Unicursal Hexagram

ravenest

isthmus nekoi said:
I'm not sure who adds them but yes, they're all the other possible connections b/w the sephira that are not illustrated by the standard 22 paths.

They are added by; ... whoever feels like it. I'm sure, at some stage, everyone begining studing Qabalah plays with changing (or 'improving') the Tree. If they become well known, or publish a book and put that in it then they becomes 'hidden paths'.
isthmus nekoi said:
Another possible meaning: "The hexagram is often associated with the seven ancient planets, but in the first form this fact may not be as evident as in this form.
The second form has a more natural flow, when dealing with the planets. The planetary assignments to the points of the hexagram is the same in both versions, but placing the sun in the center of the second form makes more sense than in the first form.

Yes. It does seem to make more sense attributing the Sun to a point in the centre at the intersection of lines as opposed to a ' hollow' figure with an unmarked point
isthmus nekoi said:
This form corresponds very well to the central parts of the Etz Chaiim; the sun placed in the center at the point of Tiferet, with the planets spread out according to the sefirot. Saturn is placed at the top in the position Daat. Jupiter is placed at the top right in the position of Hesed. Mars is placed at the top left in the position of Din. The lower left position of the hexagram is attributed to mercury, in the position of Hod. The lower right position is attributed to Venus; the position of Netzach in the Etz Chaiim. The lowest point of the hexagram is attributed to the moon; the position of Yesod in the Etz Chaiim."

Yes, this is the standard and most sensible attribution. It also gives insight into how to use the U.H. as a planetary invoking and banishing tool. There are two main aspects with this. One is the direction around which you trace the hexagram (not viable with U.H.) the other main rule is to draw away from the points energy you want to banish and towards the points energy you want to invoke. So if you wanted to invoke Venus you would draw towards Venus and away from the most appropriate point for your working. Or draw towards Venus from a deosil direction.
 

Aeon418

ravenest said:
Yes, this is the standard and most sensible attribution. It also gives insight into how to use the U.H. as a planetary invoking and banishing tool.
The standard and most sensible?!!! Is it really?

The notion that the U.H. could be used as a planetary hexagram does not originate with Crowley at all. Isreal Regardie came up with that novel idea in his book, Ceremonial Magic(1980), and that's where it all started. ;)

Crowley would have first come across the U.H. during his time as a 4=7 in the Golden Dawn in the paper "Polygrams and Polygons". That paper illustrates the solar-lunar-elemental hexangle which "symbolises the presidency of the Sun and the Moon over the four elements united in and proceeding from the Spirit".

This solar-lunar-elemental attribution seems more consistent with Crowley's own usage of the U.H. For example at one point in Liber V vel Reguli the magician is instructed to trace the invoking hexagram of the Beast. If a planetary attribution is applied to the U.H. you would be banishing Saturn. What that could possibly have in common with the Beast is a mystery to me. If, on the other hand, the top point is attributed to Sol it makes a lot of sense. ;)

Also, according to the editors of the current edition of BOOK 4, Crowley differentiated between several types of hexagram. When he published Magick in Theory and Practice Crowley had every opportunity to change the traditional planetary hexagrams in Liber O but he didn't. ;)
 

gregory

northsea said:
Did they ever release Thoth decks with the UH card in the green-box edition? I received one like that recently, and think the box maybe got switched.
Oddly enough this has come up in another thread. there is a green box one on ebay just now - 160055142142 - with a different ISBN from mine (which has a rainbow UCH) and it has a red and black one.... and a couple of other small differences... Which I have never seen in a USG deck before...(that's who did my green box edition.) I have several editions and am very confused !

I don't read with the Thoth - but if I did, I'd see the card as a really ADDED EMPHASIS one I think - like Lillie, sort of.
 

Lillie

As far as I can tell, whilst USG was publishing the old 'green' type Thoth in the white box, with borderless backs, and with the red and black hex; Weiser were publishing exactly the same deck in the green two of discs box.

Gregory, what differences have you noted?
Is this the OTO card, that you mentioned on the other thread?

As far as I know, this is how it is.
USG and Weiser both used to publish the borderless one with the red and black hex, Now they both publish the bordered one with the multi coloured hex.

In fact, somewhere on my USG deck's LWB it says something to the effect of it being published in association with Weiser.
So, it has always seemed that it was a joint thing.
 

gregory

On my way to bed; I have about 7 Thoths; no two are alike. I will post in the morning. It was the green box that threw me; I never saw one with those particular cards in. And if you run the ISBN through amazon it comes up with - bordered backs ! (they've posted it in the listing now)
 

Lillie

Which is a bitch.

They have changed the deck but not the ISBN!
Possibly because it relates to the LWB really?

But it makes it very confusing for anyone who cares about these differences!

The old Weisers (but not the Very old ones) were green box borderless backs, red/black hex.
I havn't got one because I hate those boxes.
I like the white OTO style box.
It looks proper.
 

gregory

Lillie - I may follow this up with you in private later, as it is all getting a bit ODD.....

