Had vs Hadit and Nu vs Nuit
-
93
From what I understand, "it" is the Book of the Laws diefic termination for its Gods. I think it is the formal names as opposed to the more common abbreviation. Of course every letter has some value as they say, and I'm sure what you mentioned may play a role. It, of course also changes the value of the names gemetrically as well. Depending on what gemetria your using, Heb., or some form of Eng. Qabalah.
93 93/93
-
In Nu is Had concealed; by Had is Nu manifested.
HD = 9*
HAD = 10
[HAD] = 11*
HDIT = 419
HADIT = 420
[HADIT] = 421**- NOTE: (from Crowley) however, I am 9 by the fools, with the just I am 8, The Empress and the King are not of me; for there is a further secret. -> see verse II,16: Had = 11 because I am the empress III and hierophant V = VIII = XI and 11 letters in Abrahadabra = Cheth = 8
NV = 56
NVIT = 466** NOTE: (from Crowley) In II, 16, we find that HAD is to be taken as 11 (see II, 16, comment). Then Hadit = 421, Nuit = 466.
421 - 3 (the moon) = 418.
466 + 200 (the sun) = 666. -
@Tinman said
"IT = 410"
Crowley was careful to keep IT = 19.
This, of course, is Hebrew Yod-Teth. But it's why, when he wrote the names as if in Greek, he spelled them Nuith and Hadith, substituting Iota-Theta to keep the 19.
And (since nobody has mentioned it), adding the -T ending in ancient Egyptian (going from the god Nu to thegoddess Nu't, for example) was a feminization suffix.
-
est I ca do , key oard o worki g
-
Had! The manifestation of Nuit.
-
Nu! the hiding of Hadit.
@Jim Eshelman said
"And (since nobody has mentioned it), adding the -T ending in ancient Egyptian (going from the god Nu to thegoddess Nu't, for example) was a feminization suffix"
Had + it = Nuit
Nu + it = Hadit -
-
No, nothing bothering me about it at all. (Remember, I don't regard the Thelemic deities as the Egyptian gods, but as Egyptoid representations of entirely new deity-formulations. Even if the Egyptian Nu was male, my [Thelemic] Nu. Is the essence of female.)
Any error in the Egyptian Nu's gender isn't from a Hebraic anything, but from every book I have on Egyptian mythology making that particular distinction.
-
Yesterday I read TBOTL, again, and as I read II:1, I recalled a paragraph from David wilcocks book, the source code....PG 271.
A gent named Larson named a theory of his the Recprocal System, based on his feelings that space and time were in a perfectly opposite relationship to each other.
"all the energy that makes space in our reality is the same energy that powers time in the parallel reality. And all the energy that makes space in the parallel reality is the energy that powers time in our reality"
So anyways, after thinking this thought, I wondered about your question, not the IT part, but the Nu, Nuit, Had, Hadit part, and the flowing echange between space and time that is constantly happening.
-
"Crowley was careful to keep IT = 19."
I was not aware of that. In publicly available material - is there reference to this desire and the intention behind it?
(also - is this something he was sort of sometimes on - because it's his commentary on the Book of the Law that specifies Hadit = 421 and Nuit = 466 which wouldn't be the correct values if IT = 19)
Looking into the 410 = IT rabbit whole I was coming across correlations that (from someone outside the formal system) were looking good. IT = Holy = Liberty = a swallow - and "I am a swallow!"... but ok... wrong tree... why 19? Looking at Sepher Sephiroth nothing is jumping out at me as the reason why... and I can't see any help coming from The Moon Atu... why 19?... is that intention based on the Yod-Teth (hidden/manifested Phallus) thing? Tau is so much more "manifested" isn't it (the expansion of the seed Yod)?
Also that changes up the schema:
HD = 9*
HAD = 10
[HAD] = 11*
HDIT = 28 (verified in Ian Rons revised Sepher Sephiroth)
HADIT = 29
[HADIT] = 30**NV = 56
NVIT = 75 (verified in Crowley Sepher Sephiroth - couldn't located Hadit)28+75=103 (nothing startling jumping out at me in Sepher Sephiroth)
EDIT: Ah how deceptive; the clouds of illusion have parted - 19 is The Sun Atu not the Moon... silly rabbit. And making IT refer to the sun seems ok (in Crowley's book) because The Sun is bla bla bla a symbol he liked very much. 93 million miles and all. Still doesn't answer my question.
-
I'm still also wondering if there is a practical reason for using Nu vs Nuit in a ritual. (or Had vs Hadit)
The values of the 2 different forms MIGHT be one reason (or the only reason - I don't know I asking) but it seems like even those are a little finicky...
What is another reason - is there one?
Why is "Had! The manifestation of Nuit." Why not: "Hadit! The manifestation of Nu!"
-
@Tinman said
"I'm still also wondering if there is a practical reason for using Nu vs Nuit in a ritual. (or Had vs Hadit)
The values of the 2 different forms MIGHT be one reason (or the only reason - I don't know I asking) but it seems like even those are a little finicky...
What is another reason - is there one?
Why is "Had! The manifestation of Nuit." Why not: "Hadit! The manifestation of Nu!""
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"[Added] - but what does this mean in an accelerating and expanding universe though?
Do you believe that there really is a constant, or do you think that perhaps the universe might be expanding at different velocities and times and that perhaps there isn't a constant that is equal for time and velocity in all parts of the universe?"I would say that the universe is expanding and contracting at the same rate.
As it expands spatially it is contracted inwardly, whether by human observation or some other process.
While two stars may have gone super-nova on entirely different sides of the universe, the resulting spread of carbon could be said to have expanded outward into the universe, millions of years later reconstituted and intermingled in the formation of a human body.
Just as downward pressure eventually gave rise to mountains. In a moment, a space-mark, one might say a thing is expanding or contracting, to find that from a more broad view point it is doing quite the opposite.
-
@Tinman said
"Why is "Had! The manifestation of Nuit." Why not: "Hadit! The manifestation of Nu!""
It's always intrigued me that usually (though there are exceptions), when both Had(it) and Nu(it) are mentioned in the same sentence, only one of them gets the "IT" termination.
I'm afraid I have no idea why, not even one of my wacko know-it-all explanations. -
Just a thought - it seems to me that it's being used for emphasis in some places, and I feel some kind of sexual domination/submission kind of play (or that's how I interpret it at this juncture). Sort of like "okay, this is Chapter 1, I, Nuit, am the important one here!" "Okay, now it's Chapter 2, let me flip on top because it's my turn..." etc. It's almost like "Nu" is Hadit's pet name for Nuit, and vice-versa (though this isn't consistent).
I have no rational explanation to back this up; it's just a feeling I have when I read the text.
93, 93/93.
-
-
likes * previous post.
"It" seems to me that -it indicates the active speaker (which is of course feminine in the New Aeon). "It" being numerically solar is further proof of this. Also, 718 indicates the change in aeon in another way of counting. (Or am I totally getting the 718 thing wrong...)
-
-
"AL I,1: "Had! The manifestation of Nuit."
The New Comment: The Soul interprets the Universe"
"AL II,1: "Nu! the hiding of Hadit."
The New Comment(from AL I,1): Universe veils the Soul
The Old Comment:
As Had, the root of Hadit, is the manifestation of Nuit, so Nu, the root of Nuit, is the hiding of Hadit."Throwing something against the wall and seeing what sticks:
Hadit = the totality of all points of view > All Souls
Had = a specific point of view (such as mine) > Soul
My specific Had, a root of Hadit, manifests Nuit => from a Point, View is possible -> together POV = RHKNuit = the totality of possibilities from one point's perspective - Universe
Nu = the totality of possibilities > All UniversesHad is the root of Hadit because Soul is the root of All Souls.
Nu is the root of Nuit because All Universes is the root of UniverseThoughts?
-
Spending time with the Book of the Law, and Book of Lies (odd how closely those two are linked in name even) had me seeing N+H=R in a new Light (AVR), but without a definite answer to my initial question.
I'm playing with the hierarchy:
NOT = 0
IT = 0 & 1
THAT = 1 & 2If HAD = NUIT, and IT = manifestion, does HAD = NU manifested? Had isn't a God, it's a process. So by Had-ing, we manifest Nu... by Going we manifest The Trip...
Alternately, by Nu-ing, by dissolving into the infinite, by Tripping, we hide the Tripper, (or manifest Going as the Go)...
All this is incredibly hard for me to explain with words, but here I am trying.
More thoughts:
Hadit and Nuit are 1 thing => NOT or 0, explained from 2 different perspectives. That 1 thing is called RHK, but 0 or HPK is implied so we call it a 2in1 thing HRA.Alpeh = Nuit
Yod = Hadit
A center point with 4 spinning blades like a pin wheel, are the blades spinning out from the center part to create the illusion of the circumference, or is the circumference spinning inwards to create the illusion of a center???In the book of the Law, We are told that Abrahadabra (should this be AbraVadAbra ever, if one considers Had to be Vad - random aside) is the reward of Ra-Hoor-Khut, and in the next verse it's Khuit as if Abrahadabra helped the RHK find his I...
Jim, in his commentary, seems to me to translate IT as GOD (Khu-IT => Self-God).
So could the lack of "IT" explain a force rather than a form?
