"The direct descendant" of the Thoth?

[Abrac]

I have a PDF of 777 by Weiser that I got from Internet Archive. It's not there now, Weiser must have complained about copyright infringement.

But here's a crude picture of a tree from page xxvii as described by Barleywine. It seems to have some additional paths but not all 16, at least as far as I can tell. It looks hand drawn. I also attached the note from page 140.

Tree and Note

Publication Info

 

[ravenest]

...almost never amounts to getting there the best. I've heard it said numerous times that Eliphas Levi was the first to assign the 22 hebrew letters to the 22 manifest paths, and yet his alignment was overwhelmingly rejected by the Golden Dawn. The syncretic path demands routine overhaul as a matter of keeping pace with the worlds' store of knowledge itself. So while it is important that we sort out the originators of bold ideas insofar as this may be doable, it is not half so important as keeping pace with the greater body of related wisdom as a whole. We are getting very close to being able to accomplish things magickally that have only ever existed as a romantic wish-list in times gone by. To me, that is where the real excitement resides and skeptical syncretism is the path that takes us there.

The thing is, I dont see this as a bold idea at all . I still maintain that it is a fairly natural conclusion , for anyone with a smidge of curiosity or enquiry to look into the ToL, in their early stages, and observe some spheres are shown connected by lines and some are not and to wonder, ask or postulate why. I have see it come up in myself and students too much to discount that. And in our group, perhaps because we started some time back, before the 'computer age' and with some early editions of books, sometimes , with various editions of the same book, the potential of the these other paths being there was no big deal.

So, I think you are right in that it is really immaterial who first came up with the idea ... more like, whoever was first to get it down in 'popular' publication print. But that too is immaterial.

What is important, as you put it, is what one does with the information. I am all for updating and re-integrating the tradition with developments in current society.

'Keeping pace with the world's store of knowledge ' is an important principle for any group ... and for individuals - or ' adjusting the internal map ' - its one of the four principles of healthy psychology.

Its what you DO with the knowledge, and if it works, thats what counts. It looks like you guys realise that, from what I have read, and utilize your 'diamond' in your magical practices. But I dont think thats going to have much relevance to Tarot readers outside your group.

Sceptical syncretism -


PS . Did you mean to say levi was the first to assign the 22 letters to the 22 paths ... or did you mean he was the first to assign the 22 Trumps to the 22 paths and letters ?

 

[Barleywine]

I took a closer look at the "Magical Alphabet" section of 777 that precedes the diagram and found the following, which looks relevant to this discussion:

"We can attain all our objectives for practical purposes by confining ourselves to the traditionally accepted scale of 32 paths, of 10 numbers and 22 letters. The only extension necessary is the inclusion of the three Veils of the Negative, a matter of fundamental importance in the apodeictic structure of the Tree given in the structural diagram (See p. xxvii)."

It looks to me like Crowley, while indirectly acknowledging the presence of the additional material in the diagram, accorded it scant significance for his own purposes, basically "hand-waving" it away. As ravenest notes, the magical purpose of the group that developed the "Hidden Diamond Sutra" model seems to lie elsewhere. It would have been useful if the origin of the apparently hand-drawn diagram had been mentioned in the footnote; there is a cryptic notation in the lower right corner that might start with "AC," but the rest of it is beyond me.

 

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

Well there certainly is a lot of energy fizzing around your deck. However, I am curious though who is tetractys? is this the HIM that is going to be manifesting? how does this relate or descend from Crowley's Thoth?



I am wondering too why your target audience is young men in the USA? are women not so relevant for some reason?

Well yes sure - There is No God But Man. So that *him* is YOU. You are the King and you are the tetractys and you are the vessel through which Ra Hoor Khut will manifest. I told you that we have a very clear objective here, it amounts to nothing less than the raising of the Foundation of Man, something which did not start with Aleister Crowley and did not end with him. Is every Man and every Woman a star or not?

 

[Barleywine]

I guess I'll just slink back into the bushes and go on about my business. This is all a bit too rarified, exalted and overwrought for me, too much grandiose, drum-beating terminology done up in Capital Letters. Personally, I'd still rather "climb the Tree" than levitate up through it. I may still buy the deck, might even play with the models and concepts, but doubt I'll ever accept the assumptions. At this point I don't really need a new system of qabalistic thought. Signing off . . .

