Notifications
Clear all

A praeterhuman entity with short-term memory loss! - How's that work?

Page 4 / 4

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

For what it's worth, I think I was the one who initially brought up doubt as to whether each chapter realistically took an entire hour to write. Given the evidence produced on this thread since -- average handwriting speed, plus actual instances of writing out the chapters -- I'm happy to withdraw any objections.

Approximately one hour for writing each chapter seems believable.


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

For the speed at which Crowley could write when he was "in the spirit", it's worth considering Liber VII. From Grady McMurtry's preface to "The Holy Books" (Weiser 1983 edition, p. xix):

"An entry for 1:30 a.m. of October 30 in Crowley's Diary for 1907 E.V. records Liber VII's reception: "About 11 [p.m. of October 29] (I suppose) I began the 7 fold Word & finished the same." This confirms Crowley's assertion that these books were "written with the utmost rapidity without pausing for thought for a single moment." Liber VII, a book of over 5700 words, was written in only 2 1/2 hours. For comparative purposes, Liber VII is slightly longer than the MS. of Liber Legis, which was taken from dictation in 3 hours."

Even if we grant that Crowley's "I suppose (that it was about 11 p.m.)" might mean that he started it earlier, I don't think we are justified in thinking that it was several hours earlier than 11. But whether 2 1/2 hours or 3 1/2 hours, it was still pretty quick.

I think Liber Legis was "received" in the same way, only it was the first time Crowley had experienced this kind of inspiration, and, in retrospect, he put it on a different level to the other Holy Books. Liber LXV was written over several days as well, so he could fairly reliably get into the frame of mind necessary, "at will", if we are to take him at his word in the "Chronology" on page xvi of the Holy Books.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

Now that the conversation appears to be a little back on the original track (although we now appear to be talking about handwriting speeds), here's my two-penny-'orth:

Whether it is Aiwass as a praeterhuman entity with a memory defect or all the fault of the scribe (as per usual!), there appear to be 20 instances of anomalies in Liber AL sub figura 31 where some sort of a cock-up occurs.  In terms of "dictation" of Liber AL, this does indeed cast an enchanting superstructure onto whatever text it influentially juxtaposes - might anyone have any suggestions regarding the following score of orthographic and other deviations?  (And if anybody can think of any others, all well & good!):

1).  Were the numbered divisions of the 2nd and 3rd chapters into verses done at the same time as the dictation in those?  From the style (I am no graphologist) it would appear not, but in which case why are the verses in these 2 chapters numbered and not in the first?

2).  I.1 - Why is "Had!" inserted in front of "The manifestation of Nuit"?  Surely this cannot have been in any way a form of 'after-thought' on the part of Aiwass, as appears to be suggested at first sight?

3).  I.14 - "v.1 of Spell called the Song", as discussed - how exactly would this have been dictated?

4).  I.26 - Ditto to the above re. "Write this in whiter words...But go further on[?]"

5).  I.30 - "The pain of distance[?] is as nothing..."  Did Aiwass have to repeat this sentence to make sure A.C. got it down correct?

6).  I.39 - Did Aiwass actually dictate this should be in the Greek, rather than "Thelema" in the English?  Did he, as a parenthetical aside, whispher: "Psst, hey Aleister - this in the Greeek lingo if you would, please?" - or words to that effect?

7).  I.49 - Did Aiwass also have to repeat this phrase to make sure A.C. got it down right and had managed to add "are" into what would otherwise be a command, "Abrogate all rituals"?

8).  I.51 - How did A.C. know to underline Amn (and not, say, Ho! - and why?)

9).  I.51 - What is the word crossed out immediately preceeding "Also [take your fill]...", and why?  It looks nothing like "Also"...

10). I.60 - What is the recollection of the "lost phrase" - "The shape of my star is", is nothing like the actual description of the symbol itself which follows: "The Five Pointed Star [etc]".

11). I.62 - Did A.C. not originally hear "calling forth the flame of the hearts of all in her love-chant" and Aiwass had to repeat it to him again over (unless of course Aiwass was being forgetful himself)?

12). II.13 - How might Aiwass have specifically instructed A.C. to use a small "f" at the beginning of the verse in "for why?"

13). II.76 - Ditto, how were 24 and 89 stipulated re. their curved lines?  It should not have been necessary to indicate by such emphasis that these numbers are not 2 & 4 and 8 & 9; A.C. would have remembered "twenty-four" and "eighty-nine".  So why therefore this distinction?

