January 3, 2016 at 12:04 am #94487
Any text written inside , is added to any text quoted from Richard T. Cole’s “Second Corrected Edition” of his book “The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley”.
Richard T. Cole’s “Second Corrected Edition” of his book “The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley”, contains the following: “… Crowley repeatedly demands that he ignored Liber L. vel Legis between 1904 and 1909. A passage in Confessions (page 541) encapsulate his alleged position:
“Here was the Book which I hated and feared, the Book from which I was desperately trying to escape …”
In fact, nothing could be more divored from reality. Far from a ‘desperate escape attempt,’ Crowley’s diary records extensive work with both Liber Legis and its accompanying comment throughout 1906. He spends considerable time in 1907 editing it in readiness for inclusion [as an Appendix] in the third volume of Collected Works, and handing out copies for comment. His Magickal notebooks between 1904 and 1907 comprise little else other than material revolving around Liber L. vel Legis, and he undertakes further editing in preparation for its debut appearance in Holy Books Vol. III [Cole page 186].”
“The Appendix was going to reproduce Liber L (The Book Of The Law) together with supporting material. It is a curious document that raises as many questions as it answers!” (—-> Quoted from the following source: http://www.lashtal.com/significant-sources-2-galleys-of-the-collected-works-1907/ which leads to: “Significant Sources 2: Galleys of the Collected Works (1907) […] In this, the second of an occasional series of ‘Significant Sources’, I am pleased to draw your attention to a download I first made available in April 2013: In keeping with the title, this free download is of a highly significant piece by Aleister Crowley, often spoken of but rarely seen. The document is reproduced here with full permission of the copyright holder. The PDF file comprises the September 1907 galley proofs of an intended Appendix to the Collected Works, prepared but subsequently discarded by Aleister Crowley. The Appendix was going to reproduce Liber L (The Book Of The Law) together with supporting material. It is a curious document that raises as many questions as it answers! […]”)
Richard T. Cole’s “Second Corrected Edition” of his book “The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley”, provides the answer to why the said Appendix with its supporting material containing the words “Though I am in no way responsible for any of these documents, except the translations of the stele inscription, I publish them among my works because I believe that their intelligent study may be interesting & helpful.”, was written, and why it was discarded.
And the said answer is in short that Crowley until he in March 1912 in Equinox I, 7, publicly premiered his reception story for The Book of The Law, had touted the latter book “… as the work of another (albeit with his stele versification).” Because “Even someone with Crowley’s impressive powers of persuation will have the Devil’s own job convincing sceptics and believers alike that ‘the Chosen One’ blundered into incontestable proof of his own divinely-sanctioned mandate, as written by none other than himself!” And because “Otherwise, Crowley has to defend a ludicrous claim that he wrote a text that he later revealed as the Foundation Document of a New Aeon, of which he was supreme leader.” But later on “… Crowley modifies his scheme and assumes responsibility for the authorship of Liber L. [= The Book of the Law] (albeit in the inert capacity of Channeller) [Cole page 177].” (Second Corrected Edition of Cole’s said book page 129, 155, 177 and 178).
Cole’s said book does also provide the answer to why Crowley waited until the March 1912 puclication of Equinox I, 7, to premiere his reception story. (Second Corrected Edition of Cole’s said book page 183 and 189).
And “By 1912, Crowley is a Messiah preaching to a global audience […].” (Second Corrected Edition of Cole’s said book page 194). And also by 1912, Crowley’s erstwhile partners, like George Cecil Jones, John Frederick Charles Fuller, and Victor Benjamin Neuburg, had already distanced themselves from Crowley. (Second Corrected Edition of Cole’s said book page 176, 177 and 193)
As for answers derived from the said Appendix, this Appendix is in Richard T. Cole’s said book, explained in the context of “Crowley’s fateful decision to initiate his New Equinox scheme by proxy (i.e steer Jones [= George Cecil Jones] into realisation of Liber L. vel Legis’ supreme importance) … [Cole page 154].” A fateful decision which “… also sheds much light on the baffling notes made on the handwritten cover sheet [Cole page 154].”
The said notes introduces the said Appendix with the following words: “[This MS. (which came into my possession July 1906) is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing.* Though I am in no way responsible for any of these documents, except the translations of the stele inscription, I publish them among my works because I believe that their intelligent study may be interesting & helpful. AC.]” The September 1907 galley proofs of an intended Appendix, “If taken at face value, insists that Liber L. vel Legis [= The Book of the Law] was not written by Crowley, and only came into his posession in July 1906 – [Cole page 70].”
Cole points out the discrepancy between the “original” manuscript of The Book of the Law’s surviving handwritten cover sheet — ((consisting of paper originating from the Grand Continental Hotel, Cairo, the only paper in the “original” manuscript of The Book of the Law which does not originate from the Scottish paper makers Alex pirie & Sons, in the form of sixty-five leaves of “Standard Typewriting paper [Cole page 69]”. “… manufactured by Scottish papermaker Alex Pirie & Sons, especially for the booming London market …[Cole page 206]” “According to its archives, the ‘London’ brand of Pirie & Sons’ “Standard Typewriting” paper was not commercially available untill late in 1905 – … [Cole page 209]”), now stored at the Harry Ransom Institute in Texas), which “If taken at face value, insists that Liber L. vel Legis [= The Book of the Law] was not written by Crowley, and only came into his posession in July 1906 – [Cole page 70]”, and) — which “… refers specifically to “stele translations” (i.e. the literal French translation of the stele hieroglyphs prepared for Crowley between 23 March and 07 or 08 April by staff at the Boulak museum) [Cole page 97]. “Yet, the [“original”] manuscript [of the Book of the Law] refers and the typescript [of the Book of the Law] reproduces, Crowley’s versified paraphrasing and not the translation itself. Interestigly the typeset version of the handwritten cover page (as prefaces the Appendix droppet from Colletcted Works) resolves this discrepancy by use of an extra word “verse. [Cole page 97]”
Cole also points out the discrepancy between Crowley’s Cairo myth about The Book of the Law being written during three days in April in 1904 in the capital of Egypt, and Crowley in a handwritten comment by him to The Book of the Law, a handwritten comment dated by Crowley as written between 22 August 22 September (Virgo) 1909 (the fifth year of his New Aeon).” [Cole page 173], writing the following: “This being done; but quickly? No. I have slaved at the riddles in this book for night on seven years; and all is not yet clear. [Crowley’s comment to the 39th verse of The Book of the Law’s third chapter, as quoted on page 173 in Richard T. Cole’s “Second Corrected Edition” of his book “The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley”]”
“Only after Jones [= George Cecil Jones, Crowley’s co-founder in creating the new order A.’. A.’. to replace the magical order The Golden Dawn, of which both were former members], (nudged by Crowley) realises that Liber L. is the skeleton of a methodology facilitating communication with the Secret Chiefs does his extra occult ‘stripe’ become problematic. When this happens, Crowley is compelled to rewrite the record, again, and usurp Jones by fabricating the reception event. Of course, this major revision evoked multiple discrepancies, anomalies, contradictions and the general ambience of ‘fuzziness’ Crowley imparted on his account out of sheer necessity [Cole page 156].”
Crowley first publication of The Book of The Law in 1910 in Holy Books Vol. III, does not contain any mention of the reception story, but Crowley’s erstwhile partners, like George Cecil Jones, (whose authority Crowley at first presented himself as subordinate to in the said new order, in Liber LXI vel Causae (“Liber LXI vel Causae, omits any mention of The book of the Law, Thelema, and all components we recognise today as the Cairo myth [Cole page 194].”):”Now when P. [= Aleister Crowley] had thus with bitter toil prepared all things under the guidance of D.D.S. [= George Cecil Jones] [Cole page 205]”) John Frederick Charles Fuller, and Victor Benjamin Neuburg, had already distanced themselves from Aleister Crowley, before he publicly premiered his reception story for The Book of The Law, in the March 1912 puclication of Equinox I, 7. And “By 1912, Crowley is a Messiah preaching to a global audience … [Cole page 194].”
“III, 47. This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine.” [47th verse of The Book of the Law’s third chapter, as quoted on page 206 in Richard T. Cole’s “Second Corrected Edition” of his book “The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley”.]
Crowley did not “… obey Aiwass’ explicit command and accompany all printed editions with a manuscript facsimile. This material is absent from both 1907 Collected Works Appendix and in 1910 Holy Books. The absurd and miniscule reproduction in 1912 Equinox I, 7 is rationalised with a distinctly questionable explanation (“The reproduction of Liber Legis has been done thus minutely in order to prevent the casual reader from wasting his valuable time over it”). Equinox I, 10 [publihed in 1913] includes a revised typescript, but no manuscript facsimile [Cole page 208].”
