The one thing that stands out clearly to me when reading these, and especially when looking at the table of comparisons is that Crowley fairly consistently changed the line to "kill me" in publications other than Liber AL, but also very consistently left it as "fill me" in publications of Liber AL.

I agree entirely that Crowley wanted to change it to "kill me", but he knew he was forbidden from doing so by the book itself.

I think the main thing we have gained from this analysis is an opportunity to track a situation where it is clear Crowley wanted to make a change to the text but refrained from doing so. He simply knew he would be violating a direct instruction from Aiwass.

very good pt nashimiron and im inclined to agree. im a 'thelemite' and i dont really care which word it is lol.... im not a 'liber al'thumper

Dwtw

Let me start by saying that it is wonderful to see all this source material available so that scholars may peruse it. As the saying goes, ‘mystery is the enemy of truth’, and this correction is contentious enough without being further enshrouded in mystery. So the transparency is certainly welcome.

Although I will have much more to say later on, I would like to make a point about a glaring contradiction found in the Editor (William Breeze)’s latest essay ‘Legis 3’, that should be dealt with straight away. The implications are not decisive one way or the other to the main argument, so perhaps it is best to point out this ambiguity at the outset, so that it doesn’t hinder any discussion further down the road.

Regarding the contextual clues about the fitness of either Kill or Fill, the Editor rightly shows that the very idea of Kill is not anathema to a New Aeon outlook. We do not deny death, we simply have a new view of it. Nor is there any reason to presume that because the Stele is of a man already dead, that there need be no mention of something ‘killing’ him. It all depends on the context, which is precisely what my next point is about.

Some have claimed the the phrase “Let it fill me!” is more fitting with the phrase that follows, beginning verse 3:38 “So that thy light is in me…” the Editor notes that this might make sense if the word ‘me’ referred to the same referent in both cases, but according to him it does not. He cites as evidence the following (emphasis mine):

“Crowley notes in his writings on Liber Legis that there is a great deal of back-and-forth between the scribe and the entities communicating; it is not always obvious where one stops and the other begins. In “Liber CCC, Khabs Am Pekht,” Crowley addresses this question in III:38, beginning with a quotation from its first paragraph:

“So that thy light is in me; and its red flame is as a sword in my hand to push thy order.

That is, the God himself is aflame with the Light of The Beast, and will himself push the order, through the fire (perhaps meaning the genius) of The Beast.”

By “the God” he means Ra-Hoor-Khuit, who was adored in III:37 and in whose chapter this verse appears. There are thus two voices using the word “me.” Crowley makes it clear that something more subtle than “Aum! let it [the light] fill me! [...] So that thy light is in me” is going on.”

However, this comment of Crowley’s is directly contradicted by what he wrote in The Equinox of the Gods. Contrast the above with the following quote (given further down in the Editor’s essay). The emphasis again is mine:

“It is to be noted that the translations from the Stèle in verses 37–38 were no more than instantaneous thoughts to be inserted afterwards. Verse 38 begins with my address to the God in the first sentence, while in the second is his reply to me. He then refers to the hieroglyphs of the Stèle, and bids me quote my paraphrases. This order was given by a species of wordless gesture, not visible or audible, but sensible in some occult manner.””

This interpretation is far more straightforward than the convoluted explanation given in Khabs Am Pekht. So who is really speaking at the beginning of verse 38? Crowley seems to be of two minds on this one. But the context of the verse, coming immediately after an invocation to “let it fill me” makes the interpretation that Crowley is the speaker of the first sentence more plausible. The only contextual argument supporting the idea that Aiwass is the speaker of this sentence is that he is obviously the speaker of the one that follows. But by the Editor’s own admission, the interplay between the entities was quite fluid during the dictation, and sharp jumps of perspective and subject matter from one sentence to another abound throughout the Book.

At the very least, the contention that there are two voices using the word ‘me’ in this passage of CCXX is not established beyond a reasonable doubt. It could be either Ra Hoor Khuit, or the Scribe, as AC pointed out elsewhere in the EOTG: “There was, however, no actual voice audible save that of Aiwaz. Even my own remarks made silently were incorporated by him audibly, wherever such occur.

Unfortunately, the contentious phrase is not a translation of anything actually on the Stele, so exegesis of its meaning and intention can only be derived from context. On balance, the reading of “Fill me” fits better with the flow of the document, but the symbolism of “Kill me” could also be apropos. Although “Fill me” gains a slight edge in this regard, it would seem that ultimately the context will not be decisive in determining if the word Fill or Kill was used in the original vellum notebook, considering the ambiguity of interpretation regarding these phrases. Crowley has written two opposite things about the very same sentence, so his opinion on this matter, at least in print, is not conclusive.

Litlluw
RLG

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Good luck! I find it a bit funny, sorry, to be honest. It is unlikely for example we can ever get even Thelemites to agree on the Heh meaning The Star with any degree of absolutism. I think Heh is the The Star by the way but the idea of waging war over such dogma is wrong pure and simple. Therefore to create an absolutism this early in Thelema is so counterproductive that you could argue, if argument meant anything, that it was actually undermining Thelema to do so.

Let's just say this for now: It does not appear as kill me in the hand written version or Liber XXXI which to me supersedes all other A class texts. In fact I often jokingly call Liber XXXI the AA class text. It is clearly an 'f' in that to my sight. I concede though that this is the same argument that says that 'Tzaddi is not the star' which has been interpreted by some G.'.D.'. purist old school establishmentarians as 'Tzaddi is Nut the star', as we are interpreting handwriting can we ever be absolute about all of this? Each to their own and beware dogmatists for they hand us back to the, now rightly exorcised by the Beast; Old Aeon Right Hand Path extremism of Because and the Dogs of Reason. Other than that Do what thou wilt.

Love is the law, love under will.

Alex

I got about 8 pages into H.B.'s third document, and do plan on going over some remarks within it, when time permits. For now though, I would like to point out a statement made in his second argument.

That is, "I am grateful to the the Officers of the A.'.A.'. for consenting to the release of part of this ritual material. This was done in the public interest, so as to further our
understanding of Crowley’s intention with Liber Legis". - H.B.

If someone wouldn't mind helping me understand English, saying "the Officers of the A.'.A.'." implies one of two things: 1) ALL of the Officers of the A.'.A.'., or 2) THE Officers of the A.'.A.'. (as in, the 'main ones'). Maybe it implies a third thing. If someone would please help me understand this not-so-subtle wording, I will be grateful. As I said, even though English is regrettably my first and only fluent language, I still have a hard time understanding what may appear to others as "clear".

Thanks for your post, Azidonis, which I see you've copy-pasted from heruraha.net

My original post here was unequivocal: 'Before posting a Reply, please ensure that you have read and understood the documents.'

But your very first line indicates that you've read just a fraction of those documents:

And so the noise continues, now cross-posted between sites.

