|
|
You are absolutely, um, right, um, Evskig...though in the context of the Qabalistic Vibration of Names, um, which is, um, sort of, um, what we were talking about, um, the occult is kind of, um, more relevant to the discussion maybe, um, you think, than, um, the strict Modern Hebrew Webster's?
Um.
With regard to my analising over the AHIH / YHWH mistranslation, that seems somehow more pertinent to a discussion of Praying and That Which is Prayed To, to me, than whether Atah can be taken to mean, preceding 'Malkuth', either 'You, The Kingdom and Queendom, the Ancient Ruling Principle, The "I Can" of the Universe' or 'Unto You, The Kingdom and Queendom, the Ancient Ruling Principle, The "I Can" of the Universe'.
Although one is dedicated to a principle, while the other is addressing the principle directly, the principle itself is of more import than the manner of devotion, I suspect. Understanding the name by which the Divinity which spoke to Moses wishes to be known is, possibly, more relevant to this particular thread than understanding the Webster's non-occult definition of the Hebrew 'Atah' (informal and personal as it may be, what with AHIH being our good buddy, and all).
Since the traditional translation of 'I am that I am' is as erroneous as the notion of the name 'Jehovah' and based on nothing so much as sqeamishness about the actual translation and poor transliteration of Hebrew characters into Roman/Greek ones, and exists way outside of occult writings, again, I think it somehow bears more relevance to a discussion of Praying than whether a bunch of Thelemites decided to make their opening address sound both paradoxically more and at the same time less formal (By making it sound all Olde Englishe, for formality, while using an informal Hebrew address, intended to imply close companionship not deference to authority).
What do you, um, think? |
|
|