THE SCULPTURE OF VIBRATIONS 1971
A
MAZE
IN
ZAZAZA ENTERS ZAZAZA
ZAZAZAZAZAZAZAAZAZAZAZAZAZAZ
ZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZ
THE
MAGIKALALPHABET
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526992625242322212019181716151413121110987654321
LIGHT AND LIFE
Lars Olof Bjorn 1976
Page 197
"By writing the 26 letters of the alphabet in a certain order one may put down almost any message (this book 'is written with the same letters' as the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Winnie the Pooh, only the order of the letters differs). In the same way Nature is able to convey with her language how a cell and a whole organism is to be constructed and how it is to function. Nature has succeeded better than we humans; for the genetic code there is only one universal language which is the same in a man, a bean plant and a bacterium."
"BY WRITING THE 26 LETTERS OF THE ALPHABET IN A CERTAIN ORDER
ONE MAY PUT DOWN ALMOST ANY MESSAGE"
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
J |
K |
L |
M |
N |
O |
P |
Q |
R |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
1+0 |
1+1 |
1+2 |
1+3 |
1+4 |
1+5 |
1+6 |
1+7 |
1+8 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
S |
T |
U |
V |
W |
X |
Y |
Z |
I |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
9 |
1+9 |
2+0 |
2+1 |
2+2 |
2+3 |
2+4 |
2+5 |
2+6 |
ME |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
9 |
18 |
9 |
18 |
9 |
18 |
9 |
18 |
9 |
= |
1+8 |
= |
1+8 |
= |
1+8 |
= |
1+8 |
= |
= |
9 |
= |
9 |
= |
9 |
= |
9 |
= |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
1 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
1 |
"BY WRITING THE 26 LETTERS OF THE ALPHABET IN A CERTAIN ORDER
ONE MAY PUT DOWN ALMOST ANY MESSAGE"
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
L |
M |
N |
O |
P |
Q |
R |
S |
T |
U |
V |
W |
X |
Y |
Z |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1+0 |
1+1 |
1+2 |
1+3 |
1+4 |
1+5 |
1+6 |
1+7 |
1+8 |
1+9 |
2+0 |
2+1 |
2+2 |
2+3 |
2+4 |
2+5 |
2+6 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
L |
M |
N |
O |
P |
Q |
R |
S |
T |
U |
V |
W |
X |
Y |
Z |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
L |
M |
N |
O |
P |
Q |
R |
S |
T |
U |
V |
W |
X |
Y |
Z |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
L |
M |
N |
O |
P |
Q |
R |
S |
T |
U |
V |
W |
X |
Y |
Z |
HISTORY OF GOD
Karen Armstrong 1993
The God of the Mystics
THE
BOOK OF CREATION
Page 250
"THERE IS NO ATTEMPT MADE TO DESCRIBE THE CREATIVE PROCESS REALISTICALLY
THE ACCOUNT IS UNASHAMEDLY SYMBOLIC AND SHOWS GOD CREATING THE WORLD BY MEANS
OF LANGUAGE AS THOUGH HE WERE WRITING A BOOK BUT LANGUAGE HAS BEEN ENTIRELY
TRANSFORMED AND THE MESSAGE OF CREATION IS NO LONGER CLEAR EACH LETTER OF THE
HEBREW ALPHABET IS GIVEN A NUMERICAL VALUE BY COMBINING THE LETTERS WITH THE
SACRED NUMBERS REARRANGING THEM IN ENDLESS CONFIGURATIONS THE MYSTIC WEANED
THE MIND AWAY FROM THE NORMAL CONNOTATIONS OF WORDS"
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
J |
K |
L |
M |
N |
O |
P |
Q |
R |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
1+0 |
1+1 |
1+2 |
1+3 |
1+4 |
1+5 |
1+6 |
1+7 |
1+8 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
S |
T |
U |
V |
W |
X |
Y |
Z |
I |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
9 |
1+9 |
2+0 |
2+1 |
2+2 |
2+3 |
2+4 |
2+5 |
2+6 |
ME |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
= |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
9 |
18 |
9 |
18 |
9 |
18 |
9 |
18 |
9 |
= |
1+8 |
= |
1+8 |
= |
1+8 |
= |
1+8 |
= |
= |
9 |
= |
9 |
= |
9 |
= |
9 |
= |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
1 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
I |
ME |
1 |
THERE IS NO ATTEMPT MADE TO DESCRIBE THE CREATIVE PROCESS REALISTICALLY
THE ACCOUNT IS SYMBOLIC AND SHOWS GOD CREATING THE WORLD BY MEANS OF LANGUAGE
AS THOUGH WRITING A BOOK BUT LANGUAGE ENTIRELY TRANSFORMED
THE MESSAGE OF CREATION IS CLEAR EACH LETTER OF
THE
ALPHABET
IS
GIVEN
A
NUMERICAL
VALUE BY COMBINING THE LETTERS WITH THE SACRED NUMBERS
REARRANGING THEM IN ENDLESS CONFIGURATIONS
THE MYSTIC WEANED THE MIND AWAY FROM THE NORMAL CONNOTATIONS OF WORDS
FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS
A QUEST FOR THE BEGINNING AND THE END
Graham Hancock 1995
Chapter 32
Speaking to the Unborn
Page 285
"It is understandable that a huge range of myths from all over the ancient world should describe geological catastrophes in graphic detail. Mankind survived the horror of the last Ice Age, and the most plausible source for our enduring traditions of flooding and freezing, massive volcanism and devastating earthquakes is in the tumultuous upheavals unleashed during the great meltdown of 15,000 to 8000 BC. The final retreat of the ice sheets, and the consequent 300-400 foot rise in global sea levels, took place only a few thousand years before the beginning of the historical period. It is therefore not surprising that all our early civilizations should have retained vivid memories of the vast cataclysms that had terrified their forefathers.
Much harder to explain is the peculiar but distinctive way the myths of cataclysm seem to bear the intelligent imprint of a guiding hand.l Indeed the degree of convergence between such ancient stories is frequently remarkable enough to raise the suspicion that they must all have been 'written' by the same 'author'.
Could that author have had anything to do with the wondrous deity, or superhuman, spoken of in so many of the myths we have reviewed, who appears immediately after the world has been shattered by a horrifying geological catastrophe and brings comfort and the gifts of civilization to the shocked and demoralized survivors?
White and bearded, Osiris is the Egyptian manifestation of this / Page 286 / universal figure, and it may not be an accident that one of the first acts he is remembered for in myth is the abolition of cannibalism among the primitive inhabitants of the Nile Valley.2 Viracocha, in South America, was said to have begun his civilizing mission immediately after a great flood; Quetzalcoatl, the discoverer of maize, brought the benefits of crops, mathematics, astronomy and a refined culture to Mexico after the Fourth Sun had been overwhelmed by a destroying deluge.
Could these strange myths contain a record of encounters between scattered palaeolithic tribes which survived the last Ice Age and an as yet unidentified high civilization which passed through the same epoch?
And could the myths be attempts to communicate?
A message in the bottle of time
'Of all the other stupendous inventions,' Galileo once remarked,
what sublimity of mind must have been his who conceived how to communicate his most secret thoughts to any other person, though very distant either in time or place, speaking with those who are in the Indies, speaking to those who are not yet born, nor shall be this thousand or ten thousand years? And with no greater difficulty than the various arrangements of two dozen little signs on paper? Let this be the seal of all the admirable inventions of men.3
If the 'precessional message' identified by scholars like Santillana, von Dechend and Jane Sellers is indeed a deliberate attempt at communication by some lost civilization of antiquity, how come it wasn't just written down and left for us to find? Wouldn't that have been easier than encoding it in myths? Perhaps.
Nevertheless, suppose that whatever the message was written on got destroyed or worn away after many thousands of years? Or suppose that the language in which it was inscribed was later forgotten utterly (like the enigmatic Indus Valley script, which has been studied closely for more than half a century but has so far resisted all attempts at decoding)? It must be obvious that in such circumstances a written / Page 287 / legacy to the future would be of no value at all, because nobody would be able to make sense of it.
What one would look for, therefore, would be a universal language, the kind of language that would be comprehensible to any technologically advanced society in any epoch, even a thousand or ten thousand years into the future. Such languages are few and far between, but mathematics is one of them - and the city of Teotihuacan may be the calling-card of a lost civilization written in the eternal language of mathematics.
Geodetic data, related to the exact positioning of fixed geographical points and to the shape and size of the earth, would also remain valid and recognizable for tens of thousands of years, and might be most conveniently expressed by means of cartography (or in the construction of giant geodetic monuments like the Great Pyramid of Egypt, as we shall see).
Another 'constant' in our solar system is the language of time: the great but regular intervals of time calibrated by the inch-worm creep of precessional motion. Now, or ten thousand years in the future, a message that prints out numbers like 72 or 2160 or 4320 or 25,920 should be instantly intelligible to any civilization that has evolved a modest talent for mathematics and the ability to detect and measure the almost imperceptible reverse wobble that the sun appears to make along the ecliptic against the background of the fixed stars..."
"What one would look for, therefore, would be a universal language, the kind of language that would be comprehensible to any technologically advanced society in any epoch, even a thousand or ten thousand years into the future. Such languages are few and far between, but mathematics is one of them"
"WRITTEN IN THE ETERNAL LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS"
3 |
GOD |
26 |
17 |
8 |
4 |
YHWH |
64 |
28 |
1 |
7 |
- |
90 |
45 |
9 |
- |
- |
9+0 |
4+5 |
- |
7 |
- |
9 |
9 |
9 |
A
HISTORY OF GOD
Karen Armstrong
1993
The God of the Mystics
Page 281
Philosophy threatened to turn God into a
remote abstraction but the God of the mystics was able to touch those
fears and anxieties that lie deeper than the rational. Where the Throne
Mystics had been content to gaze upon the glory of God from without, the
Kabbalists attempted to penetrate the inner life of God and the human
consciousness. Instead of speculating rationally about the nature of God
and the metaphysical problems of his relationship with the world, the
Kabbalists turned to the imagination,
Like the Sufis, the Kabbalists made use of the Gnostic and Neoplatonic
distinction between the essence of God and the God whom we glimpse in
revelation and creation. God himself is essentially unknowable, inconceivable
and impersonal. They called the hidden God En Sof, (literally,
'without end'). We know nothing whatever about En Sof: he is not
even mentioned in either the Bible or the Talmud. An anonymous
thineenth-century author wrote that En Sof is incapable of becoming the
subject of a revelation to humanity 54
Unlike YHWH, En Sof had no documented name; 'he' is not a person.
Indeed it is more accurate to refer to the Godhead as 'It'. This was a
radical departure from the highly personal God of thc Bible and thc Talmud,
The Kabbalists evolved their own mmythology to help them to explore a
new realm of the religious consciousness. To explain thc relationship
between En Sof and YHWH, without yielding to thc Gnostic heresy that they
were two different beings, the Kabbalists developed a symbolic method
of reading scripture. Like the Sufis, they imagined a process whereby
the hidden God made himself known to humanity. En Sof
had manifested himself to the Jewish mystics under ten different aspects
or sefiroth ('numerations') of the divine reality which had
emanated from the inscrutable depths of the unknowable Godhead. Each
sefirah represented a stage in En Sof's unfolding revelation
and had its own symbolic name, but each of these divine spheres
contained the whole mystery of God considcred under a particular heading.
Thc Kabbalistic exegesis made every single word of the Bible refer to
one or other of thc ten sepiroth: each verse described an event
or phenomenon that had its counterpart in the inner life of God himself,
Ibn al-Arabi had seen God's sigh of compassion, which had / Page 282 /
revealed him to mankind, as the Word which had created the world. In rather
the same way, the sefiroth were both the names that God had
given to himself and the means whereby he had created the world.
Together these ten names formed his one great Name, which
was not known to men. They represented the stages whereby En Sof had
descended from his lonely inaccessibility to the mundane world. They are
usually listed as follows:
1.Kether Elyon. The 'Supreme Crown'
2. Hokhmah: 'Wisdom'.
3. Dinah: 'Intelligence'.
4. Hesed: 'Love' or 'Mercy'.
5. Din: 'Power' (usually
manifested in stern judgement).
6. Rahamin: 'Compassion';
sometimes called 'Tifereth': 'Beauty'.
7. Netsah: 'Lasting Endurance'.
8. Hod: 'Majesty'.
9. Yesod: 'foundation'.
10. Malkuth: 'Kingdom'; also called 'Shekinah'.
1 |
- |
6 |
KETHER |
67 |
31 |
4 |
2 |
- |
7 |
HOKHMAH |
64 |
37 |
1 |
3 |
- |
5 |
BINAH |
34 |
25 |
7 |
4 |
- |
5 |
HESED |
41 |
23 |
5 |
5 |
- |
3 |
DIN |
27 |
18 |
9 |
6 |
- |
7 |
RAHAMIN |
64 |
37 |
1 |
7 |
- |
6 |
NETSAH |
67 |
22 |
4 |
8 |
- |
3 |
HOD |
27 |
18 |
9 |
9 |
- |
5 |
YESOD |
68 |
23 |
5 |
10 |
- |
7 |
MALKUTH |
86 |
23 |
5 |
55 |
- |
- |
First Total |
545 |
257 |
50 |
5+5 |
- |
- |
Add to Reduce |
5+4+5 |
2+5+7 |
5+0 |
10 |
- |
- |
Second Total |
14 |
14 |
5 |
1+0 |
- |
- |
Add to Deduce |
1+4 |
1+5 |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
Final Total |
5 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
KETHER |
67 |
31 |
4 |
7 |
HOKHMAH |
64 |
37 |
1 |
5 |
BINAH |
34 |
25 |
7 |
5 |
HESED |
41 |
23 |
5 |
3 |
DIN |
27 |
18 |
9 |
7 |
RAHAMIN |
64 |
37 |
1 |
6 |
NETSAH |
67 |
22 |
4 |
3 |
HOD |
27 |
18 |
9 |
5 |
YESOD |
68 |
23 |
5 |
47 |
First Total |
459 |
234 |
45 |
4+7 |
Add to Reduce |
4+5+9 |
2+3+4 |
4+5 |
11 |
Second Total |
18 |
9 |
9 |
1+1 |
Add to Deduce |
1+8 |
- |
- |
2 |
Final Total |
9 |
9 |
9 |
KETHER |
= |
11 |
K |
= |
2 |
HOKHMAH |
= |
8 |
H |
= |
8 |
BINAH |
= |
2 |
B |
= |
2 |
HESED |
= |
8 |
H |
= |
8 |
DIN |
= |
4 |
D |
= |
4 |
RAHAMIN |
= |
18 |
R |
= |
18 |
NETSAH |
= |
14 |
N |
= |
14 |
HOD |
= |
8 |
H |
= |
8 |
YESOD |
= |
25 |
Y |
= |
7 |
First Total |
= |
98 |
- |
- |
53 |
Add to Reduce |
- |
9+8 |
- |
- |
5+3 |
Second Total |
- |
17 |
- |
- |
8 |
Add to Deduce |
- |
1+7 |
- |
- |
- |
Final Total |
- |
8 |
- |
- |
8 |
7 |
MALKUTH |
86 |
23 |
5 |
8 |
SHEKINAH |
75 |
39 |
3 |
Sometimes the sefiroth are depicted as a tree,
growing upside down with its roots in the incomprehensible depths of En
Sof, [see diagram] and its summit in the Shekinah, in the world. The organic
image expresses the unity of this Kabbalistic symbol. En Sof is the sap
that runs through the branches of the tree and gives them life, unifying
them in a mysterious and complex reality. Although there is a distinction
between En Sof and the world of his names, the two are one in rather the
same way as a coal and a flame. The sefiroth represent the
worlds of light that manifest the darkness of En Sof which remains in
impenetrable obscurity. It is yet another way of showing that our notions
of 'God' cannot fully express the reality to which they point.
The world of the sefiroth is not an alternative reality 'out there'
between the Godhead and the world, however. They are not the rungs of
a ladder between heaven and earth but underlie the world experienced by
the senses. Because God is all in all, the sefiroth are
present and active in everything that exists. They also represent
the stages of human consciousness by which the mystic ascends to God
by descending into his own mind. Yet again, God and
man are depicted as/ Page 283 Diagram The Tree of the Sefiroth.
omitted) Page 284 inseparable. Some Kabbalists saw
the sefiroth as the limbs of primordial man as originally intended
by God. This was what the Bible had meant when it said that man had been
created in God's image: the mundane reality here below corresponded
to an archetypal reality in the heavenly world. The images of God as a
tree or as a man were imaginative depictions of a reality that defied
rational formulation.Sometimes the sefiroth
are depicted as a tree, growing upside down with its roots in the
incomprehensible depths of En Sof, [see diagram] and its summit in the
Shekinah, in the world. The organic image expresses the unity of this
Kabbalistic symbol. En Sof is the sap that runs through the branches of
the tree and gives them life, unifying them in a mysterious and complex
reality. Although there is a distinction between En Sof and the world
of his names, the two are one in rather the same way as a coal and a flame.
The sefiroth represent the worlds of light that manifest the darkness
of En Sof which remains in impenetrable obscurity. It is yet another way
of showing that our notions of 'God' cannot fully express the reality
to which they point.
The world of the sefiroth is not an alternative reality 'out there'
between the Godhead and the world, however. They are not the rungs of
a ladder between heaven and earth but underlie the world experienced by
the senses. Because God is all in all, the sefiroth are
present and active in everything that exists. They also represent
the stages of human consciousness by which the mystic ascends to God
by descending into his own mind. Yet again, God and
man are depicted as/ Page 283 Diagram The Tree of the Sefiroth.
omitted) Page 284 inseparable. Some Kabbalists saw
the sefiroth as the limbs of primordial man as originally intended
by God. This was what the Bible had meant when it said that man had been
created in God's image: the mundane reality here below corresponded
to an archetypal reality in the heavenly world. The images of God as a
tree or as a man were imaginative depictions of a reality that defied
rational formulation.
The Kabbalists were not antagonistic towards Falsafah - many of them revered
figures like Saadia Gaon and Maimonides - but they found symbolism and
mythology more satisfying than metaphysics for penetrating the mystery
of God.
The most influential Kabbalistic text was The Zohar, which
was probably written in about 1275 by the Spanish mystic Moses of Leon.
As a young man, he had studied Maimonides but had gradually felt the attraction
of mysticism and the esoteric tradition of Kabbalah. The Zohar
(The Book of Splendour) is a sort of mystical novel, which depicts the
third-century Talmudist Simeon ben Yohai wandering round Palestine with
his son Eliezar, talking to his disciples about God, nature and human
life. There is no clear structure and no systematic development of theme
or ideas. Such an approach would be alien to the spirit of The Zohar,
whose God resists any neat system of thought. Like Thn al-Arabi, Moses
of Leon believed that God gives each mystic a unique and personal
revelation, so there is no limit to the way the Torah can
be interpreted: as the Kabbalist progresses, layer upon layer of significance
is revealed. The Zohar shows the mysterious emanation of
the ten seftroth as a process whereby the impersonal En Sof becomes a
personality. In the three highest sefiroth - Kether, Hokhmah
and Binah - when, as it were, En Sof has only just 'decided' to express
himself, the divine reality is called 'he'. As 'he' descends through the
middle sefiroth - Hesed, Din, Tifereth, Netsah, Hod and Yesod -
'he' becomes 'you'. Finally, when God becomes present in the world in
the Shekinah, 'he' calls himself 'I'. It is at this point, where
God has, as it were, become an individual and his self-expression is complete,
that man can begin his mystical journey. Once the mystic has acquired
an understanding of his own deepest self, he becomes aware of the Presence
of God within him and can then ascend to the more impersonal higher spheres,
transcending the limits of / Page 285 / personality and egotism.
