Aeclectic Tarot Forum

Aeclectic Tarot Forum (https://www.tarotforum.net/index.php)
-   Thoth Tarot (https://www.tarotforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=57)
-   -   Book of Thoth Study Group: Part 1 - Section 1 (https://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=58192)

Aeon418
23-04-2006 03:42
Book of Thoth Study Group: Part 1 - Section 1
 
Lets get this show started then.

There's one important line from the text that I want to post right at the start. Hopefully it will ward off axe grinding tradition mongers who disagree with Crowley's take on the tarot. ;)
[quote][b]Unimportant to the present purpose are tradition and authority.[/b][/quote]
Enough said!

The first part is pretty straight forward if you already have some idea of what Gematria, Notariqon, and the Yetziratic attributions are. If not it's a little bit confusing. It certainly was for me the first time I read the book all those years ago. But it's actually much simpler than it looks.

So who wants to start the ball rolling?

Ventrue
23-04-2006 04:46
Well, I started with going through and highlighting EVERYTHING I either didn't understand or didn't know how to say/spell/etc. Gematria was one of those of course. I read a piece of Gematria by A.C. and it served to confuse me more and make my head hurt, but I get the basic gist I think. So Gematria is taking the 22 hebrew letters and assigning numbers to them. Then if two words equal the same number then they are somehow 'linked' and if you study the words and their attributions you'll discover how they are linked. Do I basically have that right?

ThROA - The Gate......I'm lost on that, "...also of ThROA, The Gate, Now, by the Yetziratic attributions -- see table at end -- this word may be read The Universe -- the new-born Sun--Zero." Can someone break this down a little bit.

11 is the number of Magical Expansion, I can take that on faith, but what exactly is Magical Expansion?

Those 3 things are pretty much what I don't feel that I absolutely understand in the first 12 pages.

Ven

Alta
23-04-2006 05:49
Notariqon: I found: [i]Notariqon (Notarikon) is a Kabbalistic methodology, and involves looking for deeper meanings in words or phrases by expanding them into sentences, or reducing phrases to acronyms. A well known example of Notarikon is the word amen, a compaction of the phrase "Adonai Melekh Na'amon," "Lord, faithful King."[/i] So, in this context the phrase: [quote=BoT]One important interpretation of Tarot is that it is a Notariqon of the Hebrew Torah, the Law...[/quote] would mean???? That if the word Tarot was expanded using this code it would spell out the above phrase? Pretty impressive, if that is correct.

I have a longer list of things I don't quite understand in 1/1 than Ventrue.

I found the mini-history of start of the GD interesting. Is that the generally accepted version?

Aeon418
23-04-2006 06:22
[QUOTE=Ventrue]I read a piece of Gematria by A.C. and it served to confuse me more and make my head hurt, but I get the basic gist I think. So Gematria is taking the 22 hebrew letters and assigning numbers to them. Then if two words equal the same number then they are somehow 'linked' and if you study the words and their attributions you'll discover how they are linked. Do I basically have that right?[/quote]
Yeah, you're just about right. Except that the hebrew letters don't have numbers assigned to them. The hebrew letters [b]are[/b] numbers. That what makes gematria different from numerology.
[QUOTE=Ventrue]ThROA - The Gate......I'm lost on that, "...also of ThROA, The Gate, Now, by the Yetziratic attributions -- see table at end -- this word may be read The Universe -- the new-born Sun--Zero." Can someone break this down a little bit.[/quote]
At this point Crowley is using Notariqon on the word Tarot or TARO. In some cases Notariqon rearranges the letters in a word to create a new word, but because the letters are all the same in each new word, and hence their gematria value, there must be a link between them.

By suggesting a link between the Torah or TORA, Crowley is saying there is a link between the hebrew alphabet and the Tarot. (Anyone who disagrees with this please see post 1)
ThROA the Gate is a title of Malkuth, the lowest sephira of the qabalistic Tree of Life. Malkuth is essentially the sephira of physical existence. It's gematria, as Crowley points out, is 671. This is 61 x 11.

(61 = Ain = Nothing = 0) X (11 Magical expansion)

This is another way of writing Crowley's magical formula, 0=2. Everything emerging out of nothing by the manifestion of pairs of opposites - Male/Female etc. This whole cycle of active and passive energies emerging from nothing, and then returning to nothing is summed up in the wheel of the Tarot - ROTA.

Essentially what Crowley is trying to say with all this fancy word and number play is that the Tarot is a complete symbolic map of the forces of the universe and thus yourself, and not just a cheap fortune telling tool that can tell you whether so and so's boyfriend is going to dump them at the weekend. :D

I'm not sure how good an explantion that was. If you're still in the dark say so. :)

Aeon418
23-04-2006 06:35
[QUOTE=Marion]I have a longer list of things I don't quite understand in 1/1 than Ventrue.[/quote]
That's what this thread is for. :)
[QUOTE=Marion]I found the mini-history of start of the GD interesting. Is that the generally accepted version?[/QUOTE]
Yes and no. There's always been a lot of debate over the origins of the Golden Dawn. I think the general opinion these days is that the whole story about the cipher manuscripts and the communication with Fraulein Sprengel is fake. Even so it's par for the course with mystical societies. They always drum up a fake history to give themselves legitimacy. (The fake history of Wicca is a good comparison.) Of course this was to lead to the break up of the order in the long run.

Does this mean that the Golden Dawn magical system is a load of rubbish. Not at all. The system itself works as a method of spiritual training.

Aeon418
23-04-2006 07:07
[QUOTE=Ventrue]Now, by the Yetziratic attributions -- see table at end -- this word may be read The Universe -- the new-born Sun--Zero." Can someone break this down a little bit.[/quote]
Forgot to mention this. The Yetziratic attributions are the correspondences between the cards and the hebrew alphabet. Here Crowley is using the corresponding Tarot cards to throw light on the word ThROA.

Ventrue
23-04-2006 11:22
So, to sum up that little bit...

TORA(TORAh) = ROTA = TARO(TAROt)

While all these things aren't neccesarily the same, they are divinely inter-twined because they (obviously) must have the same Gematria. Therefore if you look at it enough, mediate, cuss about it etc, you will find that they are linked in some way to eachother. Is it a tenet of Gematria that the hebrew alphabet was designed around this? I guess that is a chicken or the egg question, but Crowley would say the egg came first right? So is gematria the chicken or the egg?

Thanks for clearing up the bit about The Gate, I haven't seen that particular title atributed or maybe I just didn't pay attention when I saw it.

Ven

Alta
23-04-2006 12:29
If I understand this correctly, he postulates that the entire Hebrew language is based on numerical values. I enjoyed his humorous aside about a council of learned rabbis in ancient times actualy codifying this deliberately.

I assume that the zodical attributions including the famous Star/tzaddi discussions are expanded later, as this is more or less just the introduction.

Abrac
23-04-2006 14:58
[QUOTE=Ventrue]11 is the number of Magical Expansion, I can take that on faith, but what exactly is Magical Expansion[/QUOTE]
By "magical expansion" I have no doubt Crowley is referring to sexual arrousal.

The "K" in Magick was put there by Crowley to distinguish his brand of magic, "the Science of the Magi" (i.e. sex magic), from its counterfeits. K=11.

-fof

Abrac
23-04-2006 15:33
"Among these papers, besides the attribution of the Tarot, were certain skeleton rituals, which purported to contain the secrets of initiation; the name (with an address in Germany) of a FraŘlein Sprengel was mentioned as the issuing authority. Dr. Westcott wrote to her; and, with her permission, the Order of the Golden Dawn was founded in 1886." - Book of Thoth

The letters, supposedly written by "Frl. Sprengel" to Dr. Wescott authorizing the Golden Dawn's formation, have since been shown to be poorly written forgeries.

-fof

Ventrue
23-04-2006 15:35
So as ThROA is Malkuth is Physical Existence is 61x11 is Sexual Arousal?

So an main/key aspect of physical existence is sexual arousal?

is that kinda how gematria works? ouch my head hurts....or am i just up too late and making unwarranted assumptions?

Ven

Aeon418
23-04-2006 21:07
[QUOTE=Ventrue]Is it a tenet of Gematria that the hebrew alphabet was designed around this? I guess that is a chicken or the egg question, but Crowley would say the egg came first right? So is gematria the chicken or the egg?[/QUOTE]
Well, that's the whole point. Nobody knows. It's a complete mystery.
Crowley does mention this on page 4 when he says it goes against common sense, the facts of history, and what we know about the formation of language.

Here's a simple example of gematria.

Father = AB = 3
Mother = AM = 41
Child = YLD = 44 (41 + 3)

Is that just a coincidence ? Or is it intentional? Who knows. But as Crowley points out, constructing a language on mathematical lines goes against common sense, history, and the rules of language formation.

EDIT: Looking at the corresponding Tarot cards can shed light on these words. This is also the case for most other hebrew words.

Aeon418
23-04-2006 21:35
[QUOTE=Marion]If I understand this correctly, he postulates that the entire Hebrew language is based on numerical values.[/quote]
Correct. It's a fact that the hebrew language is based on number because unlike us the hebrews didn't have a seperate alphabet and numerical system.
That's why I pointed out earlier that gematria is [b]not[/b] numerology.
[QUOTE=Marion]I assume that the zodical attributions including the famous Star/tzaddi discussions are expanded later, as this is more or less just the introduction.[/QUOTE]
Yes.(p.8,9,10) That's why he sets the stage with the history of the Golden Dawn.

Aeon418
23-04-2006 21:45
[QUOTE=fools_fool]By "magical expansion" I have no doubt Crowley is referring to sexual arrousal.[/QUOTE]
Sex is certainly implied as that is the uniting of opposites to create a third thing. But to say it only means sex would be a limitation.

For example, I pick up my copy of the Book of Thoth. I unite my mind to the words on the page. The result is knowledge. (or frustration :D)

rachelcat
24-04-2006 01:00
Hi all. Everyone is making good points. I'm learning alot already!

I have more questions. Big surprise.

I am not a big fan of gematria or numerology. I think you can make anything mean or relate to anything. Does DOG = GOD? Or does it only in Hebrew? Anyway, I'm still trying to follow along.

Thanks for the information on the the ThROA thing. I was totally off track, thinking C. was using ThROA to mean tarot. But if it means Gate and Malkuth, then Nothing x magical expansion makes sense--From nothing by magical expansion through the sephiroth to Malkuth, manifestation.

So is this just an example of how gematria works?

If we are busy calculating and figuring everything out by numbers, where is the proof for 0 = 2? (Thank you also for the explanation of what that actually means!)

(I am really looking forward to continuing this study. I even took notes. The proudest day of my life was when my son called me a total nerd, so now you know where I'm coming from . . .)

Aeon418
24-04-2006 01:25
[QUOTE=rachelcat]I am not a big fan of gematria or numerology. I think you can make anything mean or relate to anything. Does DOG = GOD? Or does it only in Hebrew? Anyway, I'm still trying to follow along.[/quote]
I'll say it again :D.... Gematria is not Numerology. Why? Because Hebrew letters are numbers. In western numerology we assign numbers to letters. But our alphabet has no connection with numbers, so any attribution is completely arbitary.
[QUOTE=rachelcat]Thanks for the information on the the ThROA thing. I was totally off track, thinking C. was using ThROA to mean tarot. But if it means Gate and Malkuth, then Nothing x magical expansion makes sense--From nothing by magical expansion through the sephiroth to Malkuth, manifestation.[/quote]
Crowley is trying to point out a link, or inner identity, between the two words. But saying there is a link isn't the same as saying they are the same.
[QUOTE=rachelcat]So is this just an example of how gematria works?[/quote]
It's one form of gematria. Basically hebrew words that have the same numeric value are linked in some way or another.
For example, in a previous post I mentioned the gematria of Father, Mother and Child. Child, YLD = 44, that is also the numeration of the hebrew for Blood, DM. Can you see how they are connected?
[QUOTE=rachelcat]If we are busy calculating and figuring everything out by numbers, where is the proof for 0 = 2?[/quote]
0=2 has nothing to do with gematria. It was merely Crowley's mathematical expression of the Universe - everything, out of nothing via pairs of opposites. Put all the opposites back together and you end up with nothing again. It gets rid of the idea that there has to an original "ONE" who created everything. ;)

Alta
24-04-2006 01:30
Your replies to rachelcat were clarifying for me as well. Sometimes it is hard to even pose the questions. :(

Aeon418
24-04-2006 01:36
[QUOTE=Marion]Your replies to rachelcat were clarifying for me as well. Sometimes it is hard to even pose the questions. :([/QUOTE]
I'm hoping that some of the other knowledgeable Thoth-ites out there are going to chime in as well.

Sometimes I'm terrible at explaining things. :D

rachelcat
24-04-2006 03:18
[QUOTE=Aeon418]Crowley is trying to point out a link, or inner identity, between the two words. But saying there is a link isn't the same as saying they are the same.[/QUOTE]

Duh. TARO, ROTA, TORA, and TROA. Got it! (I've never seen TROA in this context, only ATOR, interpreted as the goddess Hathor.)

[QUOTE=Aeon418]0=2 has nothing to do with gematria. It was merely Crowley's mathematical expression of the Universe - everything, out of nothing via pairs of opposites. Put all the opposites back together and you end up with nothing again. It gets rid of the idea that there has to an original "ONE" who created everything. ;)[/QUOTE]

Wow. I'll have to think about this for a while. Interesting way to express the Buddhist concept of emptiness. There is no ONE. There is just everything, which is empty of separate self-existance, so really there's just nothing. Emptiness is form; form is emptiness. There are so many different ways to tell the same truth!

Thanks, Aeon418! I feel like a ray of sunshine has hit the top of my head! (Kind of like a lightbulb, but more philosophical!!)

Ok, not to be a total smart-ass (or to jump too far ahead in the study thread), BUT it also looks like C. says 0 = 1 (that is, Fool = Aleph). Hmmm.

Abrac
24-04-2006 03:36
[QUOTE=Aeon418]Sex is certainly implied as that is the uniting of opposites to create a third thing. But to say it only means sex would be a limitation.[/QUOTE]

Granted, it is limiting. But isn't that the idea? We are discussing Crowley, are we not? "Magical expansion" does, of course, refer to the expansion of consiousness, but for Crowley, the way to do this was through sex magic.

One only has to consider that the OTO, the primary vehicle for the dissemination of "Crowleyism"(Thelema)throughout the world, is an organization entirely dedicated to the practice of sex magic.

-fof

Aeon418
24-04-2006 03:44
[QUOTE=rachelcat]Wow. I'll have to think about this for a while. Interesting way to express the Buddhist concept of emptiness. There is no ONE. There is just everything, which is empty of separate self-existance, so really there's just nothing. Emptiness is form; form is emptiness. There are so many different ways to tell the same truth![/quote]
It's also pretty cool when you start to relate these ideas to those expressed within the Book of the Law. Nuit = Not = Nothing. Hadit, the secret core of every Star is One with Nuit. ;)

[b]1:1 Had! The manifestation of Nuit.[/b]
[b]2:1 Nu! the hiding of Hadit.[/b]
[QUOTE=rachelcat]Ok, not to be a total smart-ass (or to jump too far ahead in the study thread), BUT it also looks like C. says 0 = 1 (that is, Fool = Aleph). Hmmm.[/QUOTE]
Remember that the Fool is an hermaphrodite, male and female in one. 0 is the Ain, the Not, Nothing, or Negative. The 1 is the first positive. In this one card are the first pairs of opposites. Non-existence and existence. Neither has any meaning without the other. 0=2 ;)

Aeon418
24-04-2006 04:01
[QUOTE=fools_fool]Granted, it is limiting. But isn't that the idea? We are discussing Crowley, are we not? "Magical expansion" does, of course, refer to the expansion of consiousness, but for Crowley, the way to do this was through sex magic.

One only has to consider that the OTO, the primary vehicle for the dissemination of "Crowleyism"(Thelema)throughout the world, is an organization entirely dedicated to the practice of sex magic.

-fof[/QUOTE]
This is starting to go off topic, but I'll answer it anyway.

Sex Magick is just another technique for raising energy. Other techniques that accomplish the same thing are Ceremonial Magick, Yoga, Tai Chi, etc.,etc.
The difference with Sex Magick is that it is a [b]very[/b] direct way to raise this energy. It doesn't matter whether you call this energy Prana, Chi, LVX, or whatever, it's all the same thing. But sex is the most effective and easiest way to build it up.

But, and here's the sting in the tail, most people on this planet couldn't use it even if they wanted to. Why ? Well most cultures at the present time are sex negative in their attitude. We are raised amid doctrines that tell us that sex is shameful, sinful, and dirty. Even if we don't consciously believe this it is still stuck in our minds to some degree. That subconscious sense of sin acts as a short circuit. The whole guilt complex has to be rooted out of the mind first.

Imagine a world where meditation was considered sinful and dirty. If you tried to use meditation for the raising of Prana with that sort of subconscious conditioning in your mind you would have the same problem.

And just to correct two points. Thelema is not Crowleyism.
And the OTO does not teach sex magick. It holds the secret, but you have to work it out for yourself. If you have a copy of DuQuette's Thoth book I suggest you read pages 76 - 78. ;)

AbstractConcept
24-04-2006 11:54
This thread is like re-watching mself exploring tarot and qabalah 18 months ago. It is a really good feeling knowing that everyone else seems to be experienceing the same hurdles that I did. And that they are understanding the concepts.

"0=2 has nothing to do with gematria. It was merely Crowley's mathematical expression of the Universe - everything, out of nothing via pairs of opposites. Put all the opposites back together and you end up with nothing again. It gets rid of the idea that there has to an original "ONE" who created everything."
Totally like what Eric Idle sings at the end of The Life Of Brian!

Everything came from One, but One came from Zero (nothing) and nothing isn't even a thing... THAT is something worthwhile meditating on.

Ventrue
26-04-2006 01:39
well, seems kinda stagnant, is it time to move on the section 2?

Ven

rachelcat
26-04-2006 11:50
No wait! No wait!
 
There's more to section 1! I have some notes and some questions (of course). Plus, we haven't even confronted the dreaded double loop in the zodiac!!

First the little history lesson. I think it's interesting that C. asserts that Levi knew the "correct" (0 = aleph) Hebrew letter attributions but was concealing them. Basically, that way he can claim Levi as an ancestor but disagree with his conclusions.

Is it true that C. is claiming 0 = aleph was first revealed in the cipher manuscript?

Where did the GD astrological attributions come from? Mathers?

G : D means Golden Dawn.
What does R.R. et A.C. mean?
What does A : A mean?

With all this talk of Secret Chiefs, did GDers have contact with Blavatsky and Olcott?

While C. says Mathers was a fraud who claimed but didn't actually contact the secret chiefs, he says he himself actually DID. But then he also says even if all of it is lies, the attributions are inherently true.

Now the double loop.

The best explanation for all this is in DuQuette's book. This is what I came up with:

The two loops are not the same. With the 8-11 loop, C. keeps the traditional numbers for Strength and Justice (Lust and Adjustment) and switches the letter and signs to accomodate a Leo lion (beast) for Lust and Libra scales for Adjustment. The letters stay with their signs--teth for Leo and lamed for Libra.

With the 4 - 17 look, C. keeps traditional numbers for Emperor and Star and switches the letters but not the signs. Emperor remains Aries but switches to tzaddi. Star remains Aquarius but switches to he.

So it's not all that "self-evident." . . .

Who first came up with the signs attributed in order to the 12 "single" letters of the Hebrew alphabet? It's in Papus's The Qabalah. Is it in Sepher Yetzirah?

Ok, last question. What does the the Universal Hexagram mean? I have read other threads about it, but I can't seem to pick up the meaning . . .

I hope I haven't bored you too much. And I hope I haven't stirred up a historic bruhaha. All speculation welcome!

Ventrue
26-04-2006 12:33
A:A: stands for Argenteum Astrum I believe, which is supposedly the interior organization of the OTO, although has no formal connection to it so that is just me making assumptions...heres a wikipedia thread [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argenteum_Astrum[/url]

As I understand it the Secret Chiefs aren't a group of fat guys, they are the Immortals.

[url]http://www.angelfire.com/in4/alchemy2084/secret_chiefs.html[/url]

another link i found with quotes from "Confessions of A.C." "The Book of the Law", and "Book of Thoth" I'm not sure if what it talks about is legitimate or just assumptions but its interesting.


Ven

Grigori
26-04-2006 12:41
[QUOTE=Ventrue]A:A: stands for Argenteum Astrum I believe, which is supposedly the interior organization of the OTO, although has no formal connection to it so that is just me making assumptions...heres a wikipedia thread [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argenteum_Astrum[/url] [/QUOTE]

A:A: doesn't mean Argentum Astrum apparently, but its often assumed that is the case. Duquette and Booth both tell us they know it is not, but neither tells us what it actually is,.... Either they don't know that, or they don't want to share :D *mutters something incoherrant but decidedly filthy*

AbstractConcept
26-04-2006 14:32
R.R et A.C = RosŠ RubeŠ et AureŠ Crucis (Ruby Rose & Golden Cross).

Abrac
26-04-2006 16:48
[QUOTE=rachelcat] With all this talk of Secret Chiefs, did GDers have contact with Blavatsky and Olcott?[/QUOTE]
I haven't read anything that would indicate the GD was in personal contact with Blavatsky, but the concept of Secret Chiefs, or Hidden Masters is ancient; its origin is usually attributed to India. From what I've read (The Great Beast-The Life and Magick of Aleister Crowley; John Symonds; Mayflower Books; 1973), Blavatsky wasn't very impressed by western "lodge-type" occultists.

-fof

Aeon418
26-04-2006 20:14
[QUOTE=rachelcat]I think it's interesting that C. asserts that Levi knew the "correct" (0 = aleph) Hebrew letter attributions but was concealing them. Basically, that way he can claim Levi as an ancestor but disagree with his conclusions.
Is it true that C. is claiming 0 = aleph was first revealed in the cipher manuscript?[/QUOTE]
In Levi's, "[B]Dogme et Ritual de la Haute Magie[/B], (translated and published in English by A.E.Waite under the title [I]Transcendental Magic[/I]) the 22 chapters of the first part are each attributed to a Hebrew letter. Strangely the contents of the chapters doesn't correspond with the Hebrew letters given by Levi, except the last chapter. ;)

Within the Golden Dawn it was widely accepted that Levi had written the "Dogme" under an oath of secrecy. Therefore he had introduced "blinds" into the text to mislead the uninitiated.

The Golden Dawn Cipher Manuscripts:[URL]http://www.hermetic.com/gdlibrary/cipher/[/URL]

Threre's a section in the Cicero's "Essential Golden Dawn" that talks about the origin of the Cipher Manuscripts. If anyone is interested I'll quote it.
[QUOTE=rachelcat]Where did the GD astrological attributions come from? Mathers?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure. It was probably Mathers, but it could have been Westcott. Both had the knowledge which they probably picked up in their researches at the British Museum. (Access to old and rare manuscripts must have been easier in those days.)
[QUOTE=rachelcat]What does A : A mean?[/QUOTE]
Erm..... Alcoholics Anonymous ? :D
Just kidding. Supposedly it means Argentum Astrum. But Crowley never said so in any of his writings. He only refers to the Third Order as the Silver Star or S.S. But Crowley never once said that A.'.A.'. means Argentum Astrum. So who knows?
[QUOTE=rachelcat]With all this talk of Secret Chiefs, did GDers have contact with Blavatsky and Olcott?[/QUOTE]
I don't think there was ever any direct contact with Blavatsky. But I'm pretty sure that some of the founding members of the Golden Dawn were involved in the Theosophical movement. Both Mathers and Westcott I think? I seem to remember that there was some animosity between the TS and the GD because the GD was poaching their members.
[QUOTE=rachelcat]Who first came up with the signs attributed in order to the 12 "single" letters of the Hebrew alphabet? It's in Papus's The Qabalah. Is it in Sepher Yetzirah?[/QUOTE]
I think the attribution first appears in the Sepher Yetzirah. But here's more controversy for the pot:
[quote]...Qabalistic teachings have stated for centuries that the attributions of Tzaddi have been wrongly understood. This idea did not originate in 1904 E.V. One is reminded especially of the charming allegory in the Sepher ha-Zohar, attributed to Rabbi Chananya, explaining why Aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, yet "God" (that is, Elohim) commenced creation with the letter Beth (the first letter of Berashith, the first word of the Hebrew original of The Book of Genesis). This story can be read in many translations and reproductions; but its gist is that each of the letters (beginning with Tav) processed by God's throne one-by-one, each asking to be the letter wherewith Creation was commenced. Each argued its case; but the Lord had a good reason to skip past each of them, until Beth eventually won the honor by being the initial letter of berakha, "blessing." Since shy little Aleph hadn't yet gotten a chance to be heard, it was awarded a special place in the scheme of things; but that would digress us further from the main point of the present digression, which is this: The letter Tzaddi sought to be that force whereby the world was created because it is the initial of Tzedekim, "the righteous," and because it is written, "The righteous Lord loveth righteousness." In rejecting Tzaddi for this particular honor, God is quoted as saying:

[B]Tzaddi, Tzaddi, thou art truly righteous, but thou must keep thyself concealed, and thy occult meaning must not be made known or become revealed, and therefore thou must not be used in the creation of the world.[/b]

The true "occult [that is, hidden] meaning" of this letter was not then to be disclosed! Even at such an early date, it was thus recorded in the primary foundation literature of the Qabalah that the true significance of Tzaddi was not what it was suspected to be.

James A. Eshelman[/quote]
[QUOTE=rachelcat]Ok, last question. What does the the Universal Hexagram mean? I have read other threads about it, but I can't seem to pick up the meaning . . .[/QUOTE]
Crowley never gave an exact definition but it probably relates to the union of the Microcosm (the rose) with the Macrocosm (the Hex)

Aeon418
27-04-2006 00:38
[B]The Cipher Manuscript[/B] ~ The Essential Golden Dawn by Chic & Sandra Tabatha Cicero.
[QUOTE][I]No history of the Golden Dawn can be given without some reference to the Cipher Manuscript - the enigmatic document upon which the rituals and knowledge lectures of the Golden Dawn are based. According to Westcott, in 1887 the Reverend A. F. A. Woodford gave him some sixty pages of a manuscript written in cipher. Woodford was an elderly Mason who, it was claimed, received the manuscript from "a dealer in curios." The manuscript, which seemed to be old, was quickly deciphered by Westcott using the cipher found in Abbot Johann Trithemius' book [B]Polygraphiae[/B]. It proved to be a series of ritual outlines of an occult Order. Westcott asked Mathers and Woodman to join him as Chiefs of his new Order.

There continue to be many questions about where the Cipher Manuscript came from. Some people tend to think that Westcott created them. Others think that they were written by Lord Edward Bulwer-Lytton, the author of an occult novel called [B]Zanoni, A Strange Story[/B], or by Frederick Hockley, the famous Rosicrucian "seer" and transcriber of occult manuscripts. There have been several other theories put forth as possible sources of the Cipher Manuscript, including a Jewish Masonic Lodge in Frankfort called Loge zur aufgehenden Morgenrothe, "the Lodge of Dawning Light" or the "Lodge of Approaching Morning Light" (with an offshoot Lodge supposedly founded in London), and a "Qabalistic College" in London headed by an influential Qabalist by the name of Johann Friedrich Falk. Both these groups have been suspected by some to have been tied to the enigmatic second Hermanoubis Temple of the Golden Dawn. However, there is no evidence to support any of these theories. In fact, the Frankfort Morgenrothe Lodge, which many modern occultists believe to have closed in 1850, is still in existence.

The real truth about the Cipher Manuscript is probably as follows: It now seems certain that the Cipher Manuscript was written by Kenneth Mackenzie, the author of [B]The Royal Masonic Encyclopedia[/B] and a leading member of the S.R.I.A. Mackenzie had known Eliphas Levi and was a friend of Frederick Holland, another high-grade Mason. Leading Golden Dawn historian R.A.Gilbert suspects that the real Hermanoubis Temple was a Golden Dawn prototype founded in 1883 by Holland. This group was known as the "Society of Eight". Mackenzie wrote the ritual outlines of the Cipher Manuscript for Holland's order, a group that never fully manifested, or perhaps for the Sat B'hai, an Order that admitted both men and women. Westcott acquired the papers after Mackenzie's death.

With such a strong Masonic background, Westcott was familiar with the notion of organization through hierarchy. Masonic lodges could not exist without a legitimate charter from the Grand Lodge. Thus Westcott must have felt the need to provide evidence that the Golden Dawn was not something merely created out of thin air - that it had a written history to back it up. He needed a "pedigree" of a sort to prove that the G.D. had legitimate hierarchical succession from some distant authority. Since no such hierarchical authority existed for the Golden Dawn, Westcott fabricated one. Why did he do this? It was probably the only way he could attract Freemasons, Rosicrucian's, and other serious occultists to his new Order.

An additional paper, written in cipher, was inserted into the manuscript by someone - more than likely Westcott himself. This was a letter containing the credentials and address of a woman in Germany named Fraulein Sprengel (later called Anna Sprengel) who went by the magical motto of Soror Sapiens Dominabitur Astris, meaning "the wise person shall be ruled by the stars." According to Westcott, he wrote to Fraulein Sprengel and was informed that she was an Adept of an occult Order - Die Goldene Dammerung or the Golden Dawn. Through a series of letters she supposedly authorized Westcott to establish a new temple in England and gave Westcott permission to sign her name on any document that was needed. In the spring of 1888, Westcott produced a Charter of Warrant for the Isis-Urania Temple No.3 of the Order of the Golden Dawn in London.

While the Cipher Manuscript is genuine, it is certain that Westcott made up the story about Fraulein Sprengel and her letters. R.A.Gilbert has pointed out that Sapiens Dominabitur Astris was the magical motto of none other than Anna Kingsford, the founder of the Hermetic Society, who was probably the unsuspecting model for Westcott's fictitious Fraulein. Kingsford died in 1888. By making Fraulein Sprengel a high-ranking official in an obscure German Order, Westcott made her authoritative, credible, and unreachable. And once the mythical Soror S.D.A. had served her purpose, she conveniently died.[/I][/QUOTE]

rachelcat
27-04-2006 01:03
[QUOTE=Aeon418]In Levi's, "[B]Dogme et Ritual de la Haute Magie[/B], (translated and published in English by A.E.Waite under the title [I]Transcendental Magic[/I]) the 22 chapters of the first part are each attributed to a Hebrew letter. Strangely the contents of the chapters doesn't correspond with the Hebrew letters given by Levi, except the last chapter. ;)

Within the Golden Dawn it was widely accepted that Levi had written the "Dogme" under an oath of secrecy. Therefore he had introduced "blinds" into the text to mislead the uninitiated.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, very interesting. So there is something to the concealment idea. I will have to take a look at the translation.

And thanks, Aeon418, for the Tzaddi quote. Lots to think about.

And the Cicero quote. It fills out the historic questions nicely!

Thanks everyone for your replies. What a wonderful learning opportunity!

Aeon418
27-04-2006 01:54
[QUOTE=rachelcat]Hmmm, very interesting. So there is something to the concealment idea. I will have to take a look at the translation.[/QUOTE]

Here's part 1: [url]http://www.hermetic.com/browe-archive/pdf/DogmaEtRituel%20Part%201.pdf[/url]

Check out the headings, the hebrew letters and the Roman letters that Levi assigns to each chapter. It's bizzare stuff!

rachelcat
27-04-2006 03:50
Cool. Thanks for the link. I just downloaded it and will print it out when my work printer is less busy. Then--Into the bizzare stuff! The bizzarer the better!

Aeon418
27-04-2006 04:42
[QUOTE=rachelcat]Cool. Thanks for the link. I just downloaded it and will print it out when my work printer is less busy. Then--Into the bizzare stuff! The bizzarer the better![/QUOTE]
That's what I like hear. Using works printers to print off books. :D LOL
It's a pity that the link for part 2 didn't work because that part contains Levi's commentary on the Book of Hermes, i.e. Tarot. And it's a pity that the footnotes by A.E.Waite haven't been included. Like this juicy one from the first chapter:
[QUOTE][I]1 There are twenty-two Trumps Major in the sequence of Tarot cards, on which account Eliphas Levi divides his Doctrine and Ritual into twenty-two chapters each. His account of the so-called Book of Hermes at the end of the work is a justification of this arrangement or a commentary thereupon. That which emerges, however, is its utter confusion. The Tarot Juggler or Magus does nor correspond to the Candidate for initiation; there is no reason why the Empress should answer to the triad or the Emperor to the quaternary; man between Vice and Virtue has no true relation with the number six, nor does the Chariot of the Tarot offer any connection with the septenary. A similar criticism obtains in other cases, notwithstanding the happy accidents by which Death is attached to the number thirteen and fifteen to the Devil. The inscriptions placed by Levi at the head of the chapters into which he divides his Doctrine give rise to other difficulties. According to his scheme the Tarot Trumps are referable to the Hebrew letters and the chapters correspond to both. A Hebrew letter appears therefore at the head of each, which is a clear issue at its value; but a connection is established also with the Roman alphabet, the result of which are stultifying, as if the letter I were equivalent to the Hebrew TETH, K to JOD, L to KAPH, R to PE, T to QUOPH, etc. It is also implied fantastically that the Roman alphabet is related to Tarot cards, but whereas the Hebrew MEM answers to the card of Death the Roman M is referred to the Hanged Man, RESH to the Judgement card but R to the Blazing Star, etc. Sephirotic allocations constitute a further medley, while Latin words included among the inscriptions are complete puzzles, e.g. the attribution of ECCE to GEBURAH and the number five.[/I][/QUOTE]

Ross G Caldwell
27-04-2006 17:36
Sorry for entering so late into the discussion. There's so much in part I still to discuss - is there a hurry to get to some specified part as quickly as possible?

[QUOTE=Aeon418]That's what I like hear. Using works printers to print off books. :D LOL
It's a pity that the link for part 2 didn't work because that part contains Levi's commentary on the Book of Hermes, i.e. Tarot. And it's a pity that the footnotes by A.E.Waite haven't been included. Like this juicy one from the first chapter:[QUOTE]1 There are twenty-two Trumps Major in the sequence of Tarot cards, on which account Eliphas Levi divides his Doctrine and Ritual into twenty-two chapters each. His account of the so-called Book of Hermes at the end of the work is a justification of this arrangement or a commentary thereupon. That which emerges, however, is its utter confusion. The Tarot Juggler or Magus does nor correspond to the Candidate for initiation; there is no reason why the Empress should answer to the triad or the Emperor to the quaternary; man between Vice and Virtue has no true relation with the number six, nor does the Chariot of the Tarot offer any connection with the septenary. A similar criticism obtains in other cases, notwithstanding the happy accidents by which Death is attached to the number thirteen and fifteen to the Devil. The inscriptions placed by Levi at the head of the chapters into which he divides his Doctrine give rise to other difficulties. According to his scheme the Tarot Trumps are referable to the Hebrew letters and the chapters correspond to both. A Hebrew letter appears therefore at the head of each, which is a clear issue at its value; but a connection is established also with the Roman alphabet, the result of which are stultifying, as if the letter I were equivalent to the Hebrew TETH, K to JOD, L to KAPH, R to PE, T to QUOPH, etc. It is also implied fantastically that the Roman alphabet is related to Tarot cards, but whereas the Hebrew MEM answers to the card of Death the Roman M is referred to the Hanged Man, RESH to the Judgement card but R to the Blazing Star, etc. Sephirotic allocations constitute a further medley, while Latin words included among the inscriptions are complete puzzles, e.g. the attribution of ECCE to GEBURAH and the number five.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Thanks very much for the link to Waite's translation of Levi, Aeon.

It is clear he has Magus=Aleph, but he is uncertain about the last two (see page 48 for his tabulation, where he finds the last two interchangeable). Except for this ambiguity, this agrees with the general Continental Hebrew-letter attributions.

I'm sorry to see this quote from Waite; his criticisms are unjust, if not deliberate misunderstandings. Comments such as "The Juggler or Magus does not correspond to the Candidate for initiation", and "There is no reason why the Empress should answer to the triad or the Emperor to the quaternary" are sheer dogmatic assertions. Levi's corresponding the individual on the card numbered "I" to a candidate for initiation seems perfectly plausible and suitable to me, while giving the card numbered "III" to the triad and one numbered "IIII" (or "IV") to the quaternary are equally so. What Waite believed might have been different, but Levi is in no case irrational.

The assignation of the Roman letters is equally understandable; Levi is not corresponding the Roman alphabet to the Hebrew; he is corresponding each in its own fashion to the XXII trumps, simply following the order of each alphabet in its own right. There is no necessary reason for the phonetic correspondences between the alphabets to match - i.e. Mem does not have to be M, since Mem is the 13th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, but only the 12th of the Roman. The numbers on the cards and the order of the letters of the alphabet independently of one another seems to be Levi's concern - not corresponding Roman to Hebrew.

(Levi's only problem lay in the fact that the Latin alphabet is generally considered to have 23 letters; he had to choose whether to arbitrarily leave out K, Y or Z, and choose Y. Personally I think it is an unfortunate choice, since Y has a rich symbolism, and would have worked as the Fool).

As for the Latin captions ("Ecce for Geburah"), I don't know what to make of them; they seem to be keywords or phrases that meant a lot to Levi, and for him summed up the meaning of the sefira. "Ecce" means "Behold!", and to most people immediately summons up the Biblical phrase "Ecce Homo" - Behold the Man! - that Pilate says to the crowd clamoring for Jesus' death. "E" is also the fifth letter of the alphabet, so makes a good start for a keyword for this sefira.

In any case, I think Levi is clear when taken on his own terms. Waite (like Crowley and all believing GD members) was beholden to the "true doctrine" as taught by the GD, part of which was that Levi was a true initiate but had oaths of secrecy to observe. Since Levi was a true initiate, and the GD teaching was the authentic teaching, the only solution to the connundrum was that Levi's oaths of secrecy made him give the wrong attributions.

Ross

Ross G Caldwell
27-04-2006 18:19
[QUOTE=rachelcat]
Ok, last question. What does the the Universal Hexagram mean? I have read other threads about it, but I can't seem to pick up the meaning . . .
[/QUOTE]

Aeon is undoubtedly right that it represents the union of Microcosm with Macrocosm. The Unicursal Hexagram represents this better because it IS "unicursal", meaning it is drawn with one continous line. Thus there is no separation between the Microcosm and the Macrocosm - the Unicursal Hexagram represents the Great Work Accomplished.

This is in contrast to the "old" common hexagram, which has two triangles (the Star of David). You have to draw each triangle separately, so there is *disunion* - the Great Work is not yet accomplished, so this old hexagram represents aspiration more than accomplisment (i.e. the triangle pointing upward represents the will to attain, while the downward pointing one represents the "grace" of the Universe descending to meet the Magus half-way. It is the union of opposites, Hadit and Nuit in Thelemic theogony, the infinitely small meeting the infinitely great; it is also easy to see the symbol for Male (upward pointing) and Female (downward pointing); their union is thus implied in this symbol).

The only difficulty with Crowley's formulation of the Unicursal Hexagram appears to be his insistence on the lines being "Euclidean".

(warning - abstract digression)

Euclidean refers to Euclid's work on the elements of geometry - this forms the basis for Crowley's later excursion on the Naples Arrangement. Euclid starts with a "point" in space; this point has only ONE dimension - position, not magnitude (it has no "size", only "place"). When a second point is introduced, then a relation can be said to exist between two points in (as yet undefined) space - this relation is the "line" (the line between the two points). Since nothing yet has any magnitude or size (you need at least another point for that), the line between the first two points cannot be said to have any breadth.

Once you introduce a third point, so long as it is not in perfect alignment with the other two, you can make a "plane" - the smallest possible geometric surface being a triangle (a sphere is geometrically an infinite surface, since it can be said to have an infinite number of points on it). Now you can speak of "breadth" or width, since you can say that "point A is farther from point B than B is from C". When there are only two points, you can only say that they are "distant" from one another.

So, why does Crowley insist that the Unicursal Hexagram's lines have to be Euclidean - that they must have "no breadth"? In the book they clearly have breadth, and you can draw it quite easily, and the lines have breadth.

I have no good answer for this question, except to think that since the lines have no breadth (in the ideal hexagram), they can be considered perfectly co-incident, and hence identical. In this way, the point of "union", in the middle, where the rose is, can be said to be EQUALLY belonging to both triangles - the accomplishment of the Great Work. This point doesn't exist on the old hexagram, since the triangles remain separate, although superimposed.

The Unicursal Hexagram is another way of expressing the idea of the "M÷bius Strip".

Anybody have any better thoughts on the Euclidean lines idea?

Ross

Aeon418
27-04-2006 19:16
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]Sorry for entering so late into the discussion. There's so much in part I still to discuss - is there a hurry to get to some specified part as quickly as possible?[/QUOTE]
No, there's no hurry. But even if the next part starts anytime soon this thread will still be open.
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]Thanks very much for the link to Waite's translation of Levi, Aeon.[/QUOTE]
It's only half of the book. The link for part 2 didn't work. :(
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]It is clear he has Magus=Aleph, but he is uncertain about the last two (see page 48 for his tabulation, where he finds the last two interchangeable). Except for this ambiguity, this agrees with the general Continental Hebrew-letter attributions.[/quote]
Yes. Again the second part containing Levi's commentary on the Book of Hermes is very clear on this. Fool = Shin etc.
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]As for the Latin captions ("Ecce for Geburah"), I don't know what to make of them; they seem to be keywords or phrases that meant a lot to Levi, and for him summed up the meaning of the sefira.[/QUOTE]
The Latin captions puzzle me as well. Some of them make sense. Others seem quite obscure.
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]In any case, I think Levi is clear when taken on his own terms. Waite (like Crowley and all believing GD members) was beholden to the "true doctrine" as taught by the GD, part of which was that Levi was a true initiate but had oaths of secrecy to observe. Since Levi was a true initiate, and the GD teaching was the authentic teaching, the only solution to the connundrum was that Levi's oaths of secrecy made him give the wrong attributions.[/QUOTE]
That's a good point Ross. :)
One interesting point to note is that the original author of the Cipher Manuscript, Kenneth Mackenzie, travelled to France to speak with Levi. They did discuss the Tarot correspondences, but we only have MacKenzie's account of this meeting. Both men were members of the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia . But of course that proves nothing either.

Aeon418
27-04-2006 19:46
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]Aeon is undoubtedly right that it represents the union of Microcosm with Macrocosm. The Unicursal Hexagram represents this better because it IS "unicursal", meaning it is drawn with one continous line. Thus there is no separation between the Microcosm and the Macrocosm - the Unicursal Hexagram represents the Great Work Accomplished.[/quote]
Possibly and maybe. :D When Crowley published [b]Magick in Theory and Practice[/b] he had every opportunity to change the conventional hexagrams to unicursal hexagrams, but he didn't. Why? Maybe he still had a few objections to the symbol. His letters to Frater Achad indicate that he was hostile towards the Uni-Hex at one time but later changed his mind.
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]It is the union of opposites, Hadit and Nuit in Thelemic theogony, the infinitely small meeting the infinitely great; it is also easy to see the symbol for Male (upward pointing) and Female (downward pointing); their union is thus implied in this symbol).[/quote]
Maybe the rose at the centre represents Ra-Hoor-Khuit? In one sense Nuit = Possibilty. Hadit = Individual Point of View. Ra Hoor Khuit = the unification of both in an act of Love under Will to produce experience. That's only one interpretation of these sysmbols though.
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]The only difficulty with Crowley's formulation of the Unicursal Hexagram appears to be his insistence on the lines being "Euclidean".

Anybody have any better thoughts on the Euclidean lines idea?[/QUOTE]
Somewhere, I can't remember now, Crowley says that every line of a Unicursal Hexagram should be of equal length. Looking at the Hex in the Book of Thoth, is it a three dimensional shape viewed from a two dimensional perspective?

Netzach
27-04-2006 22:04
I'm only just catching up with this - it's fascinating!

Just two things, I'd like to add. Firstly regarding a link between the Golden Dawn & Madame Blavatsky. The first English Buddhist monk, Ananda Metteya, (Allan Bennett) had been a member of the Golden Dawn. He helped to found the Buddhist Lodge of the Theosophical Society and so must have known Madame Blavatsky. Whether they influenced each other in any way, of course, is another matter.

And on gematria - there's a wonderful demonstration of gematria by a Hassidic rabbi in Chaim Potok's beautiful novel "The Chosen". Here's part of it:

"Whoever does not labor in the Torah is said to be under the divine censure. He is a nozuf, a person whom the Master of the Universe hates! A righteous man, a tzaddik, studies Torah . . . In gematriya, "nozuf" comes out one hundred forty-three and "tzaddik" comes out two hundred and four. What is the difference between "nozuf" and "tzaddik"? Sixty one. To whom does a tzaddik dedicate his life? To the Master of the Universe! La-el, to God! The word, "La-el" in gematriya is sixty one! It is a life dedicated to God that makes the difference between the nozuf and the tzaddik!"

Ross G Caldwell
27-04-2006 22:38
[QUOTE=Aeon418]Possibly and maybe. :D When Crowley published [b]Magick in Theory and Practice[/b] he had every opportunity to change the conventional hexagrams to unicursal hexagrams, but he didn't. Why? Maybe he still had a few objections to the symbol. His letters to Frater Achad indicate that he was hostile towards the Uni-Hex at one time but later changed his mind.[/QUOTE]

I guess it was a later development. I used Regardie's "Ritual Magic" (IIRC) a good deal at one time, and he suggested, based on Thelema, that the UH could be used instead of the old-fashioned Hex. in the LRH and the GRH. I took to using it all the time, but I never thought much about how hard it might have been for the old-timers to come to accept it.

Isn't there an A:.A:. ritual, authored by Crowley, that explicitly prescribes the UH? I can't remember... no sources around, been a long time, etc...

[QUOTE]
Maybe the rose at the centre represents Ra-Hoor-Khuit? In one sense Nuit = Possibilty. Hadit = Individual Point of View. Ra Hoor Khuit = the unification of both in an act of Love under Will to produce experience. That's only one interpretation of these sysmbols though.[/QUOTE]

As all are ;-) Maybe the Rose, with Five Petals, represents the Pentagram - Microcosm. Thus it symbolizes the illusory birth of one from two infinities that are actually identical (0=2). In Time, the One conceives of these two infinities as the Past and the Future; in Space, they are the infinite Outside and the infinite Inside; in philosophy and mathematics, they are Nothing and Everything, and the One - the illusion of One - arises from the fact that it cannot be either, but wants to be both. It is always actually only one point in the play between these infinities, until the moment it chooses to become another point. And the distance between the extremes of these infinities is always such, that the point is always the middle between them. This One is where they say - "hey, I'm you!".

Hence the Rose seems like an explosion in the centre - and this explosion is the sudden awareness of consciousness - "Holy shit, I'm here!", beholding the infinite expansion on either side of me. It seems like a liftetime to a one, but to an infinity suddenly seeing itself, it is just one of every thing.

[QUOTE]
Somewhere, I can't remember now, Crowley says that every line of a Unicursal Hexagram should be of equal length. Looking at the Hex in the Book of Thoth, is it a three dimensional shape viewed from a two dimensional perspective?[/QUOTE]

Sure you're not remembering the quote about "equal breadth"? (not "length"?)

I have a thought on this anyway, in another post.

Ross

Ross G Caldwell
27-04-2006 22:49
[QUOTE=Netzach]
And on gematria - there's a wonderful demonstration of gematria by a Hassidic rabbi in Chaim Potok's beautiful novel "The Chosen". Here's part of it:

"Whoever does not labor in the Torah is said to be under the divine censure. He is a nozuf, a person whom the Master of the Universe hates! A righteous man, a tzaddik, studies Torah . . . In gematriya, "nozuf" comes out one hundred forty-three and "tzaddik" comes out two hundred and four. What is the difference between "nozuf" and "tzaddik"? Sixty one. To whom does a tzaddik dedicate his life? To the Master of the Universe! La-el, to God! The word, "La-el" in gematriya is sixty one! It is a life dedicated to God that makes the difference between the nozuf and the tzaddik!"[/QUOTE]

That's a great story!

I think it illustrates the proper use of gematria, and how we should regard it.

It is properly used as an analogy, or an illustration, of a point already made. In itself, it should not be relied on to formulate a doctrine. This is simply because, a contradictory gematria could always be found to illustrate the opposite point, and then the doctrine would be down the drain.

Gematria, in Jewish usage (as I have found it) is always kind of a punch-line, a neat little affirmation that gets people laughing and makes it stick.

Aeon418
27-04-2006 22:59
[QUOTE=Netzach]Firstly regarding a link between the Golden Dawn & Madame Blavatsky. The first English Buddhist monk, Ananda Metteya, (Allan Bennett) had been a member of the Golden Dawn. He helped to found the Buddhist Lodge of the Theosophical Society and so must have known Madame Blavatsky. Whether they influenced each other in any way, of course, is another matter.[/QUOTE]
As far as I know Blavatsky died in 1891. Alan Bennett didn't become a Buddhist monk unti 1900/1901. He may have had contact with some of Blavatsky's heirs when he lead the first Buddhist mission to the west.

Alan Bennett is an interesting character but there's very little known about him. At one time he was second only to Mathers within the Golden Dawn. He was Crowley's personal guru in magick before he left for Ceylon (Sri Lanka).
Like Crowley in later life he sufferd with chronic asthma and had to take drugs, such as morphine, on an almost constant basis just to be able to breath.

When Crowley first met Bennett he was living in squalor, so Crowley invited him to live in his posh Chancery Lane flat in exchange for teaching him personally. This event was to lead to unfortunate consequences and the breaking of several friendships in the future because of the accusations of the gutter press and a subsequent court case.
[QUOTE=Netzach]"Whoever does not labor in the Torah is said to be under the divine censure. He is a nozuf, a person whom the Master of the Universe hates! A righteous man, a tzaddik, studies Torah . . . In gematriya, "nozuf" comes out one hundred forty-three and "tzaddik" comes out two hundred and four. What is the difference between "nozuf" and "tzaddik"? Sixty one. To whom does a tzaddik dedicate his life? To the Master of the Universe! La-el, to God! The word, "La-el" in gematriya is sixty one! It is a life dedicated to God that makes the difference between the nozuf and the tzaddik!"[/QUOTE]
Interesting Netzach, but I have a question. How do you spell La-el in hebrew in a way that makes it equal 61. AL, Aleph - Lamed = 31. LA, Lamed - Aleph = 31. Total 62. That number is interesting as it contains both the positive and negative in one. 61 (Ain- nothing) + 1 the first positive.

AL (31) is the secret key to the Book of the Law discovered by Frater Achad just before he went off at the deep end. His Liber 31 is full of stuff about AL = God and LA = Not. Intersting stuff but very deep.

Aeon418
27-04-2006 23:19
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]I guess it was a later development. I used Regardie's "Ritual Magic" (IIRC) a good deal at one time, and he suggested, based on Thelema, that the UH could be used instead of the old-fashioned Hex. in the LRH and the GRH. I took to using it all the time, but I never thought much about how hard it might have been for the old-timers to come to accept it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm aware that Regardie adopted the use of the Unicursal as has DuQuette in his, The Magick of Thelema. But as has been pointed out in the latest version of MAGICK: Book 4, this is without precedent in Crowley's writings. Plus, as far as anyone is aware, Crowley never taught the hexagram rituals with unicursals.
On top of that the Golden Dawn usage of the Unicursal was not planetary like a normal hexagram, it was a symbol of the four elements ruled by the Sun and Moon. This fact coupled with Crowley's lack of explanation leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]Isn't there an A:.A:. ritual, authored by Crowley, that explicitly prescribes the UH? I can't remember... no sources around, been a long time, etc...[/quote]
Yep. Liber V vel Reguli where it is refered to as the Invoking Hexagram of the Beast. But there's no explanation of it. But in an earlier draft of this ritual Crowley uses the symbol of the Rosy Cross at the same point. Interesting!
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]Sure you're not remembering the quote about "equal breadth"? (not "length"?)[/QUOTE]
Sorry Ross. I was thinking of a letter between Crowley and Achad on the 8th May 1916 where Crowley says:
"[i]I have an idea that every line in a unicursal figure should be equal to every other line, and also that unicursal figures should be capable of dextro-rotary description, that is, when they are closed figures.[/i]"

A unicursal hexagram with equal length lines cannot be two dimensional.

Ross G Caldwell
27-04-2006 23:28
Unicursal hexagram exercise
 
After a bit of thinking, I think I can see why Crowley had to insist that the Unicursal Hexagram's lines must be considered "Euclidean".

Here's an exercise -

draw two triangles, one upright A-B-C and one downward D-E-F (The letters are the points of the triangles). Make B-C the bottom line of the first, and D-E the top line of the second. Label the angles, and cut the triangles (they don't have to be perfect triangles for this exercise).

Now, how do you "unite" the two triangles? That is, how do you make two distinct triangles with only one line? Mathematically, they can only be united if *at least* one part of each is identical in both. Then you can create a new shape where both triangles have preserved their identity.

If you overlap the triangles so that you have a normal hexagram, a Star of David, you can do something to unite them.

Slit the lines so that you can make a nice Star of David.

Insert the triangles.

Draw a unicursal hexagram on the Star of David.

Going from top A to bottom left B, you will notice that the next point is on the *second* triangle, point E! And the rest goes from point F on the bottom, to point D, to point C on the first triangle!

Geometrically, you have created a two-dimensional single shape out of two distinct objects, where the line B-C of the first triangle can be considered geometrically IDENTICAL to the line D-E of the second. This transformation happens only at ONE POINT (geometrically) of the design. This is the Rose Point in the Unicursal Hexagram.

It is ONLY if the lines are considered as Euclidean - that is, perfect lines, abstract lines - that this can be done. Because, if the lines have breadth, then they will interfere with one another, and it is always possible that they are not actually meeting - it might be just because our vision is limited, or our measurement is faulty. But if they do not have breadth, and are Euclidean, geometrically and strictly mathematical, at least one point on both can be identical.

It is only because one of the sides belongs BY DEFINTION to both - hence Euclidean (because the lines between points D-E and points B-C occupy the same position; if they had any extension, occupied any space at all, they would not be Euclidean) - that the Unicursal Hexagram can represent - and even illustrate - the Great Work.

(Note that if you put the top and bottom lines together, so that they are considered mathematically-geometrically identical (Euclidean), you have created a four-sided object where the triangle lines B-C and D-E are indistinguishable. But in this case you have diminished the creation by making the triangles have an interior line in a tetragram, you have not extended the triangles so that both preserve their unique identities, although paradoxically).

Ross G Caldwell
27-04-2006 23:39
[QUOTE=Aeon418]Sorry Ross. I was thinking of a letter between Crowley and Achad on the 8th May 1916 where Crowley says:
"[i]I have an idea that every line in a unicursal figure should be equal to every other line, and also that unicursal figures should be capable of dextro-rotary description, that is, when they are closed figures.[/i]"

A unicursal hexagram with equal length lines cannot be two dimensional.[/QUOTE]

Ah! It sounds like Achad was a little ahead of Crowley on this - not surprising as Achad challenged him mathematically quite a bit - as did Mudd.

1916 is indeed very early, at least for the fine points of Thelemic doctrine.

With "dextro-rotary" I think Crowley was grasping towards the concept he would later write in the Book of Thoth - Euclidean; that's what he was looking for (he might have mentioned something about this earlier in his diaries as he worked it out). I think he means that no matter which way you turn it/change it, it is the same figure - something like the modern field of topology in mathematics.

I could be reading too much into Crowley's use of the UH - for me it has been the most important of Thelemic symbols, even though, as you well note, Crowley's comments on it are at best vague.

Scion
28-04-2006 00:15
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell] Thus it symbolizes the illusory birth of one from two infinities that are actually identical (0=2). In Time, the One conceives of these two infinities as the Past and the Future; in Space, they are the infinite Outside and the infinite Inside; in philosophy and mathematics, they are Nothing and Everything, and the One - the illusion of One - arises from the fact that it cannot be either. [/QUOTE]

Oh, Ross...

Beautifully, beautifully, [b]beautifully[/b] said. This has been staying with me all day. Many thanks.

Scion

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 00:22
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]I think he means that no matter which way you turn it/change it, it is the same figure - something like the modern field of topology in mathematics.
[/QUOTE]

No matter which way you *distort* a figure, would be a better way to describe topology. Once all the points are defined, you can distort it almost infinitely, and it will remain the "same" figure. It won't look the same, but it will have all of the mathematical properties of all the other forms of the same defined points in relation to one another.

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 00:36
[QUOTE=Aeon418]Interesting Netzach, but I have a question. How do you spell La-el in hebrew in a way that makes it equal 61. AL, Aleph - Lamed = 31. LA, Lamed - Aleph = 31. Total 62. That number is interesting as it contains both the positive and negative in one. 61 (Ain- nothing) + 1 the first positive.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for pointing that out Aeon! Didn't notice it, but should've. I guess, to be generous, that the Rabbi was equating the two Alephs, maybe eliding them (l'el) or (la'l) in pronunciation.

There is also a rule I have read of in Jewish gematria - seriously - where if the result is only different by one, then you can change it. There is a name for this rule.

Aeon418
28-04-2006 00:44
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]Thanks for pointing that out Aeon! Didn't notice it, but should've. I guess, to be generous, that the Rabbi was equating the two Alephs, maybe eliding them (l'el) or (la'l) in pronunciation.[/quote]
I only noticed it because I recently re-read Frater Achad's, Liber 31. He goes on for quite a bit about LA and AL, Not/God. So the ideas were fresh in my mind.

LA-ShT-AL - 31 + 31 + 31 = 93 Thelema. Interesting Tarot cards. ;)
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]There is also a rule I have read of in Jewish gematria - seriously - where if the result is only different by one, then you can change it. There is a name for this rule.[/QUOTE]
I think it's usually called cheating. LOL :laugh:

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 00:45
I hope that wasn't too confusing... :-?

[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]
Geometrically, you have created a two-dimensional single shape out of two distinct objects, where the line B-C of the first triangle can be considered geometrically IDENTICAL to the line D-E of the second. This transformation happens only at ONE POINT (geometrically) of the design. This is the Rose Point in the Unicursal Hexagram.
[/QUOTE]

Geometrically, it means that instead of two triangles A-B-C + D-E-F, you have a hexagram created by lines by the intersection of these two triangles (A-B-E-F-D-C) where the lines B-E and D-C in the hexagram can be defined so that they are mathematically identical to the lines B-C and D-E of the original two triangles.

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 00:50
[QUOTE=Aeon418]I think it's usually called cheating. LOL :laugh:[/QUOTE]

Yep. But maybe it can be taken as "grace" as well? "Wiggle-room"?

Not everything is set in stone, even God can be - ahem - "persuaded"; shades of Aleph=0 - OR - 1?

This fits in with rabbinical hermeneutics for me. You can even haggle with the Torah? If not the letters, then the value?

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 01:08
[QUOTE=Scion]Oh, Ross...

Beautifully, beautifully, [b]beautifully[/b] said. This has been staying with me all day. Many thanks.

Scion[/QUOTE]

Thank you Scion. I can only add, that I truly believe it.

It may be somewhat difficult to find a quotidian ethics, the solution to day-to-day problems, in such an abstract formulation. But at least the knowledge of it gives you freedom from the eternal punishment salesmen, who take in so many. That alone is worth the price of going this far out.

Ross

Netzach
28-04-2006 01:11
[QUOTE=Aeon418]As far as I know Blavatsky died in 1891. Alan Bennett didn't become a Buddhist monk unti 1900/1901. He may have had contact with some of Blavatsky's heirs when he lead the first Buddhist mission to the west.[/QUOTE]

You're right, of course. For some reason I was thinking that she died later than this.

[QUOTE=Aeon418]How do you spell La-el in hebrew in a way that makes it equal 61. AL, Aleph - Lamed = 31. LA, Lamed - Aleph = 31. Total 62. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]Thanks for pointing that out Aeon! Didn't notice it, but should've. I guess, to be generous, that the Rabbi was equating the two Alephs, maybe eliding them (l'el) or (la'l) in pronunciation. [/QUOTE]

Only one aleph. La is an "inseparable preposition".

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 01:29
[QUOTE=Netzach]
Only one aleph. La is an "inseparable preposition".[/QUOTE]

Thanks! That's good to know. Is that a rule of all Hebrew, or just Midrashic, Talmudic, medieval, etc.?

One should always know the original text and/or context of one's sources.

I just noticed, checking the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) how many of the LA's ("Thou shalt not"'s) are followed by Tavs! Nine out of ten! That's way beyond coincidence. There must be commentary on it.

(I was checking to see if the inseparable rule was Biblical or not)

Aeon418
28-04-2006 02:29
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]draw two triangles, one upright A-B-C and one downward D-E-F (The letters are the points of the triangles). Make B-C the bottom line of the first, and D-E the top line of the second. Label the angles, and cut the triangles (they don't have to be perfect triangles for this exercise).

Now, how do you "unite" the two triangles? That is, how do you make two distinct triangles with only one line? Mathematically, they can only be united if *at least* one part of each is identical in both. Then you can create a new shape where both triangles have preserved their identity.

If you overlap the triangles so that you have a normal hexagram, a Star of David, you can do something to unite them.

Slit the lines so that you can make a nice Star of David.

Insert the triangles.

Draw a unicursal hexagram on the Star of David.[/QUOTE]
I just noticed that this method of creating a Unicursal Hexagram also creates two different pentagrams at the same time. One upright and the other inverted or "averse", both of which are used in the two Thelemic pentagram rituals that Crowley created. It probably means nothing, but I still think it's pretty interesting. Cheers Ross! :D

Netzach
28-04-2006 04:41
[QUOTE=Ross G Caldwell]Thanks! That's good to know. Is that a rule of all Hebrew, or just Midrashic, Talmudic, medieval, etc.? [/QUOTE]

This is classical (ie Biblical) Hebrew. I don't know about the later versions! There are three inseparable prepositions - lamed (to/for), bet(in/with/by) and kap (as/like). My Hebrew textbook says "These prepositions have no existence as separate words but, like the article, they attach themselves, as prefixes, to the words they govern." The conjunction "and" (vav) is also inseparable.

ravenest
28-04-2006 11:24
2 cents
 
Trying to catch up, friend took computer back, working at library again (think its kids story day !!!!)

Going thru the last posts a few things I wanted to respond to:

The proof of 0=2?
We must remember it is two opposite pairs that make zero, so the proof in formulae, -1 + 1 = 0.

Gematric values can ge adjusted to mean anything ( GOD = DOG) .
R.A.Wilson has written good stuff on this where he proves God is unity and devision and the devil and ... the main thing is the change in conciousness that occurs when one continually uses this type of interrelated thinking. The brain (after a time of automatically making its own correspondances to stimula) begins working in a mode of active meditation. I dont believe the real value is in the exercise it is in the results, a change in conciousness.

"ÍTO entierly dedicated to sex magic"?
Wrong! The OTO has a much bigger agenda; to help one find their true will, to create a magical fraternity, To engage in a social experiment, etc, etc.

AA is not connected to OTO, one is not a part or inner circle or whatever of the other, they are totally different AA is inner order (secret chiefs) OTO is outer order (human temporal chief), many other differences as well.

Abrac
28-04-2006 15:54
ravenest, by saying "entirely," I never meant it in the sense that that is [i]exclusively[/i] the only thing the OTO is dedicated to, but that they are dedicated to it [i]fully,[/i] and in every way.

Not that I hold Lon Milo Duquette as the final word by any means, but since many participating in this study seem to regard him as a distinguished authority, let us see what he says about the matter:

"Magically, however, the Order exists [i]primarily[/i] to protect and [i]perpetuate[/i] a particular magical secret of great potential efficacy."

"This supreme secret is a particular technique of sexual magick."

Lon Milo DuQuette; Understanding Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot; Weiser Books, 2003; Pages 76, 77. (Italics Mine)

-fof

Ross G Caldwell
28-04-2006 21:53
[QUOTE=Netzach]This is classical (ie Biblical) Hebrew. I don't know about the later versions! There are three inseparable prepositions - lamed (to/for), bet(in/with/by) and kap (as/like). My Hebrew textbook says "These prepositions have no existence as separate words but, like the article, they attach themselves, as prefixes, to the words they govern." The conjunction "and" (vav) is also inseparable.[/QUOTE]

You're right - I knew that. I guess I was puzzled by the orthography in the original post "la-el". I totally forgot that the "a" in "la" would be a vowel (written underneath) the inseparable "L", meaning "to".

Of course if the word was "la" (pronounced "lo"), that would mean "not" or "no", and that's not what the story said.

I looked in Psalm 53 to see if it says "lo el" ("The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'"), but it says "eyn elohim". I don't know if the phrase "la el" exists (lamed-alef alef-lamed).

rachelcat
29-04-2006 01:48
[QUOTE=ravenest]The proof of 0=2?
We must remember it is two opposite pairs that make zero, so the proof in formulae, -1 + 1 = 0.

Gematric values can ge adjusted to mean anything ( GOD = DOG) .
R.A.Wilson has written good stuff on this where he proves God is unity and devision and the devil and ... the main thing is the change in conciousness that occurs when one continually uses this type of interrelated thinking. The brain (after a time of automatically making its own correspondances to stimula) begins working in a mode of active meditation. I dont believe the real value is in the exercise it is in the results, a change in conciousness.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

I like your formula. If you use positive and negative values, you get 0. If you use absolute values, you get 2. So 0 = 2! Cool!

And I like your take on gematria. So it's more about having a mind of process and possibilities than making up hard and fast equalities. Also cool!

Aeon418
29-04-2006 03:25
[QUOTE=rachelcat]I like your formula. If you use positive and negative values, you get 0. If you use absolute values, you get 2. So 0 = 2! Cool![/quote]
That is what Crowley has been saying all along. If you want to phrase it another way: (-1) Feminine + (+1) Masculine = 0. The complementary opposites cancel each other out.
But because the number of of magical expansion is 11 (-1, +1) they can also produce a third thing that is the product of both, but totally different from both at the same time. That indicates why Crowley wanted Lust as 11 and Adjustment as 8. Adjustment is static balance, Lust implies motion and progress through the union of opposites.
[QUOTE=rachelcat]And I like your take on gematria. So it's more about having a mind of process and possibilities than making up hard and fast equalities. Also cool![/QUOTE]
Be careful! :D
[quote]I gave up all for One; this One hath given up its Unity for all?
I wrenched DOG backwards to find GOD; now GOD barks.[/quote]
The above may be true for a Master of the Temple, i.e. one who's being resides above the Abyss. But below the Abyss reason is King. God = God. Dog = Dog. Otherwise you fall into the same trap that prompted Crowley to comment thus on Frater Achad:
[quote]But this rule must be applied with skill and discretion, if error is to be avoided. It is a lamentable fact that worthy Zelator of A.'.A.'., one Frater Achad, having been taught (patiently enough) by the Seer to use this formula, was lured by his vanity to suppose that he had discovered it himself, and proceeded to apply it indiscriminately. He tried to stand the Serpent of Wisdom on its head, and argued that as he was a (1 = 10 ) of the Order, he must also be a (10 = 1)! As [i]The Book of Lies[/i] says, "I wrenched DOG backwards to find GOD; now GOD barks!" He would have been better advised to reverse his adored ONE and taken a dose of ENO!"[/QUOTE]
ENO was a popular laxative in Crowley's time. :D LOL

Sheri
29-04-2006 03:33
So I think that what Crowley is saying is that you can't just concentrate on any one thing - it has to include context and ancillaries? It makes alot of sense.

Sorry to all for not posting before now. This is an amazing thread and I have been doing my reading on an electronic source. I am off this morning to purchase both The Book of Thoth and the Book of Lies if I can find them. I have learned enough to know that both deserve shelf space!

I have another question associated with earlier posts regarding secrecy. If these people took vows of silence/oaths of secrecy, why did they publish books and then put wrong information in them? It seems that it would have been easier to just not publish anything.

valeria :)

rachelcat
29-04-2006 03:33
I am duly warned.

Now God barks!

Instead of being close to One, you should get close to some Eno!

Priceless!

Aeon418
29-04-2006 03:55
[QUOTE=valeria]I have another question associated with earlier posts regarding secrecy. If these people took vows of silence/oaths of secrecy, why did they publish books and then put wrong information in them? It seems that it would have been easier to just not publish anything.[/QUOTE]
Lets put it this way. How do you tell everyone the exact same thing and yet communicate the truth to only a few?

The classic example is the 12th chapter of Crowley's, "Magick in Theory and Practice." The entire chapter reads like an instruction in child sacrifice and it is meant to do so as well. Idiot's, i.e. knee jerk reactionaries see only the surface meaning. (Much to Crowley's amusment no doubt :D) Dig a little deeper and you see that Crowley is actually talking about sex magick. He couldn't talk openly about sex in his day and age, but talking about child sacrifice was perfectly ok back then. ;)

Ventrue
29-04-2006 07:15
this is perhaps, slightly off topic, so if someone wants to reply in a new thread i'll understand :) Can A.C's religious worldview (or lack thereof) be summarized? I'm not dense enough to belief that he wasn't well educated on many different religous views (agnosticism, mysticism, christianity, pagan values, etc), but i'm having real trouble understanding what he did believe in, it seems thats he takes little tidbits from everywhere. its quite confusing :(

Ven

ravenest
29-04-2006 10:34
[QUOTE=fools_fool]ravenest, by saying "entirely," I never meant it in the sense that that is [i]exclusively[/i] the only thing the OTO is dedicated to, but that they are dedicated to it [i]fully,[/i] and in every way.[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, I see now. dedicated fully to S.M. not the whole order dedicated just to S.M.?

[QUOTE=fools_fool]
Not that I hold Lon Milo Duquette as the final word by any means, but since many participating in this study seem to regard him as a distinguished authority, let us see what he says about the matter:

"Magically, however, the Order exists [i]primarily[/i] to protect and [i]perpetuate[/i] a particular magical secret of great potential efficacy."

"This supreme secret is a particular technique of sexual magick."

Lon Milo DuQuette; Understanding Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot; Weiser Books, 2003; Pages 76, 77. (Italics Mine)

-fof[/QUOTE]


But lets also look what the OTO says itself (ie. the group not a member) in just about all of its introductory material, phamphlets, web sites, intro pages in books etc.

The letters O.T.O. stand for Ordo Templi Orientis, the Order of Oriental Templars, or Order of the Temple of the East. O.T.O. is dedicated to the high purpose of securing the Liberty of the Individual and his or her advancement in Light, Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, and Power through Beauty, Courage, and Wit, on the Foundation of Universal Brotherhood.

ravenest
29-04-2006 10:44
[QUOTE=rachelcat]I am duly warned.

Now God barks!

Instead of being close to One, you should get close to some Eno!

Priceless![/QUOTE]

God does equal Dog if one is into ancient Egyptian magic (Sirius - Canis Major)

gemmatria? Eno is One, one is unity, unity is God, God is Eno.

Yes, be carefull! One can doubt any connections and slowley box up the conciousness, then again one can make them everywhere, the streetsign, the car numberplate. I had a raver on at me yesterday in the street, connections everywhere ... absolutly mad!

ravenest
29-04-2006 10:46
[QUOTE=Ventrue]this is perhaps, slightly off topic, so if someone wants to reply in a new thread i'll understand :) Can A.C's religious worldview (or lack thereof) be summarized?
Ven[/QUOTE]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. &
Love is the law, love under will.

Ventrue
29-04-2006 12:27
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. &
Love is the law, love under will.

I was kinda looking for just a tad bit less compressed maybe :)

Ven

Aeon418
29-04-2006 19:44
[QUOTE=Ventrue]Can A.C's religious worldview (or lack thereof) be summarized?[/QUOTE]
Try having a look around Thelemapedia. In particular the sections on Thelema, Agape, True Will, and the Holy Guardian Angel.

[URL]http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Main_Page[/URL]

Aeon418
29-04-2006 19:47
[QUOTE=ravenest]God does equal Dog if one is into ancient Egyptian magic (Sirius - Canis Major)[/QUOTE]
Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us.

Woof, woof! :D

Ross G Caldwell
29-04-2006 19:57
[QUOTE=Ventrue]Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. &
Love is the law, love under will.

I was kinda looking for just a tad bit less compressed maybe :)

Ven[/QUOTE]

In my opinion, Crowley's religious worldview is that each person is fundamentally unique and divine, and should seek to realize this as fully as possible. This is what "Every Man and Every Woman is a Star" means.

"Do What Thou Wilt..." etc. is the "commandment" of Thelema;

"Love is the Law..." etc. is the method of Thelema.

The best statement of Thelemic ethics is given in "Liber OZ" -
[url]http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib77.html[/url]

This is my favorite on-line biography of Crowley.
[url]http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/aleister-crowley/[/url]

A biography is only tangentially related to a "religious worldview" I realize, but there is a lot of good and funny commentary here.

Aeon418
29-04-2006 20:35
Liber Oz - The Book of the Goat or The Book of Strength!
Drop the Hierophant in the middle and guess who's name pops up? ;)

ZenMusic
04-02-2009 12:02
[QUOTE=Alta]he postulates that the entire Hebrew language is based on numerical values[/QUOTE]
this predates Crowley by thousands of years, this is basic Kabbalah he adopted

i'm late to join this group but here i am..
[QUOTE=Aeon418]
[b]1:1 Had! The manifestation of Nuit.[/b]
[b]2:1 Nu! the hiding of Hadit.[/b]
[/QUOTE]

this is really key.. the hiding is a revealing, every revealing (insight) begins another concealing..

the process of uncovering (magical study, raising via serpent power etc), and also seeing (appreciating) the revealing in concealing (existence unfolding) is the point and the practice (essentially the same as Kabbalah)

nicky
05-02-2009 04:35
Ok I am here...is this the beginning thread?

Please everyone bear with me. I promise to read the thread before further comment but want to know where to start out... there are numeroud threads and I don't want to start out wrong.

Nicky
gleefully thothing on

Grigori
05-02-2009 08:01
[QUOTE=nicky]Ok I am here...is this the beginning thread?[/QUOTE]

I think your loooking for the Book of Law study group Nicky, this one is the Book of Thoth. The Book of Law group is indexed at the bottom of this sticky thread
[url]http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=27324[/url].

Starting with "calling all centre's of pestilence", the going though in numerical order with a few detours along the way. :)

nicky
05-02-2009 12:09
Thanks!!

Wait, I want to stay here too.. reading the threads now so as to avoid possible shunning from the Thothies :)


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 18:46.