Not untill 1936 (Equinox of the Gods), […] thirty-one years after his alleged reception of Liber L. vel Legis [= The Book Of The Law], does Crowley finally release a full account, accompanied by a typescript and decent sized facsimile of the rebacked manuscript. [“… Crowley “rebacked” each of the sixty-five manuscript leaves with a sheet of linen, probably whilst in residence at Cefalu [Cole page 208].” Into each sheet is embossed a watermark from the Scottish papermaker Alex Pirie & Sons [Cole page 206].] By this time, Jones [George Cecil Jones], Jones [Charles Stansfeld Jones] and Fuller [John Frederick Charles Fuller] have vanished into the mist, Rose has passed away (she dies in 1932) and Crowley is finally confident enough to open his literary closet [Cole page 208].”
January 3, 2016 at 9:36 am #94493
- This topic was modified 2 years, 11 months ago by wellreadwellbred.
The following quote is actually from page 205 in Richard T. Cole’s “Second Corrected Edition” of his book Liber L. vel Bogus The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley Sub Figura LXXX: “… Liber LXI vel Causæ, omits any mention of The Book of the Law, Thelema, and all components we recognise today as the Cairo myth [Cole page 194].”
Richard T. Cole’s said book, does on page 173, contain a facsimile of Crowley’s already mentioned handwritten comment by him to The Book of the Law, a handwritten comment dated by Crowley as written “… between 22 August 22 September (Virgo) 1909 (the fifth year of his New Aeon).” [Cole page 173]
On page 93 in the said book, Richard T. Cole states the following: “At this point, I pause to offer a note of … caution. Liber L. vel Bogus is not an easy book to read. It was not an easy book to write. In fact, in places it is comprehensively heavy going! […] ‘Sustained Attention’ is a mandatory requirement of participation in this convoluted paper-trail.”
January 7, 2016 at 6:43 pm #94523
- This reply was modified 2 years, 11 months ago by wellreadwellbred.
All very well, well, but what I am finding most puzzling at present is the continued silence & total absence of any sort of “official” comment by the “O.T.O.”, ostensibly the guardians and perpetuators of Crowley’s legacy, now after more than six months since publication.
Whether one agrees with Richard Cole’s conclusions or dismisses them entirely is quite incidental to this glaring omission. Is the order hoping that by their usual policy of saying & doing nothing they can somehow manage to get any actual “evidence” in these most important issues at stake to miraculously go away?
Norma N Joy ConquestJanuary 7, 2016 at 10:10 pm #94524
Just my opinion but perhaps the OTO is silent on this matter because they realise that it’s immaterial whether the reception myth ocurred as stated, because what matters is that Crowley’s method of attainment via the A.:.A.:. and OTO curriculum really works to better the people that choose to “walk the path.”
Just my two pesos.January 7, 2016 at 11:09 pm #94525
But even if it “really works”, the matter can hardly be called immaterial if the entire reception “myth” IS basically a crock with all that that entails for A.C.’s overall credibility and the whole raison d’etre of the O.T.O. he left behind, the very real possibility of which can now no longer be discounted out of hand by anyone.
Which is ultimately the more incredible – the Aiwass dictation account or else that A.C. might have been pulling one of the biggest confidence tricks in the last two thousand years from the comfort of his armchair in the study of ole Boleskine House? The Book Of Lies (appropriately) has some things to say on that very subject – we can all bury our hands in the sand about it, I suppose, but I wonder just who will succeed in having the last laugh over all of this? Or is it no laughing matter?!
Meanwhile scrutinising any & all bricks which apparently glitter,
N JoyJanuary 8, 2016 at 10:10 am #94535
Post by Richard Cole on Facebook dated 7 January 2016:
You can’t keep a good heresy down!
