(@sangewanchuck56): "You don't believe that Liber Al vel Legis and Crowley were keys to obtaining visionary states of being?"
Earlier in this thread you state that:
"... equating the theory of transfinite numbers with pantheism [is] a proposition that Cantor vigorously rejected ...".
I have already covered pantheism with respect to AC's Thelema and his core book for it, The Book of the Law, in another thread ( source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/hegel-and-thelema/paged/2/ ):
"Crowley's The Book of the Law represents "... a pantehism according to which "there is no other God" than individual selfhood (called Hadit), and an infinite Absolute (called Nuit), which contains any instance of said individual selfhood. [...] This pantheism does also include what that in Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law is called Ra-Hoor-Khuit. The latter is in his book Magick in Theory and Practice, explained as: "One conjunction of these infinites [ = Hadit and Nuit] [...] a Unity which includes and heads all things." [...]
"The union of the Hadit principle, the individual monad's experience (i.e., the individual) with the boundless potentiality of infinite space—the principle of Nuit—is an act of “Love under will.” Upon the embrace of this union, the apparent separateness, the illusion of division between “self” and “other,” is dissolved in ecstasy. In other words, the dyad reduces to zero in [...] [a] [...] mathematical equation that Crowley expresses as “0=2,” or (+1) + (−1) = 0 (i.e., two opposites combine and nullify one another).
[62] See Crowley (1906) “Berashith: An Essay on Ontology” in The Collected Works of Aleister Crowley, Vol. II (Des Plaines: Yogi Publication Society), 233–243. Also, Crowley (1986) “0=2” in Magick Without Tears (Tempe: New Falcon Publications), 52–63."
( Source: Keith Readdy's book, One Truth and One Spirit: Aleister Crowley's Spiritual Legacy, Ibis Press 2018, page 41 and 42 [...]".
Aleister Crowley who wrote it, explains his core book for his Thelema, The Book of the Law, as representing pantheism, which "... shows forth all things as God.", and that by "Virtues of the Soul[.] All things are able to know all; all are alike in this, at the end of all."
You @sangewanchuck56, are with respect to this core book of the Thelema of Aleister Crowley — a book which represents pantheism according to the latter who wrote it — trying to explain it in the ligh one Cantor's theory, and this Cantor does vigorously reject that this theory can be equated with pantheism.
@sangewanchuck56, do you understand that this does not make sense?
Also, I have already quoted the following earlier in another thread:
"... the apparent separateness, the illusion of division between “self” and “other,” is dissolved in ecstasy. In other words, the dyad reduces to zero in [...] [a] [...] mathematical equation that Crowley expresses as “0=2,” or (+1) + (−1) = 0 (i.e., two opposites combine and nullify one another)."
That quote does not support the following from you about me, in your posting posted "14/07/2021 5:06 pm" in this thread:
"His paradigm appears to be rooted in a sense of separation between self and other, and that the mind/consciousness is nothing more than a phenomenon of the human brain."
@sangewanchuck56: "I'm just not sure why you're keeping the magick out of it, but I love what you're doing with the silence. [...] All Science, no Art."
My point is that AC's definition of magick as "... causing Change to occur in conformity with Will"., can be done without any magical rituals, costumes or tools.
My point is that AC's definition of magick as "... causing Change to occur in conformity with Will"., can be done without any magical rituals, costumes or tools.
I second that notion.
[Adding source:]
Also, I have already quoted the following earlier in another thread [source: "Hegel and Thelema", page 2 - - - https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/hegel-and-thelema/paged/2/ ]:
"... the apparent separateness, the illusion of division between “self” and “other,” is dissolved in ecstasy. In other words, the dyad reduces to zero in [...] [a] [...] mathematical equation that Crowley expresses as “0=2,” or (+1) + (−1) = 0 (i.e., two opposites combine and nullify one another)."
[Sorry for chain-posting. Correction added:]
"You @sangewanchuck56, are with respect to this core book of the Thelema of Aleister Crowley — a book which represents pantheism according to the latter who wrote it — trying to explain it in the light of one Cantor's theory, and this Cantor does vigorously reject that this theory can be equated with pantheism.
@sangewanchuck56, do you understand that this does not make sense?"
My point is that AC's definition of magick as "... causing Change to occur in conformity with Will"., can be done without any magical rituals, costumes or tools.
That's because "ANY intentional act is a magic[k]al act" (- as AC also remarked elsewhere from the same source, i.e. "Magick in Theory and Practice". My emphasis here).
Notion therefore "thirded",
Norma N Joy Conquest
Notion therefore "thirded"
Maybe someone will "fourthit."
Jamie, where have you been? (retched rhetorical question - you are not required to disclose your personal peculiarities). There has been a lot of (both) boring and exciting activities.
I'm just trying to follow you clearly here.
In the previous two threads, I asked a specific question of you solely for this reason, I want to see what you mean, clearly.