It is a return to the unimaginable Source of our being and the hidden
world of uncreated reality. In this mystical perspective, our world of
sense impression is simply the last and outermost shell of the divine
reality.
In Kabbalah, as in Sufism, the doctrine of the creation is not really
concerned with the physical origins of the universe. The Zohar
sees the Genesis account as a symbolic version of a crisis within En Sof;
which causes the Godhead to break out of Its unfathomable introspection
and reveal Itself. As The Zohar says:
In the beginning, when the will of the King
began to take effect, he engraved signs into the divine aura. A dark flame
sprang forth from the innermost recesses of En Sof, like a fog which forms
out of the formless, enclosed in the ring of this aura, neither white
nor black, red nor green and of no colour whatever .55
In Genesis, God's first creative word had
been: 'Let there be light!' In The Zohar's commentary on Genesis (called Bereshit in Hebrew after its opening word: 'in
the beginning') this 'dark flame' is the first sefirah: Kether
Elyon, the Supreme Crown of Divinity. It has no colour or form: other
Kabbalists prefer to call it Nothing (ayin). The highest form
of divinity that the human mind can conceive is equated with nothingness
because it bears no comparison with any of the other things in existence. All the other sefiroth, therefore, emerge from the womb of Nothingness. This is a mystical interpretation of the traditional doctrine of die creation
ex nihilo. The process of the Godhead's self-expression continues as the
welling of light, which spreads in ever wider spheres. The Zohar
continues
But when this flame began to assume size
and extension, it produced radiant colours. For in the inmost centre a
well sprang forth from which flames poured upon everything below, hidden
in the mysterious secrets of En Sof. The well broke through, and yet did
not entirely break through, the eternal aura which surrounded it. It was
entirely recognisable until under the impact of its breakthrough, a hidden
supernal point shone forth. Beyond this point nothing may be known or
understood, and it is called Bereshit, the Beginning; the first word of
creation. 56
Page 286
This 'point' is Hokhmah (Wisdom), the second
sefirah which contains the ideal form of all created dlings. The
point develops into a palace or a building, which becomes Binah (Intelligence),
the dtird sefirah. These three highest sefiroth represent
the limit of human comprehen-sion. Kabbalists say that God exists in Binah
as the great 'Who?' (Mi) which stands at the beginning of every question.
But it is not possible to get an answer. Even though En Sof is gradually
adapting Itself to l~ human limitations, we have no way of knowing 'Who'
he is: the higher we ascend, the more 'he' remains shrouded in
darkness and mystery.
The next seven sefiroth are said to correspond to the seven
days of creation in Genesis. During the biblical period, YHWH had
eventu-ally triumphed over the ancient goddesses of Canaan and their erotic
cults. But as Kabbalists struggled to express the mystery of God, the
old mythologies reasserted themselves, albeit in a disguised form. The
Zohar describes Binah as the Supernal Mother, whose womb is
penetrated by the 'dark flame' to give birth to the seven lower sefiroth.
Again Yesod, the ninth sefirah inspires
some phallic speculation: it is depicted as the channel through which
the divine life pours into the universe in an act of mystical procreation.
It is in the Shekinah, the tenth sefirah, however,
that the ancient sexual symbolism of creation and theogony appears most
clearly. In the Talmud, the Shekinah was a neutral figure:
it had neither sex nor gender. In Kabbalah, however, the Shekinah
becomes the female aspect of God. The Bahir (c. I 200), one of
the earliest Kabbalistic texts, had identified the Shekinah with the Gnostic
figure of Sophia, the last of the divine emanations which had fallen from
the Pleroma and now wandered! lost and alienated from the Godhead, through
the world. The Zohar links this 'exile of the Shekinah' with the
fall of Adam as recounted in Genesis. It says that Adam was shown the
middle sefiroth' in the Tree of Life and the Shekinah in the Tree
of Knowledge. Instead of worshipping the seven sefiroth together,
he chose to venerate the Shekinah alone, sundering
life from knowledge and rupturing the unity of the sefiroth. The
divine life could no longer flow uninterruptedly into the world, which
was isolated from its divine Source. But by observing the Torah, the community
of Israel could heal the exile of the Shekinah and reunite the world to
the Godhead. Not surprisingly, many strict Talmudists / Page 287 / found
this an abhorrent idea but the exile of the Shekinah, which echoed the
ancient myths of the goddess who wandered far from the divine world, became
one of the most popular elements of Kabbalah. The female Shekinah brought
some sexual balance into the notion of God which tended to be too heavily
weighted towards the masculine and clearly fulfilled an important religious
need.
The notion of the divine exile also addressed that sense of separation
which is the cause of so much human anxiety. The Zohar constantly
defines evil as something which has become separated or which has entered
into a relationship for which it is unsuited. One of the problems of ethical
monotheism is that it isolates evil. Because we cannot accept the idea
that there is evil in our God, there is a danger that we will not be able
to endure it within ourselves. It can then be pushed away and made monstrous
and inhuman. The terrifying image of Satan in Western Christendom was
such a distorted projection. The Zohar finds the root of
evil in God himself: in Din or Stern Judgement, the fifth sefirah.
Din is depicted as God's left hand, Hesed (Mercy) as his right. As
long as Din operates harmoniously with the divine Mercy, it is positive
and beneficial. But if it breaks away and becomes separate from the other
sejiroth, it becomes evil and destructive. The Zohar does
not tell us how this separation came about. In the next chapter, we shall
see that later Kabbalists reflected on the problem of evil, which they
saw as the result of a kind of primordial 'accident' that occurred in
the very early stages of God's self-revelation. Kabbalah makes little
sense if interpreted literally, but its mythology proved psychologically
satisfying. When disaster and tragedy engulfed Spanish Jewry during the
fifteenth century, it was the Kabbalistic God which helped them to make
sense of their suffering.
We can see the psychological acuity of Kabbalah in the work of the Spanish
mystic Abraham Abulafia (I 24o-after 1291). The bulk of his work was composed
at about the same time as The Zohar but Abulafia concentrated on
the practical method of achieving a sense of God rather than with the
nature of God itself. These methods are similar to those employed today
by psychoanalysts in their secular quest for enlightenment. As the Sufis
had wanted to experience God like Muhammad, Abulafia claimed to have found
a way of achieving / Page 288 /
prophetic inspiration. He evolved a Jewish form of Yoga, using the usual
disciplines of concentration such as breathing, the recitation of a mantra
and the adoption of a special posture to achieve an alternative state
of consciousness. Abulafia was an unusual Kabbalist. He was a highly erudite
man, who had studied Torah, Talmud and Falsafah before being converted
to mysticism by an overwhelming religious experience at the age of thirty-one.
He seems to have believed that he was the Messiah, not only to Jews but
also to Christians. Accordingly, he travelled extensively throughout Spain
making disciples and even ventured as far as the Near East. In 1280 he
visited the Pope as a Jewish ambassador. Although Abulafia was often very
outspoken in his criticism of Christianity, he seems to have appreciated
the similarity between the Kabbalistic God and the theology of the Trinity.
The three highest sefiroth are reminiscent of the Logos and Spirit,
the Intellect and Wisdom of God, which proceed from the Father, the Nothingness
lost in inaccessible light. Abulafia himself liked to speak about God
in a trinitarian manner.
To find this God, Abulafia taught that it was necessary 'to unseal the
soul, to untie the knots which bind it'. The phrase 'untying the knots'
is also found in Tibetan Buddhism, another indication of the funda-mental
agreement of mystics worldwide. The process described can perhaps be compared
to the psychoanalytic attempt to unlock those complexes that impede the
mental health of the patient. As a Kabbalist, Abulafia was more concerned
with the divine energy that animates the whole of creation but which the
soul cannot perceive. As long as we clog our minds with ideas based on
sense perception, it is difficult to discern the transcendent element
of life. By means of his yogic disciplines, Abulafia taught his disciples
to go beyond normal consciousness to discover a whole new world. One of
his methods was the Hokmah ha- Tsenlf (The Science of the Combination
of the Letters) which took the form of a meditation on the Name of God.
The Kabbalist was to combine the letters of the divine name in different
combinations with a view to divorcing his mind from the concrete to a
more abstract mode of perception. The effects of this discipline -
which sound remarkably unpromising to an outsider - appear to have been
remarkable. Abulafia himself compared it to the sensation of / Page 289
/
listening to musical harmonies, the letters of the alphabet taking the
place of notes in a scale. He also used a method of associating ideas,
which he called dillug (jumping) and ketifsah (skipping),
which is clearly similar to the modem analytic practice of free association.
Again, this is said to have achieved astonishing results. As Abulafia
explained, it brings to light hidden mental processes and liberated the
Kabbalist from 'the prison of the natural spheres and leads [him] to the
boundaries of the divine sphere'.57 In this way, the 'seals'
of the soul were unlocked and the initiate discovered resources of psychic
power that enlightened his mind and assuaged the pain of his heart.
In rather the same way as a psychoanalytic patient needs the guidance
of his therapist, Abulafia insisted that the mystical journey into the
mind could only be undertaken under the supervision of a master of Kabbalah.
He was well aware of the dangers because he himself had suffered from
a devastating religious experience in his youth which had almost caused
him to despair. Today patients will often internalise the person of their
analyst in order to appropriate the strength and health that he or she
represents. Similarly Abulafia wrote that the Kabbalist would often 'see'
and 'hear' the person of his spiritual director, who becomes 'the mover
from inside, who opens the closed doors within him'. He feels a new surge
of power and an inner transformation that was so overwhelming that it
seemed to issue from a divine source. A disciple of Abulafia gave another
interpretation of the ecstasy: the mystic, he said, became
his own Messiah. In ecstasy he was confronted
with a vision of his own liberated and enlightened self:
Know that the complete spirit of prophecy consists for the prophet
in that he suddenly sees the shape of his self standing before
him and he forgets his self and it
is disengaged from him . . . and of this secret our teachers said
[in the Talmud]: 'Great is the strength of the prophets, who compare the
form of Him who formed it' [that is, 'who compare men to God'].58
Jewish mystics were always reluctant to claim union with God. Abulafia
and his disciples would only say that by experiencing union with a spiritual
director or by realising a personal liberation the Kabbalist had been
touched by God indirectly. There are obvious
/ Page 290 / differences between medieval mysticism and modern psychotherapy
but both disciplines have evolved similar techniques to achieve healing
and personal integration.
In the West Christians were slower to develop a mystical tradition. They
had fallen behind the monotheists in the Byzantine and Islamic empires
and were perhaps not ready for this new development. During the fourteenth
century, however, there was a veritable explosion of mystical religion,
especially in Northern Europe. Germany in particu-lar produced a flock
of mystics: Meister Eckhart (1260-1327), John Tauler(1300-61), Gertrude
the Great (1256-1302), and Henry Suso (1295-1306). England also made a
significant contribution to this Western development and produced four
great mystics who quickly attracted a following on the continent as well
as in their own country: Richard Rolle of Hampole (1290-1349), the unknown
author of The Cloud of Unknowing, Walter Hilton (d.1346) and Dame
Julian of Norwich (c.1342-1416). Some of these mystics were more advanced
than others. Richard Rolle, for example, seems to have got trapped in
the cultivation of exotic sensations and his spirituality was sometimes
characterised by a certain egotism. But the greatest of them discovered
for themselves many of the insights already achieved by the Greeks, Sufis
and Kabbalists.
Meister Eckhart, for example, who greatly influenced Tauler and Suso,
was himself influenced by Denys the Areopagite and Maimonides. A Dominican
friar, he was a brilliant intellectual and lectured on Aristotelian philosophy
at the University of Paris. In 1325, however, his mystical teaching brought
him into conflict with his bishop, the Archbishop of Cologne, who arraigned
him for heresy: he was charged with denying the goodness of God, with
claiming that God himself was born in the soul and of preaching the eternity
of the world. Yet even some of Eckhart's severest critics believed that
he was orthodox: the mistake lay in interpreting some of his remarks literally
instead of symbolically, as intended. Eckhart was a poet, who thoroughly
enjoyed paradox and metaphor. While he believed that it was rational to
believe in God, he denied that reason alone could form any adequate conception
of the divine nature: 'The proof of a knowable thing is made either to
the senses or the intellect,' he argued,Page / 291 / but as regards the
knowledge of God there can be neither a demonstration from sensory perception,
since He is incorporeal, nor from the intellect, since He lacks any form
known to us. '59 God was not another
being whose existence could be proved like any normal object of thought.
God, Eckhart declared, was Nothing.60
This did not mean that he was an illusion but that God enjoyed a richer,
fuller type of existence than that known to us. He also called God 'darkness',
not to denote the absence of light but to indicate the presence of something
brighter. Eckhart also distinguished between the 'Godhead', which was
best described in negative terms, such as 'desert', 'wilderness', 'darkness'
and 'nothing', and the God who is known to us as Father, Son and Spirit.61
As a Westerner, Eckhart liked to use Augustine's analogy of the Trinity
in the human mind and implied that even though the doctrine of the Trinity
could not be known by reason, it was only the intellect which perceived
God as Three persons: once the mystic had achieved union with God, he
or she saw him as One. The Greeks would not have liked this idea but Eckhart
would have agreed with them that the Trinity was essentially a mystical
doctrine. He liked to talk about the Father engendering the Son in the
soul, rather as Mary had conceived Christ in the womb. Rumi had also seen
the Virgin Birth of the Prophet Jesus as a symbol for the birth of the
soul in the heart of the mystic. It was, Eckhart insisted, an allegory
of the co-operation of the soul with God.