One thing about which we can agree is that this is an important topic, trivialised by the activity of some individuals here and on social networking sites. I'm afraid I'm not prepared to tolerate this on LAShTAL any more. Please don't post in this thread again until you've shown respect to the subject matter by actually reading the material.

Thanks, though, to threefold31 for another serious contribution to the debate.

My previous response was a bit callous in hindsight, but what I meant to say in more detail was:
In terms of praxis and magickal theory persay I don't believe this change/ possible change has much impact or bearing.  I think we can agree that our Working and trying to find our True Wills, will not really be changed much if at all by the document having two word possibilities.

However, what I do find interesting, as this is a Holy Book, and we are all familiar with the injunction on changing a word, is the 'doctrinal' test of sorts that this information poses, in showing both how importantly Crowley viewed Liber AL in it's incorruptibility, but also in seeing other's responses to how 'changing one word' will effect their view of this document as an infallible , holy book of sorts. 
I don't think I'm being entirely clear, but I'm trying 🙂

Will read Hymenaeus' B's thoughts on it now 🙂

edit:  I had read the first of HB's documents listed above when it was released, but I need to read the other 2 still. I should have read your initial post in this thread more carefully, Paul, so if you want to delete my posts it's understandable, they don't add much more than my rather bland opinion.

I don't mean to sound dismissive of the whole debate, but from what I've read here and elsewhere most of it seems like noise to me. I just keep thinking that whether or not "kill me" makes sense in the context, or whether Crowley wanted to change it or not, the only question that has any bearing on making the change or not, and the most important question that needs to be dealt with before any others are, is whether or not you can knowingly alter the contents of a Class A text.

Aiwass even directs that the hand written original is included with publications of Liber AL so that situations like this will never arise! And here we are!

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit Mormonism...  😮

Nashimoron, your two posts both imply that the injunction not to change the handwriting refers also to the pencil-written note that was added to the manuscript after the dictation. This does not hold water, in my opinion. There are other notes added to the manuscript after the dictation and they never went into the typed, Liber CCXX, version of the book. The crux of the issue, as far as I understand it, is that Crowley was given a sort of a mental/telepathic order to include the adorations from the Stele, already prepared prior to the dictation, and that in those adorations the phrase - that he was supposed to include - contained the word "kill," which was incorrectly remembered and added as "fill" into the manuscript later. My point here, to repeat it again, is that the injunction not to change the text does not and cannot apply to the post-dictation note(s) aded to the manuscript.

There is a factor infinite and unknown.

I am growing fonder towards HB in his most recent- just the fact that he is listening to us carries esteem in my eyes. Yet, I still think that his fundamental basis for changing it is flawed. He does, however, reflect upon his greatest philosophical opponent to the change...

For instance:

If Pablo Picasso came back from the other side & changed - even one - brush stroke on an already immaculate painting, is it still a "Picasso"?

Answer: No, it is not.

I have a comment to make about the form that HB’s argument seems to be taking (not immediately about the content of that argument).

The “Appendix” at the end of the latest essay lays out the two camps and goes through various assumptions one would have to make to come to the conclusion that (A) “fill” is the word Crowley intended to be there or (B) “kill” is the word Crowley intended to be there. HB claims that the list of assumptions he provides for “fill” is not very convincing.

The problem is that this form of argumentation can obscure which claim has the burden of proof.

One encounters something similar in arguments made by various religionists all the time. I’ve seen religionists say things along the lines of, “Okay, there’s either a god or there isn’t. So here are the things we have to assume for atheism to be true (A, B, C), and here are the things we have to assume for theism to be true (X, Y, Z), and we can tell that (A, B, C) are weaker than (X, Y, Z), so we can say that the best conclusion is that there is a god!”

But that’s not how argumentation works.

The positive claim being proposed has the burden of proof and must be supported by sufficient evidence. In the absence of sufficient evidence, the correct position is not to accept the claim. Whether a case can be made for the contrary claim is an entirely different question.

In this instance, the positive claim being advanced is “Crowley intended the Book of the Law to read ‘kill’ in that passage.” That’s the claim we’re examining. Either the evidence is sufficient to support that claim or it’s not.

The claim “Crowley intended the Book of the Law to read ‘fill’ in that passage” is a different claim entirely, and an inability to support it doesn’t lend more support to the claim “Crowley intended the Book of the Law to read ‘kill’ in that passage.”

Enough of Because!

Liber XXXI clearly states 'fill me'. Irregardless of whatever Crowley's pre-prepared paraphrase said, the manuscript has it as 'fill'. If we are to take what Crowley says on the matter seriously, then the authority of Aiwass's inclusion of this word, along with the numerous injunctions to not change any of the damned letters, is infallible. If we do not take Crowley serious on the matter, then why bother arguing about it?

All these scholarly diggings and dogs of reason unleashed on 'what Crowley really meant to say' are divisionary distractions which go against the very core of Thelema.

The word of the Law is Thelema.

It all begins - and ends with that book.

That book which is thrice adamant that no changes be made.

Please reemember that LiberXXXI, the manuscript, is NOT being changed. Liber CCXX has the proposed change.

Says a guy who goes on to use logic to make an argument in his post.

All these scholarly diggings and dogs of reason unleashed on 'what Crowley really meant to say' are divisionary distractions which go against the very core of Thelema.

Nothing about this debate "go[es] against the very core of Thelema." This is exactly the sort of thing Paul doesn't want on this thread: people who clearly haven't taken the time to understand the arguments being advanced just strolling in here and spewing a bunch of anti-intellectual nonsense and making the absurd claim that actually working to comprehend things clearly is somehow a violation of Thelema.

Opinions like yours are shameful.

I was referring to the book as 'the core of Thelema'. A book at the center of a concept or a community or whatever you want to call it. This debate is about changing that book - which requests not to be changed.
I've done the required reading... and I agree, it's an interesting case either way.

But at the end of the day, I'm not convinced this change is warranted, required, or legitimate. I can't apologize if that opinion doesn't meet your lofty standards. If I've inadvertently expressed this opinion in the wrong place - well then,  i DO apologize.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

ON THE FILL/KILL CORRECTION(3), what caught my attention first was the appendix with the ARGUMENT A- PRO "FILL ME" list. What I feel is the strongest point was not even mentioned. That is the fact that "fill me" is what is in the handwritten reception. It is even stated on page 5, "The strongest argument for retaining "fill" is the "consecrated by long use" argument- i.e., that the "fill" reading was preserved through the 1913, 1936, and 1938 printings of Liber Legis."  I disagree that that's the strongest and what immediately springs to mind is the hand written reception. It seems odd to me that what is actually written in Liber L, III:37 is not even mentioned until we get to the end of page 8 and the beginning of page 9 and then it is just briefly skimmed over as it moves directly on about the Stele Paraphrase.  While the Stele Paraphrase is an important precursor to reception, it is in my opinion trumped by the actual event of the writing, which I think is clearly shown by its being penciled in later. When I see this:

it makes a clear statement to me. AC has written "fill me", placed in quotation marks because it has to be the specific impression that he received during the actual reception. And it was probably done while still fresh in his mind.

What is presented here seems to be more about everything else written containing the words fill and kill than the contents of Liber XXXI . It is based on the assumed mistakes of others, in editing, type setting and proofreading Liber CCXX. As interesting as it all is, it hardly serves as proof to sway this argument, in my mind anyway. Even if mistakes were made in the printing of Liber CCXX, doesn't it stand to reason that it should be printed to reflect as closely as possible Liber XXXI ?

While writing here there is one other item I would address. Why is this even being argued in public? It seems to me that this is an O.T.O. matter.  It should be addressed by the membership of the Order. It is they who are bound by an oath of obedience and not outsiders. What the Frater Superior of the O.T.O. does with the printing of Liber CCXX is no concern of mine, after all, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. I will not be buying or influenced by any altered version of Liber AL as I have printed my own transcription of The Law under the guidance of what has been put forth by Aleister Crowley. If you negate one word of Liber XXXI, you negate the whole thing and I believe that carries over to Liber CCXX.

In closing one last thought...I probably have no business posting this and I can assure you of one thing, this is the very last that you will hear from me on this subject.

Best wishes and good luck.

Love is the law, love under will.

I think you're suggesting that the 'fill me' note formed part of the reception? Not so. It's in pencil and, as HB makes very clear, it appears to have been added after the reception, probably as a note to the person preparing a typescript. There are several such additions: Transcription.

Alternatively, 'I am the Lord of Thebes' and 'fill me' are placemarkers for the information of the copyist, added some time later. The text written during the reception - i.e. the bit in ink and presumably part of the communication from Aiwass - is: 'I adore thee in the song | Unity +c'.

Following this logic, 'fill me' appears in CCXX as the result of an error in a scribbled note for a copyist. And it didn't appear in XXXI as originally written, any more than the stain and grid did.

XXXI as it appeared when written in ink by AC? Or XXXI as it appeared when Rose had added her notes of clarification? Or XXXI as it appeared when AC had jotted down some guidance notes for a copyist? Or when he'd added the grid? Or when the pages were trimmed and backed with linen? Or when the MS was found in a basement and passed to the OTO?

Because it's interesting?

Yes. Exactly.
And that's why it's pointless to argue it and I regret that I tried.
I have my own believes which I admit are meaningless.
It is all we have at the moment.

Read the time stamps.

After finishing the last 22 pages in the most recent document, thereby finishing up all of the linked documents in this thread, as well as the other three threads about this subject, thus qualifying myself to speak in this thread, my question remains the same:

Saying "the Officers of the A.'.A.'." appears to imply one of two things:
1) ALL of the Officers of the A.'.A.'., or
2) THE Officers of the A.'.A.'. (as in, the 'main ones').
Maybe it implies a third thing, or even fourth. If so, what are the implications?

What are the thoughts of other (fully qualified) participants here in this thread, of the semantic implications of the statement quoted above?

While I have no horse in this race, I was struck by something that may be of interest.

In his third document HB says, "Tuat, or Duaut or Duat, is the Egyptian after-death state. Crowley’s proximate source was Liber Legis and the Stèle texts, but he also drew on The Egyptian Book of the Dead and other Egyptological sources. It is of course common sense that one enters the afterlife after death, and this gives “kill me” a sense in this context."

During a lecture about 5 years ago the Egyptologist and heiroglyph specialist Bill Manley made the observation that the term Duat that is commonly used to refer to the afterlife/The Otherworld is perhaps better understood in context as referring to a mental state.  He suggested it could be read as Devotion (as in the afterlife is considered a constant state of Devotion).

How much modern Egyptology should be relevant to Thelemites interpreting their core texts is not for me to say.  It does however strike me that Devotion is something one can be "filled" with which might undermine HB's statement about Egyptological context above.

It would only be important if the text was received from a praeter-human source with foreknowledge of advances in Egyptological understanding which would turn out to be helpful to us.  😉

Another thing I've been thinking as a result of this debate, we have up to now had two versions of these lines used in different contexts. What could this mean? What is this formula portraying? One is "killed" and the other is "filled". Active and passive? What's going on? And who does the killing and who the filling? Or can you take turns? :-*

Dwtw

Another section of the Editor’s latest essay makes what I feel is a failed attempt to downplay the significance of a text that played an important role in the editing of The Equinox of the Gods, i.e., Crowley’s personal copy of Equinox I(10). I quote:

“In a prior memo I discussed two copies of The Equinox I(10) that were annotated by Crowley.
One, in a private collection, has no corrections to Liber Legis, but heavy annotations elsewhere in
the number that date from ca. 1916–17 through his Cefalù period. For evidence of long ownership, handling and copious annotations by Crowley, this privately-owned copy is far more important than the other annotated copy, now in the Yorke Collection, that was sent to the printer for The Equinox of the Gods (1936). The latter has comparatively few annotations (they are listed in the endnotes I prepared for the Weiser two-volume reissue of Vol. I of The Equinox from 1998).”

This verbiage is easily misconstrued as actually making the role of the Yorke copy negligible, when it is not. No one will contest that a copy owned for many years, with numerous annotations, is more important in many respects than a copy owned briefly, with few annotations. But that long-held copy has NO annotations to Liber Legis! And the Yorke copy does have one, and it was sent to the printers as part of the proofing of the EOTG. So in that respect, which is the only thing relevant to this discussion, the Yorke copy is far more important than the one Crowley wrote in at length.

In a further attempt to downplay the role of this text, the Editor continues:

“Also, there is no evidence that the Yorke Collection copy was carefully proofread by Crowley or anyone else—recent claims that this constituted some sort of “master copy” are provably unfounded. His one correction to Liber Legis (“The tomb” > “the tomb” in III:34) sticks out as a fairly obvious howler (i.e., a correction that stands out typographically and is easily caught), and at least two other typos were missed, “ecstacy” for “ecstasy” in II:21 and “though” for “through” in III:43””

So now we are splitting hairs about how carefully Crowley proofread the book? Fair enough, he did not catch two other errors. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t look at the rest of the text at all. The Editor admits that Crowley proofread the book, but he missed two errors that are very easy to miss. That does not imply that he also ‘missed’ the fact that 'fill' should be 'kill'. This a different kind of typo altogether. It’s something that supposedly Crowley had wanted to change for a long time. Or is it something that he had wanted to change but then forgot about, and luckily we are now reminding him what he wanted to do?

Honestly, if it was so important to make this change, why would he not do so when he had the chance? The EOTG reprinted the Stele Paraphrases, with the ‘kill’ reading, so we cannot argue that Crowley simply forgot that an alternative reading existed. While we cannot prove he even looked at the Paraphrases again for the EOTG proofs, he most certainly would have looked at the finished product. THAT was the time for the smack on the forehead, for him to say “Damn! I meant to change fill to kill, and I forgot again!” In which case it could have been corrected 2 years later in 1938, or again in the 1942 edition. But it wasn’t. We must assume that it wasn’t changed because he did not want to change it. I find it almost impossible to believe that Crowley did not peruse closely the first major publication, in 23 years, of the central document of his life. At that point, the argument no longer holds that he had not fully accepted his role as Prophet, which may have been the case in 1907. In 1936, this was a very important book to him, important enough that he tried to proofread CCXX, and caught an obvious error, but did not change ‘fill’ to ‘kill’.