This question is related to magick as a practice. Magick is not Crowley's "idea", magick (alchemy, tantra, etc etc) is an ancient art form, not solely a property of our dear Crowley.
Do you believe that an individual can do some kind of ritual to obtain ideas or obtain visionary states as an artist, designer, scientist, creator of some type would appreciate?
I asked this again...
(@sangewanchuck56): "You don't believe that Liber Al vel Legis and Crowley were keys to obtaining visionary states of being?"
And your reply was a bunch of quotes of things that I said and Crowley said but i was asking about YOUR viewpoint, what do you believe "magick" is for?
Aleister Crowley who wrote it, explains his core book for his Thelema, The Book of the Law, as representing pantheism, which "... shows forth all things as God.", and that by "Virtues of the Soul[.] All things are able to know all; all are alike in this, at the end of all."
"pantheism" "agnosticism" "atheism" "theism"
Are you suggesting that Crowley was positing the existence of objective "gods" in the universe?
"Pantheism" can mean so many different things, I am not sure what relevance this is?
You @sangewanchuck56, are with respect to this core book of the Thelema of Aleister Crowley — a book which represents pantheism according to the latter who wrote it — trying to explain it in the ligh one Cantor's theory, and this Cantor does vigorously reject that this theory can be equated with pantheism.
- I'm not "trying to explain" Liber al Vel Legis in light of Cantor's Theory
- I am offering an interpretation of Liber al Vel Legis as a very sophisticated teaching of Sunyata.
- This teaching of Sunyata takes different forms in different chapters
- Chp 1 presents an interpretation of Sunyata as appreciated by the naturally occurring mathematical mind in human psychology
- Chp 2 presents an interpretation of Sunyata as appreciated by what I call the "symbolic" mind or intuitive intelligence, the natural mind of the poet.
, do you understand that this does not make sense?
Well, sure I can see that it does not yet make sense to you, but it is quite unclear to me your perspective on just about anything so far, it appears you have a false idea about what I am presenting.
Why would I care if Cantor was a Christian and Crowley practiced magick?
Why would their ideologies need to be the same just because their math is?
My point is that AC's definition of magick as "... causing Change to occur in conformity with Will"., can be done without any magical rituals, costumes or tools.
That human psychology performs magick unconsciously, as in "without mindfulness", not realizing that we are the authors of our own suffering, does not help us practice magick at all, it merely is the first step awakening us to a broader magical perspective.
Just because magick can be performed without tools or rituals, does not mean it should be performed without mindfulness if we are talking about magick/alchemy/tantra as a devotional path that actually has rituals and tools, chants and incantations for this purpose.
And what is that purpose of magick with or without tools? "doing our will" is trivial, what are the steps we are doing other than wish fulfillment, magical thinking, and delusion?
Are we bringing in fresh fever from the skies, or just entertaining ourselves with our selfish absorption?
In terms of Crowley's definition of Magick "causing change in conformity with will"- that makes for a definition of magick that is trivial in my opinion, it tells us nothing about the "art and science" of the mage, a practice that precedes Crowley at scale.
I believe what Crowley was attempting to communicate with his definition was that magick is a naturally occurring function of our minds, like counting or language or poetry or ritual, and we already do magick already, we just forgot how we do it and how it works.
"Unintended Consequences" is a simple but profound contemplation.
We all get the reality we deserve. That is no great magical accomplishment. The great magical accomplishment is getting the reality we design.
Also, I have already quoted the following earlier in another thread:
"... the apparent separateness, the illusion of division between “self” and “other,” is dissolved in ecstasy. In other words, the dyad reduces to zero in [...] [a] [...] mathematical equation that Crowley expresses as “0=2,” or (+1) + (−1) = 0 (i.e., two opposites combine and nullify one another)."
Okay but I don't know what you mean by that, or what you "see" for yourself.
If your paradigm is materialism, then "self and other" is an inherent truth of that paradigm. If philosophical materialism is not your paradigm, forgive me but you tend to avoid answering direct questions with your own thoughts, rather copying and pasting a bunch so I only have my intuitions and hunches with you!
The "experience" of non-duality occurs in the mind, as well as the experience of duality. One does not need to practice "magick" to achieve a non-dual state of being.
One just needs to practice magick if they are designers of reality. Not just our individual reality, but designers of realities that are in service to others.
"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
What is the practical value to what you are presenting in this thread?
Sanguine Chuck: ""doing our will" is trivial".
Doing your Will, is not trivial according to AC's Thelema and its core book, in which it is understood as representing the only God; the interplay between an infinite Absolute (= Nuit) and individual selfhood (= Hadit), which can result in "One conjunction of" them, a "Unity which includes and heads all things (= RHK)." (As stated by AC in his book Magick in Theory and Practice.)
And this is in line with AC cirka 1923 in his Comment called D, explaining this book as representing pantheism, which "... shows forth all things as God.", and that by "Virtues of the Soul[.] All things are able to know all; all are alike in this, at the end of all."
Sanguine Chuck: "Okay but I don't know what you mean by that, or what you "see" for yourself."
I "see" in it ( = Crowley's use of “0=2,” or (+1) + (−1) = 0 ), no support for what you have written about the numbers 0, 1, and 2 in this thread, with respect to Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law. I "see" in it a way in which Crowley is expressing the dissolution of the illusion of division between “self” and “other”, and I see in it something that Crowley wrote about already before he wrote his The Book of the Law.
( Sorry for chain posting: )
Sanguine Chuck:
"Pantheism" can mean so many different things, I am not sure what relevance this is? [...]
If your paradigm is materialism, then "self and other" is an inherent truth of that paradigm."
The relevance of pantheism in this context, is that Aleister Crowley with his core book for his Thelema, The Book of the Law, postulates a pantheism in which "self and other", (Chapter 1, verse 29:) is "... divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.", and also postulates a pantheism in which (Chapter 1, verse 41:) "There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: ..." , that is, (Chapter 1, verse 57:) "Love is the law, love under will."
That is, like other pantheists, Aleister Crowley attributes religious significance to reality, or to the world.
Sanguine Chuck:
"Are you suggesting that Crowley was positing the existence of objective "gods" in the universe?"
No, I am not "...suggesting that Crowley was positing the existence of objective "gods" in the universe?""
With his The Book of the Law, the core book for his Thelema, Crowley postulates that "there is no other God than" what you earlier in this thread have called "self and other" (called Hadit and Nuit within this Thelema).
It's as simple, or trivial if you will, as that.
[Sorry again for chain posting:] ( Adding more relevant source references : )
"... With his The Book of the Law, the core book for his Thelema, Crowley postulates that "there is no other God than" (source: Chapter 1, verse 21.) what you earlier in this thread have called "self and other" (called Hadit and Nuit within this Thelema). ..."
The universal relevance of the law described in this book, "Love is the law, love under will." (source: Chapter 1, verse 57), is clearly postulated within it:
"... the Law is for all." (Source: Chapter 1, verse 34.)
What is the practical value to what you are presenting in this thread?
hmmm, I am not sure if the study of this sort of esoterica would qualify for the category of "practical" at all. Maybe I do not understand your question?
Group discussion, generally speaking, is a great way to increase our awareness, intelligence, and even our compassion, practically speaking.
Sanguine Chuck: ""doing our will" is trivial".
If you are going to bother to quote me, please actually quote me, and not quote the "Sanguine Chuck" in your mind that you're having this disagreement with. I promise you that image of Sanguine Chuck in your mind is not speaking to you in my honor 🙂
What I wrote was;
"In terms of Crowley's definition of Magick "causing change in conformity with will"- that makes for a definition of magick that is trivial in my opinion, it tells us nothing about the "art and science" of the mage, a practice that precedes Crowley at scale."
The definition of magick as "will and change" is a trivial definition.
I did not say the the discovery of "true will" (which is not mentioned at all in Liber al Vel Legis) is trivial, and you and I are also using two different definitions of the word "trivial". I am using more the mathematical/logical/philosophical definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triviality_(mathematics)
So the following from you...
Doing your Will, is not trivial according to AC's Thelema and its core book
Is not an actual conversation you and I are having here, so I am going to move on to your next inquiry, if you do not mind.
I "see" in it ( = Crowley's use of “0=2,” or (+1) + (−1) = 0 ), no support for what you have written about the numbers 0, 1, and 2 in this thread, with respect to Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law.
Hmmm, so you are defining what you see by that which you claim you cannot see?
If you cannot see what I mean, then how can you honestly critique it?
What if you are only "seeing" your own misunderstanding of what I am claiming?
Consider;
Both you and I claim the same claim, we both claim to interpret Liber Al Vel Legis based on the actual words in the text, the instructions, as well as solely the written words and ideas of the Beast himself, Crowley.
You and I both believe we are staying "strict" to these rules.
The claim that 0 1 and 2 is a key to understanding AL is the words of Nuit her self.
As Nuit is a literary voice authored by Crowley in Liber al Vel Legis, and Crowley's own words also speak to these numbers directly and without equivocation, you simply sharing your "reaction" to this thread is no more helpful than leaving a comment on YouTube video.
I'm not interested in your reaction, I am interested in your actual viewpoint.
The relevance of pantheism in this context, is that Aleister Crowley with his core book for his Thelema, The Book of the Law, postulates a pantheism in which "self and other", (Chapter 1, verse 29:) is "... divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.", and also postulates a pantheism in which (Chapter 1, verse 41:) "There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: ..." , that is, (Chapter 1, verse 57:) "Love is the law, love under will."
You and I don't have disagreement around the concept of divinity interwoven within Liber al Vel Legis, I just am trying to fathom how you are interpreting the meaning of "pantheism" as a literal device or a word you are using to communicate some philosophical precision.
The Book of the Law postulates nothing as an absolute reality if we are talking about philosophy.
Everything else is magick, created in our minds.
Liber al Vel Legis is a magical tome, a spell, a expression of Great Art and brilliant psychology.
Crowley, on the other hand, postulated much as a writer.
Many things he postulated have contradictions.
I've asked you multiple times how do you resolve these contradictions, as I am still trying to see what you mean and you don't appear to share.
"Self and Other", i.e. the natural universe, the realm of measurable reality of science and philosophical materialism, is an inter-dependent phenomenon.
Nuit tells us "Let there be no difference between any one thing and any other thing..."
This reality of self and other is created in the mind of "STARs".
In our minds, the picture she creates is of each star following it's naturally occurring pathway of discovery with other stars.
Yet there is no difference between self and other, star and star.
There is no self and other.
We are all 1, 1, 1...
Those whom are materialists (ex: Los apparently, along with Dawkins and the like) do not see or acknowledge a non material realm (spirit) are in denial about the "nothing" that Nuit speaks of and therefore confuse the realm of self and other as the absolute reality.
"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
[Underlining used by me for emphasis:]
Me: "What is the practical value to what you are presenting in this thread?"
sanguine Chuck:
" hmmm, I am not sure if the study of this sort of esoterica would qualify for the category of "practical" at all. Maybe I do not understand your question?
Group discussion, generally speaking, is a great way to increase our awareness, intelligence, and even our compassion, practically speaking."
My impression is that me and you have been talking past each other, in this thread.
Apparently, my approach in this thread of dealing with AC's The Book of the Law, the core book for his Thelema, with respect to the emphasis it puts on us doing our Will. differs from yours:
Sanguine Chuck:
" Just because magick can be performed without tools or rituals, does not mean it should be performed without mindfulness if we are talking about magick/alchemy/tantra as a devotional path that actually has rituals and tools, chants and incantations for this purpose.
And what is that purpose of magick with or without tools? "doing our will" is trivial, what are the steps we are doing other than wish fulfillment, magical thinking, and delusion?" [...]
In terms of Crowley's definition of Magick "causing change in conformity with will"- that makes for a definition of magick that is trivial in my opinion, it tells us nothing about the "art and science" of the mage, a practice that precedes Crowley at scale. "
My point is that I am not focused on the ""art and science" of the mage", [...] that precedes Crowley at scale." And my point is that AC's The Book of the Law, the core book for his Thelema, clearly postulates the universal relevance of the law described in this book: ... the Law is for all." (Source: Chapter 1, verse 34.).
My point is also that this law is in line with all doing their Will:
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." (Chapter 1, verse 40), "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt." (Chapter 3, verse 60).
It is additionally my point that this law with its universal relevance for all, was the influence and inspiration behind Aleister Crowley's rather all encompassing definition of magick as "... causing Change to occur in conformity with Will".
That is, my focus is on the concept of the magician, that is introduced with Aleister Crowley.
Apparently, my approach in this thread of dealing with AC's The Book of the Law, the core book for his Thelema, with respect to the emphasis it puts on us doing our Will. differs from yours:
Indeed, mine as well.
Our disagreement then is that you are placing the discovery of "pure will, delivered from the lust of result" as the core teaching/interpretation of Liber al Vel Legis, and I put the discovery of Sunyata or the absolute reality as the core teaching of Liber al Vel Legis, where as the "pure will" (not "true will" which is not in the text) is discovered to be empty of any purpose, according to the actual text.
True Will, therefore, has no purpose.
There is nothing to discover.
Only created, and only in collaboration between self and other.
The text of Liber al vel Legis requests that we do as Nuit does, "do ye also thus".
And Nuit does not discover her will, nor does she seek to discover her will, for her true will is to "bid us" to discover ours.
My point is also that this law is in line with all doing their Will:
The actual line in Liber al Vel Legis is "DO WHAT THO WILT" speaking from the point of view of a self, offering to the other, liberation.
The actual quote is not "I DO WHAT I WILT!" or "MY WILL!" but the perfect opposite, "thou will be done".
Our joy, my joy, is to also see your joy. (I hope your having just as much fun as I am with this conversation)
Do ye also thus.
If we do not do what Nuit does, if we fail to see what Nuit is seeing, then we are stuck viewing the "self and other" as "god and other" and then we find ourselves following the "command of the god", who is giving "permission to do what you will" thus requiring Nuit to liberate us from the old aeon into the new aeon.
Nuit does not liberate you, me, or anyone from the old aeon.
This is a formula of non-duality, Liber al Vel Legis is consistent within this theme everywhere, it repeats the same message over and over and over.
Through the process of bidding the "other" their individual liberation is how we discover our individual life path in harmony with universal "intention".
Our will to discover union, love, with another is interdependent on the other.
Independence is an illusion Nuit warns us against; "for thereby cometh hurt"
We need each other to figure out this conversation we are having with each other.
"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
Sanguine Chuck:
"Our disagreement then is that you are placing the discovery of "pure will, delivered from the lust of result" as the core teaching/interpretation of Liber al Vel Legis, and I put the discovery of Sunyata or the absolute reality as the core teaching of Liber al Vel Legis, where as the "pure will" (not "true will" which is not in the text) is discovered to be empty of any purpose, according to the actual text.
True Will, therefore, has no purpose.
There is nothing to discover.
Only created, and only in collaboration between self and other. [...]
[AC's core book for his Thelema, The Book of the Law] [...] is consistent within this theme everywhere, it repeats the same message [of non-duality] over and over and over."
No, I am not "placing the discovery of "pure will, delivered from the lust of result" as the core teaching/interpretation of" AC's core book for his Thelema, The Book of the Law.
Love is in this book described both as "There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: ..." (source: Chapter 1, verse 41), and as "Love is the law, love under will." (Source: Chapter 1, verse 57). And this law is in the same book postulated as having universal relevance for all: "... the Law is for all." (Source: Chapter 1, verse 34.)
It's as simple, or trivial if you will, as that a law postulated to be of universal relevance for us all ("... the Law is for all."), and also postulated as leading to non-duality (, understood as "There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: [...] "Love is the law, love under will."), is at the core of The Book of the Law, the core book of AC's Thelema.
That is, I understand postulating "Love is the law, love under will." as the way for all ( also including anyone with no aptitude for magick, or anyone with no interest in magick) to non-duality, as being at the core of AC's The Book of the Law's message. I do not understand discovering your "pure will", as being at the core of its message.
("pure will" is defined in detail, and described as in "... every way perfect." (Chapter 1, verse 44.), in AC's The Book of the Law, but the reader is not "told to" search for it, or to discover it, but is "told to" "Do that, and no other shall say nay." (Chapter 1, verse 43.).)
Sanguine Chuck:
"... I put the discovery of Sunyata or the absolute reality as the core teaching of Liber al Vel Legis ...".
Does this that you understand as "the core teaching of Liber al Vel Legis", has anything to do with the subject matter of this thread? :
"Crowley and his usages of maths and formulas in Thelema"
When I earlier in this thread state "That [...] doing your Will, quietistically and successfully, is the core message of this book", I am referring to my understanding of Aleister Crowley's teaching about Thelema, in his magical A.'.A.'. Order.
Personally, my position is that postulating "Love is the law, love under will." as the way to non-duality for all (also including anyone with no aptitude for magick, or anyone with no interest in magick), is at the core of AC's The Book of the Law's message.
@david-dom-lemieux
Our universe might be a giant three-dimensional donut, really.
Examining light from the very early universe, Buchert and a team of astrophysicists have deduced that our cosmos may be multiply connected, meaning that space is closed in on itself in all three dimensions like a three-dimensional donut.
https://www.livescience.com/universe-three-dimensional-donut.html
That is, I understand postulating "Love is the law, love under will." as the way for all ( also including anyone with no aptitude for magick, or anyone with no interest in magick) to non-duality, as being at the core of AC's The Book of the Law's message. I do not understand discovering your "pure will", as being at the core of its message.
I think we found consensus 🙂
"( also including anyone with no aptitude for magick, or anyone with no interest in magick) "
I dig it, truly!
Sanguine Chuck:
"... I put the discovery of Sunyata or the absolute reality as the core teaching of Liber al Vel Legis ...".
Does this that you understand as "the core teaching of Liber al Vel Legis", has anything to do with the subject matter of this thread? :
"Crowley and his usages of maths and formulas in Thelema"
yes, because Chp 1 is written in the "voice of Nuit" which means it is written in the voice of the mathematical mind, and uses math as it expresses infinity on a number line to show a way to arrive at a very sophisticated teaching of the "nothingness" of Sunyata (which is the "nothing" that is not the opposite of "something").
Additionally, Nuit teaches us a tool to understand Liber al Vel Legis, 0, 1 and 2, which allows us to unlock further meaning, including meaning that is arrived at through symbolic puzzles, the voice of the symbolic intuitive mind is what Chp 2 is written in.
Nuit's tool gives us a way to measure that which is immeasurable.
"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
Forgive the double post, but the thread "The Aeon of Maat" https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/the-next-aeon/#post-117854
brought this to my attention as it gave a pretty detailed exegesis of Frater Achad's work with the "secret word" which he derived from "The MANIFESTATION of Nuit." in Liber AL vel Legis
Frater Achad's discovery in Gematria using Hebrew showed an eerily familiar pattern we also discovered in Stan Tennen's work on the first verse of genesis, which is self reference and specifically, nesting as in "a seed that begets a tree which begets a seed", a model for the formula of life/mind.
MANIO enumerates to EGG in Gematria, while the remaining letters of Manifestation, IFESTATIN, enumerates to "nest". MANIFESTATION is literally "egg and nest"
"Egg and Nest" is highly similar to "seed and tree".