I have one (borderless back) in a "proper" box - the first one that came out, by Jeannette's page - 2 blue box Mullers (one pocket, one large); one green box USG with bordered backs, and one greenie (borderless back) in a wooden box with no UCH or OTO or anything (- and a greenie in a damaged white fold-top box (Jeannette's C type, I believe - with one card missing. But I got it cheap just for the r/b UCH !)

I thought there was another, but....

What will tell you what you need to know ?
 

Julien

So, I read through this thread and decided, yep, I'd go ahead and put this card into the deck, and see if it shows up anywhere...

It didn't... As you all probably know, I'm just learning this deck, and so I've been doing one-card meditations, learning about them as they pop up in simple daily readings... Journaling, reading here at AT, reading the Book of Thoth (not any other, by the way -- tis a fascinating read though there are several layers to it and I know I have much to learn)... It didn't show up for several days. It's the way I learn a deck...

I took a deep breath this morning, and decided to try a larger card spread... What the heck... I'm connecting well with this deck... And I have this friendship that is absolutely driving me nuts, so let's throw Umbrae's relationship spread and see...

Pop... The Universal Hex is in the outcome position. I wasn't sure how I'd read the card when I put it back in the deck. But it says to me, "Don't know what will happen -- can't even speculate."

I don't know that it will say that every time, but it is saying that right now. ;)

Julien
 

Lillie

gregory said:
Lillie - I may follow this up with you in private later, as it is all getting a bit ODD.....

I have one (borderless back) in a "proper" box - the first one that came out, by Jeannette's page - 2 blue box Mullers (one pocket, one large); one green box USG with bordered backs, and one greenie (borderless back) in a wooden box with no UCH or OTO or anything (- and a greenie in a damaged white fold-top box (Jeannette's C type, I believe - with one card missing. But I got it cheap just for the r/b UCH !)

I thought there was another, but....

What will tell you what you need to know ?

Yeah, these pernickity thoth edition threads!

The borderless backs in the proper boxes (Weiser/Llewellyn)
They are something different. (and they have no ISBN numbers, or dates, or nothing really, but the cards and the box.)

The white box C type. They are the ones that had the red and black hex and which were by both Weiser and USG. Though as can be seen from the 'white box' part of the name, the USG ones are best known.
To be honest, I don't know anything about the relevant ISBN numbers.
But if they have changed the deck but not the ISBN I wouldn't be surprised.
I believe it has happened before, with other stuff.
Though I cannot say for sure.

Anyhow, all I am really saying is that I am not surprised to see one of the White box C decks in a green Weiser box.
I have seen it before, a number of times.

What I was wondering was something you said on the trading thread about differences in OTO cards. One having a red OTO logo, the other not.
Which one has and which one hasn't?
I think all mine do have the red, but I'd have to dig them out to be sure.
 

ravenest

Aeon418 said:
The standard and most sensible?!!! Is it really?

Yep! but in my little environment. I know others who think its plain wrong to Use the U.H. as a substitute to a regular hexagram
Aeon418 said:
The notion that the U.H. could be used as a planetary hexagram does not originate with Crowley at all. Isreal Regardie came up with that novel idea in his book, Ceremonial Magic(1980), and that's where it all started. ;)
Good old Israel!
Aeon418 said:
Crowley would have first come across the U.H. during his time as a 4=7 in the Golden Dawn in the paper "Polygrams and Polygons". That paper illustrates the solar-lunar-elemental hexangle which "symbolises the presidency of the Sun and the Moon over the four elements united in and proceeding from the Spirit".

This solar-lunar-elemental attribution seems more consistent with Crowley's own usage of the U.H. For example at one point in Liber V vel Reguli the magician is instructed to trace the invoking hexagram of the Beast. If a planetary attribution is applied to the U.H. you would be banishing Saturn. What that could possibly have in common with the Beast is a mystery to me. If, on the other hand, the top point is attributed to Sol it makes a lot of sense. ;)

yes, Reguli is a very different ritual from a planetary invocation/banishing. However I see no problem with giving the U.H. other functions as long as the symbols are not confused. Also the standard hexagram and rituals attributed to it can be used with invoking and banishing elemental energies.
Aeon418 said:
Also, according to the editors of the current edition of BOOK 4, Crowley differentiated between several types of hexagram. When he published Magick in Theory and Practice Crowley had every opportunity to change the traditional planetary hexagrams in Liber O but he didn't. ;)
No, he never did and traditionalists dont like to either. probably because the above distinctions can be easily blurred and misunderstood.

But in any case (focusing back on the thread topic), all of the above concepts, seem to reinforce the ideas expressed that the U.H. card can represent (being general and not pernickity) an indication that one can be like a magician and turn certain energies up or down instead of just being influenced by them.
- one can be a passenger or a driver.