These two paragraphs in the Editor’s essay are an attempt to marginalize important evidence that ‘fill’ was tacitly accepted by Crowley as the reading appropriate to Liber CCXX, and the hair splitting and introduction of a straw man in the guise of a ‘more important’ copy are simply not grounds for ignoring the fact that the Yorke copy had a definite purpose - to be a proofreader’s copy. No other copy of CCXX belonging to Crowley has been presented with that status. Not even the Windram copy of Thelema 1909, (which could not have been a proofreading copy, as it only had three corrections, and overlooked many obvious mistakes). Part of the argument in my essay was that the positive evidence for ‘kill’ must be balanced by the negative evidence of ‘fill’, i.e., when it is left alone in a copy of CCXX that Crowley obviously read in the search for errors.

The other personal copy of Equinox I(10), since it has no annotations to CCXX, cannot be considered evidence one way or the other for ‘fill’ or ‘kill’, because in the total absence of corrections we have no reason to believe Crowley used it to proofread the text. But the Yorke copy does have such evidence, and therefore, it cannot be dismissed out of hand quite as quickly as the Editor would like. According to his own criteria, given earlier in the essay:

“The various sources documenting the use of “fill me” or “kill me” do not have equal weight...The sources have to be weighted, with far more consideration given to holograph use that is provably Crowley handling the text himself, and less consideration given to printed instances that may be the work of an editor, or a typesetter, or simply due to negligence.”

I agree with this ‘weighting’ of the evidence. In the case of the Yorke copy of Equinox I(10), this is a source with writing in Crowley’s own hand, which is known to have been used for the very purpose that this whole debate centers around - editing the text of Liber CCXX. It therefore must be considered one of the key documents in the sequence of events around which the pro and con arguments are based. And the evidence it provides sustains the argument that ‘fill’ is the preferred reading by Crowley in the text of CCXX.

What the Yorke volume also provides is evidence of a general, rather than specific nature. The pro-‘fill’ argument has rested heavily on the position that ‘Crowley never changed it in his lifetime’. That fact by itself is persuasive but not conclusive; it becomes much more persuasive in the presence of a document that demonstrably shows him actively involved in proofreading a text for publication. The Yorke copy of Equinox I(10) shows that Crowley definitely tried to make sure the text was right, that he was involved in bringing it to publication, and that he left the word ‘fill’ just the way it had always been printed. I believe the present Editor should do the same.

Litlluw
RLG

Many thanks, threefold31, for another lucid, well-argued and in my view persuasive contribution to this discussion.

I think this whole argument is more about the position of the current OTO - in relation to Thelema - and especially the authority of the OTO, in relation to the works.

After all, authority is fairly meaningless unless it be exercised.

The questions may really be: Who is the editor? What is his/her authority? Whatever the subject matter, the final presentation (and that which tends to survive through time) is the decision of an editor/author. The books of the Bible, for example, were decided by Councils around 300 or 400 AD. The many subsequent versions are
translations published through various editors, or boards of editors. In Thelema, we have Crowley's original manuscript. We are fortunate that we can by-pass any later versions and possible changes by Crowley or later editors. This is an important distinction between Liber XXXI and Liber CCXX, and Crowley makes it clear that
the latter is less important (though he put it in Class A also, and therein lies the basis for the controversy).

With all due respect, limiting the substance of the debate only to an analysis of the scholarly argument is dangerously close to a priori taking a side in the debate. It comes close to departing from true lack of bias in hosting the debate and siding with the Frater Superior in thinking that sufficient scholarly evidence justifies a change in a Class A document by limiting the discussion solely to the worth of the scholarly opinion and casting aside consideration of the Class A argument.

However, while there are many Thelemites for whom the authority of the prophet and a pledge not to change anything in the Book of the Law is merely something to be pondered over pipes in freedom's bliss, there are also a sufficiently great number (even within the Frater Superior's own order) who have pledged themselves with the full fervor of their hearts to accept the Book of the Law without the desire to make any changes to it. To say that they should now accept changes to it is undestandably confusing and distressing. The tradition they have pledged to keep is changing underneath their feet? Does their Frater Superior keep his own pledge? Does he share their values? The question goes directly to the authority - the very literal "power to author" - of the Prophet of the New Aeon.

Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.

Class “B” consists of books or essays which are the result of ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest.

I quote the classification definitions here to make a very specific point. There has been drawn a very distinct line between Class A "utterances of an Adept" and Class B "scholarship, enlightened and earnest."

At no point in the Frater Superior's presentation of his argument does he ever transcend a Class B-level, scholarly criticism of the Class A text. In every presentation of the material, he suggests that the Adept's utterance is not what the Adept himself actually intended, based on scholarly opinion, not certain fact. Further, he suggests the reason for this supposedly unfulfilled intention of the Prophet was primarily laziness in editing. How is this not precisely the kind of criticism, literary and scholarly criticism though it is, that is directly prohibited by the Class A designation? One simply cannot make a change in the name of the Adept who finalized the Class A text without taking their authority upon oneself, without diminishing the authority of the original Prophent - in this case, because of the Prophet's laziness. It basically says that because of the Prophet's laziness, his authority - again, very literally, his "ability to author" the final form of his own Adept's utterance - must be second-guessed.

The Adept's intentions may be guessed at, but they may never be known with certainty - never known with certainty. And as a result, there will now be precisely the kind of division in the tradition of the A.'.A.'. that the Class A designation was expressly designed to prevent. Why? Because one, or more, well-respected scholars has deemed it necessary to change the text exactly as expressly forbidden by the original Adept and order.

I do not question the Frater Superior's scholarship nor his sincerity; however, I do very logically designate them as Class B criticisms, not Class A.

For the ideal of unity between orders, for the sake of authoritative precedents, I plead that he forbear.

Welcome to LAShTAL.COM, Sardonyx, and thank you for your first post.

I am committed to ensuring that the site cannot be reasonably accused of 'taking a side' and I am at pains to ensure that there is no 'bias.'

To accuse this site and, by implication, me of bias is bad enough. To justify that accusation on the basis that I have encouraged 'an analysis of the scholarly argument' is, frankly, absurd.

Then please excuse any accusation. I did try to choose my words carefully. This part of the discussion appeared, at least, to be excluded from consideration by your warning at the beginning, which seemed to limit the discussion only to weighing the literary critical arguments. Pehaps you can understand my concern. 

I apologize for my mistake, and I do hope that this part of the debate will be given its proper weight.

Thank you.

There's no reason at all why you shouldn't start another thread to discuss the 'non-scholarly' concerns you raise. The purpose of this thread, though, is to debate the contents of the documents referenced.

