Notifications

The number 333  

  RSS

belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1004
13/11/2014 9:33 pm  

This is a section from a larger project, still in progress, sometimes alluded to in the text, but it was interesting for me to find out some of the information here, so I hope others may find it interesting too. Because it is mostly a survey of "writing", particularly Crowley's, I have put it here rather than in Qabalah, Thelema, or Magick.

The number 333 first appears in Crowley’s works when Choronzon declares “My name is three hundred and thirty and three, and that is thrice one,” in The Vision and the Voice, 10th Aethyr. In the “Essay upon number” of 1910, Crowley explains the number as the gematria of “ChVRVNZVN” – Choronzon – “that mighty devil”, whose name earlier appeared, for the first time, in the 17th Aethyr of the Vision and the Voice of 2 December 1909.

But both the appearance of the name at all, as well as Crowley’s spelling of it, are surprising. In Dee it is mentioned only a single time in the voluminous accounts of dealings with the spirits (at Cracow, 21 April 1584; British Library, Cotton Appendix XLVI f. 91r l. 4, where it is spelled “Coronzom” (the first letter “n” is now damaged); compare page 92 of Casaubon’s edition, where he renders it as “Coronzon”), and it plays no role that I am aware of in the Golden Dawn’s practice of Enochian magic.


(British Library, Cotton Appendix XLVI f. 91r, ll. 1-9; Edward Kelly the seer, reports the words of the Archangel Gabriel explaining the loss of the Angelic language and the origin of other languages as a result of Adam’s fall. Hence, perhaps, Crowley’s understanding of the fundamental meaning of “C(h)oronzon” as “dispersion” (like the “confusion of tongues” at Babel))


(Isaac Casaubon’s transcription of this passage, from A True and Faithful Relation… (London, 1659), p. 92)

Crowley must have gotten it from his own study of Dee, probably in Casaubon. Why Neuburg – or Crowley – chose “Ch” to spell it is unexplained, but that is how it appears in the 17th, 12th and subsequent Aethyrs, and how it entered into the Thelemic lexicon. It is spelled as ChURUNZUN at the end of the 10th Aethyr, which implies that Crowley or Neuburg had already transliterated the first letter as a Hebrew Cheth, ח and knew its gematria. Therefore, if the spelling is originally Neuburg’s, we might speculate that Crowley, rereading the 17th Aethyr afterwards, sometime in any case before the preparations for the 10th Aethyr, decided it was inspired and did not “correct” it to Casaubon or Dee’s spelling. The fact that it added up to 333, which has no particularly evil gematria values – for instance in Sepher Sephiroth (except for Choronzon itself) -  and should, as the “large (or “grand”) scale 3”, and Aleph spelled-in-full times three, be in fact a positive number, continued to puzzle Crowley a year later when he wrote the Essay upon Number (in Marseille, December 1910, published as the fifth installment of “The Temple of Solomon the King” in Equinox I,5 (March, 1911); see Confessions p. 656; Perdurabo p. 229):

“333. ChVRVNZVN, see Liber 418, 10th Aethyr. It is surprising that this large scale 3 should be so terrible a symbol of dispersion. There is doubtless a venerable arcanum here connoted, possibly the evil of Matter summó. 333 =37 x 9 the accurséd.” 

Thus, a year later he could only offer the vague suggestions that it was “the evil of Matter summó” and “333=37x9 the accurséd.” (the “evil of Matter summó” should probably be taken as “Matter supreme”, i.e. materialism, or, the highest or end of matter, atomistic reductionism without unity or form). 

At least sometime before December 1910 he had used 333 to work out the equation mentioned in the 14th Aethyr: “The eye is called seventy, and the triple aleph whereby thou perceivest it, divideth into the terrible word that is the Key to the Abyss,” because his entry for the number 210 in the Essay upon Number makes its identity with the word N.O.X. and its symbolism clear. That is, he had identified “the great and terrible word 210” of the 20th Aethyr of 30 November, with the “terrible Word that is the Key of the Abyss” mentioned in the 14th Aethyr of 3 December, through the formula of dividing 70 (the “eye”) by 333 (Aleph spelled in full times three), equaling .210, the formula of reducing the Dyad to Unity and thence to Annihilation, which, as we saw in section 4, is probably the original sense of this “terrible word”.

