Bedeutung Von 21 Tage Gleitenden Durchschnitt

NUMBER 17 UND MUHAMMED kompiliert von Dee Finney Dies ist nicht das erste Mal, dass ich über die Nummer 17 geträumt habe. Hier ist ein früherer Traum von 1999, den ich sehr wichtig fühlte. 10-28-99 - DREAM - Ich arbeitete in einem großen Büro und hatte viel zu tun. Ich arbeitete in einem hellen Büro und mein Schreibtisch war voller Arbeit. Dennoch entdeckte ich einige legale Papiere oder formelle Papiere, die früher getan werden sollten, und ich hatte es nicht getan. Ich drängte es immer wieder zugunsten der Ingenieurarbeiten, die ich tat. Eines der Engineering Blueprint Bücher war auf meinem Schreibtisch. Es war 1 Fuß breit bis 5 Fuß lang und 3 dick. (153) Ich wusste nicht, warum die Ingenieure hatte es abgelegt, wo es gehörte, so nahm ich es aus meinem Schreibtisch und legte es auf der Oberseite des Bücherregals für später. Es gab so viel Ingenieursarbeit zu tun, dass, als 4 Ingenieure hereinkamen (alle Ingenieure, mit denen ich vorher im wirklichen Leben gearbeitet hatte) beschlossen sie, eine Konferenz in der Bibliothek zu haben. Also ging ich mit ihnen, weil ich hören wollte, was sie zu sagen hatten. Es gab einen quadratischen Tisch mit 4 Stühlen rund um sie direkt unter dem hellen Licht, aber die Ingenieure nahmen die Stühle und sogar den Tisch und bewegten sie aus dem Licht. Ich sagte zu den Ingenieuren, Hey Jungs Im noch arbeitet Ich musste im Licht sein, um meine Arbeit zu tun. So ging ich zurück zu meinem eigenen Schreibtisch, wo das helle Licht war und sah die juristischen Papiere, die jetzt in zwei Haufen geteilt wurden, stand direkt an der Spitze, wo meine Arbeit war. Ich fühlte mich schuldig, dass ich sie nicht tat, sondern bewegte sie wieder zur Arbeit an der Ingenieurarbeit. Schließlich, als der Arbeitstag vorbei war, ging ich zu meiner Wohnung, die im selben Gebäude war. Sogar dort waren viele Leute. Meine Wohnung hatte zwei Türen, die ich nicht bewusst war sofort. Eine innere Tür und eine äußere Tür, die zu einem äußeren Flur führte. Eine Tür war 17 und die andere Tür war 36. Ich entdeckte dies, weil während ich sprach mit einigen Besuchern, dass es einige sanfte Klopfen an der Tür und wenn ich die Tür öffnete ich sah die Nummer. Jemand kam an die 17 Tür zuerst, die auf dem inneren Flur war, und dann kam ein sanftes Klopfen an die andere Tür, die 36 war, die zum äußeren Flur führte. Als ich die Tür öffnete, fiel die ganze Tür von den Scharnieren und fiel auf den Boden. Es waren viele Leute da draußen und alle begannen, in meine Wohnung zu kommen. Ich schrie sofort, WARTUNG Der Wartungsmann stand genau da und er stand da und lachte. Ill fix, die sofort Wie der Talmud Yerushalmi weist darauf hin, sechsunddreißig ist eine Zahl, die auf das überirdische Licht der Schöpfung, das besondere Licht, das Adam für sechsunddreißig Stunden im Garten Eden verwendet hatte, anspielte, bevor Gd es verbarg Die sechsunddreißig Gerechten in jeder zukünftigen Generation Das Permanent-Stein-Labyrinth Dieses 36, elf Kreis-Labyrinth ist auf dem Gelände der Kirche des Guten Hirten in Tequesta, Florida. Die elf Strecke, oder maltesischen Design, achteckig in Form, finden Sie am Kathedrale von Amiens in Frankreich. 12-8-2002 - DREAM - Ich war mit einem Mann, der Filmemacher war. Er hatte ein neues Konzept der Lehre Menschen zu lesen. Er zeigte uns die Worte. Die Wörter selbst waren englische Briefe, hatten aber keine Vokale - nur Konsonanten. Eines der Worte erschien und wo der Vokal in dem Wort sein sollte, gab es einen Kreis mit der Zahl 17 darin. Als ich die Nummer 17 sah, hörte ich den Namen Muhammad. Zur gleichen Zeit wachte ich auf, und die 4. Zeh auf meinem rechten Fuß bekam einen Krampf, dass so schlimm war, musste ich aus dem Bett springen und aufstehen, um die Schmerzen erleichtern. Dann legte ich mich hin und ging sofort wieder schlafen. Der Traum fuhr fort: Ich und eine andere Frau sahen einen Film aus einer Barszene. Die Szene hatte eine Indiana Jones Art der Atmosphäre - ein riesiges Zimmer mit einer hohen Decke, rauchige Atmosphäre, rau aussehende Männer mit schwarzem Haar und Schnurrbart - ein Mittelöstliches Gefühl. Die Männer hatten einen runden Ball, der aussah wie Kokosnuss mit einer Naht den ganzen Weg um sie herum. Dieses Objekt wurde auf ein langes Seil von der Decke geschwungen und dieser Ball schwankte und schwang einige Male bis zum genau richtigen Moment und jemand hätte ein besonderes Wissen, um die schwingende Kugel zu greifen und sie zu knacken und zu trinken, was in ihr war - vorher Zu dieser Zeit, es wäre nicht bereit zu trinken. Als ich diesen Film sah, wusste ich auch, dass, wie man gelernt zu lesen - es war Wort Anerkennung. Man wußte, daß die Briefe, die man vor sich sah, auf eine bestimmte Weise kamen - das war Lesen - das Wissen. Ich und die andere Frau nannten den Filmemacher in unser Zimmer, um ihm diesen Film zu zeigen und ihm zu zeigen, was das Lesen wirklich war. Der Filmemacher saß in dem braunen Stuhl, und der Film wurde auf einen weißen Bildschirm an der Wand projiziert, und wieder sahen wir, wie der Film der braunen Kugel mit der Naht überall hin und her schwankte, bis einer der Männer kam Dass zu wissen, wann der Ball offen und trinken, was drin war. Als der Film endete, hatten wir ein kleines Mädchen dort etwa 7 Jahre alt. Sie hatte ein helles Gesicht mit einem eifrigen Blick in ihren Augen und wir sagten dem Filmemacher, dass dieses kleine Mädchen auf diese Weise lesen gelernt hat - als sie das kennt, das auf den Augen mit den Worten kennt. Das ist Sura 17: 1 des Korans: 17: 1 Der Verherrlichte ist derjenige, der seinen Diener (Muhammad) während der Nacht, vom heiligen Masjid (von Mekka) bis zum entferntesten Ort der Niederwerfung, dessen Umgebung wir gesegnet haben, Um ihm einige unserer Zeichen zu zeigen. Er ist der Hörende, der Seher. Dies ist der Traum, den ich die folgende Nacht hatte: TRAUM - Ich ging in das Land, um landwirtschaftliches Land zu betrachten. In einer Entfernung sah ich eine Gruppe von Männern, die auf dem Weg gingen und auch das Land untersuchten. Sie gingen in ein reifes Weizenfeld, das zur Ernte bereit war. Ich hörte einen von ihnen sagen, dass er dieses 40.000 Hektar großen Grundstück besaß. ANMERKUNG: Das ist ein großes Stück Land durch amerikanische Familienfarmnormen. Meine Schwiegereltern besaßen 120 Morgen und mieteten ein anderes 100 Morgen, um ein Leben auszustoßen und einer der Jungen verkaufte Versicherung auf der Seite, um Extrageld zu holen, weil es Preiskontrollen auf der Milch von den Kühen gab und sie couldnt Enden bilden konnten treffen. Mein Mann holte mich an der irgendwann mit dem Auto. Wir fuhren auf einer Service-Straße neben einer großen Autobahn. Er hielt an der Tankstelle, wo sie auch Nahrung hatten. Ich stieg aus und stieg aus, nachdem ich ihm gesagt hatte, er solle die Autobahn wieder nach Milwaukee bringen. Die Dienststraße endet an dieser kleinen Kreuzung. Er nickte, wie er verstand, und wandte sich plötzlich um und ging in die entgegengesetzte Richtung. Ich musste nach Milwaukee zurückkehren und so spazieren gehen, in der Hoffnung, dass ich wieder in die Stadt fahren könnte. Ich trug Sommer-Sandalen, die nicht bereit waren, für Meilen durch Schneeverwehungen zu gehen, die ich vorher sah, aber ich fing überhaupt an zu laufen. Ich war nicht zu weit gegangen, als zwei Mädchen hinter mir heraufkamen. Ich fragte sie, ob sie Zugang zu einem Fahrzeug hätten. Sie sagten: Nein, aber vielleicht könnten sie mir Hilfe holen und mich fragen, wo ich hingegangen bin. Ich sagte ihnen, dass ich innerhalb von Woche nach Milwaukee zurückkehren musste. Sie sagten, sie würden mir helfen, so folgte ich ihnen durch ein schmales Tor, das durch eine hohe weiße Stuckwand ging. Wir gingen durch einen schmalen Durchgang und gingen auf einem schmalen Betonpfad, der alle 3 oder 4 Fuß mit Wasser gefüllt war. Wir kamen zu einer schweren blauen Tür und eines der Mädchen öffnete es und wir gingen hinein. Innerhalb des Hauses war eine arabische Familie. Es sah aus, als ob sie zu Abend essen wollten, aber sie saßen an einer Reihe von Tischen - beten. Der Vater des Hauses saß nicht am Ende des Tisches, sondern im 1. Sitz links vom Ende des Tisches. Die kleinen Kinder saßen ihm gegenüber. Er war dunkelhaarig mit einem dicken Schnurrbart. Er las und betete auf Arabisch. Dann fragte er einen der Teenager, aus ihrem Buch zu lesen - sie sprachen auch auf Arabisch. Die Jungen saßen an einem getrennten Tisch an der weiten Wand mit einem offenen Buch auf dem Tisch vor ihnen. An der Wand war ein schmaler, brauner Tisch, nur um zu beten. Das ist, wo das dunkelhaarige Mädchen ging und setzte sich. Das blonde Mädchen ging zu einem anderen Tisch und setzte sich neben ein Mädchen, das genau wie sie aussah. Wir hatten offensichtlich in das Haus ein Gebet Zeit vor dem Abendessen. Ich sah einige zusätzliche Stühle entlang der weiten Wand, die ich zu dem Tisch bewegen konnte, an dem ich sitzen wollte. Ich wollte einen dieser 3 Stühle neben dem dunkelhaarigen Mädchen, das am engen Gebetstisch saß, bewegen und aufwachen. Die Primzahl 17 wurde von den Pythagoräern genannt - Opposition, Obstruktion und Übel, und der Tag, an dem der Teufel über Gott triumphierte. Diese Zahl summt mit der astrologischen Natur der Planeten Saturn und Hades und dem Sternzeichen Steinbock. Die Zahl 17 bedeutet auch: Junge Ziege, Steinbock Zodiacal Zeichen, seethe, kochen, Traum, Rave, alt, Diskurs, Benommenheit. Ich (Dee) finde dies interessant, da mein eigenes Sternzeichen ist Steinbock und Im ein Träumer. Wenn Sie alle Zahlen von 1 bis 17 hinzufügen, erhalten Sie diese: 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 153 Die Zahl 153 ist die Zahl der Fische, die von den neuen Aposteln gefangen werden, als Jesus ihnen beibrachte, wie man fischt. Es war wichtig, auf welcher Seite des Bootes sie geworfen wurden. Es ist sehr bedeutsam, dass sie auf die RECHTE SEITE werfen mussten, um die 153 Fische zu fangen. Wenn wir annehmen, alle zu gewinnen, sollte der Typ gezeigt haben, dass sie alle Fische im Meer fangen. Dann hätte es nicht wichtig sein sollen (für den Typ) welche Seite des Bootes sie aus. Es ist sehr bedeutsam, dass sie auf die RECHTE SEITE werfen mussten, um die 153 Fische zu fangen. (1) Matthäus 25:33. SCHAFE auf RECHTS. ZIEGEN auf LINKS. Nr. 17 - Der Stern der Heiligen Drei Könige - dies ist eine höchst spirituelle Zahl und wurde von den alten Chaldäern symbolisch als der 8-spitze Stern der Venus ausgedrückt. Der Stern der Magier ist das Bild der Liebe und des Friedens und verspricht, dass die Person oder Entität, die es repräsentiert, im Geist zu den Prüfungen und Schwierigkeiten des früheren Lebens überlegen ist, mit der Fähigkeit, früheren Misserfolg in persönlichen Beziehungen und der Karriere zu erobern. 17 ist die Zahl der Unsterblichkeit, und zeigt an, dass der Name der Person nach ihm leben wird - (sollte man entscheiden, zu sterben, das ist eine Wahl, wie Sie im Kapitel Physische Unsterblichkeit lernen werden). Dies ist eine äußerst glückliche Verbindungsnummer, mit einer Warnung. Es reduziert auf die einzige Zahl 8, so ist es wichtig für alle mit 17 als Compound Key Number sorgfältig lesen Sie den Abschnitt über die Zahlen 4 und 8 Klicken Sie hier für mehr Der Symbolismus und spirituelle Bedeutung der Zahl 153 In der jüdischen Tradition, die Walnuss Ist berüchtigt für seine Klipah, seine Schalen. Bevor wir an den Kern kommen können, müssen wir Schicht auf Schicht der Abwehrstreifen wegstreifen. Die Walnuss ist symbolisch fast eine Analogie der Welt. Es hat vier verschiedene Schutzschichten: 1) Unehrlichkeit und Selbsttäuschung, 2) Nachbarschaft und blinde Vorurteile, 3) Unwillen und Trägheit, 4) Nebel und Wolken der Gewohnheit und Geschichte. Alle müssen gehen, bevor wir vorankommen. Während wir uns bemühen, zu ändern, fallen die Masken und die Rüstung weg und wir erreichen eine klare Wahrnehmung von uns. Die Walnuss ist ein Paradigma der Unterdrückung, die alle mannigfaltigen Bemühungen der Unehrlichkeit repräsentiert, damit wir uns nicht sehen, wie wir wirklich sind. Die Walnuss ist mit der Primzahl 17 verbunden, die auch der Wert des hebräischen Wortes für die Sünde ist. Es beschreibt einen Pfeil, der weit von der Mark gezeichnet wird, und stellt die natürliche Welt dar, die von allen seinen geistigen Verbindungen getrennt wird. Das Rohmaterial unseres Körpers, die Werkzeuge, mit denen wir dem Geist der Haschem dienen wollen, wird für uns sein. In der Beschreibung einer Seele, die ihren Körper am Ende eines Lebens untersucht, nach Vermögenswerten sucht, um aus den Trümmern der Vergangenheit zu retten, steht geschrieben (Gesang der Lieder), ging ich auf den Hain der Walnüsse zu sehen und sehen. Die Kabbalisten sahen in der Form der Walnuss viele interessante Dinge. Der Kernel erinnert an das Gehirn mit seinen