I have reposted in a new thread. Please feel free to clean this one up.

I have read all the relevant documents and enjoyed them very much. I was delighted to have sight of the supporting material some of which was new to me. The digressions were a real treat and to be told secrets and be trusted not to misuse them was flattering. No one in a thousand years time will be able to look back and say that the present Frater Superior was not conscientious. And yet I remain unconvinced.

Firstly the presence of ‘kill’ outside of Libers CCXX and XXXI seems to me a red herring. Crowley’s paraphrases of the Stele translations are poems written by him prior to receiving Liber Al. Plenty of AC’s other poems exist in variant forms, from Russian/Prussian in Ode/Hymn to the American Republic, the various editions of Alice, the openings to Ode to an ARA, the limericks with different punch lines and much material in the Collected Works had a rework from their first outings. I regard this whole section as evidentially weak despite being meticulously presented.

There have been plenty of previous corrections to Liber Al and none have raised so much as an eyelash of dissent. I suggest that this is because corrections that bring CCXX into conformity with XXXI are universally accepted. The purpose of the inclusion of XXXI with CCXX is to resolve doubtful readings. The present case takes CCXX out of conformity to XXXI so the point is being made that XXXI itself is defective.

So indeed it was.

Liber XXXI immediately after reception was defective because Crowley failed to hear a phrase or so and (apparently) left spaces to insert the material he had been ordered to insert. Crowley and Rose then made good those defects. Next to Rose’s contribution AC notes in a reasonably fair hand “done later as above”. The inclusion, in pencil, of references to the stele paraphrase is done in a hasty scrawl which, in print anyway, is all but indistinguishable from that in the main body of the work.

If anything written outside the three hours of reception proper is to be regarded as doubtful then Rose’s contribution must be held suspect and yet Crowley is completely happy with it, it’s in CCXX and is nowhere disputed as being Class A quality. So how should anyone regard Crowley’s own repairs? I can not see them as anything other than a first-hand, on the spot ear-witness account in his own hand, made almost contemporaneously to the event and quoting a poem that he himself worked on very recently before. As HB says “Crowley was at the Cairo Working; we were not. He marked what he wanted clearly. Who are we to second-guess him?”

If Crowley’s insertion was intended for the much maligned Cairo typist he might have used a fairer hand. Crowley says nothing about this individual he only says “Three typed copies made in Cairo” In any case he or she must have been exceptionally well trusted to be given access to AC’s vellum book, capable of reading AC’s tricky handwriting, readily findable and, for those days, spectacularly irreligious. Surprisingly, to me at least, no one seems to think it might have been Rose.

And then there is the marvellous discovery of a copy of the Holy Books marked up by Crowley. The version of CCXX in it is multiply defective. Some of the defects are marked and some not and some of those marked discrepancies are acted on later and some not. Amongst them is the marginal K. In the other marked pages of that copy are marginalia clearly not intended for publication. If evidence is being weighed how should this single, hitherto unimplemented, marginal K done some years later outweigh a sentence scrawled at the time (or nearly so) with the brain still warm from the inspiration?

The proponents of the K change (those I’m aware of and with the honourable exception of Lutz) overcome the fact of the non implementation of the K change by, in various ways, demeaning Crowley’s competence. He was too busy, he delegated, he can’t remember - either his own poem in the first place or to put it right even after he notices - time after time Crowley seems not overly concerned. Humans are fallible, Crowley was human, case closed.

There is no answer to this. And anyone who doesn’t like it can make a private anti-correction - a term so neat I hope it gets into the dictionary - and Thelemites at their devotions can always cross their fingers behind their backs. This seems to me a not particularly decorous line to take.

I like to imagine I’m open minded enough to accept even such a change as this if solid proof were to become available but so far I can’t see it. If there is to be a explanatory endnote my preference would be for K to be the note and let F stand. I’m not arguing for the status quo that time has passed but for the status quo ante - things back as they were.

J.K.Galbraith once remarked that if a decision is difficult it is unlikely to also be important because difficulty in decision making hinges on the pros and cons being finely balanced and so the outcomes are not so very different. Conversely an important decision is unlikely to be difficult because that which makes it important guides the choice. (he was talking about economics) I would regard the present situation as important to overly conservative fuddy duddies like myself, and probably largish numbers of newer Thelemites self drilled into thinking so by earnest study, formerly sacrosanct notions regarding unchanging letters, Class A etc.

I sympathise with anyone trying to implement this change; it’s going to be like turning round an oil tanker and sliding from scoop to schism in a few short weeks can’t be comfortable. But stick it out! It can be done! The old school will die out and the new school will have an endnote.

“Wouldn't that be amazingly great?”

OK

Dwtw

It is established that a typescript of Liber XXXI was made in Cairo, with an original and two carbons. This Cairo TS must have been the source for Liber CCXX in the Collected Works Vol. III, unless a new typescript was made. This is unlikely, as Crowley is alleged to have lost the MS. of XXXI during this period, so there would have been no other source to make a new TS.

LImiting ourselves only to the Stele Paraphrases as they appear in CCXX, the 1907 CW III Appendix and the 1908 proofs of Thelema are nearly identical, save for changing the accent mark on the word ‘winged’ (which could easily be a mistake by the compositor); the 1909 Thelema keeps the changed accent from the 1908 proof, adds another to ‘veiled’, and adds a hyphen in ‘self-slain’, (indicating either the compositor changed these by mistake, or an annotated proof was returned for changes). While we cannot know for certain, the stanzas from the Stele used in the Evocation of Bartzabel show every sign of having been copied from Thelema 1909. For the sake of argument, I will put this document in the same category. So these four documents used the same ultimate source material, which must have been the Cairo TS.

The EQ1(10) from 1913 is virtually identical to Thelema 1909; the difference is that the accent is removed from ‘Thebes’; ‘or to still me’ becomes ‘or still me’; ‘light’ is not capitalized, ‘winged’ gets an accent mark, and Nuit/Hadit have the final H removed for the first time. This is the most significant part of it all, and I will return to this point below.

The EOTG 1936, London 1938, and USA 1942 editions are all the same as EQ I(10) from 1913, so all four stand as the same ‘witness’. Only three major changes were made in the full text of CCXX after 1913: ‘ecstacy’, ‘The tomb’, and ‘though’.

To summarize, as far as the Paraphrases are concerned, there were only two versions of Liber CCXX in Crowley’s lifetime (with minor variants due to editing). Version ‘A’ includes CW III 1907, Thelema 1909, (and proofs 1908), and Bartzabel 1910. Version ‘B’ includes EQ I(10) 1913, EOTG 1936, London 1938, USA 1942. These are the two ‘witnesses’ for how Crowley published Liber CCXX.

As for the Stele Paraphrases printed separately, there are also only two ‘witnesses’ - The Great Invocation, proofed in 1907 (which omits some stanzas, but includes the Reverse), and the Temple of Solomon the King (TSK) in EQ I(7) 1912 (which includes all the Paraphrases). The Giant’s Thumb and the EOTG were simply facsimile reprints of the original publication in 1912. (The Ritual CXX has only abbreviated indications of stanzas, but does include ‘kill’).

