Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F05B7F6.FB44004E@luckymojo.com> From: catherine yronwode Reply-To: cat@luckymojo.com Organization: Lucky Mojo Curio Co. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.magick Subject: Re: The Winged-Disk and Hadit References: <10cff505.0307021601.2d4bd6e@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 55 Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:13:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.204.150.171 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1057338787 209.204.150.171 (Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:13:07 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:13:07 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:351004 jk wrote: > > "Fr:. Iblis Diavolo" wrote: > > http://members.cox.net/goldenlotus-oto/whoAndWhat.htm > > "The god, Hadit in the Boulaq translation was spelled "Hudit". " > > It is correct that the French translation uses "Hudit" (in the > translation it is actually written HOUDIT, to suggest its supposed > pronunciation). It is incorrect that this is merely a variation > of "Hadit". In fact, what is absolutely fundamental to understand > (if one is interested in the facts) is that both the French > translation AND Crowley's adaptation of it are WRONG with respect > to what is actually written on the stele. The French translator, > whoever he was,simply made a basic error. And Crowley copied that > error, after fiddling with it to make its gematria more appealing > to him. Aiwass thus was presented with a great opportunity to > correct Crowley's misunderstanding, something one would think > would be crucial IF the actual text on the stele had ANY relevance > whatsoever to the revelation of the New Aeon and its supposed > Law. > > But Aiwass failed that test. Or that is, Crowley failed it, thus > demonstrating there was no preternatural entity but only a > flawed human being who created Liber AL. > > THAT'S why, when a later translation revealed this > fundamental flaw both in the initial translation and Crowley's > use of it, the OTO began constructing the most ridiculous > stories to try to explain how it is Crowley and Aiwass could > have made such a basic error. But they have NEVER simply > admitted the truth: "Hadit" isn't on the stele, and there > never was any Egyptian god named "Hadit". It was purely > an invention by Aleister Crowley, based on his adaptation > of a bad translation of the stele's text. > > Liber AL is not about anything metaphysical, but merely > an all too human (and Egyptomaniacal) scam. Thank you for one of the most concise and logical presentations of opinion on this subject i have seen. I mean that sincerely. It still amazes me -- who first read to Crowley in my youth and then saw him "discovered" by my fellow hippies, who enjoyed Crowley's style but thought out things for themselves -- to see the latter day cult of Crowleyism flourish among those under 40 years old. It is as if these Crowleyites will ignorance upon themselves. They are to magical study as flying saucer nuts are to astronomy or those obsessed with the ups and downs of their local professional sports team are to athletic health and vigour. cat yronwode