Despite Choronzon’s own tallying of his name to 333 in the 10th Aethyr, we must not take the later (probably 1925) commentary note to this passage as disingenuous: “חורונזון = 333 = 3 x 111, and 111 = אלף =  א = 1. 333 is also άκρασια, impotence, lack of control; and άκολασια, dispersion. The Seer had no idea of these correspondences; nor had Dr. Dee and Sir Edward Kelly, from whom we have the name.”  Of course, Dee and Kelly would not have known the Greek correspondences, because they spelled the word “Coronzom”, so even if they had tried gematria, Greek or Hebrew, it would have added up differently.

(Nota bene, I can find no authority for Crowley’s translation of άκολασια as “dispersion.” According to Bill Heidrick, the first editor of The Greek Qabalah (O.T.O. Newsletter, vol. II, nos. 3 and 4 (1978)), Crowley’s main reference dictionary was Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, of which his copy survives, replete with annotations (it would have been no later than the eighth edition; the ninth edition was not begun until 1925, with the last fascicle published in 1940); the meanings given for άκολασια are “licentiousness, intemperance.” (it is the negative condition, α,  of κολαζω, “to restrain, curtail, cut back, restrict,” etc., hence “unrestrained” )  Nevertheless, I have also made searches in other contemporary dictionaries in English and French, and the meaning “dispersion” is never given; nor is it ever an appropriate translation in the Greek authorities cited in the Lexicon. Thus his attribution of this meaning to the word appears to be simply ad hoc, to justify the assertion in the 10th Aethyr that “Choronzon is Dispersion.” Crowley’s rationale may have been that a licentious or debauched person is dissolute, and dissolution is dispersion (of energy or substance); but from the usage of “dissolute” to “dissolution” is a semantic stretch even in English, and the Greek word cannot encompass this semantic range. The main Greek word translated “dispersion” is διασπορα, which has come straight into English as diaspora.)

Relevant as background to Choronzon and 333 as Crowley’s “dark half” is Richard Kaczynski’s insightful account of one of Crowley’s earliest visionary experiences (number 13 of eighteen recorded visions), under the guidance of Julian Baker and George Cecil Jones, around the time of his initiation into the Golden Dawn in November 1898:

“Traveling down a long gold-purple column that opened into a scarlet cavern, the student found his astral body besieged by lost souls attempting to break through the protective barrier of his magic circle. Among these, he recognized Pollitt’s face. ‘Who are these?’ Crowley asked.
“A voice said: ‘They are the souls of those whom thou hast caused to sin.’
“Truth or lie, it was an ugly sight. He raised an imaginary sword in outrage, and as he did, a hideous deformed giant lunged out the of the shadows and threw its black form repeatedly at the circle. To AC’s disbelief, the barrier nearly yielded, and he prepared to smite the creature. But a voice interrupted and warned that the monster was his own evil persona, and he ought not to banish it.
“Although the magician commanded his persona to stop tormenting him, the shadow responded more furiously than before. The circle yielded dramatically, allowing the figure perilously close to Crowley, who was confused about how to react. Finally, he raised his magic sword, traced a protective pentagram between himself and his alter ego, and intoned the Tetragrammaton, or sacred four-lettered name of God: Yahweh. In response the hulk sullenly withdrew.
“Crowley mournfully considered his dark half, extended his left arm, and instructed the beast to kiss his hand and repent. However, the wary magician extended his hand only part way, and the monstrosity bent only slightly toward it. Aleister Crowley’s two sides confronted each other that night and could not meet halfway.”
(Perdurabo, p. 55)

This dark, other half, would later emerge fully personified as Choronzon, the 333 half to his full 666. Therefore, I think that Crowley must have found symbolic significance in the fact that 333 is half of 666, although he mentions that simple observation nowhere (at least nowhere I can recall).  333 is therefore his other half, the dark form he began seeing in his earliest visions under the guidance of Baker and Jones, his own Dweller on the Threshold.


Quote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 253
13/11/2014 9:56 pm  

It is interesting to note that Crowley spells Choronzon with an end-nun (also in Sepher Sephiroth), but counts 50. IMO that is cheating.

Markus


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1004
13/11/2014 10:26 pm  
"Markus" wrote:
It is interesting to note that Crowley spells Choronzon with an end-nun (also in Sepher Sephiroth), but counts 50. IMO that is cheating.

Markus

Could be cheating, but I think the Jewish Kabbalists used whatever they needed as well. They even had the "colel" rule, whereby you can add or subtract 1, an Aleph, if required. In other words, if it's that close, it's okay to force it. 983 (counting the final nun as 700) actually has a cool meaning, "Urbs Quaternionis", which Von Rosenroth (Kabbala Denudata I, p. 678) explains as "Urbs Quaternionis, is the Shekhinah, because the four letters of the Tetragrammaton are united in her; that is the four Names YH and YHVH, masculine and feminine, Chokhmah and Binah: and YHVH and ADoNY, Tiphereth and Malkuth."

I have a suspicion that Crowley had a theory attached to 333 related to 666 already before 1909 - although not related to the spelling of Choronzon specifically - since it is the abbreviation of אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, "I am that I am", the response God gives Moses in Exodus 3:14. The "triple Aleph", spelled in full, has obvious implications for the Ego-annihilation aspect, as well as being an utterance of the Demiurge, the Gnostic view of the Jewish YHWH, the creator of the evil material world. This may be part of the meaning behind Crowley's characterization of the number as "Matter summo".

I'd like to weave that suspicion into my study somehow, but I'd like to find some hints in the earlier Crowley that I can work with.


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 156
22/11/2014 5:13 pm  

There are three roots (only) in classical Hebrew that add up to 333. Since Semitic languages are based on three-letter roots I have examined these in depth. The three rooots mean "to lie down", "to have sex" and "snow". I leave it to Lashtal to devise appropriate rituals, especially if they live in Buffalo, where right now conditions are ideal!


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2024
23/11/2014 7:00 am  

How often did it snow in ancient Israel, if you know, steve_wilson?
I imagine those folks would "lay down", and also "have sex", if we can believe what I read in my Bible, and learned in Sunday School, but "snow"?
How significant a meaning in notarikon can a thing seldom seen possibly have?
Can you cite any non-Protestant source for this "333" insight, other than "shin-lamed-gimel"=333 under some systems? What do you think this means, "laying down", and "having sex" and "snow" being the same? Do you think the several OT uses of "sheleg" meaning "leprous" are significant here?
While I am eager to believe, like Noam Chomsky, that the "Holy Qabalah" explains it all, could you fill us in a bit more?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
It's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3834
23/11/2014 10:16 am  

I lived in Israel for several years in the 1970s. For such a small area it has a very diverse climate. It does snow in the north.

Some people find qabalah interesting and useful; others don't. I don't think that anyone claims that the Qabalah explains everything - so if you are indeed "eager to believe" this then you are doomed to disappointment.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1098
23/11/2014 5:45 pm  

how often does it snow in Jerusalem?

http://tinyurl.com/n6a7cwc


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3753
23/11/2014 6:46 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
how often does it snow in Jerusalem?

Mein Gott! This proves that the Ancient Qabalists (probably) knew about Snow.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 390
23/11/2014 9:23 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
Some people find qabalah interesting and useful; others don't. I don't think that anyone claims that the Qabalah explains everything.

Actually, it is quite common for exponents of Qabalah to claim that 'Qabalah explains the Universe"; a recent example is a 'Thelema Now' segment in which David Shoemaker states that very thing.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
It's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3834
23/11/2014 10:32 pm  

I'm sorry to hear that David Shoemaker said that. I've known quite a few qabalists in my time, and none have claimed anything like that.


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 156
24/11/2014 1:09 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
How often did it snow in ancient Israel, if you know, steve_wilson?
I imagine those folks would "lay down", and also "have sex", if we can believe what I read in my Bible, and learned in Sunday School, but "snow"?
How significant a meaning in notarikon can a thing seldom seen possibly have?
Can you cite any non-Protestant source for this "333" insight, other than "shin-lamed-gimel"=333 under some systems? What do you think this means, "laying down", and "having sex" and "snow" being the same? Do you think the several OT uses of "sheleg" meaning "leprous" are significant here?
While I am eager to believe, like Noam Chomsky, that the "Holy Qabalah" explains it all, could you fill us in a bit more?

If you can't see a symbolic connection between snow and sex I really wonder if you're cut out for this magick stuff. Try thinking of wet and white stuff and take it from there.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2024
24/11/2014 3:26 pm  

You may well be right about my lack of aptitude here; I was just asking for some clarification of what exactly you were saying.
The "wet and white stuff" I've experienced when "laying down" has mostly been notably warm rather than, say, frozen, or leprous, but I will bow to your apparently broader experience here.
I also appreciate others pointing out snow in Israel is currently more common than i knew- is this caused by global climate change, or likely to also have been true a couple thousand years ago?


ReplyQuote
steve_wilson
(@steve_wilson)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 156
24/11/2014 3:38 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
I also appreciate others pointing out snow in Israel is currently more common than i knew- is this caused by global climate change, or likely to also have been true a couple thousand years ago?

I believe that both the Old and New Testaments contain evidence that 2,000 years ago they at the very least had mountains. These have been known to attract snow, as Crowley knew all too well.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3753
24/11/2014 3:43 pm  
"herupakraath" wrote:
Actually, it is quite common for exponents of Qabalah to claim that 'Qabalah explains the Universe"

Haha 😀  Then they are simply deluding themselves (and trying to delude others). Nothing explains the Universe, or the "Meaning of Life," or any other of those "Mysteries."

Qabalah is a means, one of many means, that can be used to train the mind. The mind is incapable of explaining such concepts as the Universe. But the human ego would like to think that it can explain everything. It's all part of the Spiritual Con Game, and that game is most easily played upon one's self 😉


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 891
02/12/2014 1:28 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
Some people find qabalah interesting and useful; others don't. I don't think that anyone claims that the Qabalah explains everything.

Actually, it is quite common for exponents of Qabalah to claim that 'Qabalah explains the Universe"; a recent example is a 'Thelema Now' segment in which David Shoemaker states that very thing.

herupakraath, where does David Shoemaker states that 'Qabalah explains the Universe", I listened to "Tue, 24 December 2013 Thelema NOW! Guest: David Shoemaker on Living Thelema (30 mins.)", and from 5 minutes into 6 minutes and seven seconds into this podcast he warns against "predisposing yourself to find what you're looking for", and against fooling himself to think that certain "things happen like clockwork all the time according to this master-plan", and ends by calling what he does based on Living Thelema "a quasi-scientific method".


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 390
02/12/2014 2:55 am  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
herupakraath, where does David Shoemaker states that 'Qabalah explains the Universe",

It may be one of the episodes of Living Thelema; sorry for any confusion. I seldom listen to such things, but I happened listen to the first minute or so of one of the web casts and heard him state as much.

That Shoemaker said as much should be no surprise to anyone familar with Qabalah; here are a few examples:

"Kabbalah seeks to define the nature of the universe"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah

"The guiding principles of Kabbalah simultaneously explain and orchestrate the birth of the universe"

http://cosmicnavigator.com/about/kabbalah/questions-answers-about-kabbalah

"The fundamental task of theosophical Kabbalah is to explain the structure of the universe"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-michaelson/an-introduction-to-kabbal_b_379296.html

"The Kabbalah explains the mechanics of creation, the architecture of the universe"

http://rosecrossohgrc.com/discourses/the-kabbalah/

"Kabbalah.....it is an attempt by the sages to explain the universe"

http://ldorvador.org/education/kabbalah/

"This explains the 4 letters, the tetragrammaton YHVH and how it explains the universe"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ssH0wbnQXU&feature=youtu.be

"spiritual and intellectual giants throughout history have turned to the Zohar to unravel the secrets of the Bible and the mysteries of the universe"

http://www.zohar.com/article/what-zohar

I could go on citing examples ad nauseum.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 373
02/12/2014 4:48 am  
"belmurru" wrote:
This dark, other half, would later emerge fully personified as Choronzon, the 333 half to his full 666. Therefore, I think that Crowley must have found symbolic significance in the fact that 333 is half of 666, although he mentions that simple observation nowhere (at least nowhere I can recall).  333 is therefore his other half, the dark form he began seeing in his earliest visions under the guidance of Baker and Jones, his own Dweller on the Threshold.

Dwtw

There is ample evidence for your conclusion provided by the Trigrammaton Qabalah. With this method we discover that 333 and 666 are 'opposites'. All numbers (or n-grams) written in base 3 have what are called their 'antigram', which is simply the result of switching all lines to their opposite, in the same manner as found in the I Ching. Thus Yang becomes Yin, and vice versa; Tao is neutral and does not change.

In base 3, the hexagram for the decimal number 666 is written as 220200, while that of 333 is written 110100. Thus they are opposites, complements, or 'antigrams'. 666 is all Tao and Yin, while 333 is all Tao and Yang.

What is perhaps most interesting from the point of view of Kabbalah is that the Hexagram of 666 can also have another Tao added at the top, to make a Septagram (without changing its numerical value). When this is done, it will be seen that the resulting figure bears a striking resemblance to the Tree of Life. Its antigram then represents the Tree with the three horizontal paths emphasized.

As Crowley noted the importance of 333 as a triple 'Alef spelled-in-full', it is also worth noting that in the Word of the Aeon - Makhashanah - there are three Alefs. If this word is 'spelled in full' it totals 999; the Alefs add to 333, while the remainder adds to 666.

Mem - 90
ALEF - 111
Kaf - 100
ALEF - 111
Shin - 360
ALEF - 111
Nun - 106
He - 10

This is secretly referenced by the passage "Ah! Ah! Ah! Fall back from me. The word, the word of the aeon is MAKHASHANAH", with the three Alefs represented by the first three words. When these 'fall back' from the word of the Aeon, what is left is 666.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
choronzonclub
(@choronzonclub)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 9
11/09/2019 11:03 pm  

It is Meric not Isaac Casaubon. Isaac was Meric's father.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1004
12/09/2019 4:42 pm  

@choronzonclub

It is Meric not Isaac Casaubon. Isaac was Meric’s father.

Yes indeed. Thank you for noticing that sloppy mistake.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1223
13/09/2019 1:12 am  

@belmurru

Credit where credit's due department, and to get away from sometimes maybe being too critical (with the emphasis on critic-ising), your well-written posts are invariably a pleasure to read filled as they are with often arcane but fascinating background material relayed with occasional understated humour while at the same time also being academically (in its finest sense of informed scholasticism) stringent and impeccably sourced. it's only a shame that you don't post more! And in the words of the well-known melody: if only the majority of postings could be in a similar vein, what a wonderful world this could be...

Prob. going slightly over the top there but nevertheless appreciatively yours
N Joy

P.S., is there any more news on this "larger project" of yours yet --- has it been completed and when might it be readable, for instance? I am sure I'm not alone in being interested in finding out.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1004
13/09/2019 10:43 am  

@Jamie J Barter

P.S., is there any more news on this “larger project” of yours yet — has it been completed and when might it be readable, for instance? I am sure I’m not alone in being interested in finding out.

Thank you very much for the appreciative words, and the encouragement, Jamie.

The larger project is on the subject of "The Roots of N.O.X., The Night of Pan." I haven't worked on it since 2015, however. The part on the number 333 was the seventh root of eight that I found to be relevant to the evolution of the concept.

Other projects have occupied me in the last few years, three 15th and 16th century texts related to Tarot history. Since they have nothing to do with AC or esotericism, I thought it would be impolite or even abusive of Paul's generosity to announce their publication here. If that subject interests anyone, however, both books can be previewed on Google Books (I'll be happy to post the links here if asked).


ReplyQuote
hermitas
(@hermitas)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 44
13/09/2019 8:14 pm  

From the OP:

Despite Choronzon’s own tallying of his name to 333 in the 10th Aethyr, we must not take the later (probably 1925) commentary note to this passage as disingenuous: “חורונזון = 333 = 3 x 111, and 111 = אלף = א = 1. 333 is also άκρασια, impotence, lack of control; and άκολασια, dispersion. The Seer had no idea of these correspondences; nor had Dr. Dee and Sir Edward Kelly, from whom we have the name.”

The math bit with the equal signs... It's throwing me. Seems to be kind of a fast and loose string of associations. 111 (Aleph in full) = 333 = akrasia? Aleph = akrasia? Hmmm... That's not my favorite idea. Anyone care to fill in any blanks about why this association makes sense?

Thanks.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3753
13/09/2019 9:41 pm  

A General Comment to Choronzon's Number

Here's the deal: Chasing the Disperser down with name and number may be interesting. Maybe someone needs to do this so they can "Order their Mind." But the reality lies in the following (axiom):

If anything has a form, a name, or a number, then it is a mental construct, a thoughtform, and is being viewed from below the Abyss. Above the Abyss, there is no form, and no (mortal) Mind to assign or interpret names or numbers. (Sure, there's a Universal Mind, but that's in a different dimension, so it forms a side-issue).

Now Choronzon is not really some terrible demon. The mighty demon evoked in the 10th Aethyr, called ZAX, by Assistant Magician Neuberg, assisting Frater Perdurabo, in the middle of the holy-cow-there's-nothing-here desert of North Africa, over a hundred years ago, was/is a magnificent example of what one faces. But it was (purposely) overdrawn.

The Crossing of the Abyss does not necessarily involve the appearance of a demon. The demon is merely a convenient overlay, laid out in medieval, Goetic symbolism, in order to give some substance, some form, to a perfectly natural process know as Losing One's Mind.

The Vision and the Voice is an absolute masterpiece of ceremonial magic and initiation. But it was a flash-bang, thank you gang, affair wherein certain Aethyrs were tackled one or two per day. The procedure for crossing the tenth Aethyr in daily life is a prolonged period in which all attachments and support from anyone or anything are removed. This is something that is done to one, not something that one does.

This is a natural process (an outcome of diligent trudging for a couple decades or so) that is engaged when one (anyone) draws nigh unto the outer periphery of their causal body (at Chesed).

It has been my experience (and that of others) that no demon need necessarily appear and shred one's consciousness, but rather that some unknown factor arranges for one (anyone) to lose everything. Note: They don't lose anything to which they are not attached. If it matters to them, it'll be taken away.

Oh yeah, one can force this process by taking The Oath of the Abyss, or some similar resignation from normal, human life, but that doesn't trigger the final dispersion of the mind. It can start a cosmic take-away process, but it taketh away slowly. The culmination, the part that corresponds to the happy hour in the 10th Aethyr, comes along in its own time ... as a crisis.

Nobody (no one) can force this process to happen by taking some I-give-it-all-up Oath, or by claiming the grade of Magister Templi, 8=3 (soon to be snickered at).

On the other hand, we are fortunate that we can learn a bit about this process with the use of lega, libation. But that learning only helps a little when the real deal comes up in daily life, without chemical assistance. At such times, there is no demon, no name, no number. One (anyone) can only jump.


ReplyQuote
soz
 soz
(@soz)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 74
14/09/2019 4:29 am  

@hermitas: "Despite Choronzon’s own tallying of his name to 333 in the 10th Aethyr, we must not take the later (probably 1925) commentary note to this passage as disingenuous: “חורונזון = 333 = 3 x 111, and 111 = אלף = א = 1. 333 is also άκρασια, impotence, lack of control; and άκολασια, dispersion. The Seer had no idea of these correspondences; nor had Dr. Dee and Sir Edward Kelly, from whom we have the name.”

--

It looks like there is an problem with the way that the WordPress software formats text that includes Hebrew letters (and, presumably, any character set that is read right-to-left).

The text that I have, with the Hebrew letters transliterated into English letters, reads

[Cheth-vau-resh-vau-nun-zain-vau-nun] (Choronzon) = 333 = 3 x 111, and 111 = [Aleph-lamed-peh] = [Aleph] = 1.
333 is also άκρασια, impotence, lack of control; and άκολασια, dispersion.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1004
14/09/2019 10:19 am  

@soz @hermitas

It looks like there is an problem with the way that the WordPress software formats text that includes Hebrew letters (and, presumably, any character set that is read right-to-left).

Indeed the software mixes up the order; here is a screenshot of my original Word document, which shows the correct formatting:

Original passage in Word

And a photo of the note in the book itself, The Vision and the Voice with Commentary and Other Papers (Weiser, 1998), p. 166:

Original passage in The Vision and the Voice


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 891
14/09/2019 10:22 am  

Crowley’s wrong translation of άκολασια as “dispersion” - in the context described in the OP for this thread - is easily explained by his attribution of the number 333 to Choronzon. "Dispersion" as the symbolic meaning for the number 333 according to AC, is in line with both his life long habit of speculating about the symbolic meaning of numbers, and with his infatuation with the number 666. That is in this context, the number 333 understood by AC as a symbol for; to disperse, or to "break up" or to "split up" (synonyms for disperse (source: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/disperse)) the number 666. Or in other words, the number 333 is, or was, in this context understood by AC as a symbol for a "dispersion" of the number 666.


ReplyQuote
hermitas
(@hermitas)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 44
16/09/2019 5:31 pm  

@soz @belmerru

Ah, that makes much more sense. Many thanks for the clarification.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 891
18/09/2019 2:20 pm  

(My emphasis:)

"In the 28th Æthyr Crowley received what he regarded later as a prophecy concerning his experience of Choronzon in the 10th: ‘Thou shalt be vexed by dispersion.’ Dispersion also adds up to 333 in Greek. In the 10th Æthyr it is even stated explicitly: ‘Choronzon is Dispersion.’ Yet in a footnote Crowley claims not to have realised at the time that there was any correspondence between ‘Dispersion’ and ‘Choronzon’. Casaubon’s spelling of ‘Coronzon’ adds up to 345 in Hebrew (Donald Tyson gets 365 by taking Nun final as 70). So why exactly did Crowley change the spelling from ‘Coronzon’ before he was told the demon’s number in the 10th, if not because he wished to link Choronzon to the forewarning of being vexed by dispersion mentioned in the 28th, and present the demon as responsible for mental scattering and distraction. Did he perhaps, either consciously or subconsciously, desire to have his change legitimised and this is why he had the demon state its number? It’s fascinating that the spelling ‘Choronzon’ is already in use before the 10th Æthyr but the ‘Babalon’ spelling is not, Crowley was still spelling her name ‘Babylon’, and it is in the 10th Æthyr that he first uses the ‘correct’ 156 spelling (gematrically equivalent to ‘Chaos’) alluded to in the 12th Æthyr (in the phrase ‘Gate of the God On’, ie Babalon: BAB = gate; AL = God; ON = On) where it becomes representative of a ‘victory over Choronzon’ and mark of the banishment of illusion. (Of course, if we regard C[h]oronzon/m and Babalon as essentially Enochian words – ‘babalon’ appears in the 6th Enochian Key, which Crowley didn’t appear to notice – their numbers 333 and 156 when rendered in Hebrew are irrelevant and merely a curiosity.)

The account of the skrying of the 10th Æthyr was unusual among the 30 Æthyrs in that it was subjected to editing and revision." (Source: https://coronzon.com/choronzon.htm - - - The seven-headed dragon and the demon Choronzon by Joel Biroco The beasts of the Apocalypse and their relationship with precursors in Near Eastern mythology, Enochian entities, & Crowley’s skrying of the Æthyrs in Algeria in 1909 First published in KAOS 14, 2002, slightly revised here)


ReplyQuote
Share: