Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Browse Groups

• The Bhdt Proof The English gematria system used to generate the correlations in this proof is called The Holokey; provided with it is a brief account of its
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 8, 2008
View Source
The Bhdt Proof

The English gematria system used to generate the correlations in this
proof is called The Holokey; provided with it is a brief account of
its creation.

The Holokey:

T = 1 H = 2 N = 3 O = 4 I = 5 D = 6 F = 7 U = 8 V = 9 S = 10 W = 20 A
= 30 C = 40 R = 50 L = 60 E = 70 B = 80 Y = 90 M = 100 X = 200 P =
300 G = 400 K = 500 Q = 600 J = 700 Z = 800

The process of creating a gematria system, if seen to its logical
end, transitions from creating a system designed by its creator, to
one of developing a system that informs its creator. The further a
system is developed, the more it takes on a life of its own and
becomes something that exists independent of the will of its
designer, an apt description of the creative process that
produced the Holokey.

The Holokey first saw signs of life as alphanumeric correspondences
that are either specified or implied in statements made in the Book
of the Law:

Not = 8
None = 80
Nothing = 418
Nought = 418
Abrahadabra = 418
STBETISAYFA = 334

Once the specified alphanumeric correspondences were in place,
unknown correlations that conform to ideas expounded in the text of
the Book of the Law were sought after. Correspondences that were
recognized as significant were integrated into the system by fixing
the values of relevant letters. A few of the most important
correlations:

Nu = 11, Had = 38. 11 x 38 = 418, the enumeration of Abrahadabra, the
word of power that expresses the union of complementary ideas. Nuit
defines her number as 11, as does Hadit.

Nuit + Hadit (17 + 44) = 61, a key number in verse I: 46 linked to
the idea of `nothing'.

Scarlet Woman = 418

ABKALGMORYXRPSTOVAL = 2008, the year the Holokey was created.

4 + 6 + 3 + 8 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 24 + 89 = 143, the enumeration of Love,
the glad word.

Both critics and enthusiasts of Liber Legis have observed that unless
it can be shown Aiwass possessed knowledge that was unknown to humans
in1904, the divine origin of the book may never be established: An
answer to the challenge has been observed in the riddle of verse II:
76. The only feature of the riddle that stands out is the pair of two-
digit numbers, 24 and 89, which can be little else but enumerations
for words produced with gematria. While exploring the computer font
Manuel de Codage, or MdC, a font introduced in 1988 for writing
Egyptian signs using English letters, I noticed that 24 is the
enumeration of Nwt, and 89 the enumeration of BHdt, the names of Nuit
and the Winged Disk as written in Egyptian on the Stele of Revealing.
If the conversion of the numbers into Egyptian words is the correct
method of deciphering the numbers in the riddle, it means Aiwass knew
the correct spelling for the name of the Winged Disk used on the
Stele of Revealing, first thought to be Hudit, but corrected and
replaced with Bhedet by Egyptian language experts, a discrepancy that
has become an issue for critics of the Book of the Law. The
conversion of the two numbers in the riddle into words spelled in MdC
could also mean Aiwass foresaw the development of MdC over eighty
years before it occurred, providing the needed proof of futuristic
superhuman knowledge.

At the heart of the matter are the names Had and Hadit, which are
similar enough to the term Hudit to fuel the claim that Hadit and the
rest of the imagery in the Book of the Law is little more than a
product of the conscious thoughts of Aleister Crowley. My theory is
the two names are composite terms derived from Egyptian language,
with spellings derived from the MdC font. Some relevant Egyptian
terms spelled with MdC:

Hd - "Attack"
HD - "White, bright"
HAd - "Lust"
HDt - "White, daylight"
Hdt - "The White One"
HAdt - "Excitation"

Any of the six words noted could be transliterated from Egyptian as
Had or Hadit, dispelling the claim that neither of the two names
could be Egyptian in origin. Gematria suggests both of the names are
referenced in verses II: 15-16:

Hdt = 9 - "My number is nine by the fools"
HD = 8 - "But with the just I am eight, and one in eight"

Using Egyptian language, the Tarot riddle of verses II: 15-16 can be
explained. Aleister Crowley apparently interpreted the
statement "with the just I am eight" as a reference to the Tarot
trump Justice, which traditionally bore the Roman number VIII, but
was changed to XI in the Golden Dawn attributions for the Tarot.
Crowley switched the card numbers back to their traditional numeric
assignments in the Book of Thoth, renaming card XI Lust, and renaming
card VIII Adjustment. Hadit tells the reader in verse II: 16 that he
is "The Empress & the Hierophant, thus eleven as my bride is eleven."
What was unknown to Crowley in 1904 was that HAd in MdC would
mean "lust", the title Crowley would choose for Trump XI some forty
years after the Cairo Working. By combining the Roman numbers III &
V, the number VIII is produced, the number of Strength in 1904; the
statement inferring III + V (VIII) is actually card XI foreshadows
the future switch between the numbers of the two trumps implemented
by Crowley, making HAd (Lust) the Trump numbered XI.