The Great Invocation appeared in CW III alongside CCXX, but clearly used a different source document for the Paraphrases, as the changes are too drastic. It does not include the first verse, so we cannot compare it to the three CCXX versions above. Of the included verses, the differences are these: the words ‘thy’ and ‘god’ are not capitalized; ‘thee!’ instead of ‘Thee:-’ ; ‘Throne’ is capitalized; a misspelled ‘Khab’ instead of ‘Khabs’; ‘or still me’ instead of ‘or to still me’; and of course it says ‘kill me! instead of ‘fill me!’’ With so many variants, the source for this version cannot be the same as the source for CCXX in the same volume, and there is no reason why it needs to be, as the documents were created at different times. Since the MS of the Great Invocation is not extant, it’s creation cannot be dated with certainty; but it must have been done between 1904 and 1907. It can’t have relied solely on the Cairo TS, as it includes verses not in that document. It probably didn’t rely on it at all, and was either written from memory, from the infamous vellum book, or from a TS of the same.

So essentially, we have two versions of CCXX and two versions of the Paraphrases (one incomplete). The question then boils down to this: how did we get from the Collected Works III to the publications in the Equinox?

For CCXX in general, the path seems clear. The Cairo TS became CCXX in three different guises, as noted above. Then the great change to a more correct version in 1913 (and beyond) had to involve the original MS of XXXI, for there would be no other source to correct the earlier versions from.

Ignoring Bartzabel and Ritual CXX, for the reasons stated above, the situation with the Paraphrases done separate from CCXX seems less straightforward. The two stanzas from the Stele Obverse which appear in both versions (CW III and TSK) match very poorly. In fact, in these stanzas, TSK matches exactly to CCXX, and not the Great Invocation, an interesting situation. The stanzas from the Reverse of the Stele in the Great Invocation nearly match the version in EQ I(7) 1912, but ‘khonsu’, ‘earth’ and ‘o earth’ are not capitalized, and there is a comma after ‘against me’. How to explain these changes?

Since the Great Invocation involves a lot more than the Stele Verses, it is not likely that either the vellum book or a typescript of the Paraphrases was sent to the printer to prepare the proofs for CW III. It must have been the original MS of the ritual that was sent. But what was the source for the Stele Verses in the Great Invocation? Whichever source it was, it could not have been the same source used for TSK, because the Paraphrases are too different, and any corrections made to TSK would have to have been checked against another source. What could that source have been except the vellum book or a TS of the same? It could not be Thelema 1909, because that does not include the stanzas from the Reverse of the Stele.

The only scenario that would allow both TGI and TSK to use the same source (vellum book or typescript of same) is if TGI was deliberately changed to suit the ritual. Otherwise, TGI had to be composed from memory. I believe that Ritual CXX was also composed from memory - the giveaway is that Crowley misquotes “I have made my secret door”, crosses it out, then reinserts it later with the correct verbiage. If done from memory, it is not a credible ‘witness’ as to what should or should not be in CCXX, or what was in the vellum book originally. It does show something we already know - that Crowley was capable of using either ‘fill’ or ‘kill’ depending on the situation. This is a point that should not be understated. As the Editor has taken pains to show, Crowley did not treat the Paraphrases as a received text, so he would have felt free to alter them to suit the situation.

In summary, there are two big questions any theory must answer - why are the Stele Verses different in TGI and TSK; and why are those different from CCXX?

The answer to the second question is the crux of the pro-‘Kill’ argument: the stanzas are different in CCXX because Crowley made a mistake in the pencil note about ‘fill me’. The Editor insists that there is one and only one correct reading of the Paraphrases, found in the vellum book, and Aiwass wanted these inserted into CCXX. But this is where we get into dangerous territory.

Let us presume for the sake of argument that the Paraphrases as fully published in TSK were taken from the vellum book, and are the correct reading of its contents. If they ARE correct, AND what Aiwass wanted in Liber CCXX, then we should not stop at changing ‘fill’ to ‘kill’. We would be obligated, by the Editor’s own logic, to change Ankh-af-na-khonsu back to Ankh-f-n-khonsu; and to change Nuit and Hadit back to Nuith and Hadith.

How do we escape this conclusion? We have to rely on what Crowley himself approved for CCXX, which included not only ‘fill’, but changing Nuith and Hadith from their previous appearance in Thelema 1909 (version ‘A’) to CCXX 1913 (version ‘B’). We cannot just assume that this change was made to conform to other appearances of these names in CCXX. There are variant spellings of Ra-Hoor-Khuit, and three different versions of Hoor-paar-kraat, and these cause no problem. So why should Crowley have insisted Nuith and Hadith be changed on the grounds of conformity? Maybe he changed them because that’s the way they were in the vellum book!

I would submit that if TSK is correct and the original Paraphrases had an H at the end of Nuith and Hadith, there is no way AC would have changed them. So if, and this is a big ‘if’, he was looking at the vellum book ca. 1912 when he changed the bad scansion of ‘to stir me or to still me’ and marked the ‘K’ in Thelema 1909, he would have left the Nuith/Hadith and Ankh-af-na-khonsu alone, because they were correct, (i.e. in the vellum book). If this is what happened, then he tacitly approved their appearance in the Windram copy, and someone improperly changed them in CCXX 1913. Unless AC himself changed his mind later. And IF he did change his mind, it negates ANY importance the ‘K’ has in the Windram copy.

Did AC change his mind about the Stele verses or not? He certainly did not publish the version found in the Windram Thelema, and actual publishing is ultimately the only evidence we have about his attitude toward them, as a Class A document. If it wasn’t him that made the change, someone else did it for him in CCXX 1913. And he never altered it again in his lifetime.

So this is where the fill/kill argument, with its positive and negative evidence converges. We know for a fact that Crowley edited the Paraphrases in the Windram copy, twice. Then it is up to the Editor to explain why no other changes were made to them in that copy. And yet changes to them subsequently appeared in CCXX 1913. The Windram Thelema was a long-held copy with many annotations, exactly the type of book he has accorded important status to, when it comes to other volumes.

Isn’t it possible that Crowley made the ‘K’ annotation without reference to the vellum book? That he made it for a reason other than to edit the Paraphrases for publication in CCXX? And while he was looking at it, why not cross out that extra syllable above it? We cannot escape the fact that AC made a change in this copy. What we do not know for certain is why. Crowley had at least a momentary preference for ‘kill’ instead of ‘fill’. This is not surprising; he had used both words in various publications. Isn’t it possible that, as a poet, working with a non-received text, that he felt he could change it for various purposes, such as ritual; but that when it came down to changing it in CCXX, he saw no reason to do so?

Looking at the broader context of changes in the Windram copy, there are also annotations and changes to his letter-attributions in Liber Trigrammaton, which had already been published in the Old Comment. He clearly was flirting with new ideas there as well, but ultimately decided not to publish them. Why isn’t the same true for the word ‘kill’? Well maybe it is!

