Oh sure ... I will walk down another side alley with you (off another side alley, and off another side alley and off a road that you were lost on in the first place) ... lets see where it goes ... I mean its your thread ... but maybe you should split off the subject of this split subject which was a split in the first place - to a new thread?
Magick and tarot do require some focus and concentration, you do realise?
Or maybe just change the thread title - again.
First up - the relevance of this link ??? I would suggest, in this situation the following link my may be more illuminating to you;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YPcRoPFnZo
The opposing camps regarding this topic consist of scholars who have a political agenda and those who seem to be unprejudiced. Period.
I would say the opposing camps are scholars and those that have a prejudiced political outlook who are not academically qualified. The evidence is plain to see in the research and the info and links I posted … go to Wiki and read ‘Out of India’ theory yourself.
Suppose the sanskrit language has a predecessor and was not the original language of india, does that make sanskrit less sacred? Thelemites believe that hebrew is a sacred language, but hebrew is a branch of the semitic family of languages, and is also not original.
Where did anyone claim that Sanskrit is less sacred? Thelemites are not the only ones that think Hebrew is ‘sacred’. What makes you think a language has to be ‘original’ to be ‘sacred’ ?
You are doing it again; making up meanings you attribute to other people and then wanting to debate them when they originated in your own mind in the first place.
The first tarot deck known was for the purpose of game play, and consisted of 16 picture cards with images of the Greek gods and suits depicting four kinds of birds. So there was an evolution of the picture cards from play, to divination, to path working. Ofcourse I would not be able to think this out on my own. Crowley says (p.13 BoT):" One might take, by way of an analogy, the game of chess. Chess has developed from very simple beginnings. It was a mimic battle for tired warriors; but the subtleties of the modern game-which have now, thanks to Richard Reti, gone quite beyond calculation into the world of aesthetic creation-were latent in the original design. The originators of the game were "building better than they knew" It is of course possible to argue that these subtleties have arisen in the course of the development of the game; and indeed it is quite clear, historically, that the early players whose games are on record had no conscious conception of anything beyond a variety of rather crude and elementary stratagems. It is quite possible to argue that the game of chess is merely one of a number of games which has developed while other games died out, because of some accident. One can argue that it is merely by chance that modern chess was latent in the original game."
Are we on a different subject again already ?
Now I would like to pose the question whether Crowley regarded hebrew as being superior to sanskrit because of it's numerology.
Now back to this subject … or is the above supposed to demonstrate some process in the development of language ???
Where does Crowley indicate that Hebrew is superior to Sanskrit? I must have missed that. Please supply the reference. I have nothing to do with numerology, IMO it is a crappy New Age manifestation of Gematria, re-incarnated and bought up by hippy parents.
I assumed, in my ignorance, that Sanskrit has a numerative system associated with letters and words ???
Here is the dope on it - Gematria 101 ; Once upon a time Hebrew showed numbers with letters … you wanted to indicate 1 you didn’t have a 1 so you wrote an aleph. And so on … that’s it.
PS This post doesn't imply that you claim something else. It's just meant to satisfy my curiosity about two linguistic guiding lights.
I have no idea what this post is about actually, nor do I get your joke about two linguistic guiding lights.
If THAT is what this post is actually about how about rephrasing the question briefly and succinctly and then you might get a better answer ?
