fyreflye
"from what i understand Harris didn't like Abrahadabra, I guess she thought that it didn't make as much sense as Abracadabra. Crowley liked Abrahadabra because it worked out Qabalahistically. Does anyone know more about this?"
Footnote 1 to The Chariot in Crowley's Book of Thoth calls ABRAHADABRA "the word of the Aeon...the cypher of the Great Work... On this word alone a complete volume could, and should, be written."
Apparently he's referring to ABRAHADABRA's numerological correspondence to 418, the total of the numbers associated with the Hebrew letters Ched, Yod and Tau. In the text itself Crowley writes that "His [the Charioteer's] only function is to bear the Holy Grail... The central and most important feature of the card is its centre - the Holy Grail. It is of pure amethyst, of the colour of Jupiter, but its shape suggests the full moon and the Great Sea of Binah."
Pardon me for jumping in unintroduced, but apparently I'm the only one here with the actual text of Crowley's commentary on the cards. Much as I might respect Banjhof or DuQuette, I have to wonder why we should believe that they understand the meaning of Crowley's commentary better than we might if only we were to study it ourselves?
Footnote 1 to The Chariot in Crowley's Book of Thoth calls ABRAHADABRA "the word of the Aeon...the cypher of the Great Work... On this word alone a complete volume could, and should, be written."
Apparently he's referring to ABRAHADABRA's numerological correspondence to 418, the total of the numbers associated with the Hebrew letters Ched, Yod and Tau. In the text itself Crowley writes that "His [the Charioteer's] only function is to bear the Holy Grail... The central and most important feature of the card is its centre - the Holy Grail. It is of pure amethyst, of the colour of Jupiter, but its shape suggests the full moon and the Great Sea of Binah."
Pardon me for jumping in unintroduced, but apparently I'm the only one here with the actual text of Crowley's commentary on the cards. Much as I might respect Banjhof or DuQuette, I have to wonder why we should believe that they understand the meaning of Crowley's commentary better than we might if only we were to study it ourselves?