The TSK had just been published in 1912, shortly before work on the updated version of CCXX 1913. If TSK was in fact an accurate rendition of the Paraphrases, then all Crowley had to do was insert them into CCXX, or have his editors do so. He or they did not do so. This is the big discrepancy that must be explained. Pawning it off on a presumed laziness or forgetfulness of the Scribe and Prophet towards his most important Book is simply not evidence. It is pure speculation.

The amount of scholarship going into this question is truly amazing, and a testament to the importance of Liber CCXX to Thelemites. Hopefully someday this material will make it into a volume dedicated to the Book of the Law and its publishing history. And in that volume, there should be major questions raised as to Crowley’s attitudes and intentions for the Book. But there is no requirement to change the text of the Book itself. Especially in the absence of any clear imperative to do so.

Litluw
RLG

In examining the Windram copy of Thelema, I noticed something interesting that affects the debate concerning the "fill me/ kill me" issue; it appears the issue will open an editorial can of worms if the suggested change to the paraphrases comprising verse III:37 of the Book of the Law is implemented.

In perusing the Windram copy, I noticed several of the letters written in the margins beside the trigrams of Liber Trigrammaton were altered by Crowley and are different from the current letter attributions published on the O.T.O. website and elsewhere. Applying the same logic that warrants changing the word "fill" to "kill" in the paraphrases based on the Windram copy will also require changing the English letter attributions to Liber Trigrammaton, otherwise a clear double-standard will arise. I intend to start a separate thread on the subject.

Which raises the question if he wanted to change it, why didn't he make a note to that effect on the manuscript while he was making other notes and corrections? There are other mistakes crossed out and corrected.

My point here, to repeat it again, is that the injunction not to change the text does not and cannot apply to the post-dictation note(s) aded to the manuscript.

Of course it does, he was instructed during the dictation to add parts later to complete the text. There is no suggestion anywhere that these parts would be considered separate from the Book as a whole. They are not additions, but part of the text. Aiwass should otherwise have raised this point when telling Crowley not to change anything, he should have said "apart from the bits I've told you to add in later, they're nowt to do with me, call 'em Class B and you can take 'em or leave 'em".

I can't think of any other noteable discepancies between XXXI in it's completed form and CCXX although it's been a few years since I studied the manuscript at the back of my copy. Will have to have a look at it when I get the time.

That, to be frank, is nonsense. There's all manner of scribbles, stains, notes - even a grid, for goodness' sake - that are testament to Crowley's work and research, sometimes years after the reception.

I ask again, which Liber XXXI is the Class A one? Liber XXXI as it appeared when written in ink by AC at the dictation of Aiwass? Or Liber XXXI as it appeared when Rose had added her notes of clarification? Or Liber XXXI as it appeared when AC had jotted down some guidance notes for a copyist? Or when he'd added the grid? Or when the pages were trimmed and backed with linen? Or when the MS was found in a basement and passed to the OTO? Seriously, which version is the one that mustn't be changed? Remember, neither 'fill me' nor 'kill me', at least in the current context, appears in the dictated parts of Liber XXXXI, as originally written by the scribe.

Surely the Class A version of Liber XXXI must be the facsimile copy that was first issued under a 'Class A' imprimatur?

it is also the facsimile that the reader is referred to in EoG for dubious styles and spellings, not 'those bits of the facsimile that represent actual dictation from Aiwass'

It is also notable that not all editorial comments penciled into the manuscript made it into the facsimile - the note on the first page of the third chapter to 'leave stain on paper - not in (block)'? isn't in the facsimile, (nor is the stain!) if the pencil notes on the verses to be added weren't considered a significant part of the facsimile surely it would have easy to have also omitted them?

Also of note is that while the vastly superior quality of the recent scans of the holograph make it abundantly clear that the penciled additions to 3:37 and 3;38 ARE penciled additions, this was not clear in the earlier printings, where they look like ink, and much more like an integral part of the manuscript.

It would be interesting to consider when the first facsimile copy of the manuscript was made, and whether the appearance of "fill" in it, in a form that does not make it distinct from the main ink text was an influence on Crowley's editorial policy for subsequent editions Liber 220.

that aside, a vastly interesting issue and thread, it will be intriguing to see how it develops, and i think the approach by HB in making the source materials available, and debating the issue in this manner is to be welcomed.

Davy

93!

Excuse me if I only mention this: The Giant's Thumb version of the paraphrase it not at all "simply" a facsimile reprint. It has a completely different font and it is set differently. It is in fact a completely new reset text.

That's it for now.

Love=Law
Lutz

Can anyone confirm if the penciled in notes to 3;37 and 3;38 appeared in the copy of the manuscript published in the original equinox  I;7?

In the centennial Edition of the Book of the Law HB notes that this lacked markings made to some pages in later years ( and that some reprints have later versions of the Mss.)

Dwtw

Thank you for that information Lutz. That was my mistake, and I stand corrected. Since the Paraphrases are reproduced verbatim in that version, including the misspelling in the title, I was misled into that conclusion that it was a facsimile. But TGT still stands as the same 'witness' as TSK, since nothing was changed in it, and it was most likely the result of, as the Editor says, Crowley sending the last printing of something to the next printers to get ready for publication.

Litlluw

RLG

Dwtw

OK, that was a fabulous post. Spot on!

Litluw
RLG

though 'Oil Tanker' might be overstating the size of the craft 😉

perhaps a Cog with a quarrelsome crew...

None of that is relevant to what I said above. Crowley was instructed to make certain additions. As he was instructed to do so, they form part of the text. If not, then the whole versification should be removed. Stains and notes are a different thing. I'm talking about what aiwass told Crowley to add. As Aiwass told him to add it, it makes sense (to me anyway) to consider it part of what Aiwass was trying to communicate. Stains and cutting the paper up later don't change what Aiwass wanted to be added.

Come along, nashimiron, you know better than that! 😉

If we take AC at his word, the bulk of the text of Liber XXXI was dictated to the scribe. It was done so, if I may state the bleedin' obvious, by way of a voice that was audible. Now, AC makes very clear that there was at least one exception to this, and that exception was in relation to the insertion of the paraphrase. AC specifically recalls that: 'He [Aiwass] then refers to the hieroglyphs of the Stèle, and bids me quote my paraphrases. This order was given by a species of wordless gesture, not visible or audible, but sensible in some occult manner.'

Liber XXXI was written in ink by the scribe at Aiwass's dictation. Therefore, the relevant 'mustn't change this' bit is that which was written during the dictation and its associated invisible, inaudible wordless gesturing. In other words, Aiwass, in some 'wordless' manner, ordered AC to include 'Unity &c' - and he did, in ink. Subsequently - we don't know when - AC expanded this in pencil presumably to preserve the original inked writing and probably as a note to a typist: '"I am the Lord of Thebes” &c from vellum book —— fill me.'

