Crowley and his usa...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley and his usages of maths and formulas in Thelema

Page 2 / 3

Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5986
 
Posted by: @pertinax

naught, is already inherent.

Right. We're not creating Nothing out of duality. We're finding this pre-existing Nothing anywhere we look (assuming one is elevated and equilibrated).

Posted by: @pertinax

the truth is already here and now

Yeah, this is one of the New Age mantras. It is indeed paradoxical, and most New Agers leave the lecture and wonder Right there in front of me all the time? I wonder what it will be when I finally see it?  The math is 2=0, but looking around or writing the equation will not turn the deed. Nor will talking or writing.

Posted by: @dom

Are we still talking maths and Liber Legis or did someone hijack

It's a mixture. Some math, some reverting. You're just being nice.

 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56
Posted by: @dom

Anyway I was going to offload lots of astounding mathematical facts found in Nature, facts that are generally overlooked by the education system

That is a really good idea! Would you still mind? Some things are better worked through group conversation.

Ok I'll produce them bit by bit.

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1839
 

Here’s some addition.

Non-Dualism Advaita Vedanta implicative of the negation of duality is a negative theology. An idea of non-dualism contrasted with dualism, with dualism defined as the view that the universe and the nature of existence consists of two realities, such as the God and the world, or as God and Devil, or as mind and matter, and so on. With the focus The focus on bringing the worshiper closer to a conception of God and realizing a "oneness" with the God. Emphasizing the concept of unity of an individual soul (Atman) with the non-dual ultimate eternal reality god (Brahman). With the premise that god exists and atman exists.

Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise that Atman does not exist (An-atman). "everything is without an essential nature (nissvabhava), and everything is empty of essential nature (not Advaita Vedanta but svabhava-Sunya). An Emptiness without reference to non-duality or duality

The Buddha rejected the metaphysical doctrines of the Upanishads, particularly ideas associated with Hindu non-duality, such as the doctrine that "this cosmos is the self" and "everything is a Oneness" because of this; Buddhist views of non-duality are particularly different from the Hindu conceptions, which tend towards idealistic monism. All things are impermanent (anicca) and devoid of "self" (anatta) or "essenceless" (niḥsvabhāvavā),and this emptiness does not constitute an "absolute" reality in itself it is an absence which needs no imputing no grasping no attachment remains. Ultimate truth does not point to a transcendent reality, but to the transcendence of deception. In Buddhism "ultimate reality" is not an ontological Absolute reality that lies beneath an unreal world, nor is it the non-duality of a personal self and an absolute Self. Instead, it is a knowledge which is based on a deconstruction of such reifications and conceptual proliferations. It also means that there is no "transcendental ground," and that "ultimate reality" has no existence of its own. Emptiness does not exist as some kind of primordial reality to be united with, but it is simply a corrective to a mistaken conception.

The Blessed One says : The perfection of wisdom should not be viewed from duality nor from non-duality
Selected sayings from the Perfection of Wisdom Edward Conze pg 77


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 292
 

@tiger

Thanks.

Is the entire post from Conze? References are good, quotation marks or italics have a purpose.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1839
 

@hadgigegenraum
sorry

"The Blessed One says : The perfection of wisdom should not be viewed from duality nor from non-duality "
is from Selected sayings from the Perfection of Wisdom Edward Conze pg 77
all the other stuff are notes i took from all over the place.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  

 

Tiger, why would you choose to accept a single quote from someone who wrote what are now dated translations and understanding of Mayahana Buddhism into a discussion that stems from Vajrayana, Thelema and Non-Duality?

 
Posted by: @tiger

"The Blessed One says : The perfection of wisdom should not be viewed from duality nor from non-duality "

Duality and Non-Duality are a "duality", that is how.

They are just another duality to be transcended.

He is simply saying the same thing in other terms, and not the clearest terms at that.

Posted by: @tiger

Non-Dualism Advaita Vedanta

Is a very very very old system of non-duality.

The language is outdated.

Posted by: @tiger

Edward Conze

The Dalai Lama, an actual Tibetan and some would suggest an authority, on the other hand, says

Although the generation of wisdom is part of the bodhisattva ideal, as embodied in the six perfections, generally speaking, as we saw earlier, there are two main aspects to the Buddhist path-method and wisdom. Both are included in the definition of enlightenment, which is the non-duality of perfected form and perfected wisdom....

The final fruition of one’s spiritual path takes place in terms of the non-duality of perfected form and perfected wisdom.

So if your only exposure to Buddhism and non-duality is that quote from Conze and the Advaita of the Hindu, I would suggest you have some more study ahead of you.

Lucky you!

I would attempt to focus on the word "equanimity" in relationship to Buddhism, emptiness, or non-duality. That may be an easier door to open.

Equanimity is how some Buddhists now prefer to refer to Sunyata, as pure equanimity because we are all equally empty of any true self.

We are a verb, not a noun.

And since this is a topic about Thelema, Crowley, and math, bringing it all full circle, how does NUIT and Thelema explain emptiness?

Quite elegantly.

With numbers!

Nuit tells us that searching for a permanent self is like the infinite number line asking "how much am I?"

Like the infinite number line is "empty" of a sum, the self is "empty" of a totality of self.

This is ubiquitous.

EDIT: This is why there exists "The Two Truths" in Buddhism, because there are many "provisional" teachings of Sunyata, yet there is only ONE definitive teaching.

This dynamic of "definitive" and "provisional" is what Liber al Vel Legis is describing, and in an extremely elegant way.

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Pertinax
(@pertinax)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 81
 

"My prophet is a fool with his one, one, one; are not they the Ox, and none by the Book?"

Liber al, 1:48

Could be viewed as a refutation of the monism of the Advaita vedanta. The opposite of duality is not unity (one) but nothing (zero), placing it more in line with the Buddhist than the Hindu view.

I would suggest from this, that in discussing the topic of non-duality in relation to Liber al, we would do well to do the same.


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 

@sangewanchuck56

 

First off you understand that Pythagorus stated that Creation was organized by numbers and that for him 1 meant everything whereas 0 meant nothing?  10 therefore represented everything and nothing.  The number of teh first 3 elements (triangle) was sacred as was 4 (square) and when adding a triangle on top of a square this symbol was given great significance (7).    

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 

To be more specific Pythagorus emphasised the importance of a trinity i.e. Fire, Water and Air.   Laws of nature then were organized by numbers which I guess we could call occult interplay.  Numbers were said to be related no matter how many zeros they had e.g. 72 with 720 or 7200.

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Pertinax
(@pertinax)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 81
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

We are a verb, not a noun.

Which is exactly the point of view taken by Hadit: "I am not extended" (I am not even the line, 1),

See also

"for it is I that go" 2:7 (Hadit used I in the sense of a verb, rather than a noun).

Which is also identified by Crowley as the 5th power of the Sphinx, the power to go, symbolised by the Ankh.

See also:

"For I am perfect, being Not; and my number is nine by the fools; but with the just I am eight, and one in eight: Which is vital, for I am none indeed. The Empress and the King are not of me; for there is a further secret." 2:15

How to interpret this? Personally I would regard 8, and 1 in 8 as indicating the paradox of the singularity (1) being identical with the infinite (8 by its form as infinity as well as the self-replicating but ultimately impermanent nature of knowledge). 

If we just add these together, 1+8=9 we just bring things further down into the realms of impermanence in Yesod. What is really being said here, is that 1 and 8 are non-dual, that is they are the same thing viewed from different angles. A better formula would be 1 = 8, if you'll pardon the paradox.

 

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3599
 

Pythagorus also eschewed eating beans; being married to a Latina, i do not have this option.

I am not sure that the thoughts of Pythagorus are super-helpful to us today.

Unfortunately my grandpa's favorite joke about the Indian chief named Pythagorus is non-PC/pre-"woke", so i will not tell it. When i tell you that it depends on a pun on the now-banned word "squaw", you can probably figure it out for yourself anyway.


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
Posted by: @ignant666

 

I am not sure that the thoughts of Pythagorus are super-helpful to us today.

 

Speak for thyself.  Besides I've barely started.    

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  

This is going to be a good but long "math in Thelema" post.

If you love the elegance of math the way a poet loves a poem, I recommend it 🙂

@Dom, 

You posted something a few days ago, it is just "sprouting" now in my mind...

Posted by: @dom

We have ten digits i.e. 2 thumbs and 8 fingers, is this the reason we favour denary? 

I am almost certain the proper term in math for what you are saying is "base 10", the number count 1-10 (or rather 0-9) that all of civilization has miraculously agreed to use, as opposed to base 12 counting (The Babylonians), "base 2" counting (Binary computer code, 0 and 1), and my favorite and the favorite of Liber Al Vel Legis, "Base 3" counting, (0,1, and 2)

I cannot say how base 10 became adopted other than likely because it is the easiest to use.

And, what difference does it make if, like Nuit tells us "All numbers are infinite, there is no difference."?

What does it mean that all numbers are infinite and there is no difference between them?

This is where I find Liber al Vel Legis employing the naturally occurring elegance of a number line as a teaching tool, a natural way for the mind to arrive at "nothing", "non-existence" using the mind's own natural mathematical language.

I want to highlight three lines that Nuit uses mathematical language as the teaching tool specifically.

"All Numbers are infinite, there is no difference."

Nuit is teaching us the paradox of Sunyata, through the equanimity of counting numbers.

Nuit is using math and counting numbers to teach, because she wants to make this easy, not difficult.

If our minds can expand to infinity using a number line, then we are preparing our minds to expand into infinity when we experience the "consciousness of the continuity of existence".

0 does not exist in counting numbers.

We use 0 just enough when we count to confirm that it does not exist, that it is not here.

Now how does the language of counting numbers communicate non-existence?

Very simply and elegantly, requiring no argument, no conversion, no talking.

0

Consider maths, especially simple maths like counting numbers, being somewhat like the "skeleton" body of our mind. 

Our mind has this transcendent "non existence" language already figured out

What's more, our subconscious minds also understand this simplicity of non existence.

The bones of our minds already understands that if we do not represent that which does not exist, we will encounter contradictions, and drift, and therefore the only way to avoid contradictions in counting is by including a symbol for something that does not exist, and never ever ever forget to include it. This literally can mean life or death, riches or ruins.

Humanity’s discovery of zero was “a total game changer ... equivalent to us learning language,” says Andreas Nieder, a cognitive scientist at the University of Tübingen in Germany.

But for the vast majority of our history, humans didn’t understand the number zero. It’s not innate in us. We had to invent it. And we have to keep teaching it to the next generation.

Other animals, like monkeys, have evolved to understand the rudimentary concept of nothing. And scientists just reported that even tiny bee brains can compute zero. But it’s only humans that have seized zero and forged it into a tool. - From "The Mind Bindy Weirdness of the number zero, explained."

Peculiar, no?

Thankfully we have the number 1, to keep everything simple, organized, consistent, and strong!

All of counting is easiest to understand when we realize "1" is the only number that actually exists, it is simple, dependable, and has "zero" of the strange metaphysical baggage that comes along with the counting number "0".

There is only 1 actual number, which is the number 1.

The very first count, perhaps 50,000 years ago, was "1 and many."

How simple it was to count! There is 1, and there is many of 1's.

However, we have to count, 1 by 1.

The number line in its actual form, is 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 unto infinity.

There is no possible sum, therefore 0 is the placeholder for the transcendent on a number line.

So we have both 0, which is a placeholder for the full summary of the transcendent which has no existence yet without this non existence nothing could exist, and we have the number 1, which is just another way to get to infinity, by counting, like a fool, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 all the way to infinity.

So, 0 IS the infinite by representing the infinite sum of all possible and finite "1's" trailing in an infinite line.

And 1 gets to infinity by continual repetition, 1, 1, 1, 1.

But what about all other numbers?

How do they get to infinity?

The numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are just temporary arrangements we assign to the only real number, 1.

The number "2", therefore, is the first "symbolic" counting number. It is 1 number that communicates 1, 1. The number "2" is not really there either, like the "0", we just use the symbolic number because it is easy to write out 2 instead of 1, 1, like a fool.

This means that all numbers other than the number "1" are symbolic, and all numbers are equally scaling into infinity, just like the number 1 is. 

We could arrange any number into infinity, simply by counting continually–say 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7 into infinity or 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8 into infinity.

It is the same count into infinity.

So using counting numbers as a teaching tool, Nuit already has given us a language of the infinite using three numbers, 0, 1, and 2.

"I am infinite space, and the infinite stars thereof"

How do we count the infinite stars? One by one. What's the total? 0.

"My prophet is a fool with his 1, 1, 1, are they not the ox, and none by the book?"

Nuit's prophet is a fool to arrive at infinity by counting 1, 1, 1, because 0 is already the infinite sum, far easier since the count will be 1, 1, 1, 1 forever and eternal with no possible resolution.

Note, Nuits "prophet" is the fool, Aleph which is 0, her prophet's mind is the mind which expands into infinity, seamlessly, without effort, either 1, 1, 1 or 0 it literally matters "not".

So....base 10 counting is still 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,1 into infinity as the actual count, and the numbers 2- 9 are just symbols we use so we don't go mad counting 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, for every single math operation we do, much less infinity which is impossible.

So the number line is not just a mathematical expression of infinity, it is a wholistic view of our own infinite mind,  because the mathematical mind is counting 1, 1, 1, while the "symbolic" mind, the intuitive mind, can arrange the 1,1,1 into any set of numbers that it needs without worrying about wandering off into infinity.

This is a language our minds already understand. Nuit is teaching us in this very primal language

As a teaching tool, this is showing a duality transcended, the duality of the actual (1) and the symbolic (2), and their total union (0) what I call the very strange!

We see therefore that our intuitive mind, and our rational and analytical mind, are both represented in counting numbers themselves as this language as one whole system of mind, using one shared language. That is pretty profound!

Posted by: @dom

First off you understand that Pythagorus stated that Creation was organized by numbers and that for him 1 meant everything whereas 0 meant nothing?  

This I was not aware of (or totally forgot! I have forgotten more than I have learned) so thanks for bringing this in. 

We can see Pythagorus' view here, 1 is the only real number. And counting to infinity is simple, 1, 1, 1, 1 anyone can count that way. Our brains are wired to count this way.

Posted by: @dom

To be more specific Pythagorus emphasised the importance of a trinity i.e. Fire, Water and Air.   Laws of nature then were organized by numbers which I guess we could call occult interplay.  Numbers were said to be related no matter how many zeros they had e.g. 72 with 720 or 7200.

Posted by: @dom 10 therefore represented everything and nothing.  The number of teh first 3 elements (triangle) was sacred as was 4 (square) and when adding a triangle on top of a square this symbol was given great significance (7).    

See, I get the goosebumps when I see this great master stressing the importance of a "ternary ordering principle", because we see this "ternary" ordering principle expressing itself on the number line as well as expressing itself in Taoism as Tao, Yin, Yang, and in Aikido as the square, the triangle, and the circle.

Fun stuff: Who else discovered this "ternary" ordering principle that is mathematical as well as intuitive? Buckminster Fuller, creator of the "Geodesic Dome", which finds itself getting stronger the bigger it is built. It is based on three shapes, a square a triangle and a sphere, and they all work together, seamlessly, creating the strongest force in architecture, also representing this elegance, the equanimity of geometry!

Posted by: @pertinax

My prophet is a fool with his one, one, one; are not they the Ox, and none by the Book?"

Liber al, 1:48

Could be viewed as a refutation of the monism of the Advaita vedanta. The opposite of duality is not unity (one) but nothing (zero), placing it more in line with the Buddhist than the Hindu view.

Yes! 

However, even in Buddhism we see this fumbling of language too, referring to the "oneness" of Sunyata, which is not a number but prose! Some confuse it though as "we are all 1" which creates a contradiction in the subconscious mind because there can be only 1, 1, 1... and never only 1!

Posted by: @pertinax

I would suggest from this, that in discussing the topic of non-duality in relation to Liber al, we would do well to do the same.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I do not want to misinterpret.

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  
Posted by: @dom

Besides I've barely started.    

😀 Thank God, because I am almost finished 🙂

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Pertinax
(@pertinax)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 81
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I do not want to misinterpret.

I mean, I think we should take the Buddhist (not self, non-dual) rather than the Hindu (Atman, monist) point of view, as this is more in line with the point of view proposed in Liber al.


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 

@pertinax

@sangewanchuck56

So is this 'my prophet is a fool with his 1' relevant to the Pythagorean 1?

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Pertinax
(@pertinax)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 81
 

@dom

Posted by: @dom

So is this 'my prophet is a fool with his 1' relevant to the Pythagorean 1?

I've no idea to be honest, isn't that the purely mathematical expression? I personally think that the quote from liber al refers to the monist/philosophical idea of one, rather than the purely mathematical. After all, mathematics wouldn't work if you rejected all the 1's from your equations on philosophical grounds, because essentially mathematics would cease to exist.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1839
 

Sangewan Chuck posted
“ Equanimity is how some Buddhists now prefer to refer to Sunyata “

Yeah yeah these translators can’t read their own writing or know what wording to use and used emptiness instead of non dual when they should have referred it to Upekṣā the fourth apramāṇa of equanimity; to get it straight; not to mention minding their P’s or getting their Sh’s and T’s straight before figuring out the sheets to paste them on. I hear in the chaos mod state of the art avant-garde circles of secret wandering nomadic Nuristanis tantrika Jhakri from out of the siberian steppes have changed the taste of their neo tantric smoothie from spit to shit. It is claimed that the Russell's paradox, the imperceptible tenor of celestial sounds with its Syntonic temperament and timbre, the late Neolithic Carved stone balls petrosphere, the nonnegative integer dimension, The Seal of Hermes The Bath of Mary The sign of the Entered Apprentice, compounding the uncompounded are all pointing to the same thing we have been saying.

Its all there in AL. Every man and every woman is a star. Every number is infinite; there is no difference.


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
Posted by: @pertinax

@dom

Posted by: @dom

So is this 'my prophet is a fool with his 1' relevant to the Pythagorean 1?

I've no idea to be honest, isn't that the purely mathematical expression? I personally think that the quote from liber al refers to the monist/philosophical idea of one, rather than the purely mathematical. After all, mathematics wouldn't work if you rejected all the 1's from your equations on philosophical grounds, because essentially mathematics would cease to exist.

No, as I said above, in mystical terms Pythagoras represents the manifest as 1 but the Bornless as 0.

Ten encompasses all then even the Bornless also apparently because you have a 1 and a zero; 10.

 

@sangewanchuck56

 

How can we determine that monkeys can grasp the concept of zero?

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Pertinax
(@pertinax)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 81
 

@dom

Posted by: @dom

No, as I said above, in mystical terms Pythagoras represents the manifest as 1 but the Bornless as 0.

I see. Then in that respect I regard that dichotomy of 1 versus 0 as false, both from the Buddhist and the Liber al perspective, since both in my opinion are barking up the same tree. To quote the heart sutra: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
Posted by: @pertinax

@dom

Posted by: @dom

No, as I said above, in mystical terms Pythagoras represents the manifest as 1 but the Bornless as 0.

I see. Then in that respect I regard that dichotomy of 1 versus 0 as false, both from the Buddhist and the Liber al perspective, since both in my opinion are barking up the same tree. To quote the heart sutra: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. 

But both are not in a dichotomy when 10 is applied hence the number 10 is sacred as any Cabbalist would tell you.

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  
 
Posted by: @shiva

The math is 2=0, but looking around or writing the equation will not turn the deed. Nor will talking or writing.

Perhaps, within an wholistic view, everything that we could ever possibly do can "turn the deed" as you put it?

What if this sort of thing happens in degrees?

For example, sure lots of talking and chatter would appear to contradict a state of presence and silence, but consider, what if the talking and chatter is about the dharma instead of football and stocks? That would be "one degree" closer, right?

Posted by: @pertinax

Which is exactly the point of view taken by Hadit: "I am not extended" (I am not even the line, 1),

See also

"for it is I that go" 2:7 (Hadit used I in the sense of a verb, rather than a noun).

Which is also identified by Crowley as the 5th power of the Sphinx, the power to go, symbolised by the Ankh.

