reflects an ancient Egyptian etymology.  Examining Faulkner's Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, and the smaller dictionary at the end of the Grammar of Gardiner, there are a couple of good candidates.  By the way, I may have posted some of this stuff on this site some 4+ years ago under the initials of the nom de plume jd - but it appears a number of those posts have been deleted.    I think the best candidate is the word was - signifying the Was sceptre - the fabulous Set-headed sceptre wielded by Ra-Hoor-Khut on the Stele of Ankh-af-na-Khonsu.  Tipped with an animal head, the bottom of the wand forks into curving double prongs.  The head atop it is usually thought to be canine - albeit a fabulous canine.  "An ivory comb of Djet shows two such sceptres supporting the vault of heaven, symbolized the outspread winds of the celestial falcon."  Other depictions, for instance from the reliefs of Djoser at Saqqara, show the was-sceptre holding a fan, and even dancing.  The sceptre is a symbol of dominion and power, especially divine power.  It has been shown wielded by a variety of gods, among them Wsr, Hrw, Anpw, and Djhwti.  It is thought to have originated as a type of animal goad be it mule or donkey, and the forks might work well with a snake.  See Toby Wilkinson's interesting section on it in his work Early Dynastic Egypt[sup:1v04jl7n]1[/sup:1v04jl7n]  This sceptre itself is connected with Thebes through its name Wast – City of the Was-Sceptre – which is aprope the name of the one city mentioned in AL, outside of Cairo, in Arabic the Victorious - El Qahira.  If there is an intended ancient Egyptian etymological signification of the word Aiwass – the consonantal root of the Was sceptre appears to be the most likely.  If so, Crowley was not the first to employ word puns – as far back as the Old Kingdom and the Pyramid Texts it appears the ancient Egyptians delighted in such word play, and they later employed it to excess at the end of their era, when they sought to bedazzle and mystify their conquerors, be it the Persians, Greeks, or Romans – at which time – with the possible sole exception of Horapollo – an impenetrable veil covered the hieroglyphs until the time of Champollion and the Rosetta Stone.  I actually got to see this remarkable stele in the British Museum in 1980 at the end of my Pershing Nuclear Missle service in Deutschland – the beginning of the end of the Cold War as these missles were the first nuclear missles destroyed in history in accordance with the Treaty signed in Iceland.  This period of the paronomasia of the obscuration of the Egytpian tongue is closest to the period of Ankh-af-na-Khonsu, the last great flowering of ancient Egypt prior to their subjugation by the nations which surrounded them.  The spelling of Thebes in ancient Egyptian is composed of the hieroglyphs of the Was sceptre, the T hieroglyph of a loaf of bread, homonymous with the Egyptian word – Ta – Earth – and the circle squared hieroglyph signifying City, Town, Lower Heaven – phonetically Niut.  However, even if the root of Aiwass is Was – it is important to see if perhaps other signfications enter into the composition of the word – either through the root WS – or through the vowels which precede it.  And indeed, we find that there are a number of other roots which may enter into the formation of the word.  I will mention first the IW of AIWASS – as the root IW is rich in ancient Egyptian.  On the one hand it is the veritable hunch-back of AL – the famous Ear of AL of the title page of AL – in which an exclamation mark and an interrogation mark are conjoined to form the Ear of the Beast into which the word of Aiwass is said to have been uttered, as one of the restricted meaning if IW in A. Egyptian is that of hump-back, the hieroglyph denoting it is a hump-backed man.  Reading Aiwass as the Hunch-back of the Was Sceptre is to read it as the Question Mark of Power, and Origin.  However, IW also signifies dog in ancient Egyptian, in which case Aiwass is the Dog – that is either Set or Anubis – of the Head of the Sceptre.  In a less literal and restricted sense, the verbal sense of the root IW is that on the one hand of extending, and on the other of being.  In the first sense then Aiwass is the Extension of the Sceptre – that is – the application of its power.  It is remarkable that the Hebrew letter L, the original name of the work in question signfies the very idea of Extension.  The root IW in its purest verbal sense – that of being and to come and perhaps to go – is thought to be connected to the identical verbal ideas of being contained in the final three letters of the Tetragrammaton.  Massey, in his Lectures, thought IW or IU to be a name of Heru – the Ever Coming Son.  The Alpha and the Omega of the letters Crowley assigned to Trigrammaton are I and U.  If the IW of AIWASS signifies being then the meaning of Aiwass is that of the Being of the Was-Sceptre - that is the minister of the power of the god.  Finally, and yet quite to the point we discover in the identical lexicons of ancient Egyptian that the word IWSW signifies BALANCE.  Given that the original name of the work is L and in the Arcana of Tahuti it is the Atu of Balance a more fitting denomination of the Author – who after all was a Libran – could not be found.

This is perhaps the most interesting post in this most interesting thread


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I have been watching this thread unfold with great interest and I feel that sometimes it can often (but obviously not always) be difficult to prove or disprove certain things beyond certain doubt. The whole affair is very detailed and without the time to look into it in-depth I will leave it to others to study and produce conclusions.

I am very much looking forward to reading the books by both Paul and RTC on the subject.

I do however think that there may be another line of enquiry worth investigating:

First off, do records exist of different watermarks used by the paper company that show this watermark to be used from 1906 and not before, even though it is not dated?

Even if RTC could prove that the watermarks on the manuscript are from 1906 and not 1904, is it possible that the reception did happen in 1904, but Crowley somehow lost the original manuscript (maybe apart from the title page) and so created another copy of it (on the 1906 paper) from a typescript of the original, and this handwritten is the one we are discussing now? How would we know that this is not the case and that Crowley tried to cover up this loss to save face?

I would like to hear from those more qualified than me who may know if this is a possibility or not.

If this were the case, then it is it may still be possible that the reception happened as Crowley described it.

Please excuse my ignorance with regard to the fine details of the matter. I do not purport to have any answers that would be of use to others, I just think this may be another valid line of inquiry.

Magmus


ReplyQuote
soz
 soz
(@soz)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 102
 
"Magmus" wrote:
Even if RTC could prove that the watermarks on the manuscript are from 1906 and not 1904, is it possible that the reception did happen in 1904, but Crowley somehow lost the original manuscript (maybe apart from the title page) and so created another copy of it (on the 1906 paper) from a typescript of the original, and this handwritten is the one we are discussing now? How would we know that this is not the case and that Crowley tried to cover up this loss to save face?

It would toss a wrench into the idea that "the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another" refers to the writing in the original text. But if Crowley did recopy the text this verse could still refer to it, I suppose.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"soz" wrote:
"Magmus" wrote:
Even if RTC could prove that the watermarks on the manuscript are from 1906 and not 1904, is it possible that the reception did happen in 1904, but Crowley somehow lost the original manuscript (maybe apart from the title page) and so created another copy of it (on the 1906 paper) from a typescript of the original, and this handwritten is the one we are discussing now? How would we know that this is not the case and that Crowley tried to cover up this loss to save face?

It would toss a wrench into the idea that "the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another" refers to the writing in the original text. But if Crowley did recopy the text this verse could still refer to it, I suppose.

It would be quite a wrench.

Crowley could rewrite the MS every day for the rest of his life, and still not match the exact "chance shape and position" of the original. Even trying to trace a photocopy would yield unsatisfactory results in this department.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 
"soz" wrote:
It would toss a wrench into the idea that "the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another" refers to the writing in the original text. 

Of course, if we go along with the speculation that AC lost the MS and subsequently re-wrote it from the typescript, he could hardly be expected to have known that he was going to lose it when he wrote the statement.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
RHK418
(@rhk418)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 14
 

So is there a projected 'release data' for this 'bombshell exposé' ?)

In summation of this thread/issue; is it fair to say that there appears to be some conjecture surrounding some of the content to be found on the OS23 and OS27 microfilms, which are not currently available anywhere else 'online' for direct viewing? And that on these films, there is rumored to be some unpublished and potentially questionable content that has either been purposefully obscured, or otherwise overlooked ?