Curiously ‘Bogus-Free’ since the perfect storm of deletion-without-back-up responsible for obliterating two significant branches, a green shoot of heresy recently re-sprouted on the hallowed cyber-pages of ultra-conservative bastion of Crowlean orthodoxy, LAShTAL. Member “Jamie J. Barter” aired a question I am hearing with increasing frequency, of late. He asked: [As above…]
Answers on a postcard, please…
I suppose that I should share Cole’s surprise that there’s so little interest in his book, despite its several reprints. This lack of interest isn’t restricted to LAShTAL, of course, with his work having generated almost no discussion on any Thelemic sites and only a couple of reviews, but it’s worth reminding members here that any user submissions regarding the book are welcome, be they News items or Forum posts, even on this ‘ultra-conservative bastion of Crowlean orthodoxy’!January 8, 2016 at 11:01 am #94541
Maybe we are all waiting for the publication of your book on the subject, which hopefully will correct the numerous errors and omissions and the selective use of evidence found in Cole’s tome.
JohnnyJanuary 8, 2016 at 11:06 am #94542
Maybe we are all waiting for the publication of your book on the subject, which hopefully will correct the numerous errors and omissions and the selective use of evidence found in Cole’s tome.
I no longer have any intention to publish on this subject.January 8, 2016 at 12:38 pm #94543
little interest in his book, despite its several reprints.
Perhaps due to his behaviour on this site and elsewhere.January 8, 2016 at 1:32 pm #94544
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
There is an often repeated request around here to separate the message from the messenger…
Love is the law, love under will.January 8, 2016 at 1:52 pm #94545
I feel it is important that the issue does not get clouded by personalities – or personality, in this case (unless one counts old Carroty to be two).
Yes, sure RTC’s earlier “Lazarus” type antics and sock-puppetry may have got up a lot of Lashtalians’ noses – indeed I admit I found them myself to be particularly exasperating at one stage. But all the same in the course of his research he has managed to unearth at least certain information which unless properly dismissed remains fundamentally ‘toxic’ to the integrity of the Aiwass account or “reception myth”, as called. I would have thought this necesitates a full thorough informed and constructive debate of the most valid facts & issues, and not least some sort of an official comment by the organization charged with the perpetuating of A.C.’s legacy as it stands, and which most significantly includes The Book of the Law itself.
chuck – we must have been on the same frequency at the same time just now, you & I!
N JoyJanuary 8, 2016 at 2:56 pm #94547
“… what matters is that Crowley’s method of attainment via the A.:.A.:. and OTO curriculum really works to better the people that choose to “walk the path.”
“Better the people” is an obscure phrase, but I agree that said methodology does indeed assist folks to see a bit more deeply (or more expandedly) and to gain control over parts of their being.
Unfortunately, said methodology has often been marketed as leading to “enlightenment” or “attainment” or “universal brotherhood,” and there is no evidence that anyone has so benefited.
Of course, the same can be said of Buddhism, Christianity, and all forms of New Age trickery. There is no known technique, or series of techniques, that one can perform that will lead to a permanent state of oneness with primordial consciousness.January 8, 2016 at 3:22 pm #94548
“Maybe we are all waiting for the publication of your book on the subject”
Maybe not “all” of us. LAShTAL Paul has already given the lecture and provided the written version … and it was rather interesting. He has apparently decided not to add to his preliminary exposition.
Aside from the fact that The Book stands or falls on its own merits (read: “contents”), the big question has always been whether it was dictated by the independent entity Aiwass, or “dictated” by an archetypal projection of AC’s own “higher” or “spiritual” consciousness.
Based on my own experience, and not on the ravings and beliefs of other folks, I can attest that one can indeed receive messages, even prognostications, from what appears to be an independent entity … yet, in the end, it turns out to merely be me talking to myself, under cover of duality.
It is entirely possible, maybe probable, that AC was convinced that he was singled out and selected for visitation and a chat from Angelic Aiwass, when he was just listening to a hidden (occult!) part of his own mind.
Of course, Mr Cole seems to be taking the position that AC consciously and purposely “invented Aiwass (and even the whole Cairo worling legend) in order to gain supremacy in the hierarchy of secret societies of his day.
Alas! It’s a good ting we ALL have learned to credit only that which lies within our own realm of experience, and to trust no one else as a matter of blind faith or mistaken belief … otherwise we’d be in a fine kettle of Christian fish.January 8, 2016 at 3:43 pm #94549
I would have thought this necesitates a full thorough informed and constructive debate of the most valid facts & issues
I believe there was a thread here already which proposed to do just that. Feel free to continue there if you will. Or begin another – or are you not as generous with your own time and attention as you are with that of others?January 8, 2016 at 3:44 pm #94550
oops – blockquotes reversed!
- You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.