'Kill me!' or 'Fill me!' - Merged threads
I fail to see what that has to do with this:
It is there for all to see plain as day, "fill me" and no matter where else AC may have written kill me, this could not be any clearer. The little snippet released above by the O.T.O. is only more clear proof, to my mind of their failure.
Quite so, obscuruspaintus. I cannot pinpoint when Crowley composed Liber Cadaveris, but as it is obviously well after the Cairo Working, the publication of this snippet adds no further weight to the revisionist case.
Regardless of what is written in other places, and regardless of what anyone thinks (or hopes) AC meant in any other document or marginal notation, the issue really is what appeared in the original manuscript - along with a reference to any subsequent pulications of AL under AC's supervision or Therion's/VVVVV's, O.M.'s Imprimatur.
An imprimatur (from Latin, "let it be printed") is, in the proper sense, a declaration authorizing publication of a book. - Tricky Wiki [/align:1s9gt8wz]
"Thou shalt not ***K around with the letters."[/align:1s9gt8wz]
I believe some people are still confusing the manuscript (in which changes are not to be made, and if they are can be seen) and the typescript (where changes should not be made, "Class A according to Crowley", but might not be detected).
Liber 31 and Liber 220 are really different in many ways, but the manuscript supersedes in authority. BTW: shouldn't the translations be from the manuscript and not from the typescript versions? "This book shall be translated...." is in the manuscript.
"This that thou writest is the threefold book of Law." (i.e., the original manuscript). All other designations, (i.e., Liber Legis, Liber L/AL/XXXI/CCXX, etcetera ad nauseum) are fancy titles that were tacked on later - that is, they were NOT in the original text. It's stuff like this thread and people's strange ideas that motivated the original instructions: "This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast ..."
This implies that, in case of questions, one should look at the original.
There is no dispute concerning the fact that Liber XXXI and Liber CCXX are two different documents. It is my personal belief that the later should remain as true as possible to the former when printed. That is all.
This whole fill vs kill debacle, I believe is symptomatic of a greater problem which moves outside the scope of this thread.
Aside the example I gave above I remember reading Collected Works and being struck by some similarities compared with Liber AL. For example, Crowley used the expression "the girders of the soul" (I don´t remember where) which has similarities with AL III:61: "There is an end of the word of the God enthroned in Ra's seat, lightening the girders of the soul." Also I remember reading somewhere in the Collected Works again something directed to Isis (if my memory serves me right) and it had a lot of stylistic similarities with the first chapter of the Book of the Law. If I remember right it even had as direct parallels as to actually read "To me! To me!" (as in AL I:65) which would be closely linked with AL I:52, I:62, I:63 and in particular with the aforementioned 1:65. We all know the close similarities between Nuit and Isis. I would need to check my sources better but maybe someone else can help me with this if someone remembers any better or can find the sources better than I (like the exact quotes from the Collected Works)?
My point is however something like that it´s easy to see Israel Regardies point that Liber AL could reasonably be argued to be a product of Crowley´s subconscious mind, especially as similarities like described above can be found from the sources between Liber AL and Crowley´s works before Liber AL´s dictation in 1904 e.v.
But the other point would be something like that Crowley´s Holy Guardian Angel, that is Aiwass, is understandably speaking to him with a language that speaks to him, probably more than to any other, in a way which serves him the best, directly with an enormous power, using the expressions that he himself uses and "understands" the best and easiest. Similarily, I could think that if anyone would now perform an Abramelin Operation it could be that his/her HGA, if dictating him/her a book, would use language, style and expressions with which he/she is most familiar and close. Just my thoughts - feel free to reflect them further.
Excuse this light sidetracking and off-topic.
Just briefly in response to the sidetrack, yes I noticed that on several occasions in the “Collected Works” too, in which a lot of the entries pre-date 1904. They did strike me as rather odd ‘coincidences’ at the time, but either of the possible solutions you have given seem to fit. (I would have thought that examples would have been listed somewhere on Lashtal during its twenty year history, but am not myself aware of them. If they do not, though, that may well be a valuable topic to introduce under a different thread?)
Yes, fascinating speculation no doubt, but well outside the scope of this thread and hence this needs to be pursued in a new thread and not here.
What 'it' had to do with 'this' was, from my perspective, to get the thread back on topic. And it worked. Briefly, at least. But Jamie's shown there's little appetite for further serious discussion about the actual issues raised.
So, regrettably and against my best endeavour, this thread is locked pending further willingness to inform rather than add to the noise.
Moderator's Note (13 June 2015): Unlocked following requests from members.
Owner and Editor