And that these issues may only be secondary to a potential claim against the very paper itself on which the MS was written?

Well, It's got me curious. So, when and where will I be able to satisfy this new curiosity ?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 
"RHK418" wrote:
So is there a projected 'release data' for this 'bombshell exposé' ?)

RTC's advertising page says only 'Coming soon'. He is the chap who has leaked some teaser info regarding the paper manufacture date.

My own book relies almost completely on AC's words - at least so far as the Cairo Working is concerned - and won't be complete until much later this year.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 44
 

If Crowley was perpetrating a hoax, he could have done a much better job, and would have. For example, all this talk about what his handwriting on the title page about coming into possession of the manuscript in 1906 means. If he orchestrated it all as a bullshit scheme, why would he even think of writing that on the title page of the manuscript? He must have had some reason, and his own explanation of becoming it's "master" is the only reasonable one, whether or not it seems logical or believable to those who seem to want Crowley to talk in normal, sensible terms. Otherwise, surely he would have simply written "1904." And as far as Crowley being duped by another human being issuing the statements from a hidden area in the room, or, Crowley mistaking that voice for that of a subconscious impression, it must be kept in mind that unless he was bullshitting throughout the rest of his career, before and after, he was more than familiar with the phenomenon of spirit communication through other means that don't involve exterior, literal manifestation. And he was always at pains to claim loudly that the transmission of Liber AL was completely and utterly distinct from any such experiences he had had otherwise.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Obitus" wrote:
all this talk about what his handwriting on the title page about coming into possession of the manuscript in 1906 means. If he orchestrated it all as a bullshit scheme, why would he even think of writing that on the title page of the manuscript?

Perhaps because he didn't concoct the reception legend until much later.

I don't think very many people have been proposing that Crowley meticulously planned the whole thing from the very beginning. It might be, as an example of one possibility, that Crowley produced Liber AL at some point in the 1904-06 time period as an experiment in "automatic writing" (with or without help from someone else). Then, later on, he came up with the reception legend and had to explain away the "came into my possession" comment.

I like the suggestion made earlier in the thread that "I would be its master" has an implied emphasis on the "I" -- that Crowley would now be the holder of the manuscript, as opposed to whoever was holding on to it before then.

those who seem to want Crowley to talk in normal, sensible terms.

I think you'll find it's less that people "want Crowley to talk" in any particular way than it is that people want to figure out exactly what the fuck was going on because the information that we have access to doesn't give us a very clear picture. One thing we can say is that -- given the knowledge we have of the universe -- we can pretty much rule out the possibility that an honest-to-goodness spirit appeared and dictated a book. Sure, it's possible -- in the most theoretical sense of the word "possible" (in the same sense of "possible" as "It's possible that Aiwass was really the Easter Bunny playing a prank on Crowley") -- but for all practical purposes, the odds of things happening exactly as the legend presents them are so absurdly low that, naturally, intelligent and reasonable people are going to be curious about what actually did happen.

as far as Crowley being duped by another human being issuing the statements from a hidden area in the room

I don't think anyone with half a brain would propose that. Granted, I haven't caught up on the entire thread yet....

Crowley mistaking that voice for that of a subconscious impression

Belmurru raised this possibility, and I think it's at least sound. Crowley may have had a strong experience of "inspiration" and may have (mis)remembered it years later as hearing a voice. Add a little Crowleyan embellishment, and we have a potential origin for one part of the reception legend.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1955
 
"Los" wrote:
"Obitus" wrote:
If he orchestrated it all as a bullshit scheme, why would he even think of writing that on the title page of the manuscript?

Perhaps because he didn't concoct the reception legend until much later.

93, Los!