See also:

"For I am perfect, being Not; and my number is nine by the fools; but with the just I am eight, and one in eight: Which is vital, for I am none indeed. The Empress and the King are not of me; for there is a further secret." 2:15

Oh we are getting to the fun stuff, technically off topic in the sense that, from my view, the elegance of math appears to be Nuit's language, and Hadit's language is more the language of "the arts" broadly, but specifically the language of theater, comedy and tragedy. Hadit is a puzzle master, challenging what Nuit taught us.

Chp2 teaches us to arrive at this "nothingness" through an entirely different principle. Building off of Nuit's

""For I am perfect, being Not; and my number is nine by the fools; but with the just I am eight, and one in eight: Which is vital, for I am none indeed."

I mean, what kind of dependable math is that?

I think Hadit here is playing off of various perspectives, which all can be true in some sense, even though different perspectives may contradict each other objectively, subjectively they all have meaning, but I don't think Hadit wants us to use the "math" part of our mind to do this, I think he wants us to use the intuitive part of our mind to do this, which can rely on math, sure, but it can rely on anything "symbolic".

A simple clue to this is Nuit is Chapter 1, the only actual number, the only "real" truth we all can agree on.

Hadit is Chapter 2, the first of an infinite amount of "symbolic" numbers, he represents an infinite variety and an infinite number of options of how to arrange the number 1, the actual, and express it uniquely.

Posted by: @pertinax

How to interpret this? Personally I would regard 8, and 1 in 8 as indicating the paradox of the singularity (1) being identical with the infinite (8 by its form as infinity as well as the self-replicating but ultimately impermanent nature of knowledge). 

If we just add these together, 1+8=9 we just bring things further down into the realms of impermanence in Yesod. What is really being said here, is that 1 and 8 are non-dual, that is they are the same thing viewed from different angles. A better formula would be 1 = 8, if you'll pardon the paradox.

 

 

Ha! This is very interesting, I really can appreciate what you are doing here, like sipping your wine, so to speak. I never looked at the relationship between 1 and 8 with that non-dual view!

(fyi, this is why I believe group discussion of the text can be highly rewarding and enlightening, because we can learn to translate each other's internal language through the book, like a rosetta stone, each unique view adding something to someone else's, a group alchemy, we all help us get smarter, wiser, creative, etc)

Also for me, intimately speaking that is, my mind is deeply absorbed in Leary's 8 circuit model. Now I am not suggesting in any way that 1 - 8 are intentionally meant to "mean" 8 brain circuits, specifically the first bio survival circuit and the last cosmic circuit, it is just that because Leary's system is in my mind extensively, my mind can work with this verse in a personal way, a provisional way, a way that may only work for me (and a few other idiots just like me)...but still have me arrive at the same conclusion as someone else who arrived at it completely different manner all together.

Hadit may require its own thread or its own topic, because Hadit's language is so symbolic, personal, and is more intimate with the reader, I find myself arriving at something very similar to you but in a different way. Hadit's theater teaches us all intuitive ways of getting there.  Sort of like "All roads lead to Rome" but all the roads were mapped by Lewis Carrol, yet still lead to the same place, "nothing", zero.

Hadit is the paradox master! You just proved this, at least to me, by arriving at the same paradox as I have, but with a completely different view of the text than I.

Should this be its own topic? Thoughts? Perhaps "Crowley's usage of puzzles, paradoxes, and poems, the theater of Thelema" when the time is right 🙂

Posted by: @pertinax

I mean, I think we should take the Buddhist (not self, non-dual) rather than the Hindu (Atman, monist) point of view, as this is more in line with the point of view proposed in Liber al.

Yes! 

Now here is the freaky part, at least to where I am at in my research.

The Non-Duality of Thelema in Liber al Vel Legis is very sophisticated, and indeed you and I see the same thing when we see the non-dual Buddhist view as opposed to the Hindu, atman, monist view.

However, the Buddhist Non-Dual view that expresses this is only the view of the Vajrayana within the "third turning" of the wheel of dharma.

This "view" was not known in the world until 1959, when China invaded Tibet and the Dalai Lama escaped into India. (Except how this dharma "leaked" into the West, enter the Theosophists, and Crowley!)

Crowley had access to the word "sunyata" through Theravada Buddhism, which is definitely the "old aeon" Buddhism, and not the Vajrayana teaching of non-duality.

Hence my original question that began on the "Discrepancies" thread, where did Crowley get it?

Now my expertise of Vajrayana does not exist, I am still a student.

I am a diligent student, knee deep in my studies, with a good mind for the subject, but still much to learn, so what I am about to write I write with extreme caution; I think that Liber al Vel Legis may contain a more sophisticated teaching of Sunyata and the two truths of Buddhism than within the Vajrayana schools up to a certain place in history, and such simplicity may be very important to that school, historically speaking.

Someone asked me "why don't you tell this to Robert Thurman" and I did, this is the conversation that has been initiated between he and I. He is going to introduce me to a monk who runs the library in Dharamshala, however, because of Covid, I will not be able to make that trip just yet.

But this is rich stuff! Surface is barely scratched!

There is an extensive history about teaching this absolute truth, Sunyata, through time and circumstance as both are always changing, and we can trace this conversation, academically speaking, coming out of India and into Tibet, and then cultivating for 1000 years, in a very analytical and philosophical way as well as a practice, the various schools in Tibet, including the BonPo, all having their own "unique" way to "approach" the duality of "the absolute view" and the "temporary truth".

I can go into more detail but this is where Thelema is a lot more interesting to me now than it was before this conversation started here on Lashtal.

Posted by: @tiger

Its all there in AL. Every man and every woman is a star. Every number is infinite; there is no difference.

Thus, Tiger and I enter into perfect agreement and consensus.

Posted by: @dom

So is this 'my prophet is a fool with his 1' relevant to the Pythagorean 1?

I believe it is, yes, but only in the sense that Liber al Vel Legis is giving us the same teaching, but updated, for us right now in history, in a way that our minds can understand easily instead of "grasping" to understand a great master from the early ages.

Posted by: @dom

No, as I said above, in mystical terms Pythagoras represents the manifest as 1 but the Bornless as 0.

Ten encompasses all then even the Bornless also apparently because you have a 1 and a zero; 10.

 

We can use 0, 1, and 2 like a rosetta stone for earlier manifestations of this language.

Doing so, 1 and 0 is a dualistic expression. Born or bornless. Yin or Yang.

To transcend this simple dualistic expression, 0 and 1, just unite them as one whole system, the whole system of "the born, and the bornless", or a "whole system of emergence", and then just add a +1 that represents the whole system.

0 and 1 is an earlier manifestation, in a time where perfect "non-dual" communication simply was not possible, and Nuit gives us 0, 1, 2 as the tools for the New Aeon upgrade.

How can we determine that monkeys can grasp the concept of zero?

By having calm, thoughtful conversations with them using non-dual language 🙂

Posted by: @ignant666

Pythagorus also eschewed eating beans; being married to a Latina, i do not have this option.

I am not sure that the thoughts of Pythagorus are super-helpful to us today.

Unfortunately my grandpa's favorite joke about the Indian chief named Pythagorus is non-PC/pre-"woke", so i will not tell it. When i tell you that it depends on a pun on the now-banned word "squaw", you can probably figure it out for yourself anyway.

Look at you, you wiley bastard, jumping in and out of this discussion, about and around, as if in a field of daisies.

Where did you and I leave off again?

Are you out of my life as quickly as you entered?

Tease!

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5986
 
Posted by: @dom

So is this 'my prophet is a fool with his 1' relevant to the Pythagorean 1?

I would say so, yes. Pythago's "1" is everything, all the eggs in the cosmic basket. The constant cry of We are One, Unity, Universal, One, One, One are universally spread out thanks to the Monotheists (Hindu, Judeo, Xtian, Muslim).

People like One God. It gives them something to relate to, and thus their existence is solidified.

This Unity is transcended by Taoism, Zen, Chan, Buddhism, Liber AL, and U.G. Krishnamurti. The Hindus have their Atma (Universal Self), but then they also have the concept of Shivatmadarshana, wherein Nataraja shows the viewer that Atma is just another creation of mind.

Posted by: @pertinax

I regard that dichotomy of 1 versus 0 as false

This is exactly what AC said (in his interpretation of AL), and what AL itself says, and the way I understand it, and I thought this was the basic math that was supposed to be understood (as a mental concept) by the Probationer ( 2=1  2=0), and this (2=0) is gradually practiced/performed/enjoined in greater "degrees" until 2 becomes 0 - permanently.

The only person I've encountered who seems to properly explain the practical side of becoming "0" is U.G.  - He picks up where O.M. left off in One Star in Sight (at The Ipsissimus).

I have seen that there are two kinds of people: There is the Zeroists and there are the Monists. Frankly, most folks are working the Mono line. They have an intermediary, such as Atma, YHVH, the HGA, Jesus, Gabriel (who was Muhammad's intermediary, which is strange for a religion whereby the relation to Allah is direct), Adonai, the Guru, the Priest, the Pope ... etc.

Then there's the folks who really have/see no intermediary principle, whatever it's called. In Hot Zones, we have the confession of Frater R.'., who admits to no intermediary; he does not perform invocations because he doesn't believe in these "gods." He merely performs the simple practice he developed as a child.

So, theoretically (in hard math), 2=1 is false - even if it takes a Zen no-mind to grasp 2=0. But practically, when one's (anyone's) experience plants an intermediary in front you (or behind you), it's difficult to wrap it up. This preliminary intermediary experience is know as The Vision of Adonai, or The Vision of the HGA, and it is particular to the 1=10 (real) ceremony.

 


Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  
Posted by: @shiva

I would say so, yes. Pythago's "1" is everything, all the eggs in the cosmic basket. The constant cry of We are One, Unity, Universal, One, One, One are universally spread out thanks to the Monotheists (Hindu, Judeo, Xtian, Muslim).

Yes you are on it!

However, let us not forget the biggest elephant in the world, the "monism" of "materialism".

Not the materialism of Madonna and the Trump family, but "philosophical materialism", which is the purely scientific orthodox view of reality which is that consciousness does not exist at all, the mind does not exist, there is no spirit, all that exists is matter, following laws of physics and chemistry, without intention, there is no "true will" in nature.

That too is a form of monism, equally harmful, I might add, and potentially far more dangerous in the modern world, because we see this "dialectical" struggle between monists and zeroists play out in history, in academia, in our voting patterns too!

Posted by: @shiva

People like One God. It gives them something to relate to, and thus their existence is solidified.

We all love "1" because it is the only actual truth, at the end of the day, and it is the truth that is easy, dependable, and non changing, using the number line as the teaching tool.

We just need a 0 and a 2 to have it flow.

Posted by: @shiva

This Unity is transcended by Taoism, Zen, Chan, Buddhism, Liber AL, and U.G. Krishnamurti. The Hindus have their Atma (Universal Self), but then they also have the concept of Shivatmadarshana, wherein Nataraja shows the viewer that Atma is just another creation of mind.

👍 👍 👍 

But remember, some of those schools do different things with this 0.

Only the vajrayana and thelema apply "magick" to this 0, use it as a tool to create a broader reality. the zen and chan buddhists do not. Actually, so do the Taoists, in a different way. Krishnamurti was no magician, but maybe I am mistaken.

Posted by: @shiva

This is exactly what AC said (in his interpretation of AL), and what AL itself says, and the way I understand it, and I thought this was the basic math that was supposed to be understood (as a mental concept) by the Probationer ( 2=1  2=0), and this (2=0) is gradually practiced/performed/enjoined in greater "degrees" until 2 becomes 0 - permanently.

Posted by: @shiva

So, theoretically (in hard math), 2=1 is false - even if it takes a Zen no-mind to grasp 2=0. But practically, when one's (anyone's) experience plants an intermediary in front you (or behind you), it's difficult to wrap it up. This preliminary intermediary experience is know as The Vision of Adonai, or The Vision of the HGA, and it is particular to the 1=10 (real) ceremony.

OMG someone is having maths come out of their ears now, hehe.

Okay, so now that you have applied the "truth" values here, we can introduce a new layer to the "maths of Thelema" which is logic.

0, 1, and 2 is also a very elegant system of logic, naturally occurring, and discovered after 1904.

Whereas

0 = Unknown (Both True and False simultaneously. Because of this, I prefer the word "Mystery" to "Unknown".)

1 = True

2 = False

Which you can see you consistently arrived at correctly, perhaps independent of any knowledge of an actual ternary based mathematical system underpinning what you wrote.

Now, "false" is the interesting value here, let's focus on "false" or "NOT true".

Inside of ternary, 0, 1, and 2, both the 0 and the 2 are NOT "True".

Inside of duality, we never get to really understand the value of "false" or "NOT" at all. 

Even if you look up "false" in the dictionary right now, the only thing it will tell you about "false" is that it is the opposite of "truth"

But what is false in and of itself, without referring to "true"?

It tends to be something the mind wants to avoid, especially in disagreement or argument, no one ever wants the "false" answer, and we all fight over who has the "true" answer.

Yet "false", from the wholistic view, is a whole other kind of truth together. It is not the actual truth of the operation, but it leads to another discoverable truth.

In Chp 2, Hadit teaches us the "true" nature of what "false" is, art!

All art is false in relationship to the truth of science and math.

But what a lovely false it is!

So all false answers, even false answers to true math problems, point back to an actual truth about something "personal", something about "the self", something unique to the self.

Self expression is all true to the viewpoint of the person expressing it, even if it comes out as gibberish, poetry, or a forum topic called "Non-Duality in Thelema" 🙂

Hadit teaches us the wisdom of the "false truth", the truth that is NOT.

"2" is false to the "1" because "1" is not a symbol of "1", 1 IS 1 number.

2 is also "1" number, but it "means" "1,1"– it is a contradiction to its own expression, the opposite of the number 1 🙂

2 is the "Anti-thesis" to the "thesis" that is 1.

 

Like 0, 1, and 2 is the paralanguage for all counting numbers, 0, 1, and 2 is a paralanguage to understand Liber al Vel Legis is these identical terms!

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 

@sangewanchuck56

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56  
Posted by: @ignant666

Pythagorus also eschewed eating beans;.....................

Look at you, you wiley bastard, jumping in and out of this discussion, about and around,

Eh that's a bit harsh,  wiley?   Lol.

Anyway Second Piece.

 

So I discussed Pythagorus's 1, 0 and 10 but he held number 7 as an important number.  All major religions have also.  He reasoned that there is a primary 3 and a secondary 3 which constitute the whole (1) and this is represented as 3  +  3  +  1 i.e. 331 which adds up to 7.   Whether he is the direct influence for Cabbalism  (mirrored Supernals below etc)  I'm not sure but I would say it looks like it.    He looked at numbers in terms of their components as I stated earlier in the first piece he had no qualms about associating a number with itself raised by powers of 10 e.g. 7 with 70 or 700 so on. 

He also viewed 216 as a magic number because it was 6 x 6 x 6.    If we add a zero to 216 we have 2,160 which is the diameter of the Moon in miles.  2,160 years is the precessional period of each Zodiacal cycle.  12 x 2160= 25,920 which is a complete precessional cycle of all Zodiac periods.   2,160 divided by 6 gives 360 which is notable for the amount of degrees in a full circle.  Divided by 24 (number of hours in a day) we have 90  (the degrees in a right angled triangle) and divided by 12 it gives 180 (also significant when we consider 180 degrees)

 

All of these key numbers also recur in Mayan, Egyptian and Sumerian myths. Note that young Pythagoras is said to have visited Egypt as part of his quest for knowledge.

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  

Hey @Dom!

I’m pretty excited to share with you what is coming next!!!

When you or anyone sees a lot of !!! in my posts, please know that is my level of excitement, (like the wag of a dogs tail, but emotionally similar to a teenage girl listening to her favorite pop band on Youtube) and this post is rated !!!

(Also, I was going to post this to you before I noticed your last post, so I will answer that below this)

0, 1, 2 as a mathematical paralanguage and codex, like we are discussing now, applied to a “holy text”, actually already has a precedent going back to 1968.

This precedent also applied a remarkably similar method as I did.

This has been so freaky for me to discover that I stopped absorbing his work because the implications were too grand, but after this conversation, I think I am ready 🙂

Are you or is anyone else familiar with the work of Stan Tennen and the Meru Foundation?

https://www.meru.org/

I am going to quickly outline his journey!!!

Stan Tennen, in 1968,  out of curiosity picked up the book of genesis written in the original Hebrew, which he did not understand.

In a similar approach to myself with Liber al Vel Legis, he was puzzled by how the text looked in the original hebrew, to him it looked like "code", because he was familiar with code language and did not understand Hebrew, or cabbalah!!!

Screen Shot 2021 06 11 at 1.12.33 PM

After learning as much “esoteric” information as he could, most importantly kabbalah, he found himself unsatisfied with the esoteric cabalistic interpretations of the text, specifically how the text was arranging itself into the self referential structure that no one he talked to seemed to know anything about.

He was looking at the text as something self referential, and he was arriving at this through viewing what I call the “paralanguage” but he calls something else, he calls it the mathematical self referential structure of the Hebrew alphabet when it is counted in…

Wait for it…

Base three; 0, 1, and 2 🙂

And when he continued to follow the paralanguage of 012 applied to the text, he began to unfold the mathematical hyper structure of The first chapter of Genesis, which gives instructions down to even the shape of the Hebrew Letters themselves!

His “mathematical” modeling required the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, counted in 0, 1, and 2, to become aligned in a mathematical methodology of “pasting sheets” together!

I kid you not.

This would means?! that the source of Liber al Vel Legis, and the source of the Hebrew Book of Genesis, are one in the same!?

Was Crowley or the ancient Rabais the ones encoding this mathematical paralanguage, or is this the actual fingerprint of our own "higher intelligence"?!!!??

Please and kindly view this 20 minute introduction to “The First Verse” of Genesis and the origins of Stan’s work in this video, it is eerie how similar it is to what I have been attempting to explain here in these discussions, some of which have been in real time!

https://youtu.be/ucO2TObd2rQ

Sheesh, if I ever was going to melt down, it would be here 🙂

All hands on deck! 

(I’m breathing! I’m breathing?)

Allah!

🙂

Posted by: @dom

Eh that's a bit harsh,  wiley?   Lol.

Dom, I call 'em as I see 'em.

er...maybe it ain't nothing til I call it?

hehe

Posted by: @dom

So I discussed Pythagorus's 1, 0 and 10 but he held number 7 as an important number.  All major religions have also.  He reasoned that there is a primary 3 and a secondary 3 which constitute the whole (1) and this is represented as 3  +  3  +  1 i.e. 331 which adds up to 7.   Whether he is the direct influence for Cabbalism  (mirrored Supernals below etc)  I'm not sure but I would say it looks like it.    He looked at numbers in terms of their components as I stated earlier in the first piece he had no qualms about associating a number with itself raised by powers of 10 e.g. 7 with 70 or 700 so on. 

The 0 and 1, and of course including the "2", are the "meta" numbers for the system. All other numbers have unique esoteric importance too, the paralanguage of the numbers just helps us communicate the other numbers meaning with greater clarity.

For example, Nuit herself says divide add multiply and understand.

we get

0.12

Then we get 3

Then we get 9

So already the paralanguage is leading us to discovery of other very important arrangements as well.

Now it is hard for me to comment on Pythagorus' system in terms of his own "cabbalah", but just from what we already know about the paralanguage, we can see that...

2 is the number of duality, as in the "separate parts" of one system.

The whole system of the duality is the absorption of the individual parts. So "all the parts", including the absorption, count to 3.

4 is the number of two sets of dualities, a mother and a father, and a son and a daughter.

5 is the absorption of those qualities, as the "spirit" is the absorption of the four elements.

6 is the union of two resolved dualities, a microcosm and a macrocosm. 

7 is the number of the parts of a whole system applying two sets of dualities (4), and one system of resolution (3).

The whole system of 7 is +1, 8 or the whole system of two sets of dualities and one system of resolution as one whole system, non-dual.

To look at numbers this way, as representations of finite systems and whole systems, we just always need to remember to add a +1 to every system to get the "whole system" count.

Posted by: @dom

ll of these key numbers also recur in Mayan, Egyptian and Sumerian myths. Note that young Pythagoras is said to have visited Egypt as part of his quest for knowledge.

I know this is where it gets to freaky for me...

I wish to confront this mystery with you all, it is a very real mystery, no?

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

 

Please and kindly view this 20 minute introduction to “The First Verse” of Genesis and the origins of Stan’s work in this video, it is eerie how similar it is to what I have been attempting to explain here in these discussions, some of which have been in real time!

https://youtu.be/ucO2TObd2rQ

Sheesh, if I ever was going to melt down, it would be here 🙂

 

I am sceptical when occultists or open-minded scientists look for patterns in texts  but I watched your link.  The paralanguage of 012 applied to the text sounds good.  The crux of his ideas are the 10m50s onwards where he allegedly demonstrates that one shape (derived from the geometric alignment of the letters in first line of Genesis) can produce shadow-grams that give exact replicas of every letter in the Hebrew alphabet.  I would've liked to see a clear and thorough demonstration of this letter by letter.   

 

The bit about the hand 12m44s (and the Latin root of the word 'man' What does the root Manus mean? | EveryThingWhat.com) was interesting seeing as the Circuit 3 hand and voicebox are directly linked.  Also we see representations of Christ and Buddha defining humanity with their first finger and thumb poised/touching (no other primate can do this),  Yod means hand and all of the other letters are derived from it's basic shape.  

 

Yeah he does appear to have inadvertently tuned into Liber Al which does make use of these sacred letters ( 1:57 and 1:46).

 

24. I am Nuit, and my word is six and fifty.

25. Divide, add, multiply, and understand.

 

Why is Nuit 56?  Why is 61 Nothing?  By the way note the number 2 here ; 1:28. None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.

Note here that Nuit refers to the Pythagorean method of attributing 8 to 80 or not

46. Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen

Why the significance of 11?  The pentagram-Hexagram micro-macrocosm link?  

1:60. My number is 11, as all their numbers who are of us. The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red.

 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5986
 
Posted by: @dom

the geometric alignment of the letters in first line of Genesis) can produce shadow-grams that give exact replicas of every letter in the Hebrew alphabet.  I would've liked to see a clear and thorough demonstration of this letter by letter.   

I've "read" about this one. It's mentioned by some player in the Alien/UFO Paradigm Game. I would also be interested in seeing this, step by step and, sure, letter by letter.

 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by: @shiva
Posted by: @dom

the geometric alignment of the letters in first line of Genesis) can produce shadow-grams that give exact replicas of every letter in the Hebrew alphabet.  I would've liked to see a clear and thorough demonstration of this letter by letter.   

I've "read" about this one. It's mentioned by some player in the Alien/UFO Paradigm Game. I would also be interested in seeing this, step by step and, sure, letter by letter.

 

I'm sceptical, if you watch the video  The First Verse, An Introduction to Meru Foundation Research - YouTube    at  1:17  what actually initially triggered his curiosity?  He thought that the bunch of words in the first line of Genesis "didn't look like language".  This sounds like baloney.   Did he honestly think that out of all of the sentences in the Holy Book he could have zoomed in on that it was only the first verse that had that strange look about it?  We're talking Texas Sharp-Shooter fallacy here. Why didn't he peruse the book a bit more until he found similar 'strange' clusters?   Furthermore, how does a sentence containing words 'not look like language'?   That's literally impossible unless you have something like 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'  'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb' ......and all this is his premise! .  It therefore sounds like a pre-planned spiritual conman trick (guy  looking for a gullible reliable niche-market)...or he's simply a wacky guy.  Now I'm not totally dismissive as they initially laughed the house down when Mendeleyev presented his famous octave patterns to scientific institutions but that's hardly on the same scale.   Orion's Belt reflected in the three Great Pyramids anyone?  
 
At 4:33 he claims to be using  scientific method,  well, was he?   At 5:10 his astounding revelation was that the special sentence not only has 27 letters but the final one was the 27th letter of the Hebrew alphabet.   He figured that 27 is 3 raised to powers of 3 and apparently this led him to apply the ternary system (as oppose to binary and denary) to all of the Hebrew letters.
 
000  =   0
001  =   1
002  =   2
010   =  3
 
Where is this leading?  I don't know but 6:13 he claims when he used ternary the whole first verse becomes one unit.   Say what?  More like so what?  I don't get it. What am I missing there?  He then decided to 'auto correlate' the letters i.e.  when you fold/make a paper aeroplane you put slot A into tab A and B for B so on.  
7:55 he made a 2D bead-chain pairing up all of the letters with themselves.  Some letters were left over of course and they were left in the position in his schema. 
 
9:25 He makes a doughnut shape that infinitely swirls around onto itself and tells us that he has made the first verse of Genesis into a doughnut...not the second or the 144th verse but the first verse. 
 
At 9:38 he peels some sort of curvy line off of the surface of a 3D doughnut model....huh?  What?  He claims that this curvy line is the definition of the vortex of the doughnut.  Why that particular line is a 2D representation of a mathematical 3D doughnut model is not elaborated on.  Is this a viable thing to do in geometric maths?  9:51 his conclusion is that he found a 'startling' revelation, this doughnut curvy line thing is a prototype of all Hebrew letter-shapes if...wait for it....you make shadows on the wall by moving it around a bit until you find all of the letters.   Did I earlier compare this guy to Mendeleyev?   At 11:44 he produces a table apparently  demonstrating this.  
 
At 12:50 he explains that not only is this shape a prototype for all Hebrew letters it also represents the hand of homo sapiens sapiens, that particular form of primate that used it's hand to develop language and separate itself from the animal kingdom etc.   Why?  Well his curvy 3D shape model perfectly fits into the outline of his hand. He points out that Yod (hand) is the prototype for all of the Hebrew letters.  He then discusses hand gestures and shadow-making. I basically felt like I'd watched enough. 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4147
 
Posted by: @dom

24. I am Nuit, and my word is six and fifty.

25. Divide, add, multiply, and understand.

 

Why is Nuit 56?  Why is 61 Nothing?  By the way note the number 2 here ; 1:28. None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.

Note here that Nuit refers to the Pythagorean method of attributing 8 to 80 or not

46. Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen

Why the significance of 11?  The pentagram-Hexagram micro-macrocosm link?  

1:60. My number is 11, as all their numbers who are of us. The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red.

Crowley's comments on these verses shed some light, so you could do a lot worse than grab a copy of Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law. For instance, NV = 56 or "six and fifty". AIN, a Hebrew word for 'Nothing', yields 61. However, Crowley was merely seeking to explain or cast light on the text. When I was a sprog, I used to ask my mum repeatedly WHY: why this, why that. Finally exasperated, she would say: "Because it's got a long tail, and you can't pull it." Over the years, I've come to see this as an example of Bedfordshire folk-wisdom at its finest.

I mean, why should Nuit's "word" be 56, when it could just as easily be 466 (NVITh), or even - when push comes to shove, as it so often does - 66 (the number of verses in the first chapter of The Book of the Law)? Doubtless there are other Hebrew words for 'Nothing' which don't enumerate as 61.

In the final analysis, though, these are just attempts to rationalise the irrational. A bit like life then, I hear you riposte. Just so.


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
Posted by: @michael-staley
 
Crowley's comments on these verses shed some light, so you could do a lot worse than grab a copy of Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law. For instance, NV = 56 or "six and fifty". AIN, a Hebrew word for 'Nothing', yields 61.
Oh it's Hebrew Gematria?

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4147
 
Posted by: @na

Oh it's Hebrew Gematria?

In these instances, yes. At the beginning of the "New Comment" to Chapter I verse 25 ("Divide, add, multiply, and understand"), Crowley remarked: "I am becoming gradually more inclined to look for Greek Qabalah as a Key to this Book". However, he wasn't as well versed in Greek Qabalah as he was in Hebrew Qabalah; the Greek equivalent of Sepher Sephiroth was I think compiled after his death from numerous scraps of paper.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5986
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Orion's Belt reflected in the three Great Pyramids anyone?  

Sure. Why not? Things "up there" and "out there" are reflected into/by our mini-world. Just in case the reflection is distorted, your investment (based on this "fact") in stocks, bonds, and currencies should not be influenced by by Orion.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

... the whole first verse becomes one unit.   Say what?  More like so what?  I don't get it. What am I missing there? 

Sorry, I'm lost but still paying attention.I am personally concerned about anything relating to any sentence or word or line that has been translated, copied, converted, and proclaimed as the  Word of God!  But, if something practical comes out of this, I'm all for it. I'll even accept abstract proofs of mystical thinking.

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  

Good morning...David?

Okay @kidneyhawk, you got some 'splainin' to do!

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

The bit about the hand 12m44s (and the Latin root of the word 'man' What does the root Manus mean? | EveryThingWhat.com) was interesting seeing as the Circuit 3 hand and voicebox are directly linked.

I forgot to mention that was 1/2 the reason I posted to you, since you mentioned our counting fingers/digits.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Why is Nuit 56?  Why is 61 Nothing?  By the way note the number 2 here ; 1:28. None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.

Why the significance of 11?  The pentagram-Hexagram micro-macrocosm link?  

1:60. My number is 11, as all their numbers who are of us. The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red.

Please let us all remember that "numbers", either through Gematria or just the natural paralanguage, are just "story telling" devices that we use to create meaning out of nothingness in a manner that is fun and this itself is a form of "tantra", I believe, a form of magick where we learn to communicate with "higher intelligence" that either is simply our own mind or the mind of a divine deity, like our HGA.

The question is, does the meaning we derive make sense? Is it consistent? Can I do cool stuff with it? Can I design something with it? Can I share it with another human being and can they also make sense of it? is it a whole system of meaning unto itself?

If you answer "yes" to all of those questions, then for sure what ever meaning has be derived is the appropriate meaning, you win!

Can we make a prediction with the meaning we derive?

This is the best way to test whatever meaning we have derived from a cryptic text.

I'm not sure "why" is the question we want to ask if we are following the text, for the text warns us against asking "Why". 

"Why" as a question is seeking "purpose" or meaning from the outside external world, so if we view that philosophically, it is a query of silent contemplation, because according to the text, "we" are that purpose and there is no reason to ask why if we are following our "pure will", unassuaged of purpose (meaning empty of purpose)

However, the text says nothing about asking "how" 🙂

As in "how can this be derived?" Or "how does Nuit view this?"

I can only suggest that Nuit's number is 56 solely because she says it is, and that she also says she is a compliment to Had, whose number is the "mirror" opposite of 65, so Nuit is 56 because Hadit is 65 and Hadit would likely have the same answer.

Now, if we want to see how the "paralanguage" views this, it also gives some insight.

Both the numbers 5 and 6 are the mid-way-touching-point on a divided number line 1-10. So if we look at numbers 1-5 as the macrocosm half, and numbers 6-10 as the Microcosm half, we see that the numbers 5 and 6 "heal" that separation.

When Nuit tells us the secret key as "nothing", she is just being consistent with her voice, which is transparency, simplicity, elegance....she wants to us make discovery, and crossing the abyss easy.

"The ordeals I write not!"

When she tells us this "nothing" is what the "Jews" call 61, she is doing two things here.

  • She is "defining her terms" so there is no "ambiguity".
  • Her term is "nothing" as defined by the Jews
  • This means her term is "not the nothing that is the opposite of something"
  • Jews use numbers in Gematria to arrive at "meaning" of text. "Do ye also thus!"
  • So we do what the Jews do to find the meaning because Nuit has instructed us that this is one path that we can use to arrive at meaning.
  • Jewish cabbalah places "61" as the number of "Ain Soph", limitless light, above Keter
  • This defines "nothing" as the "non-dual" state of "Sunyata"

"I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen"

This could have various meaning in Gematria, but Nuit has already shown us how to arrive at what this means, Sunyata, and we can always "pick" the meaning that our angel instructs us to. 🙂

Since Nuit is just telling us this is what she "calls" it, for now, we can just view it as "knowledge", something we know about Nuit, and Nuit tells us that to "understand" (binah), which is NOT the same as knowledge (daath), we just "divide add multiply and understand" the number 56.

For now, 418 is the "Great Mystery of the House of God", which is pure emptiness. This has more profound meaning as we move through the Book.

The entire text makes a strong link..."The Great Mystery" of the West is the "Sunyata" of the East. An entire book could be written about that alone there is so much meaning to extrapolate.

Why the significance of 11?

Well, within the system, 11 is the number of magick historically speaking, and Nuit is 11 because 56 together is 11, and her Husband is 65, also 11, and the total is 22 combined.

But for me, she is 11, and 56, because her "root" number is 0.12

And I can't help but notice the "paralanguage" (which is NOT Gematria) showing that "My number is 11 as all of those who are of us" holds a special hidden joke, because 11 could also be 1,1 (a progression of the actual count of 1 into infinity) and when "one" gets this profound insight, it sort of has this "self correcting" mechanism to prevent anyone from getting a "huge ego" about the discovery because in this moment we realize we crossed over this huge duality, we realize that "Well, I am the ONE, but I am simply the ONE after the ONE before me, and I am the ONE before the ONE who comes after me that will realize it. I am just one of many 1, 1, 1, 1, "

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

I'm sceptical, if you watch the video  The First Verse, An Introduction to Meru Foundation Research - YouTube    at  1:17  what actually initially triggered his curiosity? 

Oh team...the video I shared was just a quicko intro...he has an entire library of videos and research articles going into extreme detail the very questions both you and Shiva raise.

https://www.meru.org/1Letters.html#title

I haven't progressed past his first arrival of the "verse that is self-referential, that contains instructions of how to create the letters that it is communicating with".

That whole "meta" he is doing is pure mathematical, and it works to arrive at what he arrived at.

Now, is what he arrived at consistent with other mathematicians? Stan Tennen has the mathematical support of some pretty heavy math guys, including Ralph Abraham (who some of you might know through his conversations with Terence Mckenna, and Ralph LOVED debunking McKenna's timewave zero, and is a serious math professor from UCSC.)

Do orthodox Rabbi's support his outcomes, yes, they also do.

So if it is good enough for Ralph Abraham, PhD, and good enough for Rabbi, and I see a (0,1,2) number set as central to the un-coding, it is good enough for me 🙂

Now, the interesting part is the "base three" counting of the Hebrew Letters.

He said he tried counting in Base 2, 0 and 1, and did not get any result.

So he tried base three because the text, VIEWED AS A SELF REFERENTIAL phrase, has a natural ternary structure ONLY when viewed this way, so he tried it and "voila'!" it worked to unlock meaning.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

This sounds like baloney.   

I don't know, I think you're  bringing bad faith to what he is saying without any rational as to why he would be lying or misrepresenting himself that way.

He is simply relating his story, he said it did not look like a language because he did not speak the language, and therefore, as a pattern recognizer, he just saw patterns in the text, and was not sure if his patterns he saw had any meaning or not.

That's his personal narrative. Even if it is "baloney", which why would it need to be, it seems reasonable and I relate to it, that is just his personal story, it is not the evidence he presents.

He has 20 years of research and data on his website. You cannot falsify his work by watching an introduction video but you can by digging into his research.

Math is hard :/

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux
At 4:33 he claims to be using  scientific method,  well, was he?   

Yes, but not where you're saying he should.

In the beginning, like any researcher or scientist, he is "trying" things, experimenting, see what works and does not work. That's what everyone does in science.

Once he finds something that works, he tests it "empirically" and presents it for falsification to peers (mathematicians and rabbis)

The result of him doing this, the "child", is an entire system that is self contained and internally consistent, non-dual, and profoundly philosophical.

Now, I agree Stan's work is pretty "heady", too much at times for my tastes, but that is just my personal take.

At 5:10 his astounding revelation was that the special sentence not only has 27 letters but the final one was the 27th letter of the Hebrew alphabet.   
He is viewing that like a mathematician, he is reading "paralanguage" which is really there, and noting that the paralanguage can be taken as an instruction of what to do with the text.
 
He figured that 27 is 3 raised to powers of 3 and apparently this led him to apply the ternary system (as oppose to binary and denary) to all of the Hebrew letters.
 
000  =   0
001  =   1
002  =   2
010   =  3
3 Raised to the power of 3 is also the instruction Nuit gives us in "divide add multiply and understand" showing us this same nesting and seeding principle; 0,1,2 - 3 - 9
 
That line is the exact same instruction AND same result as Stan Tennen.
 
That is just a coincidence?
 
Also, Stan is doing, albeit a bit more methodically than Crowley, exactly what Crowley did too.
 
Crowley used Liber Trigrammaton to assign base three values (using the hexagrams of the iChing).
 
This means that base three counting was applied to Crowley to the English alphabet.
(Credit to this blogger who is doing great work and research on Thelema and Buddhism)
 
Screen Shot 2021 06 12 at 9.56.20 AM

I think we should consider looking at Holy Texts as media that contain "hidden teachings", and this is a very strong tradition in Non-dual tantra practice, the hidden teachings, the termas, hidden in caves, books, even the mind itself, by the Dakinis, who have a special "dakini script" that only the terton (terma finder) can read and understand.

Stan Tennen found a "terma" in Hebrew Genesis. No suprise to find one there.

There is also a "terma" in Liber al Vel Legis, an elegant and very sophisticated teaching of Sunyata and the "two truths".

I think that what we want to do is allow space for "trying things" that may seem to work at first. If they don't work, discard, no big thing. But if they do work, and you can continue to unlock further and further meaning all derived from your first principle, and you can actually "do something" with it, like design an entire system, I think someone would have to be an fool not to keep following that trail 🙂

Posted by: @michael-staley

In these instances, yes. At the beginning of the "New Comment" to Chapter I verse 25 ("Divide, add, multiply, and understand"), Crowley remarked: "I am becoming gradually more inclined to look for Greek Qabalah as a Key to this Book". However, he wasn't as well versed in Greek Qabalah as he was in Hebrew Qabalah; the Greek equivalent of Sepher Sephiroth was I think compiled after his death from numerous scraps of paper.

Michael it is nice to see you join the conversation, my understanding is you have a keen interest in the non-dual aspects of Liber al Vel Legis, and if you have any wisdom to share here on the topic, please do!

Cheers

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2020
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

Good morning...David?

Okay

, you got some 'splainin' to do!

If you are referencing my previous rhetorical query, no onus rests on my shoulders to 'splain anything.

At least not from inside my Death Cab.

But back to numbers. Hoping to chime in later with something more substantive.

 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5986
 
Posted by: @kidneyhawk

But back to numbers. Hoping to chime in later with something more substantive.

Throw in 23. It hasn't been addressed yet.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  
Posted by: @kidneyhawk

But back to numbers. Hoping to chime in later with something more substantive.

Well I am thankful that you popped in real quick with a quip! Because I forgot to add something to my post and now I can post it without worrying about getting zinged with a double post 🙂

@david-dom-lemieux

You also asked about this line of text, noting the 0 and 2 in the phrase.

"None, breathed the stars, faint and faery, and two."

And we have to look at what the paralanguage is telling us, in light of the verse before and after, so...

These lines are "midstep" in between a conversation that is being had in the story of Liber Al Vel Legis, a story is unfolding, especially for Crowley, who himself is a "character" in the Book that he is receiving.

This is important because the paralanguage is telling us, "This work is self referential!" because Liber al Vel Legis, however anyone wants to interpret it, must conform to the story printed in the book.

The Book is about itself, its reception via Crowley, what the Book is about, how it should be printed, and even has instructions for things that Crowley will do later, such as "leave a comment".

So at this point in Chapter One, The Scribe as a character in the text finds himself in a state of pure ecstasy and heightened arousal soon after encountering Nuit, counting all of her stars to infinity, as she instructed him upon "hello" of the first chapter.

Then the priest answered & said unto the Queen of Space, kissing her lovely brows, and the dew of her light bathing his whole body in a sweet-smelling perfume of sweat: O Nuit, continuous one of Heaven, let it be ever thus; that men speak not of Thee as One but as None; and let them speak not of thee at all, since thou art continuous!

And the "stars" also repeated the same communication in the next line...

None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.

So these references to Nuit as either 0 or 2 come from the voice of the character of the scribe, and all the stars in the universe...

But not Nuit's voice, Nuit's voice in the text responds to "the two of them"

For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union.

So Nuit's response to both the "all the stars" and the Scribe Crowley, who are still viewing Nuit through duality of 0 = 2, immediately seeks to "heal this separation" inherent in 0 and 2.

Nuit instructs them that their dualistic view of 0 = 2 is a division that is in service to love, or, that duality itself is in service to Non-Duality.

And to understand what this means, lets go back to her instruction...

"Divide, Add, Multiply, and Understand"

Note: There is NO subtraction. Subtraction is NOT possible in a whole system.

Now, when Crowley and the stars "divide", they get 2.

They get 0 = 2.

When Nuit divides, she shows the "true" division, which is ternary, not duality.

This division, therefore is 0.12.

The paralanguage of the "whole system of numbers" where the duality of "the actual" and the "symbolic" and the "strange" work seamlessly already, in our minds, to create the totality of the infinite and eternal, surrendered in 0.

So Crowley and basically "all of us" assume another duality, 0 = 2, and she teaches us that this duality is a service to non-duality, and to therefore understand the true nature of division, and "unite with thine art!", or transcend the duality of non-duality and duality!

Cheers!

BONUS FUN STUFF:

Boustrophedon (From Wikipedia)

Boustrophedon /ˌbuːstrəˈfiːdən/ [1] is a style of writing in which alternate lines of writing are reversed, with reversed letters.

Boustrophedon.svg

This is in contrast to lines always beginning on the same side, usually the left, as in modern European languages.

The term comes from Ancient Greek: βουστροφηδόν, boustrophēdón, a composite of βοῦς, bous, "ox"; στροφή, strophē, "turn"; and the adverbial suffix -δόν, "like, in the manner of" – that is, "like the ox turns [while plowing]".[2]

It is mostly seen in ancient manuscripts and other inscriptions.

It was a common way of writing in stone in ancient Greece,[3] becoming less and less popular throughout the Hellenistic period. Many ancient scripts, such as Etruscan, Safaitic, and Sabaean, were frequently or typically written boustrophedonically.

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

 

Why the significance of 11?

Well, within the system, 11 is the number of magick historically speaking, and Nuit is 11 because 56 together is 11, and her Husband is 65, also 11, and the total is 22 combined.

But for me, she is 11, and 56, because her "root" number is 0.12

And I can't help but notice the "paralanguage" (which is NOT Gematria) showing that "My number is 11 as all of those who are of us" holds a special hidden joke, because 11 could also be 1,1 (a progression of the actual count of 1 into infinity) and when "one" gets this profound insight, it sort of has this "self correcting" mechanism to prevent anyone from getting a "huge ego" about the discovery because in this moment we realize we crossed over this huge duality, we realize that "Well, I am the ONE, but I am simply the ONE after the ONE before me, and I am the ONE before the ONE who comes after me that will realize it. I am just one of many 1, 1, 1, 1, "

I like that.  You made a lot of points there I'll get around to them but what's stopping me from taking the first line of some Martin Amis or Dickens novel and finding the same doughnut shape and then in turn pulling some exact 2D curvy line shape?    By the way have you used the curvy-line derived from the doughnut to produce shadowgrams of every Hebrew letter yet?

At the moment though I've been reviewing what  Nuit says about Her being '6 and 50'.  From a Pthyagorean perspective we see that 1 (all) and 0 (the Bornless)  are represented by 10.  Likewise we saw that e.g. 72 is related to 720 and so on.  With that said maybe Nuit's '6 and 50' is actually 650.  Is 650 significant ?  Take those other mythic numbers 7 and 12  and divide 650 by them.  Remember Pythagorus thought that 216 is important as it is 6 x 6 x 6.

Anyway 650 divided by 7 is 92.85714  (almost 93) and 650 divided by the Pythagorean trinity 3 is  216.666

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  

I really love writing, a lot.

For me, I begin to measure how well I understand a subject or a concept by bringing the concept into written text and then make a good effort attempt to explain that concept to another human being using text alone.

I figure the rate that I am able to explain a concept to another human being, in my own language, through text is relative to how well I understand that concept.

So writing for me, especially in conversation with others, is a self teaching tool. And it works, really well.

I am much smarter now than when this conversation first began.

I find this kind of "prescription" for writing in Liber al Vel Legis itself.

 Writing in conversation perhaps is one of the "yogas" of the new aeon 🙂

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

I like that.  You made a lot of points there I'll get around to them but what's stopping me from taking the first line of some Martin Amis or Dickens novel and finding the same doughnut shape and then in turn pulling some exact 2D curvy line shape? 

Well, nothing is stopping you. Give it a try! Do you come up with some strange kabbalah green frog spirit speaking to you from Saturn, encouraging you to consider Trump actually won the election? Or do you come up with the map of London during the time of Oliver Twist, which gives further instructions of how to read Oliver Twist as a text?

Consider the later, dump the former.

If that is what you found, you could get your PhD in a dissertation somewhere!

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Is 650 significant ? 

Only when you discover something significant about it, to you. Do you? How well can you explain what significance you have discovered to others?

Is that significance just an intuitive feeling? Making you wonder more and more about the "equanimity" shared between Liber al vel Legis and Pthyagorean text?

That intuitive feeling, leading you down a path...that is Hadit, something like Hadit.

Now, you have to unite Hadit with Nuit, which is the part of your mind that can "think" objectively, like a mathematician who is responsible for ordering everything in its place in the entire universe.

All I can say is that for now, I find no significance of the number 650 in the actual text of Liber al Vel Legis, but that doesnt mean its not there either.

The actual discovery of a hidden teaching is happening in your mind, really.

While your intuitive voice continues to lead you to explore where there is a shared equanimity in the mysterious text, you're going to find yourself researching things, learning about things that perhaps you would not learn about other wise, just trying to figure things out.

It may take you on a completely other journey too, it may take you to create something later in your life, seemingly unrelated. Or who knows, maybe you will actually discover the treasure map of London during the writing of Oliver Twist, giving you a PhD from Cambridge and a new career.

You will never know until you try 🙂

 

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

 

Is that significance just an intuitive feeling? Making you wonder more and more about the "equanimity" shared between Liber al vel Legis and Pthyagorean text?

That intuitive feeling, leading you down a path...that is Hadit, something like Hadit.

Now, you have to unite Hadit with Nuit, which is the part of your mind that can "think" objectively, like a mathematician who is responsible for ordering everything in its place in the entire universe.

All I can say is that for now, I find no significance of the number 650 in the actual text of Liber al Vel Legis, but that doesnt mean its not there either.

The actual discovery of a hidden teaching is happening in your mind, really.

To Pythagoras 650 would equate with 65 which Crowley associated with the aspiration to the HGA.

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1839
 

From out of the primordial darkness;
“the vital breath” "emptiness"
or "he who rises up";
Shu;
echoed upon the face of the waters;
again-becoming;
Fecunding, tilling, toiling;
Nature renewed;
Apis;
re-embodied;
receive and give;
salute.

The mark on the brow of Cain 6
The bridge, the guardians of the shrine 5
The ox 0


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

To Pythagoras 650 would equate with 65 which Crowley associated with the aspiration to the HGA.

That makes sense but I still have hope in your future discovery; there is still a secret treasure map of London detailed somewhere awaiting you 🙂

I am not being glib about this even though admittedly I am trying to be cute about it.

Have you ever heard of the "Narnia Code?"

Are you aware that inside of the collected works of CS Lewis lay the mysteries of the 7?

The seven planets?

As a "secret theme" within the Chronicles of Narnia?

Michael Ward discovered such a code, as well as his PhD from this discovery.

http://www.planetnarnia.com/frequently-asked-questions/index.html

CS Lewis was a member of the "Inklings", a literary group (don't be fooled by the word "literary") that housed JRR Tolkien and Charles Williams.

The Inklings set out to influence civilization, with intention, through "fantasy" to counter the historical onslaught of the coming dry age of "materialism", atheism, mechanistic science of the late 19th Century and Early 20th.

There is a comic book called "From Heaven's War", which is about The Inklings vs Aleister Crowley. I really want to check this comic book out!

Of course, from my perspective, they are clearly on the same non-dual side of history, no doubt!

asdfddddd

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56
 
He figured that 27 is 3 raised to powers of 3 and apparently this led him to apply the ternary system (as oppose to binary and denary) to all of the Hebrew letters.
 
000  =   0
001  =   1
002  =   2
010   =  3
3 Raised to the power of 3 is also the instruction Nuit gives us in "divide add multiply and understand" showing us this same nesting and seeding principle; 0,1,2 - 3 - 9
 

 

Is it? I missed the 'Ye shall employ ternary' verse in AL.   How? 

 

By the way was I the only contributor who watched this video?  It's 25 minutes I won't get back 😀 

I'll repeat my earlier question, at 6:13 he claims when he used ternary the whole first verse becomes "one complete unit".   Say what?  More like so what?  I don't get it.    How did that (and what was that anyway) lead to his "auto correlation" bead string play?

 

This guy wants to be taken seriously by scientists but he's behaving like an artist leaping around from  one theory to some other non-related idea.  At best he is on par with thinkers like Von Daniken if you catch my drift. 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 

Apologies for double post.  

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56   

I don't know, I think you're  bringing bad faith to what he is saying without any rational as to why he would be lying or misrepresenting himself that way.

He is simply relating his story, he said it did not look like a language because he did not speak the language, and therefore, as a pattern recognizer, he just saw patterns in the text, and was not sure if his patterns he saw had any meaning or not.

That's his personal narrative. Even if it is "baloney", which why would it need to be, it seems reasonable and I relate to it, that is just his personal story, it is not the evidence he presents.

He has 20 years of research and data on his website. You cannot falsify his work by watching an introduction video but you can by digging into his research.

 
 

Can we also take it way back to the start?.  He said he found the first verse of Genesis to be strange looking and that therefore piqued his interest as he has a talent as a pattern finder.   Haha.  That's his premise that led him down the line to inventing the curly-metal-thing which when moved about makes shadows on the wall of every fucking Hebrew letter.   Why did I even keep watching this guy?  Yes his interest was piqued when he found the first verse of Genesis to be strange looking, imagine him presenting that to a group of  serious scientists.    

 

Ok ONE guy with a PhD has gone public to say he's interested what this guy has to say.   One.   

 

Why did he have to faff around with the first line of Genesis anyway if all he had to do to make his curly-metal-thing was make a 3D model of a doughnut?  Any doughnut. 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Is it? I missed the 'Ye shall employ ternary' verse in AL.   How? 

 

yay! someone asked how!

And even though I have shown this step multiple times, I will show it again.

And remember, I can explain this many times, many ways, but I cannot understand this for anyone, if anyone can put in a modest amount of work, they can understand this for themselves, promise!

  • If we want to "understand" Liber al Vel Legis, The "threefold" Book of Law, what does the text tell us to do to understand?
  • "Divide, add, multiply, and understand."

So we can agree that the path to understanding the threefold book of the law is exactly where the book tells us what to do to understand, right?

  • What is the first step?
  • Divide.
  • Divide what?
  • Six and Fifty. (Note: Nuit writes this in "reverse", and "reversing" is another methodology of interpretation in the text, and only writing this number in reverse gets us to this specific equation)
  • What is six and fifty?
  • The number 56.
  • Is dividing 50 into 6 the right step?
  • Check! Crowley does this twice in his writings
  • What is the answer?
  • 0.12
  • how many numbers is that?
  • 3
  • What do we do with them next?
  • The text says to add them.
  • We can only add the numbers that remain, which are 1 and 2.
  • What is that answer?
  • 3
  • There are also three numbers in 0.12, confirm.
  • Next step is multiply.
  • What do we multiply?
  • We only have the number 3 left in the operation.
  • Then we multiply 3 x 3, or 3 to the third power
  • either answer gives us 9 or 27
  • These are "nesting numbers in math"
  • What does that mean? 3 "nests 3 times in 9. 9 "nests" three times in 27. 27 "nests" three times in 78...this is another way of counting to infinity, but with a very elegant pattern.
  • This is what Stan Tennen refers to as the line in Genesis 1:11 (Check out those verse numbers yo!) “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.”
  • This is what "self referential" means. A seed has all the knowledge of a tree, coiled inside of it, and when it makes a tree, that tree makes more seeds.
  • You are familiar with this visual? This is the visual for this type of math.
  • floweroflife
  • Capiche'?
  • Do you think the number three is relevant in the threefold book of law?
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

By the way was I the only contributor who watched this video?  It's 25 minutes I won't get back 😀 

What am I, chopped liver?

😆

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

I'll repeat my earlier question, at 6:13 he claims when he used ternary the whole first verse becomes "one complete unit".   Say what?  More like so what?  I don't get it.    How did that (and what was that anyway) lead to his "auto correlation" bead string play?

Math is hard 😆

Please take a moment to appreciate these words as concepts, not as bits of knowledge.

  • Meta
  • Self-referential
  • Para-language
  • Context
  • Re-capitulation (I put this in here because I know you know Leary! What did Leary say about the game of life "recapitulating" in the mothers womb and through history via the circuits?)
  • Look at this again
    floweroflife

     

If you were to do more than watch the "teaser" to debunk his work 🙄 you would notice that the clue for him was in the original text scrolls of Genesis, there are NO SPACES in between words.

NO SPACEMARKS in between words on the original scrolls, written in Hebrew, by Moses and the ancient rabbis.

And each line had 27 letters of Hebrew Text written across.

Did G-D not tell Moses were to put the spaces in between the words?

How do they know where one word begins, and one word ends?

If you don't speak the language, you certainly can't tell where one word begins and one word ends.

Ever see computer code?

001101110110111100110100000110110101010100000

That's also base 2 counting.

How does the computer know which off is on and which on is off? 0 or 1. But if you're counting the number value of text, 27 letters in the verse, plus the letters in the hebrew alphabet itself, you will have the equivalent of numbers 1- 27, but written out in binary code.

Follow so far?

Can you see how a programmer, just to see what would happen, could try to count the letters of the first verse in binary code? Just as a hunch?

Stan tried that, as a hunch. Didn't work to produce any meaning.

And since there are 27 letters to every line of text, and the 27th letter is also the first letter, another "hunch" since 27 is a "nesting" number of 3, which "appears" to match the theme of verse 1:11, a seed that begets a tree that begets a seed, mathematically was to count the numbers by ternary...and voila, he did.

The next few steps that Stan did are purely mathematical, he is only looking at the paralanguage mathematically, even though he does not call it paralanguage, because he wants to test to see if solely by viewing the naturally occurring maths that open up each thing he tries.

So putting the verse in base three, and the hebrew alphabet in base 3, he lines up all the letters that are the same numerically, and he does this by stringing them together, like a mala or rosary, and when he does that, they all line up into a "spiral".

This is the mathematical "lattice" he was describing, that sounds a lot like "pasting the sheets together" or lining up the letters into the three dimensional space that can be mathematically constructed from the dimensions of the spiral.

That gives the tube torus shape...

From which emerges, naturally, the "flame of all letters", producing all the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet

A verse that contains the seeds for the letters of the verse itself is about a punk rock heavy META as you can imagine.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

This guy wants to be taken seriously by scientists but he's behaving like an artist leaping around from  one theory to some other non-related idea.  At best he is on par with thinkers like Von Daniken if you catch my drift. 

Be nice! Sad to say, Stan Tennen is 79 years old and has Alzheimer's 🙁

So unfortunately, Meru foundation work is crippled sad to say.

And you're not being fair to him at all, he is not like a Von Daniken type, he is very respected in this small world of mathematicians and esotericists and kabbalists too. 

When someone presents work for falsification, meaning they are being humble, requesting peer review, the only respectable thing to do is peer review the work, go through each step.

That is what Stan is doing.

In an age where so much bullshit can spread, I appreciate the visionaries who give us something to falsify, so we can discover ourselves.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Ok ONE guy with a PhD has gone public to say he's interested what this guy has to say.   One.   

Why do you say one guy? Just because I could only remember one guy? 

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Why did he have to faff around with the first line of Genesis anyway if all he had to do to make his curly-metal-thing was make a 3D model of a doughnut?  Any doughnut. 

For the reasons I have been telling you, the instructions for him to derive the donut COME from the first verse if you view the first verse in its mathematical paralanguage.

This is what META and SELF REFERENTIAL means.

It means that by referring ONLY to the first verse, can we derive principles simply by looking at its natural mathematical structure?

YES. The answer to that question is YES.

If you perform the same steps Stan did, you arrive at exactly the same thing he did.

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  

I am too sorry for this double post, this is an image of the original Hebrew, notice there are no spacemarks in between words or letters.

S-P-A-C-E-M-A-R-K-S

"If ye confound the space marks, saying THEY ARE ONE, or saying THEY ARE MANY..."

download

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 292
 

This Stan Tenen might have crippled the work by suing Dan Winter and threatening others with legal action...

If anyone cares....

http://www.judykennedy.com/law/tenen_v_winter/index.html

http://www.goldenmean.info/dnaring/danside.pdf


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5986
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

This Stan Tenen might have crippled the work by suing Dan Winter and threatening others with legal action...

It's very complicated. Tenen seems to suffer from recurrent panic attacks ...

"To me, this sounded surprisingly strange and presumptuous coming from an author [Tenen] who regularly interviews with Art Bell and George Noory on a nightly radio program entitled “Coast to Coast” that deals mainly with New Age topics – from UFOs, ghosts, and Big Foot to mystical alphabets, remote viewing, and the latest advances in modern physics as they might apply to interdimensional travel.  One would think that most authors would wholeheartedly welcome unsolicited positive commentary and free publicity about their work.  Nevertheless, Tenen admitted he was overly-sensitive and cautious about the use of his material due to his problems with Winter and therefore demanded that we completely delete any and all references to him and his work.  Out of courtesy to Tenen and in order to avoid a legal hassle, an agreement was reached.  My publisher would delete the quotation from Tenen’s article and all references to him and his work in exchange for publishing substitute text at no cost to me.  

"My publisher sent Tenen a courtesy copy of the final proof of my book.  Even though we had completely complied with his request, he was not satisfied.   He informed us that the text that I had substituted created “a more serious problem” than what was there previously.  Therefore he demanded that I delete it including a reference to another author’s work (Paul White) that was similar to his own.  He had not previously mentioned his objection to my referencing White’s work to my publisher, therefore that paragraph remained untouched in the revised edition.  Tenen is now threatening litigation in the event that we do not comply with these new demands based on an allegation that I am subject to the same injunction he obtained against Winter."

I think someone, who is not me, should contact the (c)OTO and see how this duplexity can be resolved ... out of court and without dueling.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 5 months ago
Posts: 359
Topic starter  
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

If anyone cares....

I hope no one cares enough to somehow use this as a way to discredit Stan's discovery in any way. I don't know all the details of the squabble.

For me, the only relevance to this thread is that I went down a path not that un-similar to Tenen, what I call "paralanguage" he calls "self referential" or "meta", and we both are following this rule, and we both are taking steps which can be repeated, and we both find that 0, 1, and 2 is quite a door opener.

In the occult world, "self referential" is usually symbolized by this...

51o4ZLFmiOL. AC SX450

My work is not based on Tenen's discovery, and if his discovery somehow is ever proven foolish, it does not touch the discovery in Liber al Vel Legis, thanks to Nuit! Who made it so easy for us, not like those old Jewish bastard gods from back in the day, hehe.

Even Crowley tells us there are math proofs in Liber al Vel Legis, and we never got a quote like that from Moses!

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

"... The Book of the Law guarantees itself by so closely woven a web of internal evidence of every kind, from Cabbalistic and mathematical proofs, and those depending on future events and similar facts, undeniably beyond human power to predict or to produce, that it is unique.

( Source: THE SPIRIT OF SOLITUDE An Autohagiography Subsequently re-Antichristened The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, by Aleister Crowley - - - https://hermetic.com/crowley/confessions/chapter66  )

@wellreadwellbred re-invigorated the Hegel and Thelema discussion on this forum yesterday, which is a good time for me to say that 0, 1, and 2 can also perfectly map dialectical process using Game Theory, meaning a way to process a discussion that is fully rational and only has one mathematical and psychological outcome, mutual resolution! 

That has not emerged yet in the world, but I can confirm to you that it is about to, and if anyone would like to see this and how it works, ping me 🙂

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3074
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

So we can agree that the path to understanding the threefold book of the law is exactly where the book tells us what to do to understand, right?

 
 
 
You made a reasoned argument and I'll address each point in time.  For now I'd like to clarify what the word 'threefold' actually means; 
 
threefold; adjective
  1. three times as great or as numerous.
    "a threefold increase in the number of stolen cars"
adverb
  1. by three times; to three times the number or amount.
    "the aftershocks intensify threefold each time"
     
     
    By the way not to start a thread derailment but briefly put what do you make of Terence McKenna's theories?  If interested maybe take it over there sometime; Terrence McKenna’s Timewave Zero and novelty theory. – Magick – LAShTAL.COM Forum
     
     

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: