What's the justification for transliterating Liber L vel Legis as
Lamed-Yod-Beth-Vav-Resh
Lamed
Vav-Heh-Lamed
Lamed-Vav-Gimel-Yod-Shin
?
In particular:
Why is the letter "S" transliterated as Shin instead of Samekh?
Why is the letter "E" transliterated as both Vav and Heh?
What's the justification for transliterating Liber L vel Legis as
Lamed-Yod-Beth-Vav-Resh
Lamed
Vav-Heh-Lamed
Lamed-Vav-Gimel-Yod-Shin
You are mistaken:
LIBER L VEL LEGIS = 30 + 10 + 2 + 5 + 200 + 30 + 6 + 5 + 30 + 30 + 5 + 3 + 10 + 300 = 666
Why is the letter "S" transliterated as Shin instead of Samekh?
Read the document.
Why is the letter "E" transliterated as both Vav and Heh?
It isn't.
Nice find about Aiwaz being a root for "marriage ("Ehe" in German) coming from "longlasting/eternal by law".
On the other hand I am not convinced that "the end of doubt" is here just because it happens that it took two fiddlings to reach a desired outcome and lo, and behold! one of these fiddlings is the same fiddling that was needed to get the same result with another word. It still is fiddling - which rarely convinces.
It's a bit like the fiddling in your Cipher 418 ("worthy of being hailed as a solution in itself" and whose "designer has extraordinary perceptions and skills that exceed those of a human being") which only works when fiddling with the "groups". It is clear from the L manuscript that Y and X hardly build a group (they are as far away from each other as possible in two lines) and if they do it makes no sense to seperate the RPSTOVAL group into two groups. Both would destroy the "proof". It is all very nice but still a lot of fiddling involved.
Nice find about Aiwaz being a root for "marriage ("Ehe" in German) coming from "longlasting/eternal by law".
I thought it was interesting and relevant, as is your input.
On the other hand I am not convinced that "the end of doubt" is here just because it happens that it took two fiddlings to reach a desired outcome and lo, and behold! one of these fiddlings is the same fiddling that was needed to get the same result with another word. It still is fiddling - which rarely convinces.
The significant issue seems to have eluded you: its not the fiddling itself that is important: its who was doing the fiddling, and when was it done; It wasn't me, I'm not responsible for any of the equations utilized.
It's a bit like the fiddling in your Cipher 418 ("worthy of being hailed as a solution in itself" and whose "designer has extraordinary perceptions and skills that exceed those of a human being") which only works when fiddling with the "groups".
You're referring to my treatment of RPSTOVAL. First, please consider the following statement:
Aye! listen to the numbers & the words!
Simple question: Is OVAL a word? If it is, then there is no fiddling involved, just the logical conclusion that OVAL, being a word, should treated as a separate group of letters. NOTE: although I feel that I have had my moments as a magician, there is no way I could have fiddled the word OVAL into existence, unfortunately.
R: Cancer
R: Cancer
P: Capricorn
S: Taurus
T: Aries
Shown above are the only letters in the II:76 puzzle of Liber Legis that equate with Zodiacal signs as defined with the Tri-key. As you can see, RPST is the only such group in the puzzle. The letters also represent three out of four of the cardinal signs of the Zodiac.
The only way I could have fiddled with the letters is by assigning signs of the Zodiac to them for no other reason that creating the group shown; if that were the case, then why not assign all four cardinal signs to the letters instead of just three? Here is why the letters signify the Zodiacal signs they do:
Cancer has a value of 9 in the Tri-key, because it comes after the Moon, which has a value of 8; the configuration depicts the Moon as the ruler of Cancer. The element of Water has a value of 10, and comes after Cancer in the Tri-key, with Cancer consisting of the cardinal sign of Water.
Capricorn has a value of 20, because it comes after Saturn, which has a value of 19, and rules Capricorn. The element of Earth has a value of 21, and comes after Capricorn in the Tri-key, with Capricorn consisting of the cardinal sign of Earth.
Taurus has a value of 6, and comes after Venus in the Tri-key, with Venus having a value of 5, and consisting of the ruler of Taurus.
Note that the planets appear in the Tri-key based on their distance from the Sun, while the Zodiacal signs are in their traditional order, which only adds to the evidence there has been no fiddling with the letters and their meanings on my part.
As you know, there is no way I could have fiddled with the values assigned to the letters, given they are based on the frequency that each letter appears in Liber Legis. Based on that demonstrable fact, one can only conclude the letters RPST were included in the puzzle to produce a Zodiacal pattern that is symmetrical as possible, while also equaling a value of 37.
When RPST has a group value of 37. and OVAL a value of 40, more than one remarkable thing happens. The first is the value 418 is reflected in the letter groups objectively, and as a matter of cause and effect, with no possibility of fiddling. The second and third things, consist of the appearance of the sums 143 and 219 in the puzzle numbers; in the puzzle letters; and in the combined number and puzzle groups, a total of six times each. To accuse me of fiddling with the numbers, you have to explain how one action can produce two independently remarkable results: the value 418, and the values 143 & 219.
Given the accusations of fiddling on my part are demonstrably false, you would be better off claiming the results are are simply extraordinary luck. Just so you know, I spent years debunking false claims made by the exponents of gematria, using a computer to recreate random results that matched what some thought were impossible. There is a difference between probable, improbable, and impossible results. The grey line between what is probable and improbable makes it difficult to rely on probability as a measurement of random results. There is however a means to demonstrate a result that is impossible, by showing that it can't happen at random.
The suggestion the values 143, 219, and 418, as concealed in the II:76 puzzle, are simply random results, is challenged by the knowledge that only one ordinal gematria system out of over 400 octillion possible systems, can create the numbers in the puzzle: the Tri-key system, derived from Liber Legis itself.
Simple question: Is OVAL a word? If it is, then there is no fiddling involved, just the logical conclusion that OVAL, being a word, should treated as a separate group of letters.
If you think this follows logically from "Listen to the words", okay, why not, it still doesn't make YX a group and you don't group them when you count your name and birthplace and what not.
It's as fiddly as BVLShKIN or LIBER L VEL LEGISh.
No fiddling, no desired results, it's that simple.
Why ex?.....!
two four ate nine
Dwtw
This is an interesting essay. One question I have is in regard to Boleskine as 418.
I always thought that this spelling was concocted by Crowley specifically because it is mentioned in Liber L, "the name of thy house 418". I guess what you're saying is that Aiwass knew that Boleskine could be transcribed that way, but this was a fact that was not in AC's conscious mind?
I have a quibble with one other thing; you say that AC had other reasons for formulating the word Abrahadabra, and wasn't deliberately trying to equal 418, but couldn't he have been trying to match it with the letter Chet spelled in full? Is it possible, since he knew the Golden Dawn tarot letters, that he wanted to hitch this to the Chariot, so to speak?
We know that he knew the word Abrahadabra before Liber L was dictated. And he would have known it equaled 418, so it's not a surprise that the number appears in the Book too. This suggests that he may have unconsciously calculated this before chapter 2 was scribed. Of course there is no proof of that, but a skeptic who thinks he faked the whole thing would rely on that possibility.
You bring up another point that I think is important, though. This is the enumeration of Liber L vel Legis = 666. What's curious here, and I never thought about it until the other day, is that all we know about the title is that AC says he 'heard' the L, (which could then have been El as AL). That's all well and good, that Aiwass told him the name but he didn't write it on the pages with the rest of the text. But it makes me wonder why the letter L was used in the first place. AC would have known this could refer to Lamed, and that in turn was Libra and the Justice card. But those don't really play a role in the Book of the Law. The closest you get is "with the just i am eight...", which is a fairly minor part of the narrative. So what is the L of the Book supposed to signify. It ought to be something important if it's the main title.
L might have been used for the title solely to get the 666 result. Or it could have also been used for the Lamed-Libra-Justice card connection, a harbinger of Ma'at, who is the goddess promised to come after the house 418 burns down.
Litllwtw
O.L.
I guess what you're saying is that Aiwass knew that Boleskine could be transcribed that way, but this was a fact that was not in AC's conscious mind?
Correct: "Accordingly, one emerging scenario not only has Aiwass functioning as a mind apart from Crowley's based on his exclusive knowledge of the gematria value of Boleskine, but also has him guiding Crowley and overseeing the purchase of the house."
I have a quibble with one other thing; you say that AC had other reasons for formulating the word Abrahadabra, and wasn't deliberately trying to equal 418, but couldn't he have been trying to match it with the letter Chet spelled in full?
There is no evidence the letter Cheth held profound meaning for Crowley until after he devised Abrahadabra. The letter itself does not signify the combining of opposites; it signifies Cancer, the cardinal sign of Water, and consists of the sign that marks the longest day and shortest night of the year, which is actually an imbalance, not a balance of ideas. The primary idea associated with Cheth in the Qabalah is a fence, which suggests a separation of ideas, not the combining of them. There are the Triplicities of the Zodiac as listed in 777, where Crowley lists Cancer as 'Water of Fire', but the concept is very thin as the motivating factor for making Abrahadabra equal 418. Once Crowley devised Abrahadabra, he was able to project the concept of combining opposites on to the letter Cheth based on the image of the Chariot as a vehicle for the Great Work, and the link made between it and Abrahadabra through the number 418.
We know that he knew the word Abrahadabra before Liber L was dictated. And he would have known it equaled 418, so it's not a surprise that the number appears in the Book too.
The issue I'm driving at is Crowley did not know what the instances of 418 in Liber L. actually mean, one of which is the gematria value of BVLShKIN, which he states implicitly that he did not know. He was also unaware of the purpose of 418 as utilized in verses I:46-47, and yes I do, the truth of which only bolsters my conclusions about Crowley not being the author of Liber L.
This suggests that he may have unconsciously calculated this before chapter 2 was scribed.
In that case, Crowley's unconscious would have lacked the ability to arrive at the value 418 for Boleskine prior to him devising the word Abrahadabra, and then suddenly developed the ability afterwards, and the ability to inform his conscious mind of the fact by dictating Liber L; in addition, the numeric link between Boleskine and Abrahadabra would have to be nothing but luck. The complexities and inconsistencies cast serious doubts on such a scenario.
That's all well and good, that Aiwass told him the name but he didn't write it on the pages with the rest of the text. But it makes me wonder why the letter L was used in the first place.
It's not hard to imagine Crowley hearing Aiwass speak the title as the first communication, and simply freezing for a moment, and then failing to write down the first word of the text, Had!, only to gather his wits, write down the first sentence, and add Had! in the left margin after the sentence was written.
So what is the L of the Book supposed to signify. It ought to be something important if it's the main title.
The L should serve a specific purpose, but in weighing what it might be, the least likely possibility is it consisting of a Hebrew word that Crowley failed hear correctly. Who includes Hebrew words in Latin titles? No one does. In addition to the letter L causing the gematria value of the title to equal 666, it also expresses something else familiar. One of the primary source documents for The Golden Dawn was Book T, the Book of the Tarot; expanding on that concept, would not Liber L. be Book L., the Book of the Law? I think so.
Dwtw
@herupakraath, thanks for the responses.
I also thought that the L might be a stand in for Law, for the same reason you mention. Supporting evidence for that is the fact that it was first called Liber L vel Legis, meaning "Book L or Law".
But he never says that in the Old Comment; instead he goes on about the sound of L - AL - El, and mentions Libra, never really talking about just the plain English letter L as a stand-in for Law. So either he had forgotten by then or changed his mind as to what it meant. And this is mildly funny to me because in trigrammaton, the letter L is the 1 trigram, and therefore it is called "Book 1", which is appropriate since it was the first and foremost of the Holy Books.
Litllwtw
O.L.
herupakraath:
"He [= Crowley] was [...] unaware of the purpose of 418 as utilized in verses I:46-47, and yes I do [= know the purpose of 418 as utilized in verses I:46-47 of Aleister Crowley's The Book of Law[?!?]], the truth of which only bolsters my conclusions about Crowley not being the author of Liber L."[Liber L. = Aleister Crowley's own The Book of the Law] [...] Who includes Hebrew words in Latin titles? No one does."
Aleister Crowley, who wrote his own The Book of the Law for his own Thelema, included Hebrew in his Latin titles for other books that he wrote for the same Thelema:
"... texts included in The Holy Books of Thelema[:] [...]
Liber Tzaddi (צ) vel Hamus Hermeticus sub figurâ XC[.] An account of Initiation, and an indication as to those who are suitable for the same.
Liber Cheth (ח) vel Vallum Abiegni sub figurâ CLVI[.] Sexual magick veiled in symbolism.
[...]
Liber A’ash (עש) vel Capricorni Pneumatici sub figurâ CCCLXX[.] Analyzes the nature of the creative magical force in man, explains how to awaken it, how to use it and indicates the general as well as the particular objects to be gained thereby. Sexual magick veiled in symbolism.
Liber Tau (ת) vel Kabbalæ Trium Literarum[.] A graphic interpretation of the Tarot on the plane of Initiation."
( Source: The Holy Books of Thelema From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - - - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Books_of_Thelema#Other_holy_books_of_Thelema )
herupakraath, what is the best evidence in support of your conclusions about Aleister Crowley not being the author of his The Book of the Law (, for his own Thelema, a book which proclaims him as the prophet of this Thelema)?