I think this doesn't make much sense either. If he invented anything, he would have given it a proper title page. He didn't have a secretary then who copied all his stuff for his orders or anything like this, he was free to throw away what he wanted and rewrite it. I haven't read The Star In The West for awhile, but maybe he was giving access to the manuscript to Fuller (it was intended to be in the Collected Works, on which Fuller wrote his essay), who might have inquired about it more detailled. Wasn't it Fuller who penned the term Crowleyanity? To me it is more probable that the 1906 addendum on the title page is nothing other than the layout for the title page to the Collected Works edition of Liber AL (it's the exact phrasing in fact), and it just explains why he waited more than two years before he chose to publish this extremely important revelation. Which - after the publication in the Collected Works was aborted - would also explain why he wrote another addendum in 1909, when it was finally published.

And it's quite uninspired to try to wipe off any "supernatural" or "unexplainable" theories about the reception with "either it was something like an easter bunny (why not a giant squid?) or he made it all up (wrote it in a trance maybe). What do you think is more plausible?" In my view there are many other possibilities between these two extremes, some of which you won't like or believe.

So far nobody has brought up any evidence that Crowley did more than a little tidying up the reception legend. Let's see what RTC brings up.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Greetings all-Another lurker here,drawn out of the woodwork by this very interesting discussion!
If i may be so bold as to respectfully address Richard Cole directly-As i understand it you have discovered some"secrets"regarding Crowleys Liber Al.I beg you,sir,to consider earnestly your motives in publishing these" secrets".
Is it because you believe,at this point,that Crowley was perpetrating a fraud?
I can understand how you may have reached this concusion,however i assure you his intent was not to decieve,but to liberate.
In fact there are many of us who are aware of these secrets.To know is power,but to remain silent is wisdom.In fact,Crowleys whole mystical system centres on leading the candidate to the revelation of these"secrets"
Once that occurs,one is technically a "master of the temple",and one realises that the only possible reason to reveal them would be from vanity,to boost ones ego and gain praise and acclaim from those who have not yet discovered them-and possibly sell books of course.Also,in the process one would be destroying a perfectly good mystical system,which otherwise could continue to be used by generations to come if the"secrets"were left intact.
Surely you have noticed by now that ,once the"penny has dropped",there are numerous references scattered here and there throughout Crowleys work to these"secrets"?.Does that not prove that his work is designed not to decieve?Crowley was a master of the English language and weighed every word he wrote.If his aim was fraud,he would not have left these references to the"secrets".Once the "secrets" are understood,it seems incredible that we passed over these references,but,again,Crowley was adept at hiding things in plain sight.
Therefore i beg you,sir,to look within yourself and earnestly consider your motives in publishing this material.
And when you ask"has anyone found their true will,how would one know,"etc,surely you are aware that you must ask these same questions of Buddhists-Dharma-Christians-Theleme/will-and Daoists-Dao,in fact of every esoteric philosophy ever devised.?Are you suggesting that they are all deluded and that all mysticism iswish-fantasy-projection?
Finally,may i ask whether you have ever practiced,or simply studied Crowley/Thelema from an intellectual viewpoint?If it is the former,may i point out thatCrowley himself stated that every disciple at some point on the path is confronted by"the demon Crowley"
Thankyou.With best wishes and respect.
Shalom.
ED


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Salutations-
Thanks to John Griffiths for that very interesting post-
you said"Finally, and yet quite to the point we discover in the identical lexicons of ancient Egyptian that the word IWSW signifies BALANCE. "
WOW,that is dynamite.I wonder,sir whether you could be so kind as to give a reference so i can follow that up?
Many thanks-
ED


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 

Oh pleeze Lord. Save us from the exposition and revelation and obscuration of "secrets."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Do what thou wilt,

The 1906 comment on the cover page seems completely false -- except maybe the date!

Automatic writing involves being unconscious of the writing -- your hand moves automatically.  What Crowley describes everywhere else is essentially taking dictation, even questioning what he's hearing and writing, and receiving responses from Aiwass.

And of course it didn't come into his possession in 1906.  Maybe it came back into his possession at that time, but still he's being disingenuous.

[And, to say, in 1909, "I meant that I would be its master from that date" is also less than accurate, as the book states (and Crowley admits) that there are parts of the book Crowley would never master.]

