Occult use of ∴ comes i think from the Freemasons, who use ∴ a lot.
One of their key phrases is "Salutations on all points of the triangle!" and i think this is where it comes from?
Yes, yes, and yes. In a Masonic Lodge, there are three pillars/poles/columns at the top of each burns a lamp. These represent the Sun, Moon, and Lodge Master. This is the "triangle" that the Can.'. first faces. There are all manner of other triangular symbolisms.
In a Masonic Lodge, there are three pillars/poles/columns at the top of each burns a lamp. These represent the Sun, Moon, and Lodge Master.
In my younger years (which “Dom” seems to think I've sloughed off like a snake's skin), I encountered those three curious dots through the writings of Aleister Crowley. I would later become a Freemason and quite proudly serve my Lodge as WM in the year 2000. The dots refer to the “Three Great Lights” in Masonry. Many times I struck a wooden match and lit those candles.
Those Lights are the Book of the Law, Square and Compasses. The Brothers who brought me into the Craft were not esotericists but quite enthusiastically spoke of Rudyard Kipling's placement of multiple Holy Books upon the Altar. The Book is typically the Holy Bible but could equally be the Koran or any other Sacred Scripture which testified to the Rule of a Supreme Being (Buddhism, a religion with no “God,” has been a controversial religion for Masonry but my Lodge also embraced a Hinayana Buddhist with whom I had many fun arguments and conversations).
The Square measures Terrestrial Geometry and the Compasses, the Celestial. All three of these “Lights” come together in a picture of Universe upon which the “Building of the Soul” is founded.
Masons receive a secret word upon reception of the 3rd Degree. This word is a “substitute” for that lost when the Master Builder, Hiram Abiff, was slain. The True Word is revealed to York Rite Masons at the 7th Degree (and it is also revealed to readers of Alan Moore's “FROM HELL” when they crack the cover of this most excellent graphic novel). It follows the form of the “Lights” as a Tri-Fold Mystery.
Reversed, we have the KALI YANTRA.
The two symbols seem to belong to each other-just like the hemispheres of the brain.
I recall speaking with a Brother Mason about Crowley after a joint Lodge meeting. He was a well-read fellow who was conversant with Crowley and remarked, regarding AC's “Sex Magick”:
“The clean white Phallus will never be a match for the dark, swampy vulva.”
I was duly impressed as most modern Masons will have no idea who Crowley is-and if they do, it will be a superficial and unfavorable perception.
The vulva absorbs the Phallus and is a symbol of dissolution or VOID. But this VOID is also the source of all manifestation. Hence (as I've alluded to previously) The Heart Sutra's declaration:
Form is Void-but Void is Form.
Ergo, those dots come together to form the Hexagram, a wholly new symbol pointing toward the 7th factor from which it emanates (and here enter the territory of the Seven Rays etc).
And for all of this, I still don't know how to get these symbols to enter my text beyond .'. but I have also found that this is quite a necessary “expression” of the theme on manual typewriters (which I use on a regular basis) and so no defeat is conceded.
I still don't know how to get these symbols to enter my text beyond .'.
Go to Word or OpenOffice or LibreOffice. Select "INSERT," then "Symbol" (in Word), or "Special Character" (in the -Offices).
A Character Map will appear.
Select "Symbol" as the font. Look at all the characters. When you find 3-dots, click it ... the "Character Code" will appear (so you can memorize it). To insert it in your text, just click OK or INSERT.
The Deja Vu font also has this character ... I think.
Go to Word or OpenOffice or LibreOffice. Select "INSERT," then "Symbol" (in Word), or "Special Character" (in the -Offices).
A Character Map will appear.
Select "Symbol" as the font. Look at all the characters. When you find 3-dots, click it ... the "Character Code" will appear (so you can memorize it). To insert it in your text, just click OK or INSERT.
Damn! It works! It works!
Thank you, Shiva!
I mean...
T Y S
It works!
Yes, all the characters in the akashik records are available through that protocol. As for it working here, in html or web-code, I don't know anything.
The thing is, it works on your local machine to display that special character, but what i see is little boxes with "FO SC" in them, not ∴ (which i copy and pasted from above).
I sees it. I am on a Windows though.
ՇղՐլՏ
֎
What is displayed is very variable: in Chris' post, i see some alphabet-like "special characters" beginning with a sort of G-n, and then a couple lines down a little box with "OS BE" in it.
On my cell, the three dots are shown as squares or boxes with an x in the middle. On my desktop, I see the three dots. I originally typed my post using Open Office.
The thing is, it works on your local machine to display that special character, but what i see is little boxes with "FO SC" in them, not ∴ (which i copy and pasted from above).
It has to do with the fonts available in the LAShTAL Piggy Bank. If the special chacter you find is in a font here on the site, it should go right in. (Likr your TM forgery. But not all fonts are alike. If a box appears, you have been boxed, which means This One Don't Work.
'Therefore' or the three 'fire dots' ∴ is written as ∴ in html. Not all fonts include the character, so depending which font the browser on your particular device uses you will either see it or some generic 'missing character' instead.
∴ test
The main premise is that there is a mathematical key to it all and it's not just Achad's, which does not seem to be refuted; it's also a hidden code of subconscious math regarding the Golden Ratio which was encoded without the Beast's knowing. Using the verse and chapter numbers.
I was hoping you or someone else would explain how the Golden Ratio was arrived at in K'rla Cell, and eventually purchased the book when no one did. In case anyone else is interested, the value is produced by treating Chapter 1 verse 25 of Liber Legis as the number 1.25, dividing the value by its square root, and adding the square root of .25 to the quotient: 1.25 / 1.118 + 0.5 =1.618. The issue for me is neither 1.25 nor .25 are actually present in the text of Liber Legis. While using verse 25 as .25 is certainty a stretch, conjuring the value 1.25 using a chapter number that is not present in text is nothing but a projection. It is feasible the Golden Ratio or any other value could be encrypted into the II:76 using gematria and whole numbers such as 1618, or 618, as in the case of Aiwass = 618, the reciprocal of the Golden Ratio, which is calculated with Hebrew gematria: I find that much more convincing.
Welcome back
Yes one could say that 1.25 does not exist.
Paste the thread name into a search engine....that is the name of the book. The K'rla Cell is also discussed in Kenneth Grant's Beyond The Mauve Zone
@hadgigegenraum Thanks! I found the Grand book online at Internet Archive, as well as the chapter dealing with The Rite K'rla cell (Chapter 6).
I found the Grand[t] book online ...
Oh, good. Now, if you can absorb that material, render it into street-level English without inflections or numbers of any kind, and post your resulting grok-gestalt here in, say, 2 or 3 paragraphs, it would be great.
This would potentially free 93-million minds from ignorance, confusion, or the backward way.
@shiva Sorry. This is like asking a caveman to explain thermodynamics. I can grok it, but I don't understand it.
Dwtw
Having read this book Rites of the Mummy: The K'rla Cell and the Secret Key to Liber AL
I can say that it does have the rites of the cell. It does not have the secret key to Liber AL.
It's a neat trick getting the Golden Ratio out of numbers that are tangential to the text, but if the 'secret key' was simply the Golden Ratio, that would be pretty lame. And easy to encode in a verse numbered 25, since Phi is based on the square root of 5.
But the G.R. is in the text, and it does hold a key, once it is applied properly.
One can find it very easily from the letter-count of Liber AL:
23085 English letters + 6 Greek letters + 1 Hebrew letter + 20 numerals (11-4-418-718-4-6-3-8-2-4-3-24-89) = 23112 alpha-numeric characters.
4 * Phi18 = 23111.9993 = ~23112
This number 23112 is also 6 * 6 * 6 * 107 = 216 * 107.
In Hebrew that would be ARIEH - אריה - LEO, the Lion; and - מאיון - MA-ION
The importance of the 107 in this factorization is seen by dividing the total of 23112 by 4, so that it becomes simply Phi18 = 5777.9998 = ~5778 = Σ 1-107, i.e the 107th triangular number, or the 'mystic number' of 107 - MA-ION.
Too bad Fr. Achad didn't know this; I'm sure he would have seen it as support for the coming of the Aeon of MA, as heralded by the Lion: both The Great Beast and the zodiac sign that is the axis with Aquarius.
No English gematria is necessary for this calculation. But if you want further support:
216 = the threefold book of Law.
107 = fourfold
(as the 'mystic number' of 107 is multiplied by 4 to get the total of the character count)
"My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book:"
Indeed.
Litllwtw
O.L.
I can grok it, but I don't understand it.
But to "grok" it is to "gnosis" it, which is "understanding." No Shiny Ola, you're lucky it didn't eat you (alive).
Perhaps what you are trying to express is that "there is this concept in a foreign lingo that involves another dimension and some sort of natural or artificial intelligence lurking nearby ..." - or something like that?
If so, I already probed the structure, definition, and properties of the KRLA (I mistrust words with ' in them) (KRLA = 251 = 8 = This is good), and I fail to remember if I learned anything, except what I just suggested you might (not must) be thinking.
Good Lord and the 27 fairies! Have you noticed that these off-shoots and revelations often involve complex numerical logic or funny lingo or strange concepts, or praeterhuman entities? I have,
I used to do those things. So I understand where folks are at, and why this stuff matters to them, and others on that wavelength. Then I tried harder to follow the order I had been given, and reminded of many times, to ...
Keep it Simple
Now I am content to take any and all concepts down to their lowest common denominator. There are a few denominators, but not a whole lot. Keep it Simple.
@shiva If you can boil down all that Kenneth Grant Typhonian, Lovecraftian, Crowleylte verbiage, I'm all ears. I like Kenneth Grant the biographer. His occult writings, however, are pretty obtuse for me. (That's on me, not Grant's)
Have you noticed that these off-shoots and revelations often involve complex numerical logic or funny lingo or strange concepts, or praeterhuman entities? I have,
I would certainly hope that anyone involved with Thelema would notice such things, given they form the backbone of the movement, and have from the beginning.
Keep it Simple
The problem with keeping it simple is it usually requires adopting an antiquated view of the universe conceived by men that lived hundreds of years ago, and knew less about the actual universe than the average 12-year old does today. Keeping it simple seldom translates into keeping it real, interesting, or making progress.
[S]uch things [...] form the backbone of the movement, and have from the beginning.
What nonsense. "A peripheral aspect", sure, but "the backbone"? Who's kidding who?
The problem with keeping it simple is it usually requires adopting an antiquated view of the universe conceived by men that lived hundreds of years ago, and knew less about the actual universe than the average 12-year old does today.
Again, this makes zero sense.
How does avoiding baroque flights of nonsense "require adopting an antiquated view of the universe"? The modern scientific view is rather more "simple" than, eg, "medicine" based on humors.
A person obsessed with "finding" his name and birthplace "encoded" in a text written 118 years ago might want to consider the old proverb about what folks who live in glass houses ought to avoid doing.
The problem with keeping it simple is it usually requires adopting an antiquated view of the universe conceived by men that lived hundreds of years ago, and knew less about the actual universe than the average 12-year old does today. Keeping it simple seldom translates into keeping it real, interesting, or making progress.
As simple as they come
https://hermetic.com/crowley/book-of-wisdom-or-folly/omicron
"And so shalt thou come to the End."
Adjusted according to the individual's needs, naturally, but progress will be made if these minimums are followed.
The problem with keeping it simple is it usually requires adopting an antiquated view of the universe conceived by men that lived hundreds of years ago
Not at all. The basic stance of Zen, Tao, etc, involve emptiness, which is an eternal concept applicable to any age.
Thelema also ends up in the same place, as specifically presented in Liber 333 and AL in certain lines. Mainstream Thelema seems obsessed with words and numbers because AC made it so by constantly fiddling his way through life, setting a mental example of the work ...
... which is a critical phase, granted, but it and it will set one up for liberation, but it won't equal liberation.
What nonsense. "A peripheral aspect", sure, but "the backbone"? Who's kidding who?
Heru is kidding himself, thus his protracted friction with peer-reviews ... not that "peer" has any standard equivalency. Then he tries to kid the LAShTAL peters, and the friction increases.
Not at all. The basic stance of Zen, Tao, etc, involve emptiness, which is an eternal concept applicable to any age
Ironically, the method of science disproves the concept of Qabalistic zero, or emptiness, as you call it. In his description of The Fool in the Book of Thoth, Crowley uses a vacuum as a physical model of Qabalistic zero, when in fact, even within a vacuum there are subatomic particles that constantly appear and disappear, thus proving there is no such thing as Nothing as defined in the Qabalah or as defined by mysticism in general. Nothing as secret key of Liber Legis, is something entirely different that what the current models of thought allow.
[T]he method of science disproves the concept of Qabalistic zero, or emptiness, as you call it.
So, AC uses an example that may be flawed, which means that "zero" is not a valid number/concept?
Even by the standards of vapidity set by your "work", this is quite a howler.
So, in your mind, what is the answer if we subtract two (2) from two (2)?
Please do not blither on about "subatomic particles that constantly appear and disappear", just tell us- is the answer zero, or some other number?
emptiness, as you call it.
The rational is not the be all and end all of existence, it can only go so far. As one progresses, the transrational takes more and more precedence. Beyond numbers, words, symbols, and concepts. The true Mysteries cannot be conveyed directly because they transcend these things.
"Finally, exercise constantly the Eight Limbs of Yoga. And so shalt thou come to the End."
Dhyana. Chan. Zen.
Ironically, the method of science disproves the concept of Qabalistic zero
Oh? I didn't know that.. But QBL-zero isn't "emptiness" - it's just numbers on paper or screen, or the same in one's brain.
The "emptiness" referred to is the loss of the sense of being a separate self. Other things may still be going on, but one isn't involved.
when in fact, even within a vacuum there are subatomic particles that constantly appear and disappear
So what? The zeroed Seer is not involved in these things.
Emptiness, wu-wei, equilibrium do not mean that everything STOPS. Only the reference point of perception shifts gears ... life and subatomic particles still move.
thus proving there is no such thing as Nothing as defined in the Qabalah or as defined by mysticism in general.
This proves nothing [dual meaning]. Several folk around her don't use QBL to shine their shoes. QBL is a great mental tool, but it won\t help at all when one is not-doing something.
what is the answer if we subtract two (2) from two (2)?
"subatomic particles coming and going"
Please do not blither on about "subatomic particles that constantly appear and disappear"
Sorry.
it [rational] can only go so far
And this thread is hereby subtitled "so far," as we are witnessing a real-time struggle between QBL (limear this-that) and wu-wei.
In these contests, the linear always wins, because the mentat cannot conceive of a universe where they are not the primary focus. Either one has gotten out (even temporarily for a second or two), or they have not ever gotten out and so their stance remains fixed for a lifetime.
As one progresses, the transrational takes more and more precedence.
Right. Also, as one remains fixed, the transrational requires more avoidance.
I believe my new religion, to be established by the sea in Si-silly, will be based on that principle.
Emptiness, wu-wei, equilibrium do not mean that everything STOPS.
Flow is action, by definition. Just action while in a specific state.
QBL is a great mental tool, but it won\t help at all when one is not-doing something.
The perfect tool disappears in to its function.
In these contests, the linear always wins, because the mentat cannot conceive of a universe where they are not the primary focus
Some won't leave Practicus, it seems. Part of the Pre/Trans Fallacy involves mistaking the transrational for the prerational, recoiling in terror or disgust that something exists beyond the rational.
And thus was born the Cosmic Horror genre 😉
Dwtw
To conclude my analysis of the letter counts in Liber AL, and to show how to actually employ the Golden Ratio to the Book (beyond just fiddling with iterations of the number 5), note the following simple but highly significant fact.
I tabulated 23112 alpha-numeric characters in Liber CCXX. These characters form 5820 'words', with a word defined as an alpha-numeric string with a space at either end. So the letter tzaddi is a 'word', and 'blue-lidded' is a word, and "the ordeal x" is three words, and there are 27 words in the Cipher of 2:76.
5820 = 60 * 97.
60 / 97 = .6185 - approximating the inverse of the golden ratio.
60 and 97 are a golden ratio pair. 60 is one of the most symbolic numbers in history, and was the basis of Sumerian mathematics, still in use in our minutes and seconds. 97 is the name אמון Amun.
Litllwtw
O.L.
and there are 27 words in the Cipher of 2:76.
Yes numbers are words, such as Four, Six, Three, Eight, and letters can be words, like A and Be, or Bee, and O'kay, Kay is a word too, and I will not go through the entire sequence, but I do not get where you get 27, I always counted 28 with the bracketed 24 and 89 as a single count...
So maybe it was just a typo, and thus 28, then the issue still is can each be counted as a word? maybe so or not-
As i read the page there are groupings of letter words, 8 or 9 are two ways of counting the groupings that might thus be termed word, if not the whole being a tiding to~
Thanks
HG
5820 = 60 * 97.
Yes, true.
Do all the other factors of 5820 also all have some esoteric significance? Presumably, the answer must be "yes", or the 60 * 97 result would be a cherry-picked, and meaningless, coincidence, right?
1 x 5820 = 5820
2 x 2910 = 5820
3 x 1940 = 5820
4 x 1455 = 5820
5 x 1164 = 5820
6 x 970 = 5820
10 x 582 = 5820
12 x 485 = 5820
15 x 388 = 5820
20 x 291 = 5820
30 x 194 = 5820
(Source: https://calculat.io/en/number/factors-of/5820)
As to whether 0.6185 is an adequate "approximation" of 0.618033- they say "Close don't count, 'cept in hand-grenades and horseshoes".
And we can add QBL, as practiced by some.
Even if we accept the claimed "approximation", we are left saying "So what?" Why would it matter that the inverse of the golden ratio ratio were to be found?
I, foolishly, trusted you that
60 / 97 = .6185
which, of course, ain't exactly so.
60/97 = 0.618556701031 in the real world. Which rounds to 0.6186, not 0.6185.
The inverse of phi is actually 0.61803398874989 ...
Even if you weren't cooking the books, we are still left with the "So what?" issue.
5820 = 60 * 97.
Yes, true.
Do all the other factors of 5820 also all have some esoteric significance? Presumably, the answer must be "yes", or the 60 * 97 result would be a cherry-picked, and meaningless, coincidence, right?
Dwtw
My concern is not with all the factors of 5820. I was only looking at the factors related to the Golden Ratio, as per my investigation into whether it is relevant to Liber CCXX. So your 'presumption' is putting limits on someone's discourse that you yourself invented. That said, there are other esoteric meanings in the pairs of factors, but it was not my intent to make a long list of equivalents. Still, the most obvious one is 30 * 94, which is the letter ל Lamed, attributed to Libra, paired with the number 194 = צדק Tzedek, meaning Justice as well as the sphere of Jupiter. Lamed as the VIII Adjustment card is a nice fit with Tzedek, especially since Achad claimed that the Aeon of Maat (depicted on Atu VIII) would be one of "Truth and Justice".
All of which is to say, of course the results were picked on purpose. One sees that there are 5820 words involved, and one looks to see if that number has any unique characteristics. In this case, it does. If there were 5822 words, it would be less interesting. As for whether the number of characters in Liber CCXX is a 'meaningless coincidence', do you accept that the book says to not change so much as a letter? Because that injunction, to my ears, means that each character is significant.
As to whether 0.6185 is an adequate "approximation" of 0.618033- they say "Close don't count, 'cept in hand-grenades and horseshoes".