Aleister Crowley, who wrote his own The Book of the Law for his own Thelema, included Hebrew in his Latin titles for other books that he wrote for the same Thelema:
An excellent point. The question is, did Crowley author any of those texts before he changed the name of Liber L to Liber AL, which happened around 1920.
I also thought that the L might be a stand in for Law, for the same reason you mention. Supporting evidence for that is the fact that it was first called Liber L vel Legis, meaning "Book L or Law".
I considered the letter L might also consist of another Latin term for law, such as LEX, with LIBER LEX having a nice ring to it.
Apparently the use of VEL to express the words "of the" is somewhat obscure. My Latin dictionary doesn't show it, and finding some source online wasn't fruitful until recently, when I found it in a book dating to the 19th century.
it still doesn't make YX a group and you don't group them when you count your name and birthplace and what not.
So apparently you think the puzzle should only be analyzed as it appears in the manuscript, despite the obvious possibility of writing it in a single string of characters: a thorough analysis requires both approaches. Ironically, the fact that I have produced remarkable results either way should tell you there are no preconceptions on my part, and the results are simply cause and effect. The letters X & Y signify the planets Mars & Neptune as defined with the Tri-key, which makes them a group of planets.
It's as fiddly as BVLShKIN or LIBER L VEL LEGISh
Having accused me of fiddling when there actually is none, I guess it should be no surprise that you can't see the difference in the two equations above. BVLShKIN has certainly been modified to equal 418, but only because there have been letters left out of the spelling and letters changed.
When the title to the book was conceived, it obviously started out as Liber vel Legis. Applying gematria to it, the total comes to 396; using the value for Shin instead of Samech for the letter S, changes the sum of the letters to 636; from there the letter L has to simply be added to the title to make it equal 666. There was no fiddling on the part of RLG to arrive at the value 666, he computed the value the usual way, and then used the alternate value for S, which is not fiddling, but simply being thorough.
No fiddling, no desired results, it's that simple.
It is that simple given that I'm not guilty of either.
Showing my birth name and birth place are concealed in the puzzle using all of its letters is the first criterion for demonstrating who will solve it. There are two other criteria; the second one is fiddle-proof, utilizing nothing but the last of the numbers in the puzzle, 89:
TIMOTHY DANIEL = 89 = AMARILLO TX
The third criterion is untouchable, and beyond you or anyone else.
... you don't group them when you count your name and birthplace and what not.
I have produced remarkable results either way should tell you there are no preconceptions
BVLShKIN has certainly been modified to equal 418, but only because there have been letters left out of the spelling and letters changed.
"Left off" and "letters changed" are the prima facie definitions of fiddling.
using the value for Shin instead of Samech for the letter S, changes the sum of the letters to 636; from there the letter L has to simply be added to the title to make it equal 666.
Exactly! This is just how Crowley would have done it. Fiddling, as we say. Legis is not pronounced Legish, unless one has a speech defect. There is a vibratory aspect to QBL that is often overlooked in favor of written numbers and letters.
Written QBL is worthless, unless one uses it strictly to order the mind. To step outside one's self with a QBL solution or scaffold, one turns to the magical side, and the Word is spoken.
Legis is not pronounced, spoken, intoned, or vibrated as Legish
Unless one has a speech defect. Then it must be forgiven.
@herupakraath I never wanted to imply that YOU were fiddling. This written QBL thing is ALL about fiddling (like adding the undictated verse number or using groups of numbers twice or thrice f.ex.), done by EVERYONE. I just wanted to imply that the "end of doubt" is nowhere in sight. And yes, I think that the line break is important.
There is a vibratory aspect to QBL that is often overlooked in favor of written numbers and letters.
Yes one of the great overlooked realities!
... Legis is not pronounced Legish, unless one has a speech defect. There is a vibratory aspect to QBL that is often overlooked in favor of written numbers and letters.
Dwtw
Au contraire. You make an important point about the vibratory aspect, but you are forgetting that the letter Shin has two pronunciations, Sin and Shin. It is not solely the 'sh' sound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_(letter)
The pronunciation is indicated with a superscript dot. The value is 300 either way.
So, no, it is not 'fiddling' to count the English letter S as a Shin. What is really in question is whether one should do Hebrew transliteration at all. I personally avoid it unless it seems a likely means whereby some arcanum was hidden.
When I came across the Liber L vel Legis = 666 transliteration, I pointed it out to show what was possible. I have no way of knowing whether Aiwass intended this, because that title is not in the Book. It was concocted by AC, who knew enough basic gematria to have deliberately made it equal 666 by using the letter L for the Book. We know he did transliteration all the time, since he had no effective English gematria to work with in 1904. But I feel like if he had done this on purpose, he would have not been able to keep it to himself, and would have put it forth as an example of the non-human intelligence at work.
There really is no fiddling when it comes to using a system in a consistent way, such as TQ or the Tri-Key; you simply add the letters and deal with the results. The subjectivity enters into it when you have an answer and choose to align that with some other result. The number 89 is a good example; it clearly equals what the author says it equals, but it also equals a lot of other things.
And in the case of making Boleskine equal 418 in Hebrew, that is obviously done with lust of result.
If we do it with English instead, we have:
Boleskine = 113 = Clerk-house
And AC was told to "establish at thy Kaaba a clerk-house..." so this shows that the Kaaba was Boleskine, as AC claimed. We can also use the full name of the place:
Boleskine House = 179 = Ankh-af-na-khonsu
Here, at least, we can say that this refers to 'thy house'. This is followed in the text by 418, and all that implies.
Now when it comes to 'Kaaba', it would be really dumb to transliterate that as Hebrew Kaf-alef-alef-bet-alef, since it is already an Arabic and Hebrew word, spelled Kaf-Ayin-Bet-Heh, for a value of 97, the same as AMUN. This is one of the ways the name of the god was hidden in Liber Legis.
Litllwtw
O.L.
And yes, I think that the line break is important.
It certainly is there, but there is no break after the second part of the puzzle, and is instead followed by a period and the word that begins the next sentence: this suggests the puzzle is also a linear sequence of characters.
@herupakraath Good point.
Though the period was added later, even at a different time then the verse number. It's in a different colored pencil, not ink. As well as the colon. Just as an aside.
On the other hand, when taking dictation, how far behind is one after the spoken word? I would guess a few words behind. So to me it seems logical that if you hear Y and X followed by a number you would break lines after the letters. But of course that cannot be proven.
On another other hand - while I am reading a totally different AC manuscript - one (not me) might open up an old can of worms: that the Y doesn't look like a Y Crowley normally does (his handwritten Y is totally different and when writing capitals he always draws the hook - the upper two branches - in one move and adds the foot branch later - or before - but definetely not the way like in the riddle) and the X is way too small. Maybe they are not capitals, but lowercase y and x? Which should be (together with lowercase a) meaningful. But I am not opening that can, not tonight.
@herupakraath I see that you did not have any comment on the later added period, which you thought suggests something (I would think that it wasn't dictated suggests the contrary). No prob. Anyway. I have something I don't quite grasp with your "Fall of Because" [sic!] epistle:
Gematria Equations
AIWASS = 1 + 6 + 10 + 1 + 200 + 200 = 418
BVLShKIN = 2 + 6 + 30 + 300 + 20 + 10 + 50 = 418
ABRAHADABRA = 1 + 2 + 200 + 1 + 5 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 200 + 1 = 418
LIBER L VEL LEGIS = 30 + 10 + 2 + 5 + 200 + 30 + 6 + 5 + 30 + 30 + 5 + 3 + 10 + 300 = 666
I see and I know that Resh is 200 in Hebrew, as seen and counted here in LIBER L VEL LEGIS and ABRAHADABRA, yet I did not know Aiwass' name was originally AiwaRR*. Where is my mistake?
*And I love Ajvar!
@herupakraath Also I would be quite thankful if you can point me to the claim that Aiwass dictated the title "Liber L vel Legis". I don't know it by heart.
AIWASS = 1 + 6 + 10 + 1 + 200 + 200 = 418
I see and I know that Resh is 200 in Hebrew, as seen and counted here in LIBER L VEL LEGIS and ABRAHADABRA, yet I did not know Aiwass' name was originally AiwaRR*. Where is my mistake?
*And I love Ajvar!
Dwtw
AIWASS is spelled by AC in Greek, not Hebrew; Alpha-Iota-Digamma-Alpha-Sigma-Sigma, so the S = 200. And he uses the digamma for the W, which would make it an 'F' sound, so more like 'AIFASS'. I would call shenanigans on this one, as making a W into a digamma is stretching things a bit.
It seems his reasoning was that W would be a Vav in Hebrew, which is 6, so it should also be the letter digamma in Greek, which equals 6. This conclusion was important enough to AC to change the title page of the book to being 'delivered by 93 = 418', meaning Aiwass with the two spellings of Ayin-Yod-Vav-Zayin in Hebrew (making it OIVZ), and the aforementioned 418 spelling in Greek.
And of course he first thought that Aiwass was spelled Alef-Yod-Vav-Alef-Samek = 78. I guess he left out the second Samek because he liked 78 better than 138? And then he referred to him as Aiwaz. Talk about fiddling!
Litllwtw
O.L.
Also I would be quite thankful if you can point me to the claim that Aiwass dictated the title "Liber L vel Legis". I don't know it by heart.
At the beginning of his commentaries on the text, Crowley writes:"This title should probably be AL, El, as the 'L' was heard of the Voice of Aiwaz, not seen."
The above infers that Aiwass enunciated the title to Crowley at the beginning of the reception. Paper was sold in full, half, or quarter reams: 250 sheets, 125 sheets, or 65 sheets. With the text taking up all 65 sheets, it explains why Crowley was not required by Aiwass to write down the title--there was no space on the paper.
And he uses the digamma for the W, which would make it an 'F' sound, so more like 'AIFASS'. I would call shenanigans on this one, as making a W into a digamma is stretching things a bit.
Digamma or wau was part of the original archaic Greek alphabet as initially adopted from Phoenician. Like its model, Phoenician waw, it represented the voiced labial-velar approximant /w/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digamma
Dwtw
@herupakraath Thanks for the correction. it looks like an F but sounds like a V/W.
I guess that makes it even more suspect when the ST combination is counted as 6 because it looks like a stigma (which is name for the digamma=6), but has nothing to do with the phonetics of the S-T combination. So that would make Crowley's 'Stele 666' = 718 answer rather dubious.
"Stélé 666" would be more correctly numbered as 546 + 666 = 1212. Not quite the 718 he had in mind. Thus, more fiddling. One would need a word that equaled 172 to go with the 546 in order to make the name of the stele equal 718.
As it happens "é erémia" = 172 and means The Desolation. So "é erémia stélé" would mean 'The Desolation Stele' and be equal to the requisite 718.
Litllwtw
O.L.
"To sum up the significance of the Key of the Sun to the Book of the Law, it unlocks every mystery, and explains every facet of the Book with overwhelming precision and depth, including the three grades, the riddle of verse II:76, my role as the Child of the Prophet, as well as providing a complete self-contained system of magick and initiation designed exclusively for Thelemites."
"If you are a female Thelemite that is weary of women being expected to take a back seat to the solar phallus, the Key of the Sun is not only for you, it does more for female Thelemites than anything conceived within the last 100 years."
This was written (not posted) at least 13 years ago. The Egyptian Adepts made their visit. Are we (few) Lashtalians the only ones who will ever hear of it (and those 2 or 3 folks on Facebook)? You know you have to hurry, because if RTC is successful with his upcoming book, there won't be any Thelemites around, male or female (or other).
If you are a female Thelemite that is weary of women being expected to take a back seat to the solar phallus,
Or I could hang around with a better class of Thelemite than ones who expect that. They do exist, most everyone here being good examples.
You know you have to hurry, because if RTC is successful with his upcoming book, there won't be any Thelemites around, male or female (or other).
Which I hope would provide the Horus Toy, actual proof of claims of fraud that the readers are allowed to see, and maybe some magickal techniques that haven't existed for longer than I've been alive. Even one of those would be an improvement.
because if RTC is successful with his upcoming book
Are you giving any odds?
Or are you just fanaticizing?
RTC has sided, in his mind, with Horus ... and he appears to be antagonistically against Crowley, Thelema, LAShTAL, and any relatively-sane approach to anything.
We have been witnessing the breakdown of a human mind for quite a few years now.
I guess that makes it even more suspect when the ST combination is counted as 6 because it looks like a stigma (which is name for the digamma=6), but has nothing to do with the phonetics of the S-T combination. So that would make Crowley's 'Stele 666' = 718 answer rather dubious.
"The association between the numeral 6 and the letter sequence στ became so strong that today, in Greece, the letter sequence ΣΤʹ or στʹ is often used in lieu of ϛʹ itself to write the number 6"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigma_(ligature)
I guess that makes it even more suspect when the ST combination is counted as 6 because it looks like a stigma (which is name for the digamma=6), but has nothing to do with the phonetics of the S-T combination. So that would make Crowley's 'Stele 666' = 718 answer rather dubious.
"The association between the numeral 6 and the letter sequence στ became so strong that today, in Greece, the letter sequence ΣΤʹ or στʹ is often used in lieu of ϛʹ itself to write the number 6"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigma_(ligature)
Dwtw
And your point is...?
I'm aware that it is accepted practice to use a stigma as a 6, but popular opinion doesn't change the fact that a stigma is not actually a digamma, so the Crowley spelling is still dubious. Not completely 'wrong' mind you, but an excellent example of his fiddling with letters.
It reminds me of the conflation of Kronus and Chronos; one is a Titan god, the other means Time. But since they sound alike, eventually we get Kronus becoming Saturn becoming the Lord of Time, which is simply impossible from the standpoint of actual Greek etymology. The two words are not related, but they are conflated.
Litllwtw
O.L.
I am just going to be the idiot in the room and ask.
How does this number crunching and so called receiving help your - not only daily life, but so called practise?
I am a simple man. I like to do ritual to connect with God, and feel like I am slowly plugging into the Universe.
How does this, ....Crunching help you? Especially since you are sharing it in public?
Do you really love Math that much? It's not really ...Math.
I do miss him, in that regard. You may indulge to recall my dream. It would be more a visitation. As a poor Pisces idiot I saw more than I could chew. He is gross.
In all the meanings of the word.
Yet, we still all wait the Gospel (or at least me) of Rose's Diary.
And your point is...?
With Sigma-Tau being used to express the value 6 in Greece today, why couldn't Crowley use it to make the word STELE equal 52, thus making STELE 666 = 718? Is there some rule against it, like the imaginary standard for not interchanging Samech and Shin? By finding ways to make Boleskine equal 418, and Stele 666 equal 718, Crowley was simply confirming that which is stated in the text of Liber Legis, and if that leaves a bad taste in someone's mouth, they must not like the taste of success. 🙂
And your point is...?
With Sigma-Tau being used to express the value 6 in Greece today, why couldn't Crowley use it to make the word STELE equal 52, thus making STELE 666 = 718? Is there some rule against it, like the imaginary standard for not interchanging Samech and Shin? By finding ways to make Boleskine equal 418, and Stele 666 equal 718, Crowley was simply confirming that which is stated in the text of Liber Legis, and if that leaves a bad taste in someone's mouth, they must not like the taste of success. 🙂
Dwtw
I didn't say he couldn't use it. I said using it was dubious from the standpoint of actually reflecting the letters of the word Stele in Greek. Still, it's a neat result, and he got what he was looking for, so that's fine as far as it goes. But then, the number 718 has a much bigger role than Crowley realized, because it is the Golden Ratio complement to 1162, the value of Katalysis, the Word of the Aeon of MA.
So 718 was just the first step in the process, as part of Liber AL being the first step, and now the next step has been revealed in Liber MA vel Laudum.
Litllwtw
O.L.
How does this, ....Crunching help you? Especially since you are sharing it in public?
Do you really love Math that much? It's not really ...Math.
Dwtw
Not sure what you mean when you say it's not really math? Adding letter-values is simply arithmetic.
Part of the reason for gematria is to check the content of transmissions to see if there are any connected messages relating to a work such as a hexagram ritual. Another reason is to check a transmission from a supposed non-human entity for specific results that could not have been created consciously by the human who received them. Crowley used it for both purposes.
Litllwtw
O.L.
Not sure what you mean when you say it's not really math?
Chris hates math, memorizing, The Tables of Correspondence, and all that Hod burden. He prefers astral stuff, playing drums, and he cannot fathom Thelemic Mathematicians.
I was once a Thelemic Mathematician, but I gave it up when I was shown, not when I read, that too much reliance on virgin, pigeon, or numbers will, not can, not may, will lead to supernal instability.
the number 718 has a much bigger role than Crowley realized, because it is the Golden Ratio complement to 1162, the value of Katalysis, the Word of the Aeon of MA.
And is the area code for Brooklyn, NY. Let's not forget that.
As far as Chris' question above
How does this number crunching and so called receiving help your - not only daily life, but so called practise?
Knowing the correct area code for a place enables you to make phone calls and send faxes. What knowing the things that our Cypher-Solving Comrades tell us they have found may be useful for is an issue they both seem unable to address.
Not sure what you mean when you say it's not really math? Adding letter-values is simply arithmetic.
Yes, it is arithmetic. Ain't no mathematics though- online encyclopedias and dictionaries are very available. these words are not synonyms.
Yes, it is arithmetic. Ain't no mathematics though-
Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, so yeah, gematria is mathematics.
Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics, so yeah, gematria is mathematics.
Yes, it is, and no it isn't. Once more, these words are not synonyms:
Arithmetic is the simple calculation while mathematics is the cognition.
What is the difference between Arithmetic and Mathematics?
My favorite quick answer is…
“Arithmetic is to mathematics as spelling is to writing.”The dictionary definitions of these two bodies of learning are:
a·rith·me·tic
(1) the branch of mathematics that deals with addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division,
(2) the use of numbers in calculationsmath·e·mat·ics
(1) the study of the relationships among numbers, shapes, and quantities,
(2) it uses signs, symbols, and proofs and includes arithmetic, algebra, calculus, geometry, and trigonometry.
I was once a Thelemic Mathematician, but I gave it up when I was shown, not when I read, that too much reliance on virgin, pigeon, or numbers will, not can, not may, will lead to supernal instability.
Knowledge is rational, Understanding is transrational
Knowing the correct area code for a place enables you to make phone calls and send faxes. What knowing the things that our Cypher-Solving Comrades tell us they have found may be useful for is an issue they both seem unable to address.
Dwtw
You seem to be asking about the pragmatic character of knowledge gained from gematria. Part of the answer is that it is no different than any other kind of knowledge. In a vacuum, knowledge is simply data. For example, most astrologers agree that Mars is the ruler of Scorpio and is exalted in Capricorn. What use is that knowledge? It's not terribly useful to me, because I'm not an astrologer. But it is useful to someone making up a birth chart for supposedly explaining the character of the native.
The same thing is true of gematria data. In a vacuum, it is inert. And it is probably not of much use to most people. But if you're so inclined, you can use it to check on a vision or transmission to ascertain something of its character. Then it's no longer inert, it becomes a tool for that particular purpose. And I already said that above when I gave two examples of usage, both of which you ignored and instead claimed I have not addressed the issue.
As far as what the 'knowing itself' is good for, that is up to the individual. Almost all the knowledge we gain in life is of no particular value. And most of the really important knowledge is so ingrained it becomes automatic, like how to walk or speak a language.
Litlwtw
O.L.
You seem to be asking about the pragmatic character of knowledge gained from gematria.
You have grasped my question (which Chris T and Shiva have also explicitly asked, and others implicitly).
And it is probably not of much use to most people. [....] And I already said that above when I gave two examples of usage, both of which you ignored and instead claimed I have not addressed the issue.
So it is primarily a tool for self-delusion, and self-aggrandizement, as you mentioned above?:
[One] reason for gematria is to check the content of transmissions to see if there are any connected messages relating to a work such as a hexagram ritual. Another reason is to check a transmission from a supposed non-human entity for specific results that could not have been created consciously by the human who received them.
So far nothing you and you co-solver have presented impresses anyone as being "results that [you guys] could not have been created consciously". Simon Iff is more willing than i to take you more seriously on your own terms, and runs rings around you both.
Crowley used it for both purposes.
So what? AC liked to shoot dope, and also liked to take it up the ass. Neither holds any interest for me, because i don't see how either enables folks to "get out", and my inclinations as to drugs and sex lay elsewhere.
AC's insights as to liberation are the sole value of his work to a mystic/magickian. All else is fluff and rampant ego-aggrandizement (AC had plenty of both). You guys seem more interested in gematria as a technology of the latter than in ego-death.
Still zero hint of how these "insights" get folks "out".
So it is primarily a tool for self-delusion, and self-aggrandizement, as you mentioned above?:
No, it's not primarily a tool for self-delusion and self-aggrandizement, though it can be used in that manner. Its prime use for me is to suggest links between things which rationally are not linked.
When I first became interested in gematria, in the late 1980s or early 1990s, I started off with numbers that meant something to me. For instance, at that time I took a great deal of interest in the Amalantrah Working. There were certain visions or seances that particularly interested me, such as the seance of April 27th, with the reference therein to Gimel Lamed ('spring, fountain'), 33. Or the reference in the seance of April 12th to 151 as 'the fountain of living waters'. Working in similar fashion over a number of years, I built up a lexicon where a number was linked to a specific experience, and where I came across that number elsewhere I would look for a relation. Sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not. That's the primary use of gematria for me.
i am certainly not saying that plain-ol' vanilla gematria/isosephy like mother used to make (ie non-results driven, "no fiddling" Sepher sephiroth work) is "primarily a tool for self-delusion, and self-aggrandizement". Not particularly my thing but a valid tool. I think this the kind you mean , Michael.
But i still haven't heard anything that convinces me that certain folks who invent new English systems of numeration that enable them to solve the AL cipher, find their name and birthplace therein, receive channeled New Trilobite Aeon revelations, etc etc etc such as we have been inundated with here for a couple years aren't using it as "primarily a tool for self-delusion, and self-aggrandizement".
And neither can seem to offer anything that might be of any use to anyone else besides themselves. The results as to themselves, we all may judge for ourselves.
Are these guys advanced Adepts? AC's modern equals/superiors? They certainly think so; maybe so.