It does seem like Crowley was planning to include it in Collected Works as though he, Crowley, had nothing to do with it's reception.  And, apparently, he decided not to go through with this little deceit.  But if he had, it would not be the only example of Crowley pretending to be two people at once -- as when he uses two of his mottoes to list himself as both initiator and initiated on an official record.  Crowley was not always, strictly speaking, truthful. 

That ain't news.

So why not chuck the cover page and replace it?  Maybe because it is the actual cover page from the hotel, from 1904, and that meant something to Crowley, something he wasn't willing to countervail, despite some clumsy addenda.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"Los" wrote:

Crowley mistaking that voice for that of a subconscious impression

Belmurru raised this possibility, and I think it's at least sound. Crowley may have had a strong experience of "inspiration" and may have (mis)remembered it years later as hearing a voice. Add a little Crowleyan embellishment, and we have a potential origin for one part of the reception legend.

Yes, that was me. I wasn't the first, Crowley himself was (Equinox of the Gods, p. 97). I'm preparing a longer defence of this position - which, as is normal with me, will take a little time - but I will argue essentially what you say, that he built it up in his memory the way that he needed it to be in order to have the authority to be the Prophet of a New Aeon - but that the rationalist in him could really never be sure it wasn't all from himself in reality.

Given his "fainting" in Cairo, and some of the episodes of the 28 Aethyrs in Algeria, I call what he experienced a "poetic seizure". I don't like the outright hallucination scenario, I think he was too integrated for that. By the time of the other Holy Books, he could furiously write them, while at the same time look on as scribe without the need to be violently seized or enraptured. He was better integrated, more mature, by his experiences of 1905-06. Maybe the fall from the horse that he recounts a few times "shocked" him into some kind of integration he didn't have before - or rather, a balance of two parts that were in opposition before.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Magmus" wrote:
Even if RTC could prove that the watermarks on the manuscript are from 1906 and not 1904, is it possible that the reception did happen in 1904, but Crowley somehow lost the original manuscript (maybe apart from the title page) and so created another copy of it (on the 1906 paper) from a typescript of the original, and this handwritten is the one we are discussing now? How would we know that this is not the case and that Crowley tried to cover up this loss to save face?

I would like to hear from those more qualified than me who may know if this is a possibility or not.

If this were the case, then it is it may still be possible that the reception happened as Crowley described it.

Going back to Magmus's point above for a moment, this idea of a duplication of the ms. of Liber AL is a very interesting possibility as a possibility, and would fit in, in a sense, with the "grid page" at least being produced "at some later point" following its original transmission/ reception of April 1904.

However, it would otherwise imply that A.C. would still be so interested in it (the Book of the Law) that it would be hard to reconcile that with his then managing to 'lose' it again for the remaining 3 years in the loft at Boleskine.  It would also presumably mean that Rose would have had to added her 'amendments' over 2 years after the original date, which would then open up a whole new area of conjecture.

Yours mulling it over with a glass of mulled wine (v. nice!),
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 686
 

A new book from Mr Cole is always a nice thing - I look forward to reading it.

I find it a little amusing that during this discussion of the possibility of AC rewritting the handwritten holograph at a later date none of the assembled Thelemites and Crowley experts have mentioned that the holograph as presented is in two (at minimum) different hands.  (edit: I see now that jamie barter has in fact alluded to Roses "amendments" in the post immediately above - must be 'second handwriting time'.)

On page 19 we have "The five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red", while on the penultimate page we have "force of Coph Nia".  These are both written in a far neater and more controlled hand than the rest of the text.  If AC did rewrite the text did he ask someone else to fill in just these bits, or perhaps he went as far as faking this second handwriting style himself?

If we accept the 1904 reception story presumably this is Rose's writing - do we have any other specimens of her handwriting to compare (wedding certificate springs to mind as the most obvious)?
If the document was indeed not written out until 1906 could this still be Roses, or maybe even Eliane Simpson's writing?  Again, do we have any other samples to compare?

Regardless of what evidence Mr Coles' (or indeed Mr F*****s) book contains I guarentee this will run and run and run....


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

I know it may be slightly off-topic here,, but then when a thread gets this long it seems a rare thing if it doesn’t deviate occasionally & there have been several instances of where this has happened already on this one.

Going back to John Griffith’s post about the ‘was sceptre’ [Reply #157 infra], would anyone know the means how to construct (and/ or activate) a was sceptre?  There is clearly one held by RHK in ‘his’ left hand in the Stele of revealing, in spite of the fact that that most enigmatic of verses Liber AL III.72 has it that it is ‘empty’ (“for I have crushed an universe and none remains.”)  Interestingly, there is no sign of an ankh in either hand as most Egyptian god-forms bear one.  Perhaps the implication is that RHK, being the solar deity, far from needing to carry one as a representational magickal device, is itself the Power of Life in terms of its solar-phallic essence? 

Anyway, it is the other, right hand which presumably would hold the Double Wand of Power, although it is not explicitly stated as such in the verse, nor is its appearance described in any other detail.  The two prongs at the base of the was must refer to the earthing of current raised into the Kingdom of duality, however there is uncertainty as to whether the top should consist of a zoological archetype, of which a dog is the favoured consensus, or maybe a planed geometric surface perhaps along the lines of utilising the powers of sacred geometry and form (maybe in the proportions of e.g., the golden mean, or similar esoteric proportions?)

Does anyone disagree that the Double Wand should be regarded as equivalent to the was?  And if not, what would the Double Wand look like if represented? (Don’t forget it is a Double Wand of Power, not Wand (singular) of Double Power & as such, should maybe broadly look like the shape of the number 11?)

Going back to the construction/ charging, the was would presumably bear a certain resemblance with the similar industry which would need to be applied to the close magical weapon of the Wand although its function and powers would be of a different order, and I have always been slightly entranced by its special significance in Egyptian iconography.

And [news flash] the dish ran away with the spoon,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 550
 

I too enjoy reading the discussions here. Paul tells me that this is Not the "Aleister Crowley 'Appreciation' Society" which is delightfully ironic considering the circumstances...i.e. Why we all congregate here in the first place. I am personally unable to fathom why it is necessary to certain members to disprove the "reception" story. After all, Aleister "borrowed" Rabelais in that book. He then went on to create an "Abbey Of Thelema"- which is a direct reference to Rabelais. AC was a trickster, & placed that part of himself into his grand Opus. This is not to say that he was not a great magician. He was amongst the best; perhaps the greatest. His tenacity & willpower & command of the English language secures him a lofty place amongst even those who despise him.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Does anyone disagree that the Double Wand should be regarded as equivalent to the was?  And if not, what would the Double Wand look like if represented? (Don’t forget it is a Double Wand of Power, not Wand (singular) of Double Power & as such, should maybe broadly look like the shape of the number 11?)

N. Joy

The was sceptre is not the double wand of power. The double wand of power would likely be represented by the Caduceus.

A visual shows the was and the ankh which, imho , together form the double wand.

modified to add image


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 479
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Does anyone disagree that the Double Wand should be regarded as equivalent to the was?  And if not, what would the Double Wand look like if represented? (Don’t forget it is a Double Wand of Power, not Wand (singular) of Double Power & as such, should maybe broadly look like the shape of the number 11?)

The was sceptre is not the double wand of power. The double wand of power would likely be represented by the Caduceus.

As far as it relates to the Cairo Working, The term "wand of double power" originates with the description Crowley provides of the was scepter held by Ra-Hoor-Khuit on the Stele of Revealing: Quoted from The Equinox of the Gods: Green is the wand of double Power; his r.h. is empty.

The term "wand of double power" is seen twice in the invocation of Hoor used to invoke Horus during the Cairo Working; it may be a term that originates with the Golden Dawn, or with Rose while advising her husband on what to include in the ritual.


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 15
Share: