More pestilence!
ravenest said:
Did we really need to know that? This is a Tarot forum you know. Kids read this stuff. I suggest you divulge that kind of personal information on another, more suitable forum.
hee hee
ravenest said:
Go to the manuscript where the Tzaddi reference is. See how the hand and pen have written something. Over the top of this is another hand and pen that has drawn a tzaddi over the top of the original to make the strange looking tzaddi in the manuscript.
I've always assumed it was just a quick Tzaddi that was corrected for clarity at a later date. I mean, can you write hebrew letters at speed in the same way you can English. I know I can't.
ravenest said:
This hand and pen appear on the next page as well in a modification of the manuscript, also refereing to a star (the star with a red circle in the middle.) Now Crowley has said it doesnt matter what he wrote, he HEARD Tzaddi at the time. (and Rose corrected it ?)
Hmmm.... maybe.... ? I think it's a little bit of a stretch to compare that Tzaddi with Rose's handwriting.
ravenest said:
Now go to the section about adding the comment. same hand and pen as AC but squashed in between lines. (added later?)
Yeah, I have noticed it before. In fact you could remove that line without doing any real harm to the text. It still reads fine. But even if you suspect that Crowley inserted that line so that he could write his own comment, why is the comment mentioned again at the bottom of the page?
It's still interesting though.
ravenest said:
The easiest and most obvious solutions (often missed in the occult world) lie in Aeon's response that AC went through a developmental process with this attribution and played at using both.
I think he was still playing(?) with both attributions when he wrote the Book of Thoth. Remember "my prophet shall reveal it to the wise". How does that square with him printing it for "everyone", wise or not, in the Book of Thoth.
The mix-ups in the Book of Thoth look more and more like a deliberate attempt by Crowley to reveal something without saying so in a direct way. You have to work it out, not just be told it.
All these old letters of my Book are aright; but [Tzaddi] is not the Star. This also is secret: my prophet shall reveal it to the wise.
OK then, I'm going to put my "Centre of pestilence" hat on again. *Look away now if you don't want to know the results*
Tzaddi is
not the Star. You can interpret "not" in two ways that contradict each other. One way is the literal way, i.e. Tzaddi does not correspond to the Star. So Crowley linked it to the Emperor instead. (At this point everyone starts screaming and wetting themselves.
)
But anyone who has ever read Frater Achad's Liber 31 (which Crowley accepted as the key to The Book of the Law) will spot the connection between the word "not" and the goddess Nuit.
(See Achad's ideas about LA / AL - Not & God.)
In this case the verse from TBotL would read:
All these old letters of my Book are aright; but [Tzaddi] is Nuit the Star. This also is secret: my prophet shall reveal it to the wise
In this case both attributions are correct depending on how you interpret the verse. The Star is Heh and so is the Emperor, and the same applies to Tzaddi.
One attribution represents Osiris the other Isis. Isis + Osiris = Horus.
Both attributions are capable of yeilding meaningful results. This is exactly what Crowley was doing in his 1923 diary when he was using the dual attributions.
The double loop in the zodiac both exists and doesn't exist at the same time.
Does this make sense? Or does it sound like mental diarrhoea?
