Publishing updates from the O.T.O.

Grigori said:

Of course there is another challenge: Now that 'Fill' has become 'Kill', we need to complete the double loop and find a K in the text that can be replaced with an F. Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

Dwtw

There are 220 'K' s in the Book of the Law. Should be fun finding a replacement

and isn't it interesting that the only letter that occurs 220 times - which of course is the number of verses and the number of the Book - is being added to? so now there are 221? That alone strikes an alarm bell to a qabalist of any persuasion.

And Ross is right on. If you know the background, he succinctly sums up the issue. And he also knows full well that the phrase in question is not even a paraphrase of anything actually occurring in the stele hieroglyphics. In fact, aside from the last four lines of the paraphrase, which are a ritual summing-up, every other phrase actually refers to something on the stele *except* the one phrase that they're changing. So there is conveniently no way to refer back to the stele or the translation of it for corroboration. I personally think the evidence is flimsy indeed, if not altogether lacking. This will have lots of implications, not all of them salutary.

And when you think about it, Ankh-af-na-khonsu is dead. It's his *burial stele*. Why would he need to be killed? Rather, he should be filled with the light so that he may come forth as an equipped one.

Litlluw
RLG

Dwtw

Although Grigori mentioned it in jest, just for fun I've checked all the K's in the Book. These are the only instances where a K can be replaced by an F and still make an English word. Almost none of them actually make sense in context (unless Because is a sea creature ;-) except for verse III:44, which coincidentally is the exact same replacement in reverse. Too bad the ms has a very definite K there …

I: 29. For I am divided for love's saFe, for the chance of union.
II: 28. Now a curse upon Because and his Fin!
II: 60. Therefore striFe hard & low, and to hell with them, master!
II: 78. Lift up thyself! for there is none liFe unto thee among men or among Gods!
III: 18. Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Fill and torture; spare not; be upon them!
III: 25. This burn: of this make caFes & eat unto me.
III: 42. … Swift as a trodden serpent turn and striFe!
III: 44. … Let her Fill her heart! Let her be loud and adulterous!…
III: 55. Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her saFe let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!
III: 56. Also for beauty's saFe and love's!

Litlluw
RLG

RLG said:

... Rather, he should be filled with the light so that he may come forth as an equipped one...

Click to expand...

Yes. Also in this context one could see this part of Resh as 'practice' for death; i.e. an 'imprint' on 'The Immortal Osiris' - again, for after death.

Besides; it just keels right that way. ....

But of course neither I nor H.B. can compell one to see it that way .... his seems more a question of publication and certain conditions that go with that 'inheretance'. OTO does advocate including a copy of the original manuscript of Al with further publication of it. Changes or interpretations are usually annoted with extensive information, background and research. No one speaks for Thelemites in general .... read it as you will.

There is no Pope in OTO (nor EGC, just Bishops), although H.B. being 'Patriarch (? I think) of EGC there may me liturgical implications there.

ravenest said:

It should be a Thelemic 'fill me'.

And (although by some, might seem to be offering a similar dynamic) not a 'dying god' kill me.

Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here for a moment...

There's reason to believe that Crowley attributed one the five elements (Spirit + FWAE) to each stanza that appears in AL III:37-38. This may be why Crowley omitted the first stanza when he told Jane Wolfe to use it as a supplement to her Resh practice. (Wolfe was either a Probationer or Neophyte at the time.) The first stanza/spirit plays a role in the Zelator 2=9 initiation and ties in with the symbolism of the crowning of the four by the Fifth (remember that A.'.A.'. 2=9, and ritual CXX, is roughly equivalent to GD 5=6) and, in the original scheme of things, was the point at which the initiate was first introduced to both Liber Legis and Ra-Hoor-Khuit as Hierophant.

The main point of the above is that the stanza containing fill/kill would be attributed to water (Briah). In one sense it could be said the the Light of the "Unity" of the previous stanza has descended and filled the Cup of the aspirant.

But...

If the word 'kill' is inserted then it could refer to the action of that same light on the ego-self. To kill here is not necessarily an Osirian ego resurrection trip, but the death of that "I/me" that ceates division. It makes me think of The Stag Beetle from the Book of Lies. Die daily.

THE STAG-BEETLE
Death implies change and individuality if thou be THAT which hath no person, which is beyond the changing, even beyond changelessness, what hast thou to do with death?

The bird of individuality is ecstasy; so also is its death.

In love the individuality is slain; who loves not love?

Love death therefore, and long eagerly for it.

Die Daily.

Click to expand...

This was on my Facebook feed this morning, Breeze's explanation for the kill/fill change/discrepancy

http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/

closrapexa said:

This was on my Facebook feed this morning, Breeze's explanation for the kill/fill change/discrepancy

http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/

Click to expand...

Really interesting. Thanks, closrapexa

What I still don't understand is if there is no central governing body to Thelema, how does mere copyright ownership confer the right to make such seemingly far-reaching theological changes? Say Breeze finds justification to change 'Will' to 'Chocolate' making it "Pure Chocolate unassuaged of purpose etc." would that make it "canon?" Isn't it similar to changing Jesus's name to Bubba?

closrapexa said:

What I still don't understand is if there is no central governing body to Thelema, how does mere copyright ownership confer the right to make such seemingly far-reaching theological changes? Say Breeze finds justification to change 'Will' to 'Chocolate' making it "Pure Chocolate unassuaged of purpose etc." would that make it "canon?" Isn't it similar to changing Jesus's name to Bubba?

Click to expand...

Well, I don’t even know if I understand the LEGALITY here but;

The 'no-central-governing body' of Thelema can’t confer copyright ownership changes because there isn’t one. The copyright (and right to edit and release new editions ?) lies with the OTO - is that right? The OTO does not represent any central governing body of Thelema but the governing body of a certain group of Thelemites. Which happens to have title/copyright to Thelemic publications.

I'll grant you it’s a lovely little maze and does not hold much fascination for me.

As far as 'canon' is concerned and where it comes from and its validity; it's that old issue at the heart of so much; a prophet's line, 'tradition', family, or an organisation somehow 'sanctioned' by him? (Or taken over?).

Once the prophet, teacher, master passes on ...it's on! The line of the prophet and the original teachings OR an organisation that is supposed to be able to interpret that into a social and time context as the teaching or philosophy or revelation creates a social effect and the environment starts changing culturaly from the one of the time of the prophet.

Crowley, clearly on a few occasions chose the OTO to be his 'ark' (especially in the context of the above paragraph), but he also threw enough stuff around to allow the succession claimed by a few (probably did it on purpose; let them fight it out and the best will win and the worst embarrassed )

AUUUUUMMMMMNNNNNN let it kill (the old) / fill (new) me .

Whatever ... at least all this fuss will stick to the words and the change ... or no change ... or change to what it was ... or MEANT to be ... it will stick so people themselves will know about it (if they look into it and practice the 'independent investigation of truth' - as the Bahai's call it - i.e. research and check it out yourself, don’t just accept the organisations word on it)

P.S I have no authority on the subject; please dont start saying 'let it kill the old fill new me' ... because before long the OTO will be accused of doing black magic to get rid of the pensioner down the street called Phil Newmy.

Sorry. Cross posted.

closrapexa said:

What I still don't understand is if there is no central governing body to Thelema, how does mere copyright ownership confer the right to make such seemingly far-reaching theological changes?

Click to expand...

As Crowley wrote in Liber CCC - Khabs Am Pekht:

But remember this clearly, that the Law cometh from the A.'.A.'., not from the O.T.O.

Click to expand...

The lineage of A.'.A.'. that Breeze is allied with is the only one that claims the true line of descent (despite having one of the weakest claims). And it is the only one that disputes the legitimacy of all other A.'.A.'. lineages.

Go figure....