numbers in the book of the law
-
@ViaLuxInTenebresEs said
"
Every number is infinite they're all the same? so this is a joke of no significance?"
well this one is quite enlightening - consider a number line - which continues of course infinitely. it's just an infinite line of 1's with no total sum. Once we create representations of groups of 1's (2, 3, 5, etc) all we are doing is re-ordering the 1's using symbols for them (2, 3, etc etc)
so....there are an infinite number of 2's, 3's, 156's, etc etc - all of these numbers are infinite and continues, our usage of any number other than 0 and 1 is a usage soley in context to the operation at hand and in that sense, could be considered subjective. to be clear, there are an infinite number of 2's, 3's, 4's, etc etc
-
@Heru-pa-kraath said
"
@ViaLuxInTenebresEs said
"
6 / 50 = .012: Crowley thought this result indicative of his "0=2" formula, which stated simply, holds that from the negative emerges two polarized opposites, with the negative representing the divine; the goal of the initiate is to combine the two opposing pairs, reducing them to nothing through cancellation, in order to achieve union with the divine. It could argued this equation expresses the formula of mysticism."
"There are a few interesting things about the numbers 0,1, and 2 from a philosophy of math perspective. In one sense, it represents the entire foundation of all counting and ordering, something intrinsic to mapping objective reality. Objective reality is manifest of course as the entire body of nuit - or the collection of an infinite number of sentient beings/stars/hadit(s)
the only pure number is 1.
2 (and any other number above 1) are really illusions or re-orderings of 1.
Consider; numbers are symbols for objective values. However, 1 is the only number that not just represents the value it symbolizes, but also IS that same value - it literally is 1 symbol for 1 value. it IS the thing in and of itself. 2 , and any number above 2 - is NOT the thing that it represents, it's just easy short hand so we dont have to write 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
This is enlightening because this is exactly how we crunch 'truth' in any sense. We have objective truths, which signify objective reality, which is really meaningless other than just being what it is. A =A. Then we have our own subjective universe, our own unique ordering of objective reality (which we project onto it) - our own personal truths.
so the numbers 1 and 2 could be looked at the same way as the symbols yin and yang (ironically, there is ONE yang line and TWO yin lines in the iching)
Of course, the infinite number line of which all numbers are infinite therein flows from 0, which is both valuable and valueless, a transcendent of number ordering. It is valuable because with out it, the entire number line simply fails to perform it's true will, counting and ordering, yet it has no value in and of itself indeed it is nothing in and of itself.
So consider NUIT is 56, divided (deconstructed) we have the entire ordering of objective reality through number, 012
I believe This is very harmonious with much of the philosophy of thelema. Consider Crowley's story of the blind men and the elephant in the room ( i think i have this story correct, but the essence I retain) each blind man has his own unique ordering of the information he is perceiving, yet no blind man has the same map of the elephant, yet all the blind men SHARE the elephant in common. Look at the elephant as the 0, manifesting as a 1, and hidden by the 2.
even more freaky fun things to consider. 1 is a pure number which, like mentioned above, IS the thing in and of itself, a beautiful representation of objective reality - of course Nuit is Chapter 1 in the book of the law. 2 is the more personal context of ordering of 1, something more representative of subjective reality and of course the self. Hadit - the highest exaltation of the self, is chapter 2.
-
@David Stanton said
"Still, I'm inclined to believe this reveals something worth knowing. I find the immediately preceding verses particularly compelling and wonder about a connection with the key. Plus, I'm intrigued by the indecipherable.
."
oh it does. what it means is PURE MYSTERY. Understanding the role of MYSTERY on the psyche is indeed quite enlightening.
-
"PURE MYSTERY."
I love that. Great point. Oldfriend. There's nothing quite like gnawing on the ineffable to strengthen one's bite.
-
"My interpretation: The verse doesn't say there's an answer. It just says Crowley won't figure it out and somebody will expound one. This, of course, has come true: One "pounding out" after another has been circulated for decades. Expounding is all over the place! One after another, they get pounded out... "
the only thing about this that seems a little off here to me is that it assumes (and forgive me if I am mistaken) that the verse is meaningless, not in a taoist sense, but in a more logical sense - if Crowley would never know the meaning - that implies that the meaning could be hidden from him, not necessarily because it's non existant blabber. Even suggesting that the verse is meaningless is supplying some meaning to that verse.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
"My interpretation: The verse doesn't say there's an answer. It just says Crowley won't figure it out and somebody will expound one. This, of course, has come true: One "pounding out" after another has been circulated for decades. Expounding is all over the place! One after another, they get pounded out... "the only thing about this that seems a little off here to me is that it assumes (and forgive me if I am mistaken) that the verse is meaningless, not in a taoist sense, but in a more logical sense - if Crowley would never know the meaning - that implies that the meaning could be hidden from him, not necessarily because it's non existant blabber. Even suggesting that the verse is meaningless is supplying some meaning to that verse."
"Meaning," like "value," is where you find it.
I do believe that there is no inherent mystery in the verse.
Look at it In context of the surround verses. The verses right before are very profound. The provide important keys to living life. I then read vv. 75-76 as saying, essentially: "So, this isn't the kinda shit you wanna hear? OK, here's some gobbledy-goop! BLATHER. NONESENSE. INTRIGUING PUZZLE. So, smartypants, what you think THIS means, eh? You're never gonna figure it out (hahahaha)... Sure, somebody will come along and start expounding what it means. - Meanwhile... now this is important, so listen up... here's what matters: Remember to be me; to follow the love of Nu in the star-lit heaven; to look forth upon men, to tell them this glad word."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@ldfriend56 said
"
"My interpretation: The verse doesn't say there's an answer. It just says Crowley won't figure it out and somebody will expound one. This, of course, has come true: One "pounding out" after another has been circulated for decades. Expounding is all over the place! One after another, they get pounded out... "the only thing about this that seems a little off here to me is that it assumes (and forgive me if I am mistaken) that the verse is meaningless, not in a taoist sense, but in a more logical sense - if Crowley would never know the meaning - that implies that the meaning could be hidden from him, not necessarily because it's non existant blabber. Even suggesting that the verse is meaningless is supplying some meaning to that verse."
"Meaning," like "value," is where you find it.
I do believe that there is no inherent mystery in the verse.
Look at it In context of the surround verses. The verses right before are very profound. The provide important keys to living life. I then read vv. 75-76 as saying, essentially: "So, this isn't the kinda (****) you wanna hear? OK, here's some gobbledy-goop! BLATHER. NONESENSE. INTRIGUING PUZZLE. So, smartypants, what you think THIS means, eh? You're never gonna figure it out (hahahaha)... Sure, somebody will come along and start expounding what it means. - Meanwhile... now this is important, so listen up... here's what matters: Remember to be me; to follow the love of Nu in the star-lit heaven; to look forth upon men, to tell them this glad word.""
I always thought the 'glad word' referred to that particular verse, no? curious to see another interpretation here.
Not sure I see what your saying about 75 - 76, the context of 'so this is not what you want to hear?" - to me it just says Yes! you're (on the right path, correct, right etc etc) and listen to the numbers and the words. listen to me is a quality of paying attention more acutely especially internally. so to me it just says YES pay attention here to this unknown - you will not know it, but one (not many) shall come after you to explain it's meaning.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"I always thought the 'glad word' referred to that particular verse, no? curious to see another interpretation here."
I think it means almost anything except the immediately prior text. The "But" at the beginning of the sentence is exclusionary.
I take "glad word" broadly to mean Liber L. overall, and more specifically Chapter 2.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@ldfriend56 said
"I always thought the 'glad word' referred to that particular verse, no? curious to see another interpretation here."I think it means almost anything except the immediately prior text. The "But" at the beginning of the sentence is exclusionary.
I take "glad word" broadly to mean Liber L. overall, and more specifically Chapter 2."
ahh - gotcha. well this is part of the beauty of liber al - all the different layers and levels of meaning we can project onto it. to me the verse simply represents mystery or unknown in it's pure form, and the eternal mystery is indeed a glad word to share.
thanks jim!
-
@ViaLuxInTenebresEs said
"Wow I usually use Stephen Skinner's complete magician's tables so I never opened 777. now I see it has like all the hebrew words by number in the back!"
Infinitely quotable.
Don't get bogged down in the particulars. Gematria is a discipline that takes many years of study before it yields fruit. Many aspiring Qabalists have gone bonkers on Liber AL; you're best off starting with the "Sepher Yetzirah," or something of the kind. "The Temple of Solomon the King," at the beginning of 777, contains an excellent intro to Gematria, and should be learned by heart. Jim's 2.0 version of the same book is also indispensable.
I also recommend a pocket calculator. It can be handy for all those nasty permutations.
-
93
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"61 = ain = aleph-yod-nun = 1+10+50 = "nothing""
61 also equals "I am". The term "I am" is profoundly significant throughout history: Jesus uses the term "I am" to describe himself seven different ways in the Bible and there is a famous latin saying that goes "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think, therefore, I am).
According to wikipedia:
The use of “I am” without a predicate was considered a name for Jesus by St. Thomas Aquinas who considered it the most proper of all divine names, for Aquinas believed it to refer to the “being of all things”.
Suffice to say..."61" is a very important number.
- 93/93
-
"Ani" by itself doesn't mean "I am". By itself, it simply means "I".
In Hebrew, like other Semitic languages, the present form of "to be" is implied. So, you in effect say "I (am) hungry" or "he (is) cold" without actually saying the equivalent of "am" or "is".
If in Hebrew, one wished to say "I am" in the sense of "I exist", then one would probably use the Hebrew verb Haya', the first person indicative tense of which is Ehyeh, as in "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" in Exodus (I am that I am).
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
""Ani" by itself doesn't mean "I am". By itself, it simply means "I"."
Okay, agreed...I just typed "I am" into Google translate and came up with the same thing, but then I reversed it--translated "ani" to english--and it says it only translates to "I".
Anyway, 61=I is pretty profound on its own.
-
in regards ani and the self, there is another take which is quite interesting that adds into this.
Where you to take the words dreams and brainfarts and use counting well, using them you get 61 as well.
Meaning that life consists of brainfarts and ideas.
I don't have my research close but i have an answer to al 1:25 as well.