14). III.11 - Is there any reason for "abstruction" having double underlines?

15). III.37 - '"I am the Lord of Thebes, Unity +c" +c from vellum book ---fill me' would have been a bit of a mouthful to dictate.  How was this actually carried out?

16). III.38 - '..."the light is mine" +c from vellum book to Ra-Hoor-Khuit' represents a similar conundrum in terms of what Aiwass must actually have dictated.

17). III.39 -  If you look at the layout of the lines there seems to be an extra one wedged in between the fourth and fifth ("and thy comment upon this The Book of the Law"), in an almost identically odd manner to the way in which "Had!" was squeezed in to the first verse of Chapter One (see point #2, above)

18). III.41 - What is the original word written for which clerk-house was substituted?  And again, was A.C. corrected by Aiwass who presumably had to either repeat the phrase/ verse or correct the word to his scribe in some other fashion?

19). III.47 - Where did this grid come from?  Was it drawn before the dictation, or afterwards - and by whom?  What made A.C. [?] decide to draw 7 vertical and 8 horizontal lines, label the vertical axis the numbers 1-10 and horizontal axis the letters a to h?  When was the line and + themselves drawn - during the dictation?  And how might Aiwass have instructed him to do this? - "Just take a thick black marker, Aleister - no, not the fountain pen you're using now - and just make a downwards slash on the page somewhere, anywhere.  And stick in an X where you think it marks the spot".

20). III.72 - The seeress Ouarda/ Rose's insertion of "Force Of Ciphia Nia".  This has been gone into, up to a point - but why is the "-I" omitted from nearly all published versions including all those from Crowley's time?  What can this apparently underlined emphasis mean?

Fiddle me ree,
N. Joy.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

Under the standard version of the "reception" story, most of the points you bring up are covered by the claim that Crowley's pen was "inspired" by Aiwass, such that every stroke (even the shape of every letter) has a significant meaning. I take this to mean that Aiwass did not have to say, "lower case letter here, buddy!" but rather that Crowley somehow "knew" to make the letter lower case in the midst of dictation.

Crowley's commentary on the text reveals that in several places he had some kind of mental dialogue with Aiwass. The "whiter words" passage, for example, was dictated in response to Crowley's mental objection that "people will never be able to understand" the dictated line "the unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality."

I was under the impression that the numbering of the verses was done after the "reception," but the exact location of that claim escapes me now.

You might find very useful Ash Bowie's "Transcription of Liber Legis": http://hermetic.com/eidolons/A_Transcription_of_Liber_Legis

And his article on "Psychography and Liber Legis": http://hermetic.com/eidolons/Psychography_and_Liber_Legis


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

Belmurru, it looks like you began writing diligently fast initially, at the beginning of each page, but that soon turned into a frenzy of penmanship. I'm not a handwriting analyst, but it does seem that you were writing 'like a madman' eventually. Thanks for sharing 🙂

"Los" wrote:
Crowley's commentary on the text reveals that in several places he had some kind of mental dialogue with Aiwass. The "whiter words" passage, for example, was dictated in response to Crowley's mental objection that "people will never be able to understand" the dictated line "the unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality."

Agreed, Los.

jamie, The Equinox of the Gods goes through the reception quite thoroughly. Crowley even explains some of the verses that seemed like direct messages to him, "I see thee hate the hand and the pen", for instance. He also explains the odd piece of paper, and other things. It's worth a thorough review.


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

Thanks very much for pointing out Bowie's thoughts, Los. I hadn't encountered the technical term "psychography" before, but if it has wide currency, I'll adopt it.

On a first readthrough, I have to say I agree with his assessment, as well as his conclusion that such works can be thought of as great art. I want to go further and say that, Biblically speaking at least, the "Prophets" and their books are works of poetry, often mingling prose and song. Prophets are artists who express the Zeitgeist through their own deep feeling and life experience. They are driven by the need to speak out and create a reflection of the world and themselves, and above all, to admonish it, to give it direction. And the best leave astonishingly beautiful and complex, and often quite enigmatic, work. 


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 538
 

2).  I.1 - Why is "Had!" inserted in front of "The manifestation of Nuit"?  Surely this cannot have been in any way a form of 'after-thought' on the part of Aiwass, as appears to be suggested at first sight?

Remember that until the process of dictation began, all of the communications from Aiwass had been through Rose. I suspect that the first word dictated must have had a tremendous impact on Crowley when he heard the voice of Aiwass, and he simply failed to write down the first word in time to hear and record the rest of the words, so he added it after completing the rest of the verse.

12). II.13 - How might Aiwass have specifically instructed A.C. to use a small "f" at the beginning of the verse in "for why?"

There were no verse numbers or page numbers dictated--Crowley added them later. The holograph was in the possession Grady Mcmurtry for awhile in the mid "1980s." According to Mcmurtry, the numbering of the pages and verses was accomplished with different writing implements like a pen, pencil and crayon, which suggests Crowley numbered them after receiving the text, and at different times.

19). III.47 - Where did this grid come from?  Was it drawn before the dictation, or afterwards - and by whom? 

The numbers and letters accompanying the grid are in the handwriting of Crowley. He added the grid at some point after 1911. There are existing copies of an early photocopy of page 60 of Liber L that shows no grid on it.

As far as Crowley being under the influence of Aiwass and not having to rely solely on what he heard spoken, he believed that he misheard "Liber AL" as "LIber L", but made the change in the published version much later, perhaps over twenty years later, but not until after C.S. Jones convinced him that AL/LA formed the alphanumeric key to the book.

Having performed a close examination of all of the pages of Liber L side by side, the most interesting of the chapters is the first one. On the first page, Crowley fails to write down all of the periods at the end of the sentences except one, which shows he was so focused on writing what was being spoken that he failed to pay any attention to punctuation.

Another good question is how Crowley knew to punctuate certain sentences with colons and semicolons without knowing whether the next sentence would be a complete sentence linked to the last one, requiring a semicolon, or a fragment requiring a colon. In some instances he fails to use any punctuation, or uses the wrong punctuation, both of which are understandable. Remarkably, Crowley seems to have had few of the same problems while writing the other two chapters.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Obitus" wrote:
...But it just really feels like you have a real problem with those of the Thelemic fold who are into the existence of realities outside the realms of scientific research.

How can anything that could meaningfully be termed "reality" be outside the realms of scientific inquiry? It's not the likes of Los and I who are being condescending to supernaturalists, but quite the reverse. It's the supernaturalists who are arrogant in the extreme. "O, you narrow minded scientists!  Don't you know we research realities beyond the ken of your methods. One day you'll catch up with us and see we were right all along". It's utterly absurd it really is.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 
"selfseeker" wrote:
How can anything that could meaningfully be termed "reality" be outside the realms of scientific inquiry?

Scientific enquiry is a method whereby we attempt to comprehend "reality". The "realms of scientific enquiry" are simply areas in which scientific enquiry is currently taking place; these realms are not an unchanging delineation. Thus the "realms of scientific enquiry" are simply wherever we are researching at present. Some are probing outer space; others are researching the phenomena of lucid dreaming, for example.

Whatever "reality" might be, our conceptions of reality are changing as a result of scientific enquiry. It might be, for instance, that in a few decades time we have a clearer understanding of, for example, that which we now refer to as "intuition". What is certain, though, is that in a few decades time our understanding of reality will be different from what it is today.

It may well be that much which is today classed as "supernatural" turns out to have no basis in fact. It might also be the case that some of that which we today class as "supernatural" is in fact natural, but appears otherwise to us at present due to our incomplete picture of reality.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

And his article on "Psychography and Liber Legis": http://hermetic.com/eidolons/Psychography_and_Liber_Legis

After reading this article, I find it rather boring trend how "all is finally explained" by a sort of vague psycho-physiological analysis.

"His new mother, Nuit, was—unlike the corporeal version—infinitely warm, loving, embracing, accepting, and sexual. His new father was more like his actual one—stern, merciless, strong, mysterious, and pious "

This same trend also goes on to judge man's work by what is known of his private life, I for one, cannot even see why there must be exist correlation between these two things.

In a sense, one could observe that this 'trend' is (western) individualism's final answer to all things spiritual. Even 'religious experience' becomes merged with pragmatism ( and not in a sense "The aim of Religion, the method of Science" ). Infinite or the unknown is substituted with Freud's and Jung's 'subconscious' and finally the individual, instead of attempting to raise himself to 'truth', has dragged the 'truth' down to his own level. This humanism and individualism has conditioned itself.

I'm sorry, I do not share any sympathy for this view. It is limited and conditioned and more than anything, it stops and draws a line arriving at certain point.

"Human, All Too Human"


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

In respect of Los' posting, the Ash Bowie transcription looks at first glance as if this may be a quite useful tool.  However I had to agree with Ayino in Reply #159 that his article on "Psychography..." was a touch Freudian...

"Los" wrote:
Crowley's commentary on the text reveals that in several places he had some kind of mental dialogue with Aiwass. The "whiter words" passage, for example, was dictated in response to Crowley's mental objection that "people will never be able to understand" the dictated line "the unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality."

I agree that some form of unspoken 'telepathic' communication seems to have taken place during the reception.  I rather like that phrase, & think it communicates valid extra information which is not in the actual final version of the verse, seeing as how all (sub-)atomic particles, when it comes down to it, are 'packets' of energy anyway.  And what are "whiter words" supposed to mean, anyhow?  ("Whiteness" would appear to carry some sort of a judgemental, even moral, overtone and to a degree there is an unwelcome association with the idea of "white wash".)

"Azidonis" wrote:
The Equinox of the Gods goes through the reception quite thoroughly. Crowley even explains some of the verses that seemed like direct messages to him, "I see thee hate the hand and the pen", for instance. He also explains the odd piece of paper, and other things. It's worth a thorough review.

Thanks Azidonis, yes The Equinox of The Gods does go through some of these enquiries, but not thoroughly in all of the aspects.  As you say, a worthwhile and thorough review by someone, sometime is overdue and seems to be indicated & required here.

With regard to your observation, herupakraath:

Remember that until the process of dictation began, all of the communications from Aiwass had been through Rose. I suspect that the first word dictated must have had a tremendous impact on Crowley when he heard the voice of Aiwass, and he simply failed to write down the first word in time to hear and record the rest of the words, so he added it after completing the rest of the verse.

This is possible, even possibly the likeliest plausible explanation, but not the neatest or an altogether satisfying one.

According to Mcmurtry, the numbering of the pages and verses was accomplished with different writing implements like a pen, pencil and crayon, which suggests Crowley numbered them after receiving the text, and at different times.

But not the first chapter, though?

He added the grid at some point after 1911. There are existing copies of an early photocopy of page 60 of Liber L that shows no grid on it.

Would you have the source for this?  It would be interesting to know the exact circumstances when & under which it was drafted.

On the first page, Crowley fails to write down all of the periods at the end of the sentences except one, which shows he was so focused on writing what was being spoken that he failed to pay any attention to punctuation. [...] In some instances he fails to use any punctuation, or uses the wrong punctuation, both of which are understandable. Remarkably, Crowley seems to have had few of the same problems while writing the other two chapters.

But he presumably had sufficiently recovered by the second to pay proper grammatical attention...  Luckily it was a case of "the stops as thou wilt" but in regard to the syntactical errors with these (non-)capital letters, these do seem to have been in some 'mysterious' way pre-ordained.

"selfseeker" wrote:
How can anything that could meaningfully be termed "reality" be outside the realms of scientific inquiry? It's not the likes of Los and I who are being condescending to supernaturalists, but quite the reverse. It's the supernaturalists who are arrogant in the extreme. "O, you narrow minded scientists!  Don't you know we research realities beyond the ken of your methods. One day you'll catch up with us and see we were right all along". It's utterly absurd it really is.

I agree with Michael's observations in his Reply #158 and would only add, in response to selfseeker (above), that in some respects, on the plane of reason (i.e., Daath and the sephira beneath), magic(k) is purely hidden (literally 'occult') science anyway, e.g., what would have been seen as maybe 'super-natural' in the 18th century (i.e. a 3-D cinema screen) would seem perfectly 'natural' here in the 21st.

Riddle-me-ra,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
It might be, for instance, that in a few decades time we have a clearer understanding of, for example, that which we now refer to as "intuition".

"Diverse as these statements [of various spiritual experiences from tradition] are at first sight, all agree in announcing an experience of the class which fifty years ago would have been called supernatural, to-day may be called spiritual, and fifty years hence will have a proper name based on an understanding of the phenomenon which occurred." -- Crowley, Book 4, Part 1

Occultists have been saying -- for a long time, as you can see -- that we'll soon understand some phenomena under discussion and we'll discover that it's totally natural, so we ought to hold out hope that people will one day soon-ish figure it out and until then just keep on believing in this stuff.

As we can see, Crowley was pretty much wrong in that quote above. More than fifty years have passed, and we don't have any kind of new "proper name" for spiritual experiences, nor do we have any evidence of the existence of anything supernatural. Sure, there have been a number of interesting experiments in recent decades that suggest that these kinds of experiences are nothing more than brain states (see, for example, the so-called "God Helmet" that generates the feeling of spiritual experience by stimulating  the brain), but such experiments don't confirm the reality of anything that we would term supernatural. We are not even a step closer to confirming the existence of anything like astral travel, ESP, "psychic powers," the existence of spirits, etc.

This is what I was referring to earlier when I said that I'm willing to "cut Crowley some slack" regarding supernatural beliefs. Yeah, maybe a hundred years ago it would have been a little more understandable to say, "Hey, there could be something to this stuff! Any day science may show us that it's real!" But after so much time has passed, after supernatural claims have fallen on their face time and time again...how long are we supposed to wait, exactly, before it's ok to say, "You know, this stuff is probably just make believe, and that will be my position unless some compelling evidence to the contrary appears"?

In another hundred years, I'm willing to bet that there will *still* be people saying, "Any day now, you'll see...."

It may well be that much which is today classed as "supernatural" turns out to have no basis in fact. It might also be the case that some of that which we today class as "supernatural" is in fact natural, but appears otherwise to us at present due to our incomplete picture of reality.

And the time for believing that latter claim will be when sufficient evidence for it appears. Until then, the default position is not to accept that it's true (which, for the sake of clarity, is not the same as accepting that it's absolutely false).


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 
"Los" wrote:
In another hundred years, I'm willing to bet that there will *still* be people saying, "Any day now, you'll see...."

I didn't say or even imply "any day now, you'll see". You might be better off responding to what people say, rather than what you imagined them to have said. Other than that, your cynicism might or might not be proved correct. I won't take up your bet, because I'm unlikely to be around to collect any winnings owing to me, just as you're unlikely to be around to pay out.

Until then, the default position is not to accept that it's true (which, for the sake of clarity, is not the same as accepting that it's absolutely false).

Of course, you are free to declare whatever "default position" you like, just as I'm free to ignore your declaration.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 538
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
But not the first chapter, though?

Correct; the first chapter of Liber L has no verse numbers.

He added the grid at some point after 1911. There are existing copies of an early photocopy of page 60 of Liber L that shows no grid on it.

Would you have the source for this?  It would be interesting to know the exact circumstances when & under which it was drafted.

No one knows when the grid was drawn on the page. What is known is the first publication of the Book of the Law that had a crude facsimile of the holograph included with it shows the grid missing. There was a recent book published called "Mystery of the Letters" that includes a scan of the page shown without the grid, but it's small and not worth the price of the book if that's your motivation in purchasing it.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1190
 
"herupakraath" wrote:
There were no verse numbers or page numbers dictated--Crowley added them later. The holograph was in the possession Grady Mcmurtry for awhile in the mid "1980s." According to Mcmurtry, the numbering of the pages and verses was accomplished with different writing implements like a pen, pencil and crayon, which suggests Crowley numbered them after receiving the text, and at different times.

A convincing and simple solution to the mystery in the verse 76 in chapter two of The Book of the Law, involving use of the verse numbers that "were not dictated", could mean that the following words "Aye! listen to the numbers & the words:", from verse 75 in chapter two of The Book of the Law, are referring to the verse numbers, but that would go against Crowley's preferred dictation story   


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1190
 

Crowley does hint at a simple and convincing solution in what he wrote around 1921 about the verse 75 in the second chapter of The Book of the Law, in his The New Comment.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1190
 
"R.T.Cole" wrote:
So, would you found your New World Religion on the Word of a praeterhuman entity with short-term memory loss?

Sorry for chain-threading, but to go back to the thread 'A praeterhuman entity with short-term memory loss! - How's that work?', the following quoted verses from The Book of the Law seems to indicate "a praeterhuman entity" contradicting itself and with short-term memory loss:

Verse 53 in chapter two of The Book of the Law: "Fear not, o prophet, when these words are said, thou shalt not be sorry. Thou art emphatically my chosen; and blessed are the eyes that thou shalt look upon with gladness. But I will hide thee in a mask of sorrow: they that see thee shall fear thou art fallen: but I lift thee up."

Verse 58 in chapter two of The Book of the Law: "Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty."

Verse 43 in chapter three of The Book of the Law: "Let the Scarlet Woman beware! If pity and compassion and tenderness visit her heart; if she leave my work to toy with old sweetnesses; then shall my vengeance be known. I will slay me her child: I will alienate her heart: I will cast her out from men: as a shrinking and despised harlot shall she crawl through dusk wet streets, and die cold and an-hungered."

Verse 44 in chapter three of The Book of the Law: "But let her raise herself in pride! Let her follow me in my way! Let her work the work of wickedness! Let her kill her heart! Let her be loud and adulterous! Let her be covered with jewels, and rich garments, and let her be shameless before all men!"

Verse 45 in chapter three of The Book of the Law: "Then will I lift her to pinnacles of power: then will I breed from her a child mightier than all the kings of the earth. I will fill her with joy: with my force shall she see & strike at the worship of Nu: she shall achieve Hadit."

[Underlinings by me.]


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

Conditional phrases.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1190
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Conditional phrases.

What is the conditional phrase in verse 53 in chapter two of The Book of the Law quoted below?:

"Fear not, o prophet, when these words are said, thou shalt not be sorry. Thou art emphatically my chosen; and blessed are the eyes that thou shalt look upon with gladness. But I will hide thee in a mask of sorrow: they that see thee shall fear thou art fallen: but I lift thee up."

The statement "but I lift thee up.", at the end of the verse quoted above does not seem conditional, quite the contrary actually.


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

I see no contradiction.

You gave four examples. Numbers 1,3 & 4 ostensibly at odds with example 2.

But example two just refers to slaves and Kings and 1,3, & 4 to thee, she and her.

And the creaky grammar just shows that Aiwaz didn't go to Cambridge.

OK


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Conditional phrases.

What is the conditional phrase in verse 53 in chapter two of The Book of the Law quoted below?:

"Fear not, o prophet, when these words are said, thou shalt not be sorry. Thou art emphatically my chosen; and blessed are the eyes that thou shalt look upon with gladness. But I will hide thee in a mask of sorrow: they that see thee shall fear thou art fallen: but I lift thee up."

The statement "but I lift thee up.", at the end of the verse quoted above does not seem conditional, quite the contrary actually.

Recall that the color of Binah is black.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5355
 
"OKontrair" wrote:
And the creaky grammar just shows that Aiwaz didn't go to Cambridge.

That's actually not just an amusing remark, but also, in my opinion, quite a profound one...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 384
 

Forgive me for digging this up; I was until recently away from the net for a lengthy period. The problem here is less problematic if one peruses a clearer copy of the MS than the one commonly provided. Fortunately we have access to such a copy at the O.T.O website (for which see The Holograph MS of Liber AL vel Legis). The clarity provided there enables one to pinpoint the solution to this problem. The accusation levelled against Aiwass in this thread, which would seem to derail the claim that this intelligence is praeterhuman, is easily dismissed by a careful consideration of the MS.

See page 54 of the Holograph MS at the O.T.O. website. Here we have a great view of the handwritten version of v.37 of ch.3. The words of Aiwass are in ink, as seen in bold letters. The lighter-shaded words, written later in pencil, are not those of Aiwass but represent the commentary of the scribe. This commentary merely indicates to what song Aiwass refers. Again, these are Crowley's words: "'I am the Lord of Thebes' etc. from vellum book". The next word, "Unity", as well as the oddly-written line following it, give the actual dictation/direction of Aiwass. Then we have once more the pencilled commentary of the scribe: i.e. a line followed by the words "fill me".

In light of this analysis, it was the scribe who got it wrong in his assumption that Aiwass intended the first paragraph of the song (i.e. from "I am the Lord of Thebes" to "O Ra-Hoor-Khuit") to be included as the song of invocation. Granted, "Unity" represents the first word of the second paragraph of the Stele versifications, but Aiwass intended this particular invocation to start with the sacred mantra, A KA DUA, ending with N KHU N KHABS. So it should have been twelve lines in the English, not the eighteen lines inserted by the fallible scribe.

The power of the A KA DUA is well-known to those utilizing it as a mantram with regularity. This is clearly Crowley's error, not that of Aiwass. Many thanks to the O.T.O. for making the Holograph MS accessible, for otherwise this would have been difficult to figure out.


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 4