 

[mithros]

I guess I'll just slink back into the bushes and go on about my business. This is all a bit too rarified, exalted and overwrought for me, too much grandiose, drum-beating terminology done up in Capital Letters. Personally, I'd still rather "climb the Tree" than levitate up through it. I may still buy the deck, might even play with the models and concepts, but doubt I'll ever accept the assumptions. At this point I don't really need a new system of qabalistic thought. Signing off . . .

With literally thousands of decks to choose from both old and new perhaps this deck is not for you but Spiritual Alchemy is in a deplorable condition these days and this deck is addressing that condition much more than it is aspiring to "descend" from Thoth. I'm not even sure where that language got started but I think it was a reviewer's phrasing rather than my own. It's called the Mutational Alchemy deck for a reason. People who are familiar with Thoth may have an easier time sorting it out but that's as far as its "descendant" characteristics go.

 

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

What fascinates me about all of this, in the final analysis and given my penchant for treating the Tree of Life (primarily the Sepiroth, but that's not ironclad) as an "infinitely expandable filing cabinet," is the thought of pinning the disparate systems to the Tree and then playing with the multi-layered correspondences to see if I can make them mesh in a logical and useful way. I've been working with the tarot, geomancy and the I Ching for a very long time, but never tried linking and ordering their components in accordance with any external model not their own (except astrology, of course). This has great potential to produce a 3D model, which could expose all kinds of unexpected cross-connections that elude linear thinking. I'm a big fan of esoteric syncretism, so this will be fun (if you like moving mental "sticky notes" around on a theoretical white-board), and hopefully instructive! I strongly suspect it won't be do-able to my complete satisfaction, but it will be entertaining to try.

As far as another source book, I have many but not all of Crowley's major works and a number of his smaller ones; I skimmed through all of them very quickly today but didn't find anything more than what I mentioned above. My brother has a full set of Crowley's Equinox periodical (where some of Crowley's earlier work appeared first), reprinted in hardcover by Samuel Weiser back in the 1970s, and I'll take a stroll (more like a "wallow," I guess) through that the next time I see him.

I keep wanting to order a set of Zometools, that is the best system for working with precise 3D measurements such as the Tetractys or Tree of Life outside of 3D digital programs. I havn't used them yet but I havn't found a better solution yet.

One of our associates reconstructed this image in copper wire and used it to levitate a sphere in the center and in the chambers using sound waves, 19 hz.

http://mutationalalchemy.com/?attachment_id=932

Here is the demo video and the object itself is in our archives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yggkCsbBwXo

A very effective coil according to him - he goes through hundreds of different designs trying to solve anti grav and free energy. But a minor example of the diamond's true properties.

I only have a copy of GEMS from the Equinox put out by Falcon Press in 1982 (first 1974)

 

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

I guess I'll just slink back into the bushes and go on about my business. This is all a bit too rarified, exalted and overwrought for me, too much grandiose, drum-beating terminology done up in Capital Letters. Personally, I'd still rather "climb the Tree" than levitate up through it. I may still buy the deck, might even play with the models and concepts, but doubt I'll ever accept the assumptions. At this point I don't really need a new system of qabalistic thought. Signing off . . .

I think it's a terrible thing to accept assumptions. That goes against right thinking and ones own intellect. I would never expect that of anyone and in a similar vein I never expected to have a discussion on MA on Aeclectic. Yet here I am talking about it which just shows you exactly where my thoughts are all of the time. I came here because an owner of the deck wanted me to look at a MAT subform at Aeclectic. My answer to that was "Hell no but I'll go look and see what is going on"

People who get Mutational Alchemy often poke and prod me about being more publicized about it, about "making things happen" or convincing people of this or that. They have not learned that people do not understand this stuff if they do not outright fear it and when they DO understand it, they are in mortal danger or they have been desperately seeking for this particular key for years to add to their praxis, or they have no where else to turn. It is born out of necessity itself.

We are talking to the future of alchemy and no one needs to be converted or argued with in the here and now.

Either way the conversation has been very useful, so thanks for your help.

 

[novumorganum]

I have a PDF of 777 by Weiser that I got from Internet Archive. It's not there now, Weiser must have complained about copyright infringement.

But here's a crude picture of a tree from page xxvii as described by Barleywine. It seems to have some additional paths but not all 16, at least as far as I can tell. It looks hand drawn. I also attached the note from page 140.

Tree and Note

Publication Info

that's one of meral's diagrams, i'm almost positive.

 

[mithros]

that's one of meral's diagrams, i'm almost positive.

Yes, it is.