"Nesting" is the pattern of 3 x 3 x 3 or 3 to the third power.
Nuit tells us directly that to understand her manifestation, we only need the numbers 0, 1, and 2, which when added give us 3 and then multiplied, 3 to the third power, 27, the nesting pattern.
I believe the "message" here is "recapitulation" where as we have a pattern, and that we can expect to see this pattern re-emerge everywhere, like a hologram, and the hologram is constructed in 0, 1, and 2, therefore 0, 1 and 2 are everywhere.
And indeed they are everywhere, quite a ubiquitous phenomenon when the full scope is perceived.
"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
Dwtw
Not sure if somewhere in this thread you used this quote from AC's 777 (emphasis mine):
―We can refer everything in the Universe to the system of pure number whose symbols will be intelligible to all rational minds in an identical sense...
This present attempt at a magical alphabet is, in fact, a projection, both intensive and extensive, of this system to infinity. On the one hand, all possible ideas are referred by progressive integrations to the pure numbers 0 to 10, and thence to 2, 1, and 0. On the other, the connotations of 0, 1, and 2 are extended, by progressive definitions, to include every conceivable idea on the plane of the Universe.‖
On the Nature and Significance of the Magical Alphabet - Aleister Crowley
As for recapitulation, it's worth noting that Fr. Achad's transliteration of Manifestation as
Manio/107/Bitzah/Egg - and - nifestat/150/Qen/Nest
actually puts the Nest inside the Egg!
Littlluw
O.L.
Not sure if somewhere in this thread you used this quote from AC's 777 (emphasis mine):
This was not used, and i was not even aware of it, many thanks! (how about them apples, eh @david-dom-lemieux ?)
On the other, the connotations of 0, 1, and 2 are extended, by progressive definitions, to include every conceivable idea on the plane of the Universe.‖
wow! I was not aware of this quote, yet this is 100% accurately true in the same way math can be measured and shared as true!
All ideas are 0, 1, and 2.
And like the "egg", these values are "yolked" together, inseparable yet distinguishable. The relationships between them organize everything in our shared mind/natural universe.
As for recapitulation, it's worth noting that Fr. Achad's transliteration of Manifestation as
Manio/107/Bitzah/Egg - and - nifestat/150/Qen/Nest
actually puts the Nest inside the Egg!
Oye! It even turns in on itself, exactly as we expect from self-reference, recapitulation.
The Nest is in the Egg, Not the Egg is in the Nest, lol
I look forward to more of your work @threefold31 thank you again for sharing this.
"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
MANIO enumerates to EGG in Gematria, while the remaining letters of Manifestation, IFESTATIN, enumerates to "nest". MANIFESTATION is literally "egg and nest"
Would you be so kind to show how you came to these enumerations (is that a word?)? A short diagram or such would be fine.
Thanks in advance
Love=Law
Lutz
Would you be so kind to show how you came to these enumerations (is that a word?)? A short diagram or such would be fine.
This is not derived by me at all, it was derived by Frater Achad and it is very detailed in @threefold31 work "Liber 52". I was just offering a quick summary of his exegesis to make another point, and unfortunately I cannot copy and paste from his PDF.
https://omegalogion.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/the-word-of-the-ma-ion.pdf page 4 you will find the reference, or maybe if he is so kind, he can do a review here.
As for recapitulation, it's worth noting that Fr. Achad's transliteration of Manifestation as
Manio/107/Bitzah/Egg - and - nifestat/150/Qen/Nest
actually puts the Nest inside the Egg!
I just had an interesting thought here, not sure if my meaning will translate well.
The "nest" being in the egg, the difference between the egg and the nest is *time*.
The egg, once hatched and grows into the beautiful bird, produces a being that has a "design concept" to build a nest.
So inside the *egg* is the future idea of the nest, with *idea* and *future* being a key theme of Harpocrates, and the secret meaning of "silence", for the future is always silent, yet in the mind is the future seed, the future design, a pathway for the future to be accessed by an initiate in the present.
"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
93 and thanks @sangewanchuck56
Here is my problem with this:
MANIO enumerates to EGG in Gematria, while the remaining letters of Manifestation, IFESTATIN, enumerates to "nest". MANIFESTATION is literally "egg and nest"
Sounds legit.
On the other hand:
When you substract MANIO from MANIFESTATION you don't get IFESTATIN, you get FESTATIN, since there are only two I's in MANIFESTATION. Isn't that somehow important? How do you get "nest" enumerated with one I less than stated?
Qabalists, please enlighten me.
Love=Law
Lutz
When you substract MANIO from MANIFESTATION you don't get IFESTATIN, you get FESTATIN, since there are only two I's in MANIFESTATION. Isn't that somehow important? How do you get "nest" enumerated with one I less than stated?
lol, that was my bad! I mistakenly added the "I" there would it should not have been. Please only refer to Liber 52
MANIO = EGG from the Hebrew
FESTATIN = NEST from the Hebrew
"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
DWTW,
Frater Achad originally got his Nest and Egg equivalence like this:
MANIFESTATION is split into MA - NIFESTAT - ION
MA - ION = mem, alef, yod, vav, nun = 107 = bet, yod, tzaddi, heh = BITzaH, meaning EGG.
NIFESTAT = nun, yod, vav, heh, samek, tet, alef, tet = 150 = qof, nun = QeN, meaning NEST
Obviously, there is lots of room for different approaches when transliterating. I assume he tried a couple and liked the result of having the Egg and the Nest.
My own formulation uses the MA-ION = 107, with the Yod hidden inside the Egg so that it is 10 + 97.
Then the inner section of NIFESTAT = nun, yod, vav, heh, shin, tet, alef, tav = 781
In Greek, 781 = H Sphigx = The Sphinx.
So I transliterate the S and T as Shin and Tav, not Samek and Tet as Achad does. In this way, you have The Sphinx swallowed by the MA-ION, which is symbolic of Hrumachis giving way to the Next Aeon.
Litlluw
O.L.
Thakns for that again, @sangewanchuck56
I am just glancing quickly over Lashtal currently and haven't had the time (or is it ambition?) to refer to source material. Good that you cleared that up.
Love=Law
Lutz
[Underlining used by me for emphasis:]
"AC's The Book of the Law is certainly written as revealed ( ultimately ) by "... Hoor-paar-kraat." (Chapter 1, verse 7), to which "The Golden Dawn attributed Silence ..."(, as did Aleister Crowley that was initiated in said The Golden Dawn)."
( Source: Hoor-par-kraat From Thelemapedia[.] Hor-pa-kraat (Horus the Child, GD: Hoor-par-kraat) - - - http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Hoor-par-kraat )"
The quote above is taken from my posting dated 09/07/2021 1:22 am, on page 4 in this thread; https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/crowley-and-his-usages-of-maths-and-formulas-in-thelema/paged/4/#post-117626
Aleister Crowley does in chapter 66 of his The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography, describe his book The Vision and the Voice (allegedly written in 1900 and 1909), as the second most important book of his Thelema, after his core book for it, The Book of the Law (allegedly written in 1904).
In Aleister Crowley's book The Vision and the Voice, in an endnote numbered 21., and and endnote numbered 29., to a part of it which he allegedly wrote in 1909, titled "The Cry of the 21st Aethyr, Which is Called ASP", he states the following:
"21. Kether, of course, does not speak. His Nature is made apparent by Thoth, the Logos, the Creative Word. But this Word must evidently be false, since He is Silence.", and;
"29. In the Ontology of the New Aeon, whose prime theorem is 0 = 2, Kether exists only as the Child of any Marriage of one particular Hadit with one particular aspect of Nuit. There are thus as many Kethers as there are positive possibilities. More, Kether is not in any case a sole Unity, for each Marriage produces a Twin, {HEB:Heh} + {HEB:Yod} = {HEB:Heh} + {HEB:Vau}. There is a positive "Third Being", a Kether; and there is an Ecstasy, or dissolution into Nothing, by the same Event. One is the Magical, the other the Mystical, Result of an Act of Love under Will."
From Aleister Crowley's just quoted endnotes to his second most important book of his Thelema, his The Vision and the Voice, it can be derived that he understood the most important book of his Thelema, his The Book of the Law, ultimately as to be revealed by Kether. According to Aleister Crowley's just mentioned ontology ( = the branch of philosophy that studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality), for his Thelema.
"21. Kether, of course, does not speak. His Nature is made apparent by Thoth, the Logos, the Creative Word. But this Word must evidently be false, since He is Silence.", and;
In relationship to the revelation of non-duality (sunyata, nothingness, emptiness) within Liber al Vel Legis, existence is pure experience, which is the absolute Truth in relationship to language or symbols we use to communicate the experience. The experience is not the language of the experience. In today's world, taking a video of an experience is not the actual experience.
This is the relationship between the 1 (actual truth, which is "T") and 2 (symbolic truth, which is "False") on the number line, within the 0, 1 and 2 "understanding" Nuit provides.
Note on the Tree of Life, Keter, "1" and Chockmah, Magus = "2"
"29. In the Ontology of the New Aeon, whose prime theorem is 0 = 2, Kether exists only as the Child of any Marriage of one particular Hadit with one particular aspect of Nuit. There are thus as many Kethers as there are positive possibilities. More, Kether is not in any case a sole Unity, for each Marriage produces a Twin, {HEB:Heh} + {HEB:Yod} = {HEB:Heh} + {HEB:Vau}. There is a positive "Third Being", a Kether; and there is an Ecstasy, or dissolution into Nothing, by the same Event. One is the Magical, the other the Mystical, Result of an Act of Love under Will."
0 = 2, unpacked with Nuit's tool for understanding, 0, 1, and 2, is expression the duality of "duality and non-duality".
AC is simply denoting the recapitulating experience into a duality, into a word, and back into an experience, continual transcendence within intention, or will.
rom Aleister Crowley's just quoted endnotes to his second most important book of his Thelema, his The Vision and the Voice, it can be derived that he understood the most important book of his Thelema, his The Book of the Law, ultimately as to be revealed by Kether. According to Aleister Crowley's just mentioned ontology ( = the branch of philosophy that studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality), for his Thelema.
I believe the teachings of "the two truths" in Vajrayana Buddhism is the same identical teaching as what Crowley is communicating. This is also taught as "the map is not the territory" of Alan Watts.
Remember, in duality "false" means "bad, wrong, mistake, avoid" where as in tantra/magick, "false" means another type of profound truth which is always connected and yoked together with "true", they are inseperable.
So when a Magus speaks the word, the Magus is aware that the word is the "art", false to the actual, truth which is experience, whose own word is "I am" and those who cannot see the non-duality will confuse the "word" as the experience, thus the Magus art is but glamour, enslaving the "soul" until the soul can see, for themselves, the natural non-duality.
"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
Deleted post....not related to next...
The quote from Liber L vel Legis is "existence is pure joy"
Though you were not making a quote from that book, but stating:
"within Liber al Vel Legis, existence is pure experience, which is the absolute Truth in relationship to language or symbols we use to communicate the experience. The experience is not the language of the experience. In today's world, taking a video of an experience is not the actual experience.
This is the relationship between the 1 (actual truth, which is "T") and 2 (symbolic truth, which is "False") on the number line, within the 0, 1 and 2 "understanding" Nuit provides.
Note on the Tree of Life, Keter, "1" and Chockmah, Magus = "2""
but an extraction, or you estimation and reading and belief system, to make your point which I would classify as symbolic in nature according to your explanations.
The quote from Liber L vel Legis is "existence is pure joy"
Sure. Joy is an experience, a state of being.
Though you were not making a quote from that book, but an extraction, or you estimation and reading and belief system, to make your point which I would classify as symbolic in nature according to your explanations.
Correct.
Everything I write about Sunyata is false, and cannot be anything other than false, even if it is true 🙂
"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
Frater Achad originally got his Nest and Egg equivalence like this:
MANIFESTATION is split into MA - NIFESTAT - ION
MA - ION = mem, alef, yod, vav, nun = 107 = bet, yod, tzaddi, heh = BITzaH, meaning EGG.
NIFESTAT = nun, yod, vav, heh, samek, tet, alef, tet = 150 = qof, nun = QeN, meaning NEST
Obviously, there is lots of room for different approaches when transliterating. I assume he tried a couple and liked the result of having the Egg and the Nest.
I just wanted to share this link in this thread to some interesting research around the "egg" theme which has been brought up in this thread in relationship to "nesting" numbers and recapitulation as well as @threefold31's exposition on the egg and the nest.
Recently it has been discovered that there is a universal mathematical formula to all eggs in nature.
Researchers from Kent’s School of Biosciences, the Research Institute for Environment Treatment (Ukraine) and Vita-Market Ltd have discovered the universal mathematical formula that can describe any bird’s egg existing in nature, a feat which has been unsuccessful until now. https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/science/29620/research-finally-reveals-ancient-universal-equation-for-the-shape-of-an-egg
A quote from one of the researchers caught my eye "‘This mathematical equation underlines our understanding and appreciation of a certain philosophical harmony between mathematics and biology, and from those two a way towards further comprehension of our universe, understood neatly in the shape of an egg."
If there is a certain philosophical mathematical harmony that is universal within biology, then there would be, it would suggest, also a mathematical formula that is in harmony with psychology. It is certainly rewarding to speculate, how ancient psychology, i.e. the "occult" societies such as Golden Dawn or Crowley's AA, are perhaps simply following the design harmony of nature, "seeding" ideas into the collective psyche to "nest", recapitulate, and eventually "hatch".
Perhaps bringing new wisdom to the phrase "The chickens have come home to roost"
"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
@sangewanchuck56 93. I just wanted to chime in a message of appreciation and thanks for contributions to this forum. There are some surly characters here but pay them no matter. While I greatly admire the variety of your areas of inquiry, it came to my mind that a rigorous mathematical criticism of AC's theorems would be an enjoyable and rewarding research project, perhaps tied into some of these universal concepts such as the algo for the shape of egg.
In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.
it came to my mind that a rigorous mathematical criticism of AC's theorems would be an enjoyable and rewarding research project,
thanks for the kind words and I like your idea. within this forum are some great contributions by many, and many of these unique contributions all support the other, I have found.
maybe we are all like those blind men and liber al vel legis and crowley is the fat elephant. Individually, neither of us have the full picture, but if we all compare notes? I think then is when we can finally talk about the elephant in the room.
It would be nice if the users here could collaborate on research on the forum, but I'm not sure that is where the money is at the moment, but I did make a solid effort 🙂
"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