There can only be approximations to Phi, unless you introduce the actual square root of 5. But matching to 3 decimal places is pretty good. Even Fibonacci numbers only get so close. It's asymptotic. The point is that when starting with the iconic number 60, its nearest integer to approximate the golden ratio is 97. That is simply a mathematical fact. These two numbers are the multiplicands that create the total number of words under consideration. That is also a fact. As long as we limit ourselves to integers, we will never have more than an approximation. And I'm not 'cooking the books' to say 60 / 97 = .6185; I just chose to stop at that decimal point. And it isn't .6186 in the 'real world'; that's just rounding up.
Even if we accept the claimed "approximation", we are left saying "So what?" Why would it matter that the inverse of the golden ratio ratio were to be found?
The inverse of Phi, plus 1, equals Phi. This is the only number with that characteristic. When talking about the properties of Phi, it always involves its inverse eventually.
My posts in this thread have been in response to a claim in the book by Evans that 'the secret key' of Liber AL had been found and it was the Golden Section. I don't personally believe that Phi is the key to the Book. But it does appear within its confines, as I have demonstrated. One can also find Pi within the Book, (the circle squared in its failure), but the real issue is how those constants are incorporated, not the mere fact that they exist.
The "so what?" can only be answered by saying that it seems more than coincidental that an approximation to Phi with very symbolic numbers could be found in a text of this length. It does not seem to be a random outcome. It is evidence that the text was designed on purpose. Whether that was by the intelligent being Aleister Crowley, or another source one could not say for certain just from this one example. But it's another piece of evidence to support Crowley's claim that a higher intelligence was involved.
Litllwtw
O.L.
1 x 5820 = 5820
2 x 2910 = 5820
3 x 1940 = 5820
4 x 1455 = 5820
5 x 1164 = 5820
6 x 970 = 5820
10 x 582 = 5820
12 x 485 = 5820
15 x 388 = 5820
20 x 291 = 5820
30 x 194 = 5820
Dwtw
And most importantly, the final pair of factors is 60 x 97.
Note that every number on the left hand side is a submultiple of 60; and every one on the right is a multiple of 97; therefore, every pair of factors is related to the approximation to the inverse of Phi given by the 60 / 97 pairing; it is the central pair to which all the others are related.
Litlluw
O.L.
[I]t seems more than coincidental that an approximation to Phi with very symbolic numbers could be found in a text of this length.
I assume you are joking? How can this surprise you? When
of course the results were picked on purpose.
Similar torture tactics, especially with these elastic "close enough for QBL" standards of what counts as a "hit", applied to any text, will produce equally significant results.
See, eg, the Bible Code methods applied to phonebooks, with similar/identical results to applying those methods to the Bible.
Similar torture tactics, especially with these elastic "close enough for QBL" standards of what counts as a "hit", applied to any text, will produce equally significant results.
See, eg, the Bible Code methods applied to phonebooks, with similar/identical results to applying those methods to the Bible.
Dwtw
I chose the two factors of 60 and 97 because they are the essential pair that divides the total of 5820. All other pairs are related to them. Yes, I chose them on purpose because duh! they were relevant to what I was investigating.
And there is no need for your straw man of 'hits', because I wasn't talking about gematria. I'm talking about word totals only. There are a specific number of words under consideration in the Book, and their sum is 60 * 97. Not close to that but exactly that. You can say "so what" to that fact, but you can't refute it.
This has nothing to do with things like the Bible Code, so it is pointless for you to bring that up.
The only thing that is "close enough" is the approximation to Phi, and this is unavoidable, as already explained.
Litllwtw
O.L.
@threefold31 @herupakraath I have a question regarding your counting methodology: When you talk about word or letter count "in the book", what do you count exactly:
Do the crossed-out words count?
Do the words filled in later count?
Do the "vellum book" inserts count?
Do Rose's additions count?
I could add, if so, why? and if not, why not?
Thanks for an answer.
I have a question regarding your counting methodology: When you talk about word or letter count "in the book", what do you count exactly:
While the letter counts in the manuscript and the published version of the Liber L text are different, they produce the same gematria system based on the hierarchy of the letter frequencies. I only use words that are in the completed verses.