Unless somone finds the original vellum book, we must assume that the published version is correct: 'kill me.' If the vellum book is located with paraphases intact and IF they're found to say 'fill me' then it would probably justify another change to CCXX. Until that time, though, HB's job as editor is to provide the best, most accurate version of CCXX possible and for the time being the balance seems clear to me: 'kill me' is what should be included, not 'fill me'.

Of course, none of this would justify any change whatseover to Liber XXXI which we are obliged to preserve in as close to its virginal state as possible and to include with all future printings of Liber CCXX.

Sorry to labour the 'what LAShTAL.COM is' point - I've done it numerous times all over this site - but LAShTAL is not an 'occult' site. What this site is concerned with and what it seeks to promote is the legacy of AC. This of course includes seeking the best possible published versions of his work. HB has made, to my mind at least, a compelling case for correcting Liber CCXX to include 'kill' instead of 'fill'. His role in this is as one of the most significant Crowley scholars out there, with vast experience gained through editing many of AC's works to a remarkably high standard.

The published version? All the published versions of Liber AL in HB's analysis have "fill me".

I'm a bit uncomfortable with making assumptions about what Crowley intended anyway, because we're having to make those assumptions based on weighing the various evidences, which means putting our own interpretations on them. One interpretation I've put on the evidence is that Crowley consistently kept "fill me" in CCXX because he thought that it was not by accident that "fill me" landed on the page of XXXI.

But that's my interpretation of the evidence, and others have different interpretations. So there can be no certainty in the matter.

From Liber Aleph

If the above is supposed to apply to human beings, it follows that it also applies to 'celestial beings'. As above, so below.

According to Crowley, if he and Aiwass would have had the time, he would have almost certainly written the verifications into the Book on the spot. "The versified paraphrase of the hieroglyphs on the Stele being ready, Aiwaz allowed me to insert these later, so as to save time. " This also vaguely indicates that, as he had been working on the poem for about a month straight before the reception, he would have had the entire poem fresh in his mind, able to write it in.

But the vb is not believed extant. And the very first extant mention of the line in question is written as "fill", in Liber XXXI. Not only that, but every publication of XXXI/CCXX made during Crowley's lifetime, therefore every approved version of The Book of the Law, has "fill".

This is obviously an opinion, which is perfectly okay. But, it is still an opinion.

But it somehow justifies making Liber CCXX go directly against the MS, which clearly has "fill", apparently...

So where does lashtal.com end and Paul begin, in this scenario? Is Paul Feezey lashtal.com, or are Paul Feezey and lashtal.com 'two separate entities'? I'm not trying to pick at you, or the site (so please don't take this as a 'sarcastic comment'), just asking a basic question, for clarification, as lashtal.com is a "non-partisan site", whereas Paul Feezey is clearly "pro-kill".

This also is an opinion.

93!

Not quite. According to Yorke 21, on March 23rd, AC still hadn't got the transliteration from the museum staff: "My rituals work out well, but I need the transliteration."

We (better: I) don't seem to know when exactly he got hold of the paraphrase.

Love=Law
Lutz

Where was this from, Azidonis, do you have the reference source? (you seem to have for so many others!)

“If they would have had the time?”  Surely this cannot have been an impediment – for one thing ‘time is not here as there’ (in Aiwass’s abode, wherever that may be); for another, neither of them were running to a military-style timetable where they simply had to stop at the stroke of the end of an hour, surely?  (But if so - why?  And who was keeping an eye on the clock?)

It would have made things a lot clearer if Aiwass had spelled thing out in full, clearly, right from the off.  And it wouldn’t have done any harm reading through the thing again at the end for doublechecking purposes either, if the document was meant to be so incredibly important as all that (i.e., the guiding principle for the advancement of humanity during the course of the next æon).

Am I correct in “assuming” here that H.B. is incontrovertibly correct to ‘make the change’ as editor (stroke publisher)?  And that you are, by extension and in effect, stating that this is the same ‘authority’ on which he has been acting throughout in the matter since April 10th?  That it therefore is purely a matter of ‘scholarship’ and has nothing to do with any notion of authority (real or otherwise) invested in H.B. by virtue of any position as “Visible Head” of the “O.T.O.” or “A.’. A.’.” - including by implication any sanction given to him to act on their behalf by A.N. Other (presumably J.D. Gunther) in their position as representing the A.’. A.’. in the same matter?

One thing which HB does have, of course, which no other editors do, is unimpeded access to the run of the O.T.O. archives and control over who else has access.

Well it would have been even fresher in his mind, then, if A.C. still hadn’t got it by or on March 23rd – assuming that he received it the very next day, that would leave just sixteen days before the first day of the reading of The Book of the Law.  (Of course, it’s just over one week if we take that date as being April 1st, as per Kenneth Grant/ Achad, etc. appear to! – see relevant different threads for that discussion…)

“Publish and be damned” (!)
Norma N. Joy Conquest

Your rambling excursion into Aleph territory intended to imply support for your view from Crowley has little direct relevance and I note that you've brought it into the debate by throwing in a careless 'as above, so below.'

Not so. You need to check your dates. And, in any case, remember that the available evidence would suggest that AC didn't write 'fill' during the reception but, again, only as part of an instruction to a third party, probably a typist, at a date unknown. AC wrote 'unity' - he wrote neither 'fill me' nor 'kill me' during the reception, which is hardly surprising as the text written in pencil was specifically not spoken by 'Aiwass'!

You repeat the same old stuff about the use of 'fill' in CCXX across various editions, as if this is challenged by anyone. We can all see what is published. The debate is over whether this was an error that should be corrected. You can agree with that 'correction' being made to CCXX or not, but simply repeating one single fact over and over again doesn't make either position any stronger.

Azidonis: You're simply not reading posts before you respond to them. You think you know what the person writing really means and you respond to that, rather than to the points actually raised. This is obvious time and time again and appears again in the tone and content of your reply to my own post. What on earth does your comment have to do with the context? Okay, I realise it pleases you to dismiss my opinion by suggesting that I'm not impartial but you're really barking up the wrong tree here. First, my remark about LAShTAL.COM was with reference to it not being an 'occult site' - I made no specific mention here of impartiality. Secondly, I clearly have opinions and I sometimes express them here, just as as any member might. The site, however, is impartial and I'm robust in enforcing that. If you look at the first post in this thread you will note that the first link I gave was to a 'pro-fill' paper, for example. This site is impartial. I have opinions but am careful to ensure that the impartiality of the site is never compromised by them.

And, if you insist on using my name in full three times in a couple of lines of your post, at least show me the courtesy of spelling it correctly. Actually, let's stick with user names while on the Forums, eh?

93!

Yep, and if he would have gotten it on April 7, he would have had just a few hours to translate it from French and bring it into verse form and it would be quite understandable if he hadn't have it memorized by heart a day later. I was simply pointing out that he did not have a month' time to have it memorized completely. Two weeks at most. It was just a smart-alecky correction from my side.

Love=Law
Lutz