MdC also explains the totality of the numbers found in the riddle of
verse II: 76, where the combined Egyptian names of the three
principals of the Book of the Law equate to 143:

Hdt = 9
Nwt = 24
Ra = 110
9 + 24 + 110 = 143
4 + 6 + 3 + 8 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 24 + 89 = 143

The only mention of proof in regard to the authenticity of the Book
of the Law is made in the third chapter, where the Stele of Revealing
is cited as the only proof that shall be supplied, and as an artifact
linked to the Book of the Law, the title `Stele of Revealing' is
intriguing, implying it will reveal something of importance. It is a
valuable point the Stele of Revealing was used to identify the form
of the god Horus Rose Crowley was communicating with when she led
her husband to the stele in the Cairo Museum. Another important point
is the enumeration 718 is equated with the name of the stele in the
third chapter of the Book of the Law, another aspect of the text that
links the stele to the god Horus. Based on the enumeration 718, there
are three names written in Egyptian that can be assigned to the Stele
of Revealing, demonstrating once again a futuristic knowledge of MdC
on the part of Aiwass:

aHa n Hr pr xrt = 718 - `Stele of Hoor-paar-kraat'
aHa n Hrw pA xrt = 718 - `Stele of Heru-pa-kraath'
Nwt BHdty Ra Hr Axty aHa = 718 - `Nuit-Bhedti-Rahorakhti
Stele'

In Egyptian, Hr pr xrt means `Horus of the house of flame', while Hrw
pA xrt means `Horus the flame'. The titles correspond to the idea of
Osiris being reborn as Horus on the Island of Flame, in the Lake of
Fire, as described in the Book of Caverns.

As a final exhibition of references to Egyptian language in the Book
of the Law, in verse III: 49 the god of the chapter states that he
is "in a secret fourfold word", widely believed to be "Do what thou
wilt." When the name Heruraha is reverse-transliterated into
Egyptian, its enumeration is the same as that of "Do what thou
wilt"; the same process applied to Ra-Hoor-Khut produces
the enumeration of Thelema.

Hr Ra ha (Heruraha) = 164
Do what thou wilt = 164
Ra Hr xt (Ra-Hoor-Khut) = 333
Thelema = 333

The `new symbols' equated with the English letters as directed in
verse II: 55 of the Book of the Law seem to be the Egyptian signs
associated with the letters in the MdC font.
• ... You re basing your proof of a Key on the creation of a font?
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 8, 2008
View Source
--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "herupakraath" <herupakraath@...>
wrote:

> could also mean Aiwass foresaw the development of MdC over eighty
> years before it occurred, providing the needed proof of futuristic
> superhuman knowledge.

You're basing your proof of a Key on the creation of a font?

:/
• ... of ... The above data is incorrect, being a last minute addition. It should read: HAdt = 39 Nwt = 24 Ra = 80 39 + 24 + 80 = 143 Tim M
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 8, 2008
View Source
"herupakraath" <herupakraath@...> wrote:
> MdC also explains the totality of the numbers found in the riddle
of
> verse II: 76, where the combined Egyptian names of the three
> principals of the Book of the Law equate to 143:
>
> Hdt = 9
> Nwt = 24
> Ra = 110
> 9 + 24 + 110 = 143
> 4 + 6 + 3 + 8 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 24 + 89 = 143

The above data is incorrect, being a last minute addition. It should
read:

HAdt = 39
Nwt = 24
Ra = 80

39 + 24 + 80 = 143

Tim M
• Thelema Tom, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. The Holokey: T=1 H=2 N= 3 O=4 I=5 D= 6 F=7 U=8 V=9 S=10 W=20 A=30 C=40 R=50 L=60 E=70 B=80 Y=90
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 9, 2008
View Source
Thelema Tom,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

The Holokey:

T=1 H=2 N= 3 O=4 I=5 D= 6 F=7 U=8 V=9
S=10 W=20 A=30 C=40 R=50 L=60 E=70
B=80 Y=90 M=100 X=200 P=300 G=400
K=500 Q=600 J=700 Z=800

Hope this doesn't disappoint you terribly, my
confession, but what I know about computers
and computer programs would starve a frog to
death in less than a New York minute, even so,
I bow and kneel and kiss their lovely webbed feat
in gratitude and great appreciation for their selfless
service and devotion maintaining World Order.

I'll bet your discovery sent you through the
roost! Couple questions hope you don't mind
answering ?

Unless I'm not seeing right, looks like Holokey
is I-less and five-less. I assume this is of purpose,
but if you would explain I'd be much less curious.

Love is the Law, Love under Will.

Sandi

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• 93! ... Who s eyeless? ;-) (That s not a winking smiley, it s one with an eye missing.) 93 93/93 RIKB
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 10, 2008
View Source
93!

Sandi Peterson wrote:
>
>
> >The Holokey:
>
> >T=1 H=2 N= 3 O=4 **I=5** D= 6 F=7 U=8 V=9
>
> Unless I'm not seeing right, looks like Holokey
> is I-less and five-less.
>

Who's eyeless? ;-)

(That's not a winking smiley, it's one with an eye missing.)

93 93/93
RIKB
• ... futuristic ... Dwtw That s hardly surprising, considering that the key was created by massive number-crunching on computer software. It seems consistent
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 10, 2008
View Source
--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "bishop" <anubis@...> wrote:
>
> --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "herupakraath" <herupakraath@>
> wrote:
>
> > could also mean Aiwass foresaw the development of MdC over eighty
> > years before it occurred, providing the needed proof of
futuristic
> > superhuman knowledge.
>
> You're basing your proof of a Key on the creation of a font?
>
> :/
>

Dwtw

That's hardly surprising, considering that the 'key' was created by
massive number-crunching on computer software. It seems consistent to
connect it with some other computing artifact. Which of course does
not make it considerably more compelling just because of that.

This kind of argument could esily lead one to tout ASCII coding as
the basis of the true gematria of English, since it is used widely to
digitally encode our set of 26 letters. Surely Aiwas saw that coming
too, right?

I do have a quibble with Aiwass, as author, necessarily having
'futuristic superhuman knowledge', (which presumably means knowledge
of the future beyond the ability of humans). That type of knowledge
does touch upon the prophetic aspects of the book, but i think it has
little or nothing to do with the English gematria encoded in the
text. Such a gematria should probably possess aspects beyond the
computational abilities of Crowley, if it is being touted as a proof
of the praeter-human authorship of the book. But it needn't have
anything to do with future knowledge per se.

IOW, post-1904 developments in mathematics need not be a part of said
gematria, since there was plenty of pre-1904 math that Crowley would
have been incapable of comprehending or encoding in the Book. That
doesn't rule out the congruency of an English gematria with post-1904
developments in computational analysis or combinatorics or whatever,
but it doesn't seem like it is a logical requirement for proof of non-
human origin of the Book.

Litlluw
RLG
• ... A baseless assumption on your part. The creation of the Holokey is rooted in the belief the author of Liber Legis knew the words Not, None, Nothing, and
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 12, 2008
View Source
"threefold31" <threefold31@...> wrote:

> That's hardly surprising, considering that the 'key' was created by
> massive number-crunching on computer software.

A baseless assumption on your part.

The creation of the Holokey is rooted in the belief the author of
Liber Legis knew the words Not, None, Nothing, and Nought can be made
to enumerate to 8, 80, and 418 using English gematria--no massive
number crunching is required to arrive at that conclusion. Using the
multitudinal gematria values 1-800, Not is the only word of the four
noted that can enumerate as 8, which means None must produce the
enumeration 80. Once the letters N, O, T, E are assigned the values 3,
4, 1, 70 respectively, there are only 12 possibilities for value
assignments for the letters remaining in the word Nothing that will
make it enumerate to 418, and 30 possibilities for making Nought
enumerate to 418. If Nothing and Nought both enumerate to 418 as is
the case with the Holokey, there are only four possible groups of
value assignments that can make it happen--hardly massive.

There is a total of eight different letters used in the words Not,
None, Nothing, and Nought, which means that when potential gematria
values are drawn from a pool of 26 values, and each letter assigned a
different value, there are approximately 63 billion possible groups of
values. When the total of the groups is divided by four, the ratio of
groups that will make the words enumerate as specified to those that
will not is 15,747,732,000 : 1. The ratio is so lopsided the only
intelligent conclusion is the author of the Book of the Law knew the
four words could equate to 8, 80, 418 using English gematria.

To demonstrate further why the Holokey is not a product of crunching
numbers, it might surprise you to know that only 735 different groups
of value assignments exist that will make Abrahadabra enumerate as
418, provided no other demands are made of the letters in the word; if
other words that use some or all of the letters are equated with a
specified enumeration, the chances of a system also making Abrahadabra
enumerate to 418 drop like a rock.

Once the letter assignments for the letters in Abrahadabra were
designated, there were only four possibilities for making the letters
STBETISAYFA enumerate as 334, which again shows that no massive number
crunching was required, only a few simple choices.

> It seems consistent to connect it with some other computing artifact.

If I had done so intentionally, I would admit as much.

Although I have been familiar with MdC over the years due to an
interest in Egyptian language, the application of gematria to MdC
occurred as a direct result of the discussion on the LAShTAL site
about the alleged mistranslated name of the winged disk on the Stele
of Revealing, which happened some time after the Holokey was
developed, and after posting my original thoughts on it, which can
still be found in the file sections of T93-l, or LAShTAL.

The inference I deliberately created the Holokey to produce the
Egyptian language features presented in the Bhdt Proof is demonstrably
false. When Abrahadabra was programmed to produce the enumeration 418,
and Not set to the enumeration 8, the enumeration of 89 for Bhdt was
automatically determined. Nwt enumerates as 24 because Not = 8, and
Scarlet Woman = 418. The same can be said for the rest of the Egyptian
language elements presented.

> This kind of argument could esily lead one to tout ASCII coding as
> the basis of the true gematria of English, since it is used widely >
to digitally encode our set of 26 letters. Surely Aiwas saw that >
coming too, right?

Creating a gematria system based on ASCII (which I tried by the way)
would be no more outlandish or arbitrary than assigning 25 numbers,
combined with 26 letters, to the 27 trigrams of the Yi-Jing.
• 93! ... Using those criteria alone, there are 6 different ways to assign the numbers 1, 4, and 7 to the letters N, O, and T. The 4 additional letters H, I, N,
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 13, 2008
View Source
93!

herupakraath wrote:
>
> "threefold31" <threefold31@...> wrote:
>
> > That's hardly surprising, considering that the 'key' was created by
> > massive number-crunching on computer software.
>
> A baseless assumption on your part.
>
> The creation of the Holokey is rooted in the belief the author of
> Liber Legis knew the words Not, None, Nothing, and Nought can be made
> to enumerate to 8, 80, and 418 using English gematria--no massive
> number crunching is required to arrive at that conclusion. Using the
> multitudinal gematria values 1-800, Not is the only word of the four
> noted that can enumerate as 8, which means None must produce the
> enumeration 80. Once the letters N, O, T, E are assigned the values 3,
> 4, 1, 70 respectively, there are only 12 possibilities for value
> assignments for the letters remaining in the word Nothing that will
> make it enumerate to 418, and 30 possibilities for making Nought
> enumerate to 418. If Nothing and Nought both enumerate to 418 as is
> the case with the Holokey, there are only four possible groups of
> value assignments that can make it happen--hardly massive.

Using those criteria alone, there are 6 different ways to assign the
numbers 1, 4, and 7 to the letters N, O, and T. The 4 additional
letters H, I, N, G, can also be assigned to their numbers in 24
different ways, although since Nothing and Nought share G and H, there
are only 4 if they are going to have the same numeration, as you say.
Still, I count 24 or 144 different possibilities, depending on whether
you originally required Nothing and Nought to have the same numeration
or...not.

> There is a total of eight different letters used in the words Not,
> None, Nothing, and Nought, which means that when potential gematria
> values are drawn from a pool of 26 values, and each letter assigned a
> different value, there are approximately 63 billion possible groups of
> values. When the total of the groups is divided by four, the ratio of
> groups that will make the words enumerate as specified to those that
> will not is 15,747,732,000 : 1. The ratio is so lopsided the only
> intelligent conclusion is the author of the Book of the Law knew the
> four words could equate to 8, 80, 418 using English gematria.

Well, really, the only intelligent conclusion is that this didn't
occur by chance - which we already know because you chose the
constraints and went looking for a way of arriving at those values
methodically. If you randomly chose letters and numbers out of a bag
and they happened to fall in an arrangement giving these values, that
would be REALLY impressive - billions to one. But that's not what
happened. When you consider it could have been impossible to make the
words you chose have the values you chose with the number schema you
chose, it's still an interesting result, but using an
odds-against-chance calculation isn't really appropriate, and there
are still 23 other "keys" that give this same result. Solving Rubik's
cube is hard because there are 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 different
configurations possible, and only one is the solution - but solving it
is not evidence of divine intervention. It's just not going to fall
into the right configuration if you kick it across the room.

Besides all that, stating that "the author of the Book of the Law knew
the four words could equate to 8, 80, 418 using English gematria" is
kind of weak, isn't it? A person of marginal intelligence with a free
afternoon could easily demonstrate that the four words *could* equate
to 8, 80, 418, if that's all you're going for. It's kind of like
saying Aiwass could do the NYT Sunday crossword puzzle -- hardly a
basis for a system of government, as they say.

>
>
> Creating a gematria system based on ASCII (which I tried by the way)
> would be no more outlandish or arbitrary than assigning 25 numbers,
> combined with 26 letters, to the 27 trigrams of the Yi-Jing.

I'm sure you meant "27 trigrams of Liber Trigrammaton" since the Yi
has only 8 trigrams, but since the thesis of TEQ is that the trigrams
are themselves numbers in base 3, I'm a little confused about where
you get the "25 numbers" part, unless you mean that zero is not a
number. Well, it's not a natural number...but it is a real number, so
maybe we should split the difference and say the odds against it being
a number are aleph null:2^aleph null.

93 93/93
RIKB
• ... by ... Dwtw I believe it was you who said that you created a program to search for gematrias that had specific requirements. That s number- crunching.
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 13, 2008
View Source
--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "herupakraath" <herupakraath@...>
wrote:
>
> "threefold31" <threefold31@> wrote:
>
> > That's hardly surprising, considering that the 'key' was created
by
> > massive number-crunching on computer software.
>
> A baseless assumption on your part.
>

Dwtw

I believe it was you who said that you created a program to search
for gematrias that had specific requirements. That's number-
crunching. Perhaps not massive, but it is still using a computer to
do the work for you.

> To demonstrate further why the Holokey is not a product of crunching
> numbers,

I don't know how you can say that when you were the one who stated
that you used a computer program, (of your own devising I believe),
to search for a gematreia that suited your conditions. That's number-
crunching.

> > It seems consistent to connect it with some other computing
artifact.
>
> If I had done so intentionally, I would admit as much.

I never said you did it intentionally.

>
> The inference I deliberately created the Holokey to produce the
> Egyptian language features presented in the Bhdt Proof is
demonstrably
> false.

I neither said nor inferred that you deliberatley set the holokey
values to align with MdC. I have said, in another forum, that after
said values were created, or 'found', you then applied them to MdC.

>
>
> > This kind of argument could esily lead one to tout ASCII coding
as
> > the basis of the true gematria of English, since it is used
widely >
> to digitally encode our set of 26 letters. Surely Aiwas saw that >
> coming too, right?
>
> Creating a gematria system based on ASCII (which I tried by the
way)
> would be no more outlandish or arbitrary than assigning 25 numbers,
> combined with 26 letters, to the 27 trigrams of the Yi-Jing.
>

Well, you can blame Crowley for being outlandish, since it was his
idea to attribute letters to trigrams. You remember him, right? the
one who was told to obtain the order and value of the English
Alphabet?

My basic critique of this latest 'proof' is that it has some
interesting elements, but it's quite a stretch to conclude Aiwass saw
all this coming and devised a gematria along the lines of the one you
have discovered with your number-crunching.

Litlluw
RLG
• Thelema93, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... Thank you for confessing your jest, but I wasn t jesting. I don t make kid when topics of
Message 1 of 10 , Aug 13, 2008
View Source
Thelema93,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Please excuse me, a mis-quote:

> NOT a bit-Wise says a soroly HOOT, once
> upon a time named HO, a long time ago,
> before bit-ass-kissed-kicked-to-k and cross-
> crossed by soro girders, as she rammed her
> crucifix numbered tongue down HO's throat,
> snagged His Number and k-rocked out
> His eyes!

A HOOT says:

> This should continue to read... and cut off
> His Hawk Head with her golden-ram-cox(e)fix,
> and ("ho-stil Hawk, as knife silently slices
> throat and severs Hawk head").

that guy said:

> One of my chief social faults is failing
> to resist the urge to make jest when topics
> of the utmost seriousness are being
> discussed.

Thank you for confessing your jest, but
I wasn't jesting. I don't make kid when
topics of utmost concern are being
discussed.

I've never been more seriously discussing
a more serious matter, and your wink looked
to be "hood-winking" and Hoot Head
snatching dog-do.

that guy said:

> but with all the pissing and shitting &
> fucking and so on, I want to stand
> squarely out of the way.

HOOT says:

> It will be difficult for you to stand
> out of the way if you stand on a hollow
> key that sets squarely in front of girders
> made of no-things of AL, and a gem(e)d-
> up-atreea that would like to turn AL-EQ &
> ALL THAT IS, AND EVER WILL BE into
> (e)Zshit.

> THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SITUATION
> AND holokey is a perfect (e)xample of a
> division derivation declaration that
> spells war.

Love is the Law, Love under Will,

the despised harlot

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.