Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.astrology,alt.magick,alt.tarot,alt.divination,alt.pagan.magick Subject: Re: Planetary Sequences in Occultism References: <3F5A8544.939A291E@yahoo-dot.ca> <3F63C75E.3050508@cox.SPAMnet> <3F6B0A35.61451E83@pacbell.net> <3F76C9B0.3D89CA79@pacbell.net> <3F84358C.D914878E@pacbell.net> From: nagasiva Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com User-Agent: nn/6.6.0 Lines: 185 Message-ID: <0yEhb.30119$dk4.853053@typhoon.sonic.net> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:22:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1065817340 208.201.242.18 (Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:22:20 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:22:20 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:41633 alt.astrology:516904 alt.magick:358188 alt.tarot:119273 alt.divination:22197 alt.pagan.magick:38885 50031010 viii om lunatix! Althaeamas! Joseph Littleshoes : #># ...I have recently been playing around with #># "Chiro"s" numeralogical attributions for the #># planets. As it applys to palmestry, yes, but #># also as i find him to have at least in his own #># mind created a coherent system of correspindencies #># that he seems to be satisfied with. #># #># I am uncomftorble in his system with the lack of #># a "0" however im working on rectifying that. nagasiva: #> what is it about a 0 that intrigues or inspires? Joseph Littleshoes : # As it exists as a number it seems to me it should # somehow be incorporated in any symbolic representation # of the solar system (or universe). something from nothing? a centerpoint (0,0,0)? # Though im leaning more and more twords some sort of # Taoistic "prime cause" or tottality of the universe # as it is expressed in our solar system and ourselves. -1, 1? # Possibly evven "0" as symbolic of the awarness or # consciousness that percieves but is not the # intelligance of "1' mercury or the emotions of # "2" venus. interesting. so far I'm using 1 2 3 M 5 6 7 and this seems to work very well for Planetary sequence (astronomical:actual as compared with the Ancients' Order, which is astronomical:mean-motion). # the planets, signs, elements can all be given numbers # (whether one agrees with any particular assignment or # not) so hopefully a process of elimination will produce # somesort of corespondance for "0" 0 only makes sense to me if the thing is a centerpoint in a grid/map or if it lies outside the object-set somehow (as does the Fool or Excuse in older Tarot). # The obvious include, the tao, the ain soph aur, basis # of possible or even probable vibration, Pan (as all) # the lineal figure of zero and the tendencay for # everything in the universe to move in a circular pattern, # and, according to 777, dragons, roses, lotuses, # star saphire, black diamond, Aum, Harpocrates, Amun, Nuit, yeah I think there's more than one Tao (seen/unseen) and there's more than one level of the Unlimited Light (often 0, 00, and 000). #> Planetary sequence in occult data is something that I've #> been fascinated with for years, but I haven't found any #> justification for the Sequence of the Ancients, or the #> Weekday Sequence # The early western mystics being unfamiliar with the # "arabic" numerals, to say nothing of zero (no pun # intended) inclines me to queston and try to revise # the traditonal attributions. mostly I haven't seen number-associations with Planets, excepting the 'tables' (magic squares) from Agrippa, which sets them as 3x3-Saturn, 4x4-Jupiter... 9x9-Moon. #> in such a case, the question immediately becomes: why #> 6=sun? oh I figured this one out. in 7 6 5 1 3 2 M ('Chaldean Order') the magic square attributes add 2 because there *are* no magic squares of less than 3x3 (unless you like to think 2 2 1 2 2 magic square order 2? magic square order 1? ) and since Sun is mean-motion #4, +2 for magic square = 6! # 0. sun # 1. mercury # 2. venus # 3. earth # 4. moon # 5. mars # 6. jupitar # 7. saturn # 8. uranus # 9. neptune # 10. pluto yeah, this has definite appeals. for this same reason I started with 0 in the first sefira position in the Tetraktys I was working with for sefirotic Tarot studies and did really enjoy the subsequent layout 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 1 2 0 with its 1/Force/Yang + 2/Form/Yin implications. but there were problems without a 10, and I eventually settled on something more traditionally Pythagorean. #> and I've considered whether or not to include the Asteroid #> Belt (which I like to called Oceanids :>) between 6 and 7. # # one could include decimals, 6.1 to whatever unt of # astroids one wish to include? or moons (4.1 being our M :>). #> are there any other logical *or* traditional Planetary Sequences #> that occultists use or have used? these could be mapped to #> sephiroth (as traditional, or novelly) straight through to the #> false Da'ath, and they can be applied in some series to the #> tarotic Trumps. I'm cataloguing all I can find online and in text. there are a few amusing variations on the Ancients and some novel sequences. I'll repost them here once I get a good batch of them together. # In so far as our conception of the above arise out of our # evolution on this earth perhaps earth should be "0" thus # making # # 0-earth # 1-sun # 2-mercury # 3-venus # 4-moon # 5-mars # 6-jupitar # 7-satrun # 8-uranus # 9-neptune # 10-pluto *there*'s the real issue. if you start from 0=Earth, *then* how do you proceed? will you just switch it for where it would be astronomically? or will you do like the Ancients and identify them relative to our terra-life by their mean motions (7 6 5 1 3 2 M)? or will you attempt a pretty ugly kludge by virtue of their changing distances from Terra and cement them by proximate distance (as some amusingly proclaim about the Order of the Ancients!): 0 earth 1 moon? 2 venus? 3 mars? 4 mercury? 5 sun? 6 jupiter 7 saturn 8 uranus 9 neptune 10 pluto is there some absolute sequence of proximateness to Earth granted being on the same side of Sol? one problem is that all of these vary in proximity as Terra moves about Sol. after Merc/Mars, however, I'm not sure they change much. # even then, and if a sequence can be established that # incorporates "0" it would only be symbolic of some # actuality yet to be defined. the argument I find convincing is that only *orbiting* bodies are positively numbered, whereas sun could get a 0 if looking at this series astronomically. nagasiva