God could only be known by mystical experience. It was better to
speak of him in negative terminology, as Maimonides had suggested. Indeed,
we had to purify our conception of God, getting rid of our ridiculous
preconceptions and anthropomorphic imagery. We should even avoid using
the term 'God' itself. This is what he meant when he said: 'Man's last
and highest parting is when, for God's sake, he takes leave of God.,62
It would be a painful process. Since God was Nothing, we had to be
prepared to be no-thing too in order to become one with him. In a
process similar to that 'fana described by the Sufis, Eckhart spoke
of'detachment' or, rather, 'separateness' abgeschieden- heit).63
In much the same way as a Muslim considers the veneration of anything
other than God himself as idolatry (shirk), Eckhart taught / Page
292 / that the mystic must refuse to be enslaved by any finite ideas
about the divine. Only thus would he achieve identity with God, whereby
'God's existence must be my existence and God's Is-ness (Istigkeit)
is my is- ness,.64 Since God
was the ground of being, there was no need to seek him 'out there'
or envisage an ascent to something beyond the world we knew.
Al-Hallaj had antagonised the ulema by crying: 'I am the Truth'
and Eckhart's mystical doctrine shocked the bishops of Germany: what did
it mean to say that a mere man or woman could become one with God?
During the fourteenth century, Greek theologians debated this question
furiously. Since God was essentially inaccessible, how could he communicate
himself to mankind? If there was a distinction between God's essence
and his 'activities' or 'energies', as the Fathers had taught,
surely it was blasphemous to compare the 'God' that a Christian encountered
in prayer with God himself? Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Saloniki, taught
that, paradoxical as it might seem, any Christian could enjoy such
a direct knowledge of God himself. True, God's essence is always beyond
our comprehension, but his 'energies' were not distinct
from God and should not be considered as a mere divine afterglow.
A Jewish mystic would have agreed: God En Sof would always remain shrouded
in impenetrable darkness but his sefiroth (which corresponded to
the Greeks' 'energies') were them-selves divine, flowing eternally from
the heart of the Godhead. Sometimes men and women could see or experience
these 'energies' directly, as when the Bible said that God's 'glory' had
appeared. Nobody had ever seen God's essence, but that did not mean that
a direct experience of God himself was impossible. The fact that this
assertion was paradoxical did not distress Palamas in the least. It had
long been agreed by the Greeks that any statement about God had to
be a paradox. Only thus could people retain a sense of his mystery and
ineffability. Palamas put it this way:
We attain to participation in the divine nature, and yet at the same time
it remains totally inaccessible. We need to affirm both at the
same time and to preserve the antimony as a criterion for right doctrine.65
Page 293
There was nothing new in Palamas's doctrine:
it had been oudined during the eleventh century by Symeon the New Theologian.
But Palamas was challenged by Barlaam the Calabrian, who had studied in
Italy and been strongly influenced by the rationalistic Aristototelian-
ism of Thomas Aquinas. He opposed the traditional Greek distinction between
God's 'essence' and his 'energies', accusing Palamas of splitting God
into two separate parts. Barlaam proposed a definition of God that went
back to the ancient Greek rationalists and emphasised his absolute simplicity.
Greek philosophers like Aristode who, Barlaam claimed, had been specially
enlightened by God, taught that God was unknowable and remote from the
world. It was not possible, therefore, for men and women to 'see' God:
human beings could only sense his influence indirecdy in scripture or
the wonders of creation. Barlaam was condemned by a Council of the Orthodox
Church in 1341 but was supported by other monks who had also been influenced
by Aquinas. Basically this had become a conflict between the God of the
mystics and the God of the philosophers. Barlaam and his supporters Gregory
Akindynos (who liked to quote the Greek version of the Summa Theologiae),
Nicephoras Gregoras and the Thomist Prochoros Cydones had all become
alienated from the apophatic theology of Byzantium with its stress on
silence, paradox and mystery. They preferred the more positive theology
of Western Europe, which defined God as Being rather than as
Nothing. Against the mysterious deity of Denys, Symeon and Palamas,
they set up a God about which it was possible to make statements. The
Greeks had always distrusted this tendency in Western thought and, in
the face of this infiltration of rationalistic Latin ideas, Palamas reasserted
the paradoxical theology of Eastern Orthodoxy. God must not be
reduced to a concept that could be expressed by a human word. He
agreed with Barlaam that God was unknowable but insisted that he
had nonetheless been experienced by men and women. The light
that had transfigured the humanity of Jesus on Mount Tabor
was not God's essence, which no man had seen, but was
in some mysterious way God himself. The liturgy which, according
to Greek theology, enshrined orthodox opinion, proclaimed that on Tabor:
'We have seen the Father as light and the Spirit as light.' It
had been a revelation of 'what we once were / Page 294 /and what
we are to be' when, like Christ, we become deified.66 Again,
what we 'saw' when we contemplated God in this life was not a substitute
for God but was somehow God himself. Of course this was a contradiction
but the Christian God was a paradox: antimony and silence represented
the only correct posture before the mystery that we
called 'God' - not a philosophical hubris which tried to iron out
the difficulties.
Barlaam had tried to make the concept of God too consistent: in his view,
either God was to be identified with his essence or he was not. He had
tried, as it were, to confine God to his essence and say that it was impossible
for him to be present outside it in his 'energies'. But that was to think
about God as though he were any other phenomenon and was based on purely
human notions of what was or was not possible. Palamas insisted that the
vision of God was a mutual ecstasy: men and women transcend themselves
but God also underwent the ecstasy of transcendence by going beyond
'himself' in order to make himself known to his creatures: 'God also comes
out of himself and becomes united with our minds by condescension.,67
The victory of Palamas, whose theology remained normative in Orthodox
Christianity, over the Greek rationalists of the fourteenth century represents
a wider triumph for mysticism in all three monotheistic religions. Since
the eleventh century, Muslim philosophers had come to the conclusion
that reason - which was indispensable for such studies as medicine
or science - was quite inadequate when it came to the study of God. To
rely on reason alone was like attempting to eat soup with a fork.
The God of the Sufis had gained ascendency over the God of the philosophers
in most parts of the Islamic empire. In the next chapter we shall see
that the God of the Kabbalists became dominant in Jewish spirituality
during the sixteenth century. Mysticism was able to penetrate the mind
more deeply than the more cerebral or legalistic types of religion.
Its God could address more primitive hopes, fears and anxieties before
which the remote God of the philosophers was impotent. By the fourteenth
century the West had launched its own mystical religion and made a very
promising start. But mysticism in the West would never become as widespread
as in the other traditions. In England, Germany and the Lowlands, which
had produced such / Page 295 /distinguished
mystics, the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century decried this
unbiblical spirituality. In the Roman Catholic Church, leading mystics
like St Teresa of Avila were often threatened by the Inquisition of the
Counter-Reformation. As a result of the Reformation, Europe began to see
God in still more rationalistic terms."
AND
THE LORD GOD
FORMED
MAN OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND
AND
BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS
THE BREATH OF LIFE
AND
MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL
973AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZA973
ISISISISISISISISISISISIS919919919919ISISISISISISISISISISISIS
999181818181818181818AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZ818181818181818181999
122333444455555666666777777788888888999999999888888887777777666666555554444333221
999999999AUMMANIPADMEHUMAUMMANIPADMEHUMAUMMANIPADMEHUM999999999
PERFECT DIVINE LOVE PUREST LIVING LIGHT THAT LIGHT LIVING PUREST LOVE DIVINE PERFECT
GOD THAT THAT ISISISISISISIS
THAT THAT GOD
THAT
IS
THE HE AS IN SHE
THAT
ISISIS
THAT THAT THAT
GOD
IS
THEE
A
HISTORY OF GOD
Karen Armstrong
1993
The God of the Mystics
Page 288
"By
means of his yogic disciplines, Abulafia taught his disciples to go beyond
normal consciousness to discover a whole new world. One of his methods
was the Hokmah ha- Tsenlf (The Science of the Combination of the
Letters) which took the form of a meditation on the Name of God. The Kabbalist
was to combine the letters of the divine name in different combinations
with a view to divorcing his mind from the concrete to a more abstract
mode of perception. The effects of this discipline
- which sound remarkably unpromising to an outsider - appear to have been
remarkable. Abulafia himself compared it to the sensation of / Page 289
/
listening to musical harmonies, the letters of the alphabet taking the
place of notes in a scale. He also used a method of associating ideas,
which he called dillug (jumping) and ketifsah (skipping),
which is clearly similar to the modem analytic practice of free association.
Again, this is said to have achieved astonishing results. As Abulafia
explained, it brings to light hidden mental processes and liberated the
Kabbalist from 'the prison of the natural spheres and leads [him] to the
boundaries of the divine sphere'.57 In this way, the 'seals' of the soul were unlocked
and the initiate discovered resources of psychic power that enlightened
his mind and assuaged the pain of his heart."
3 |
LET |
37 |
10 |
1 |
5 |
THERE |
56 |
29 |
2 |
2 |
BE |
7 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
LIGHT |
56 |
29 |
2 |
3 |
BEGINNING |
81 |
54 |
9 |
5 |
ENDS OF |
63 |
27 |
9 |
5 |
ENS OF |
59 |
24 |
6 |
8 |
BERESHIT |
86 |
41 |
5 |
5 |
ZOHAR |
68 |
32 |
5 |
8 |
SEFIROTH |
100 |
46 |
1 |
8 |
KABBALAH |
38 |
20 |
0 |
6 |
ENDS OF |
63 |
27 |
9 |
5 |
ENS OF |
59 |
23 |
5 |
5 |
BEGIN |
37 |
28 |
1 |
9 |
BEGINNING |
81 |
54 |
9 |
7 |
NOTHING |
87 |
42 |
6 |
3 |
END |
23 |
14 |
5 |
6 |
ENDING |
53 |
35 |
8 |
8 |
S |
E |
F |
I |
R |
O |
T |
H |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
19 |
5 |
6 |
9 |
18 |
15 |
20 |
8 |
+ |
= |
100 |
1+0+0 |
= |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
5 |
6 |
9 |
9 |
6 |
2 |
8 |
+ |
= |
46 |
4+6 |
= |
10 |
1+0 |
= |
1 |
ONE |
1 |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
+ |
= |
2 |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
- |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
5 |
- |
- |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
6 |
- |
- |
6 |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
12 |
1+2 |
= |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
+ |
= |
8 |
- |
- |
8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
18 |
1+8 |
= |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
8 |
S |
E |
F |
I |
R |
O |
T |
H |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
SEFIROTH |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
occurs |
x |
1 |
= |
1 |
= |
1 |
2 |
occurs |
x |
1 |
= |
2 |
= |
2 |
3+4 |
= 7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
occurs |
x |
1 |
= |
5 |
- |
5 |
6 |
occurs |
x |
2 |
= |
12 |
= |
3 |
7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
occurs |
x |
1 |
= |
8 |
- |
8 |
9 |
occurs |
x |
2 |
= |
18 |
= |
9 |
8 |
S |
E |
F |
I |
R |
O |
T |
H |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
+ |
= |
17 |
1+7 |
= |
8 |
- |
8 |
EIGHT |
8 |
- |
S |
E |
F |
I |
R |
O |
T |
H |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
19 |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
15 |
- |
8 |
+ |
= |
51 |
5+1 |
= |
6 |
- |
6 |
SIX |
6 |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
6 |
- |
8 |
+ |
= |
24 |
2+4 |
= |
6 |
- |
6 |
SIX |
6 |
8 |
S |
E |
F |
I |
R |
O |
T |
H |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
6 |
- |
18 |
- |
20 |
- |
+ |
= |
49 |
4+9 |
= |
13 |
1+3 |
4 |
FOUR |
4 |
- |
- |
5 |
6 |
- |
9 |
- |
2 |
- |
+ |
= |
22 |
2+2 |
= |
4 |
- |
4 |
FOUR |
4 |
8 |
S |
E |
F |
I |
R |
O |
T |
H |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
6 |
ISRAEL |
64 |
28 |
1 |
4 |
ZION |
64 |
28 |
1 |
8 |
SEFIROTH |
100 |
46 |
1 |
18 |
|
228 |
102 |
3 |
1+8 |
|
2+2+8 |
1+0+2 |
- |
9 |
|
12 |
3 |
3 |
- |
|
1+2 |
- |
- |
9 |
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
THE |
33 |
15 |
6 |
7 |
RAINBOW |
82 |
37 |
1 |
8 |
COVENANT |
94 |
31 |
4 |
18 |
- |
209 |
83 |
11 |
1+8 |
- |
2+0+9 |
8+3 |
1+1 |
9 |
- |
11 |
11 |
2 |
- |
- |
1+1 |
1+1 |
- |
9 |
- |
2 |
2 |
2 |
11 |
KETHER ELYON |
138 |
57 |
3 |
6 |
KETHER |
67 |
31 |
4 |
5 |
ELYON |
71 |
26 |
8 |
6 |
DIVINE |
63 |
36 |
9 |
3 |
LAW |
36 |
9 |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
CROWN |
73 |
28 |
1 |
8 |
EX NIHILO |
96 |
51 |
6 |
8 |
DIVINITY |
112 |
49 |
4 |
7 |
SUPREME |
97 |
34 |
7 |
8 |
E |
X |
- |
N |
I |
H |
I |
L |
O |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
24 |
- |
14 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
- |
15 |
+ |
= |
79 |
7+9 |
= |
16 |
1+6 |
7 |
SEVEN |
7 |
- |
- |
6 |
- |
5 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
- |
6 |
+ |
= |
43 |
4+3 |
= |
7 |
- |
7 |
SEVEN |
7 |
8 |
E |
X |
- |
N |
I |
H |
I |
L |
O |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
12 |
- |
+ |
= |
17 |
1+7 |
= |
8 |
- |
8 |
EIGHT |
8 |
- |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
- |
+ |
= |
8 |
- |
- |
8 |
- |
8 |
EIGHT |
8 |
8 |
E |
X |
- |
N |
I |
H |
I |
L |
O |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
8 |
9 |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
26 |
2+6 |
= |
8 |
- |
8 |
EIGHT |
8 |
8 |
E |
X |
- |
N |
I |
H |
I |
L |
O |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
COLOR |
63 |
27 |
9 |
6 |
COLOUR |
84 |
30 |
3 |
7 |
COLOURS |
103 |
31 |
4 |
8 |
COLOURED |
93 |
39 |
3 |
7 |
ETERNAL |
75 |
30 |
3 |
4 |
AURA |
41 |
14 |
5 |
6 |
SYSTEM |
101 |
20 |
2 |
5 |
INPUT |
80 |
26 |
8 |
6 |
OUTPUT |
113 |
23 |
5 |
3 |
DNA |
19 |
10 |
1 |
3 |
AND |
19 |
10 |
1 |
6 |
LIVING |
73 |
37 |
1 |
6 |
SYSTEM |
101 |
20 |
2 |
7 |
SYSTEMS |
120 |
21 |
3 |
7 |
ELECTRO |
78 |
33 |
6 |
8 |
MAGNETIC |
72 |
36 |
9 |
6 |
ENERGY |
74 |
38 |
2 |
8 |
ENERGIES |
82 |
46 |
1 |
7 |
ELECTRO |
78 |
33 |
6 |
8 |
MAGNETIC |
72 |
36 |
9 |
4 |
RAYS |
63 |
18 |
9 |
7 |
ELECTRO |
78 |
33 |
6 |
8 |
MAGNETIC |
72 |
36 |
9 |
10 |
RADIATIONS |
110 |
47 |
2 |
3 |
RAY |
44 |
17 |
8 |
4 |
RAYS |
63 |
18 |
9 |
7 |
RADIATE |
58 |
31 |
4 |
8 |
RADIATES |
77 |
32 |
5 |
9 |
RADIATION |
91 |
46 |
1 |
10 |
RADIATIONS |
110 |
47 |
2 |
5 |
RADIO |
47 |
29 |
2 |
5 |
RADAR |
42 |
24 |
6 |
6 |
ATOMIC |
61 |
25 |
7 |
8 |
PARTICLE |
84 |
39 |
3 |
14 |
- |
145 |
64 |
10 |
1+4 |
- |
1+4+5 |
6+4 |
1+0 |
5 |
- |
10 |
10 |
1 |
- |
- |
1+0 |
1+0 |
- |
5 |
- |
1 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
CLUSTERS |
117 |
27 |
9 |
2 |
OF |
21 |
12 |
3 |
9 |
PARTICLES |
103 |
40 |
4 |
|
15 |
A |
T |
O |
M |
I |
C |
- |
P |
A |
R |
T |
I |
C |
L |
E |
S |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
- |
1 |
20 |
15 |
13 |
9 |
3 |
- |
16 |
1 |
18 |
20 |
9 |
3 |
12 |
5 |
19 |
+ |
= |
164 |
1+6+4 |
= |
11 |
1+1 |
= |
2 |
- |
2 |
|
- |
1 |
2 |
6 |
4 |
9 |
3 |
- |
7 |
1 |
9 |
2 |
9 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
+ |
= |
65 |
6+5 |
= |
11 |
1+1 |
= |
2 |
TWO |
2 |
|
15 |
A |
T |
O |
M |
I |
C |
- |
P |
A |
R |
T |
I |
C |
L |
E |
S |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
+ |
= |
3 |
- |
- |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
2 |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
4 |
- |
- |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
3 |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
9 |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
4 |
- |
- |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
- |
+ |
= |
5 |
- |
- |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
6 |
- |
- |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
6 |
7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
7 |
- |
- |
7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
+ |
= |
27 |
2+7 |
= |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
37 |
15 |
A |
T |
O |
M |
I |
C |
- |
P |
A |
R |
T |
I |
C |
L |
E |
S |
- |
- |
65 |
- |
- |
38 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
38 |
3+7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
6+5 |
- |
- |
3+8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3+8 |
10 |
15 |
A |
T |
O |
M |
I |
C |
- |
P |
A |
R |
T |
I |
C |
L |
E |
S |
- |
- |
11 |
- |
- |
11 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
11 |
1 |
occurs |
x |
3 |
= |
3 |
= |
3 |
2 |
occurs |
x |
2 |
= |
4 |
= |
4 |
3 |
occurs |
x |
3 |
= |
9 |
= |
9 |
4 |
occurs |
x |
1 |
= |
4 |
= |
4 |
5 |
occurs |
x |
1 |
= |
5 |
= |
5 |
6 |
occurs |
x |
1 |
= |
6 |
= |
6 |
7 |
occurs |
x |
1 |
= |
7 |
= |
7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
occurs |
x |
3 |
= |
27 |
= |
9 |
4 |
GODS |
45 |
18 |
9 |
7 |
RAINBOW |
82 |
37 |
1 |
8 |
COVENANT |
94 |
31 |
4 |
4 |
GODS |
45 |
18 |
9 |
7 |
RAINBOW |
82 |
37 |
1 |
5 |
LIGHT |
56 |
29 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
FORM |
52 |
25 |
7 |
9 |
SUBSTANCE |
104 |
23 |
5 |
5 |
SHAPE |
49 |
22 |
4 |
7 |
RAINBOW |
82 |
37 |
1 |
5 |
LIGHT |
56 |
29 |
2 |
12 |
- |
138 |
66 |
3 |
1+2 |
- |
1+3+8 |
6+6 |
- |
3 |
- |
12 |
12 |
3 |
- |
- |
1+2 |
1+2 |
- |
3 |
- |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|