Windungen und Striktionen. Aber während unsere Gehirne zwei Lappen haben, hat die Walnuss vier Lappen. Das Universum, nach der Kabbalists hat vier Lappen. Die Walnuss wurde verwendet, um Symbole aus dem Himmelswagen des Hesekiel zu imitieren, das Konzept von Adam und Eva im Garten Eden. Nach dem Buch der Balance von Jacircbir Ibn Hayyacircn, Alchemist und Sufi, die Form (sura) von irgendwelchen Dingen in der Welt ist 17 die Zahl 17 repräsentiert die Basis der Theorie der Balance und muss als die Regel betrachtet werden Die Balance jedes Dinges. Siebzehn Menschen und Nationen sind an den Pfingsten anwesend: Galiläa, Parther, Meder und Elamiter, Völker aus Mesopotamien, Judäa und Kappadokien, Pontus und Asien, Phrygien und Pamphylien, Ägypten und die Teile Libyens ringsum Cyrene, Einwohner von Rom, Juden und Juden Proselyten gleichermaßen, Kreter und Araber. (Ap 2,7-11) Joseph war siebzehn Jahre alt, als er von seinen Brüdern verkauft und in Ägypten eskortiert wurde. (Gn 37,2) Die sieben Richter seit dem Tod Josuas bis Samuel: Othonial, Aod, Samgar, Jahel, Deborah, Barac, Gideon, Abimelech, Thola, Jair, Jepheth, Abezan, Ahialon, Abdon, Samson, Eli und Samuel . Rehabeam, der Sohn Salomos, regierte siebzehn Jahre in Jerusalem. (1 K 14,21) Joahas, der Sohn Jehus, regierte siebzehn Jahre in Israel nach Samaria. (2 K 13,1) Die Zehn Gebote Gottes wurden in 17 Versen zum zwanzigsten Kapitel des Buches des Exodus gegeben. Jakob lebte siebzehn Jahre im Lande Ägypten. (Gn 47,28) Der Pentateuch enthält 5852 oder 17x7x7x7777 Verse. 1533 Verse der Genesis können auch wie 17x707x7x7 oder 17x7707707 ausgedrückt werden. Das Buch des Exodus enthält (1717) x (1717) 57 oder 1213 Verse. Es ist 17x7 kürzer als 666666. Zahl: 17: Die Macht von 7 handeln durch die Vermittlung von 1. Empfänglichkeit für den Göttlichen Willen in Aktion. Wenn wir meditieren, löst sich das Gefühl der Trennung zwischen dem Meditierenden und dem Gegenstand der Meditation auf, und wir sind es, die von dem Einen meditiert werden. Meditation bedeutet, lernen, wie man aus dem Weg, so dass Meditation kann durch uns als ein Instrument für denjenigen, der fortwährend meditiert ALLE in Existenz. Die ewige Wahrheit, die wir von unserem (falschen, illusorischen, getrennten) Selbst, tun nichts. Meditation ist die Tätigkeit, durch die uns dies letztendlich offenbart wird. Auch da 17 auf 8 reduziert, zeigt die Meditation die Mittel, mit denen die Erkenntnis des Großen Geheimnisses erreicht wird. Tarot Key: Der Stern, wo Key 16 mit Dunkelheit, Action und Zerstörung gefüllt ist, ist Key 17 mit Ruhe, Frieden und tiefe Schönheit gefüllt. Wenn wir den wahren Frieden erleben wollen, müssen wir uns der Zerstörung unserer falschen Türme der Isolation unterziehen.7 Die Untersuchung dieses Tarotschlüssels hilft, eine größere Empfänglichkeit für die Wahrheit zu entwickeln. Die Zahl 17 entspricht 8 (178). Beachten Sie alle Sterne haben acht Punkte. Acht ist Stärke, die Qualität, die nötig ist, um eure Fehler zu akzeptieren und euch trotzdem zu lieben. MEHR AUF DER 17 (STERN) TAROT-KARTE SIEVENTEEN IN DER SCHRIFT steht außerordentlich herausragend als bedeutende Zahl. Es ist kein Vielfaches einer anderen Zahl, und daher hat es keine Faktoren. Daher heißt es eine der Primzahlen (oder unteilbar). Außerdem ist sie die siebte in der Liste der Primzahlen. Die Reihe läuft 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 usw. Dreizehn ist, wie man bemerken wird, auch eine Primzahl und daher wichtig, aber sie ist das sechste der Reihe Bedeutung der Zahl 6 und ist in der Tat ein intensivierter Ausdruck von ihr. Ebenso ist siebzehn die siebte der Reihe, sie nimmt an und verstärkt die Bedeutung der Zahl sieben. Tatsächlich ist es die Kombination oder Summe zweier vollkommener Zahlen, die sieben und zehnzehn Jahre später die Zahl der geistigen Vollkommenheit und zehn Ordnungsvollkommenheit sind. Im Gegensatz dazu ist die Bedeutung dieser beiden Zahlen klar, und wenn sie in der Zahl siebzehn vereint sind, haben wir eine Vereinigung ihrer jeweiligen Bedeutungen, d. H. Spirituelle Perfektion, plus ordinal Perfektion, oder die Vollkommenheit der spirituellen Ordnung. Wir sehen eine schöne Illustration, in der die erste große Teilung dieses allwichtigen Briefes abschließt und die Segnungen der Toten zusammenfasst, die in Christus gestorben und auferstanden sind. Zuerst haben wir eine Reihe von sieben, dann eine Reihe von zehn. Die sieben sind abgesteckt, indem sie in Form einer Frage gestellt werden, während die zehn als Antwort darauf gegeben werden. Wer uns von der Liebe Christi trennen wird, 1. Drangsal, 2. Oder Verzweiflung, 3. oder Verfolgung, 4. Oder Hunger, 5. oder Blöße, 6. Oder Gefahr, 7. Oder Schwert, wie geschrieben steht: Für Thy Sake sind wir den ganzen Tag getötet wir sind wie Schafe für die Schlachtung erklärt. Nein, in all diesen Dingen sind wir mehr als Eroberer durch ihn, der uns geliebt hat. Denn ich bin überzeugt, dass, 8. Weder der Tod (1), 9. Nicht das Leben (2), 10. Die Engel (3), 11. Nicht die Fürstentümer (4), 12. Nicht die Gegenwart (5), 13. (6), 14. Noch Kräfte (7), 15. Noch Höhe (8), 16. Noch Tiefe (9), 17. Auch keine andere Kreatur (10) kann uns von der Liebe Gottes, die in Christus Jesus, unserem Herrn, ist. So wird die geistige und ewige Vollendung der in Christus stehenden Gläubigen dargestellt. Indem wir die schlüssige Antwort auf die Frage bilden und uns die positive Sicherheit (wenn auch in negativer Form) geben, scheint es, als wäre die Zahl zehn mehr als sieben, wenn sie so zusammen verwendet wird. Es ist so in 2 Chronik 2, wo, in Vers 7, Salomo sendet an Hiram für einen listigen Arbeiter, und sieben Einzelheiten werden spezifiziert und in Vers 14 ein Mann gesendet und seine Qualifikationen werden in zehn Einzelheiten aufgezählt. Eine wichtigere Illustration findet sich dort, wo die alte Dispensation und die Neue so kontrastiert werden: Ihr seid nicht gekommen, 1. Auf den Berge, der berührt werden könnte, 2. Und der mit Feuer verbrannt, 3. Und nicht auf die Schwärze Dunkelheit, 5. Und Sturm, 6. Und der Klang einer Trompete, 7. Und die Stimme der Worte. Aber ihr seid gekommen 8. Auf den Berg Zion (1), 9. Und auf die Stadt des lebendigen Gottes (2). 10. Das himmlische Jerusalem (3), 11. Und an eine unzählige Engelgesellschaft (4), 12. an die Generalversammlung (5), 13. die Erstgeborene, die im Himmel geschrieben sind (6), 14. Und zu Gott den Richter aller (7), 15. Und zu den Geistern der Gerechten, die vollkommen sind (8), 16. Und zu Jesus, dem Mittler des Neuen Bundes (9), 17. Und zu dem Blut, das zu streuen Spricht besser als Abel (10). Auch hier sind die Segnungen des Neuen Bundes höher als die des Alten, sowohl an Zahl als auch an Bedeutung. Die Alten waren geistig (7), aber die letzteren sind mehr, denn sie sind doppelt die Manifestation der göttlichen Gnade, zehn oder 2 x 5 gibt uns die zehn und die sieben in einer anderen Ordnung. Die Verse 6-9 geben uns eine Konföderation von zehn Feinden, um Israel ausgestorben zu machen und sie davon abzuhalten, ein Volk zu sein, während die Verse 10 und 12 uns eine Aufzählung von sieben Feinden geben, die der Herr in der Vergangenheit zerstört hatte Das Gebet, das er der Konföderation der Zehn tat, die er den sieben in der Vergangenheit getan hatte. Die Kommentatoren stimmen darin überein, daß in der Vergangenheit Israels keine solche Konföderation gefunden werden kann, so daß wir den Schluß schließen, daß der Psalm proleptisch ist und von einer noch künftigen Konföderation spricht, von der die späteren Propheten besonders sprechen. Verse 6-9: Die zehnfache Konföderation: 151 1. Edom 2. Die Ismaeliter 3. Moab 4. Die Hagarener 5. Gebal 6. Ammon 7. Amalek 8. Die Philister 9. Reifen 10. Assur (Assyrien) Dann folgen In den Versen 10-12 die sieben Tage, die in den vergangenen Tagen zerstört worden waren: 11. Midianites (1), Richter 7: 8 12. Sisera (2), Richter 4: 5, 21 13. Jabin (3), Richter 4: 5, 21 14. Oreb (4), Richter 7:25 15. Zeeb (5), Richter 7:25 16. Zebah (6), Richter 8: 5 17. Zalmunna (7), Richter 8: 5 Die Zahl siebzehn (nicht nur das Wort) hat eine eigene Bedeutung und daher eine Bedeutung, die berücksichtigt werden muß, wo immer sie im Wort Gottes selbst oder als Faktor erscheint. Es bildet einen großen Faktor in der Zahl 153 ZUSÄTZLICHE VERSCHIEDENE ILLUSTRATIONEN Seventeen Angelic Auftritte werden in den Evangelien und in den Akten aufgezeichnet: 151 1-3. 3. Mose 1:20, 2: 13,19 4. Dem Herrn in der Wüste, Matthäus 4:11 5. In Gethsemane, Lukas 22:43 6. Auf dem Stein am Grabe, Matthäus 28,2; In dem Grabe, Markus 16: 5 8. Zu Zecharias, Lukas 1:11 9. Zu Maria, Lukas 1:26 10, 11. Zwei zu den Hirten, Lukas 2: 9,13 12. Am Becken von Bethesda, Johannes 5: 4 13. Den Jüngern, Apostelgeschichte 1:11 14. Den Jüngern im Gefängnis, Apostelgeschichte 5:19 15. An Cornelius, Apostelgeschichte 10: 3 16. Dem Petrus im Gefängnis, Apostelgeschichte 12: 7 17. An Paulus , Apostelgeschichte 27:23 Das erste alchimistische Werk, das im Westen erscheinen sollte, war eine Abhandlung, die wie viele andere dem Hermes Trismegistus zugeschrieben wurde. Laut Leo Stavenhagen stammt diese Aufzählung von Robertus Castrenis, der 1182 den Text von Arabisch ins Lateinische übersetzte und später 1559 in Paris unter dem Titel: Booklet Morienus Romanus, der alte Eremitage von Jerusalem, erschien Die Verklärung der Metalle und das Ganze der alten Philosophen Okkulte Künste, nie zuvor veröffentlicht. Die Geschichte betrifft Khalid, einen König, der jahrelang nach einem Mann gesucht hatte, der als Morienus der Grieche beschrieben wurde, der als Einsiedler in den Bergen von Jerusalem lebte, weil er das Geheimnis des Großen Werks herausfinden wollte. Der König hat Gelegenheit, in eine andere Stadt zu reisen, wo ein Mann zu ihm kommt und ihm sagt, er habe sein Haus in den Bergen von Jerusalem gemacht und kenne einen Weisen, einen Einsiedler, der das Wissen besitzt, das der König sucht. Nach der Warnung des Mannes über die Strafe, die er erwarten kann, wenn sich herausstellt, dass er lügt, gibt der König ihm viele Geschenke und arrangiert für ihn, eine Expedition auf der Suche nach dem Weisen zu führen. Der Erzähler Ghalib, der die Expedition begleitet, erzählt, wie es ihnen endlich gelingt, den Weisen zu finden. Er war groß von Statur, wenn auch im Alter, 147 wir lesen, und obwohl schlank, so edel von Antlitz und Visage, dass er ein Wunder zu sehen war. Dennoch trug er ein Haarkleid, dessen Zeichen auf seiner Haut getragen wurden.148 36 Bei ihrem Gebot stimmt er zu, dem Hofe für ein Publikum mit dem König zu kommen. Wenn der König fragt der Mann seinen Namen die Antwort kommt: Ich heiße Morienus der Grieche. Der König fragt, wie lange er in den Bergen gelebt hat und erfährt, dass Morienus seit über hundertfünfzig Jahren dort war. Gut freut sich dieser Fremde, der König gibt Morienus sein eigenes Quartier und fängt an, ihn zweimal täglich zu besuchen. Sie sprechen von vielen Dingen und wachsen sehr nahe. Eines Tages fordert der König Morienus auf, ihm von der Großen Arbeit zu erzählen. Als Morienus ihm dies würdig erklärt, erzählt er ihm, dass er die Einweihung erreicht hat, und stimmt zu, ihn zu unterweisen, indem er betont, dass nichts erreicht werden kann, wenn es dem göttlichen Willen widerspricht. Er spricht davon, wie Gott gewählte wählen wollte, um nach dem Wissen zu suchen, das er gegründet hatte, und wie im Laufe der Zeit dieses Wissen verloren gegangen ist, außer für das, was in sehr wenigen Büchern verbleibt, die schwer verständlich sind, da die Alten gesucht haben Bewahrt die Geheimnisse, um Narren in ihren bösen Absichten zu verwirren. Weil dieses Wissen verkleidet war, muß jeder, der es lernen wollte, seine Maximen verstehen. Morienus fängt an zu betonen, dass die Arbeit nur eine Sache ist. Zahlreiche Autoritäten, darunter Hermes, Moses, Maria und Zosimos, werden von Morienus zitiert, um das zu rechtfertigen, was er sagt, und die Lehre über die Einheit wird immer wieder wiederholt. Es gibt nur eine Bühne und einen Pfad, der für seine Meisterschaft notwendig ist. Obwohl alle Behörden verschiedene Namen und Maximen verwendeten, bedeuteten sie nur eine Sache, einen Weg und eine Stufe.148 Die Methode, die befolgt werden soll, ist die Nachahmung der Natur und wie die Natur durch die Prozesskausalität gekennzeichnet: Für das Verhalten Dieser Operation, müssen Sie Paarung, Produktion von Nachkommen, Schwangerschaft, Geburt und Aufzucht. Die Aufführung dieser Komposition wird mit der Generation des Menschen verglichen, die der große Schöpfer am höchsten nicht nach der Weise, in der ein Haus gebaut wird, noch als alles andere, das durch die Hand des Menschen gebaut wird, gemacht hat. Denn ein Haus wird gebaut, indem man ein Objekt auf ein anderes stellt, aber der Mensch ist nicht aus Objekten gemacht. 38 Morienus leitet dann den König über die Details der zu wählenden Substanzen, die Proportionen, wie man sie mischen, wann sie zu erhitzen und für wie lange, immer wiederkehren, dass Gottes Hilfe benötigt wird. Er beharrt auf dem Bedürfnis nach persönlicher Erfahrung und sagt dem König, daß er, bevor er mit seinen Erklärungen fortfahren wird, die Dinge, die mit diesen Namen aufgerufen werden, vorbringt, damit ihr sie seht und mit ihnen in eurer Gegenwart zusammenarbeitet. Der diesen Vorgang gesehen hat, ist nicht derjenige, der es nur durch Bücher gesucht hat. 39 Schließlich sagt er, dass es keine Kraft und keine Hilfe, außer durch den Willen des großen Gottes am höchsten, und der Erzähler schreibt: Hier endet das Buch Morienus, wie es genannt wird. Gott sei Dank. 40 Diese Abhandlung ist paradigmatisch für die Art und Weise, wie Geltung und Autorität der Erfahrung in der alchemistischen Tradition miteinander verbunden sind. Zunächst ist Morienus in der Lage, das Vertrauen des Königs allein auf der Grundlage der Antworten, die er gibt, um Fragen über seine persönliche Erfahrung in seinem ersten Publikum mit dem König zu gewinnen. Später erzählt Morienus dem König, dass er, bevor er mit Unterweisungen fortfährt, verschiedene Schritte durchführen wird, während der König wacht, damit Sie sie sehen können, da einer, der diesen Vorgang durchgeführt hat, nicht so ist, der es nur durch gesucht hat Bücher. SURA 17 DES QURAN VON MUHAMMAD Weißes Haus - Wenn Sie durch die Mitte des Pentagrams des Weißen Hauses fahren, kommen Sie zu einem bemerkenswerten Gebäude an 1733 16th Straße. Beachten Sie die Zahl: 1733. Die Zahl 17 wiederholt sich immer wieder in der Geschichte von Rennes-le-Chateau, und 33 ist die offizielle Zahl der Grade im schottischen Ritus der Freimaurerei. Prime Number 17 Seite der Zahlen Ein kleiner Spaß mit dieser Nummer:. OAT BRAN: Der falsche Prophet Essen Sie nicht das Brot von ihm, der einen bösen Blick hat. Den Bissen, den du gegessen hast, sollst du erbrechen und deine süßen Worte verlieren. Satan hat so eklatant sein Wort in die Gesundheit - Nahrungsmittelverrücktheit kodiert und enthüllt den schrecklichen Scherz in einer offensichtlichen Weise. Suchen Sie die Botschaft implizit in den Wörtern O-A-T und B-R-A-N. Haferkleie ist sicherlich die größte Kraft in der Popularisierung der Gesundheit Lebensmittel. Und seltsam genug (oder nicht) gibt es eine verborgene Bedeutung. Wenn man die Zahlenwerte der Buchstaben (A1, B2, C3, Z26) addiert, wird die Meldung klar. Die Zahl 36 steht für 3 Sechs, oder sechs Quadrat ist gleich 36. So oder so, 666, ist die Teufel-Marke offenbart. Hafer-Kleie ist Satans Faser DIE 24 ELDERS UND DAS GROSSE TIER 666 Das Buch der Enthüllung beschreibt einen Baum, der zwölf Früchte hat. Nur der Tierkreis hat 12 Früchte, wie sie von den 12 Arbeiten von Hercules gesammelt wurden. Jedes der 12 Zeichen hat positive und negative Eigenschaften, so spricht Offenbarung von den 24 Ältesten um den Thron Gottes. In gleicher Weise jedes Zeichen des Tierkreises misst 30 Grad in Umfang und hat drei Dekane, jeder von zehn Grad, so dass insgesamt 36 Dekane im Kreis des Tierkreises. Die Zahl des Tieres. Nehmen wir die Zahl 36 und addieren jede Zahl von 1 bis 36 ist die Summe 666. Wir beschreiben hier die Qualitäten, die den Gradpositionen des Kreises innewohnen. Anstatt eine Satanische Zahl zu sein, wie sie von sogenannten christlichen Doom-Sagern verkündet wird, ist diese Zahl 666 tatsächlich eine kabbalistische Darstellung der sechsten Sephira Tiphareth, Harmonie und Schönheit, die das Zentrum des Baumes des Lebens in ihrer Manifestation ist Die Trinität, 111. Beachten Sie auch, dass 666 die Mitte der 6. Kammer des Qabalistic AIQ BKR, Wert von 333 von Gematria anzeigt. Nun ist die astrologische Zuordnung von Tiphareth die Kugel der Sonne, sowie die physische Manifestation des Kindes oder Sohnes. Entsprechend besteht der antike Chaldäische Astrologen Magische Quadrat der Sonne aus 6 x 6 36 Quadraten, die von 1 bis 36 numeriert sind, die Zahl 36 numerologisch zu 666. Dieser Magickal-Platz ist wie folgt aufgebaut: Helios die physische Sonne ist mit der Zahl 666 gleichgesetzt. Das magische Quadrat der Sonne war eines der bedeutendsten Symbole, um die Sonne in der Antike zu repräsentieren, und zwar wegen der ganzen Symbolik, die sie mit der vollkommenen Zahl 6 besaß. Es gibt sechs Seiten zu einem Würfel, die Zahlen 1, 2 und 3 , Wenn addiert oder multipliziert, gleich 6 sind und die Summe aller Zahlen von 1 bis 36, die in einem 6x6 magischen Quadrat angeordnet sind, gleich der Zahl 666 ist. Das Quadrat ist magisch, weil die Summe irgendeiner Zeile, Spalte oder Diagonale Ist gleich der Zahl 111. Da die frühen Christen Heiden bekehrten, war einer der Ploys, die die frühen Lehrer der Kirche Heiden zum Christentum bekehrten, dass Jesus Christus mehr Sonnenattribute hatte als jeder andere Gott. Matthäus 17,2 sagt, dass sein Angesicht sogar als die Sonne strahlen sollte. Matt. 17: 2 - Und verklärt wurde vor ihnen und sein Angesicht leuchtete, wie die Sonne und seine Kleidung weiß wie das Licht war. Das griechische Alphabet hat 26 Buchstaben, jedes mit einem anderen numerischen Wert. Die griechische Schreibweise Jesu ist IESOUS. Der numerische Wert von IESOUS 888, der die Spiritual Sun oder Solar Logos darstellt. Am Anfang war der Logos das Evangelium von Johannes und in den Worten des Logos selbst bin ich das Licht der Welt. Alle, die in die Welt geboren sind, sind von der physischen Sonne äußerlich erleuchtet, aber nur diejenigen, die ihre Aufmerksamkeit auf die Welt der ersten Prinzipien zurückführen, sind von der geistigen Sonne des Logos innerlich erleuchtet. Die frühen Christen behaupteten, dass IESOUS ein Name über alle Namen war. Frühe gnostische Christen waren sich bewusst genug, um diese Vergleiche zu machen. Der erhabene Jesus (888) wurde als die geistige Sonne bekannt. In einem Traum habe ich geahnt, dass die drei Phasen der Sonne Furcht, Teilen und Liebe waren. DER MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD Gegenwärtig expandieren die Raum - und Zeitdynamik des Planetenherzens. Diese Erweiterung von Gaias Heart ist die Schaffung einer Situation, wo plötzlich, wie wir ins 21. Jahrhundert zu bewegen, gibt es mehr spirituellen Raum, in dem sich zu bewegen. Beziehungen, die in Positionen der Starrheit stecken, finden nun, dass neue Bewegungen und damit neue Beziehungen möglich sind. Die Immortalistin Annalee Skarin hat erklärt, dass mehr Männer und Frauen als Hohepriester und Hohepriesterinnen von Melchisedek in den nächsten 30 bis 40 Jahren als je zuvor in der Geschichte des Planeten auftreten werden. Dies ist auf die Erweiterung des Gaian-Herzens zurückzuführen, das wir jetzt erleben. Paulus, im 8. Kapitel der Römer, hat eine tiefe Vision, die die planetarische Herz-Veränderung beschreibt, die wir jetzt in der Mitte sind. Er fühlt, dass die ganze Schöpfung in der Geburtswehen der Geburt liegt und auf die Geburt der vielen unsterblichen Söhne und Töchter des Göttlichen wartet. Denn wenn diese Wesen erscheinen, dann wird das ganze Universum der Freiheit sicher sein - denn die Arbeit dieser Kinder des Göttlichen ist es, alle Materie in Frequenzen über Entropie, Zerfall und Tod zu erheben. Paul war weit vor seiner Zeit, die wesentliche Beziehung zwischen Gaia und Individuen zu sehen. Die Herz-Gebärmutter von Gaia erweitert - und die unsterblichen Kinder der globalen Regeneration entstehen. Rene Guenon, in his book The Lord of the World, offers many valuable insights into the Melchizedek lineage. The name itself is originally spelled Melki-Tsedeq, which means the Tsaddik of Malkuth. In English, this is translated as the Just Adept of the Earth. The Tsaddik is one who has adjusted his or her Being to a point of perfect harmony while Living on the Earth. In the Hassidic tradition, there are always 36 Tsaddiks on the earth at all times. When the process of Tiqqun, or material ascension, is complete, then Messiah appears as the 37th Tsaddik. These 36 Tsaddiks are Perfect Heart-Masters, are physically Immortal, and are thus forever able to offer the Communion of the Grail. I would like to explain why there are traditionally 36 and to show their connections to the numbers 37 and 666. We often hear of 666 being the number of the Solar Logos and the ideal length of Glastonbury Abbey. These associations are all derived from the Hebrew Cabala. In the Cabalistic Tree of Life, spheres are traditionally numbered from the Crown Chakra-Kether downwards. The Heart chakra-Tiphareth is numbered 6 in this pattern. Each sphere has a magickal square. The square for Tiphareth-sun-Heart chakra is constructed by using its number 6: A square with 6 columns and 6 rows, or 6 215 6 36 sub-squares. Then the numbers 1 through 36 are placed in these 36 boxes so that each row or column adds up to 111. Thus the total value of the square of the sun is 666 - the Solar Logos. Six hundred sixty-six is 18 times 37. Thus the 36 Tsaddiks maintain the planetary grid which grounds the solar-666 force which is Christing Gaia. In Cabala, the term which describes the work of the Tsaddiks, Tiqqun, also has the value 666. Tiqqun means the translation of all matter into Union with the Immortal Frequencies of the Divine - this brings us back to our theme of Communion. For True Communion always has as its Divine Purpose the Total Transformation of Matter in a Way that Glorifies Aliveness, Liberty, Light amp Love. This is forever the Work of the Heart Master. Each of the 36 Tsaddik Heart Masters is responsible for giving Immortal Grail Communion to 4000 individuals. This is how the number 144,000 is generated out of the Heart, for 36 215 4000 144,000. This number has been associated with the planetary changes initiated by Harmonic Convergence in August of 1987. To fulfill the prophecy of Annalee Skarin, we are now in the process of creating over a hundredfold increase in Immortals on the earth. At the present time the original 36 Heart Masters are focused in 12 groups of 3, each triune group acting as midwife at each of the 12 primary Gates of the New Jerusalem - 12 specific sacred sites which are giving birth to the New Aeon. One Child is emerging from 12 wombs. When this 12-womb birth is manifested and rooted, then the 36 Tsaddiks shift locations so that there is one Tsaddik at each of 36 distinct sacred sites. Within the next 30 to 40 years each Tsaddik shall have initiated a minimum of 4000 individuals into Mastery of the Way of Everlasting Life - Physical Immortality. The 144,000 are all now alive, incarnate. Rituals conducted in the Andes - at Lake Titicaca and Machu Picchu - on the Wesak Full Moon in May 1987 were specifically dedicated to Blessing the Birth of these 144,000. It should be noted that this number is a minimum figure - I am sure that many more than this shall find the Way of Immortal Communion before we advance to the mid-point of the 21st Century. In this vision of earth evolution, Tsaddiks may be interpreted as initiatory spirits of location, or as individual beings working in conjunction with the Gaian Will. The archetypes of Planetary Surrealism may be interpreted in many ways. Always remember that this work is Creative and Artistic. Men in Black and the Number 36 In a word, the 1997 Hollywood film Men in Black is the unmodified, though modernized, retelling of an ancient Jewish legend called the 36 Righteous Men Before the story itself, lets look at the source of the legend - the Midrash. Midrash is a Jewish term from the Hebrew verb darash that means, to search and, therefore, to make exposition. It is the title of a body of Jewish literature used in the centuries just before and after Jesus, that was designed to reveal an interpretation of the Scriptures that was not apparent on the surface. It is a running commentary by various scholars on Biblical texts. It refers to both a method of interpretation and a body of literature. There is not one book called the Midrash, but rather many anthologies of Midrashim compiled between the 2nd and 14th centuries CE. The collections of Midrashim fall into two broad categories, Midrash Halacha (Jewish law) and Midrash Aggada (legends). In Midrash Halacha, the main focus is on the legal sections of Torah. The main anthologies in this category are Mechilta (Collection) on Exodus Sifra (Book) on Leviticus and Sifrei (Books) on Numbers and Deuteronomy. These became the basis of later legal literature, the Mishnah and both Talmuds. Midrash Aggada is what most people think of when using the term Midrash. This kind of Midrash deals with mostly non-legal issues, including filling in the blanks in the narrative, philosophy, ethics. and legends. And from the Midrash Agadda comes the story of the 36 Hidden Saints. According to Jewish folklore the hidden saints, called the Lamed Vav Zaddikim, are responsible for the fate of the universe (and in some versions of the story, one of them may be the Messiah). Thirty-six is the number of anonymous righteous men living in the world in every generation. They are privileged to see the Divine Presence, and the world exists solely on their merit. They perform Tikkun Olam - the healing of the world. They go unnoticed by others because of their humble nature and commonplace vocation. At times of great peril, however, the Lamed Vav Zaddikim make a dramatic appearance, using their hidden powers to defeat the enemies of Israel, after which they return, as mysteriously as they appear, to a highly desired obscurity. (This is probably the source of the Greek myth of the Cincinnatus.) In Hebrew, the 36 Righteous Men are called the Lamed Vav Zaddikim. Lamed and vav are the third and sixth letters of the Hebrew alphabet respectively, and form the number 36. It is possible that the number 36 derives from Jewish (and ancient Babylonian) astrology. It is believed that there are 36 celestial deacons, each of which rules ten days of the year. Thus we have the ten degrees of each constellation. A Zaddik (also transliterated Tzadik or Tsadik) is a holy man, though not necessarily directly associated with religion. He can be anyone. Since the story is also known in Yiddish, the language of the Chassidic Jew, we can assume that the 36 Hidden Saints, like the Chassids who told the story, wore black. Thus, the Lamed Vav Zaddikim are the original Men in Black. As you can see, the major change from the legend of the Lamed Vav Zaddikim to Men in Black is minuscule - the change in the number of the hidden saints. However, even here there is a very strong link. The number of MiBs must be 26 because each is named after a letter of the alphabet. Certainly 26 is a clear echo of 36 And moving from a celestial numerological source to a literary numerological source seems a reasonable step both for a film and for a twentieth-century transformation of a legend. The transformation of the numerology is itself interesting. Hebrew uses the alphabet for both characters and numerals (as do most languages around the world). In English, we use the Arabic alphabet for our numerals, hence Arabic Numerals. Thus, the modernization of the story has actually made a retrograde contribution to alphabetic numerology: it treats the English alphabet as if it were composed of numbers, i. e. 26 letters of the alphabet now become the number of the Zaddikim. If we were to pursue this into the intricacies of the Kabbala (the Jewish mystical studies that include alchemy and numerology), we could easily note that in modernizing the older myth to make it more palatable to contemporary political and gender sensibilities, the authors have introduced an African-American character who, in turn, brings a woman into the story. The mathematical difference between the old and the new stories is 10 (36 - 26 10) and the character who causes the increase by subtraction is himself 10, for J is the tenth letter of the English alphabet. Once all these connections are pointed out, there is little left to say about the movie. If the story was composed by the screenwriters naively, then Carl Jung (with his idea of a Collective Unconscious which contains archetypal figures that are expressed in the physical world in the forms of the stories we tell and live by), on the evidence in this movie, should be posthumously awarded the Nobel Prize and the McArthur Award all rolled into one. If the screenwriters did this consciously, then my hat is off to some very clever and psychologically perceptive writers. In either case, Men in Black may be the first totally Jewish movie that has not a single obvious Jew in it. In some ways, the film even corrects its sources. Jewish legends are notoriously sexist (though there are a surprisingly large number about heroic, active and competent women). In particular, this is the legend of the 36 men who save the world. At the end of Men in Black, a woman is inducted as an equal. In this way the film expands the ancient legend into our twentieth century sensibilities - now women can participate equally in the saving of the world. As an additional note, I would like to point out that the story is embellished with other references, primarily to Franz Kafka. Agents J and K seem to be references to Joseph K., the protagonist of The Trial (1925). In addition, the idea of giant cockroach as nemesis, especially one disguised as a human, is a clear reference to Metamorphosis (1915). In general, Kafkas works are recognized as symbolizing modern mans anxiety-ridden and grotesque alienation in an unintelligible, hostile, or indifferent world. And this too is echoed in this films paranoia about the Earth having been invaded long ago by potentially dangerous aliens who look just like us. Furthermore, Kafkas style forms a striking contrast to the labyrinthine complexities, the anxiety-laden absurdities, and the powerfully oppressive symbols of torment and anomie. Most popular critics agree with Roger Ebert that wicked little side jokes like that are the heart and soul of Men in Black. And certainly seeing Sylvester Stallone, Newt Gingrich, Dionne Warwick, Dennis Rodman and Elvis (he didnt die, he just went home) as aliens is fun. But these mainstream critics have all missed the point by ignoring the archetypal nature of films, especially Men in Black. Well, between ancient Jewish legends and Franz Kafka, Men in Black is certainly more than the usual Hollywood summer entertainment. What I find fascinating about the film is that it proves (once again) that depth and intelligence, mythic basis and psychological insight do not preclude popularity. In fact, when done with sufficient wit, they guarantee it. And, its good to know that someone out there is taking care of us. Originally published in The Hi-Q Film Review. Subscription information is available from Hiqrevuaol. Copyright 1997 Arthur Taussig. KARATE AND THE NUMBER 36 NUMEROLOGY AND THE NUMBER 36 THE CIRCLE AND 36360 The number of 36 was the highest oath for the Pythagorean. They are captivated by the following mathematical properties of this number: 36 12345678 (1357) (2468). As the number of 36 is formed as the sum of the first four odd numbers and the first four even numbers Pythagorean made conclusion that 36 is a symbol of the world. QUALITY OF NUMBERS Third tractate: The knowing hypostases and the transcendent Written by Plotinus, 250 AD 1. Are we to think that a being knowing itself must contain diversity, that self-knowledge can be affirmed only when some one phase of the self perceives other phases, and that therefore an absolutely simplex entity would be equally incapable of introversion and of self-awareness No: a being that has no parts or phases may have this consciousness in fact there would be no real self-knowing in an entity presented as knowing itself in virtue of being a compound - some single element in it perceiving other elements - as we may know our own form and entire bodily organism by sense-perception: such knowing does not cover the whole field the knowing element has not had the required cognisance at once of its associates and of itself this is not the self-knower asked for it is merely something that knows something else. Either we must exhibit the self-knowing of an uncompounded being - and show how that is possible - or abandon the belief that any being can possess veritable self-cognition. To abandon the belief is not possible in view of the many absurdities thus entailed. It would be already absurd enough to deny this power to the soul or mind, but the very height of absurdity to deny it to the nature of the Intellectual-Principle, presented thus as knowing the rest of things but not attaining to knowledge, or even awareness, of itself. It is the province of sense and in some degree of understanding and judgement, but not of the Intellectual-Principle, to handle the external, though whether the Intellectual-Principle holds the knowledge of these things is a question to be examined, but it is obvious that the Intellectual-Principle must have knowledge of the Intellectual objects. Now, can it know those objects alone or must it not simultaneously know itself, the being whose function it is to know just those things Can it have self-knowledge in the sense dismissed above as inadequate of knowing its content while it ignores itself Can it be aware of knowing its members and yet remain in ignorance of its own knowing self Self and content must be simultaneously present: the method and degree of this knowledge we must now consider. 2. We begin with the soul, asking whether it is to be allowed self-knowledge and what the knowing principle in it would be and how operating. The sense-principle in it we may at once decide, takes cognisance only of the external even in any awareness of events within the body it occupies, this is still the perception of something external to a principle dealing with those bodily conditions not as within but as beneath itself. The reasoning-principle in the Soul acts upon the representations standing before it as the result of sense-perception these it judges, combining, distinguishing: or it may also observe the impressions, so to speak, rising from the Intellectual-Principle, and has the same power of handling these and reasoning will develop to wisdom where it recognizes the new and late-coming impressions those of sense and adapts them, so to speak, to those it holds from long before - the act which may be described as the souls Reminiscence. So far as this, the efficacy of the Intellectual-Principle in the Soul certainly reaches but is there also introversion and self-cognition or is that power to be reserved strictly for the Divine Mind If we accord self-knowing to this phase of the soul we make it an Intellectual-Principle and will have to show what distinguishes it from its prior if we refuse it self-knowing, all our thought brings us step by step to some principle which has this power, and we must discover what such self-knowing consists in. If, again, we do allow self-knowledge in the lower we must examine the question of degree for if there is no difference of degree, then the reasoning principle in soul is the Intellectual-Principle unalloyed. We ask, then, whether the understanding principle in the soul has equally the power of turning inwards upon itself or whether it has no more than that of comprehending the impressions, superior and inferior, which it receives. The first stage is to discover what this comprehension is. 3. Sense sees a man and transmits the impression to the understanding. What does the understanding say It has nothing to say as yet it accepts and waits unless, rather, it questions within itself Who is this - someone it has met before - and then, drawing on memory, says, Socrates. If it should go on to develop the impression received, it distinguishes various elements in what the representative faculty has set before it supposing it to say Socrates, if the man is good, then, while it has spoken upon information from the senses, its total pronouncement is its own it contains within itself a standard of good. But how does it thus contain the good within itself It is, itself, of the nature of the good and it has been strengthened still towards the perception of all that is good by the irradiation of the Intellectual-Principle upon it for this pure phase of the soul welcomes to itself the images implanted from its prior. But why may we not distinguish this understanding phase as Intellectual-Principle and take soul to consist of the later phases from the sensitive downwards Because all the activities mentioned are within the scope of a reasoning faculty, and reasoning is characteristically the function of soul. Why not, however, absolve the question by assigning self-cognisance to this phase Because we have allotted to soul the function of dealing - in thought and in multiform action - with the external, and we hold that observation of self and of the content of self must belong to Intellectual-Principle. If any one says, Still what precludes the reasoning soul from observing its own content by some special faculty he is no longer posting a principle of understanding or of reasoning but, simply, bringing in the Intellectual-Principle unalloyed. But what precludes the Intellectual-Principle from being present, unalloyed, within the soul Nothing, we admit but are we entitled therefore to think of it as a phase of soul We cannot describe it as belonging to the soul though we do describe it as our Intellectual-Principle, something distinct from the understanding, advanced above it, and yet ours even though we cannot include it among soul-phases: it is ours and not ours and therefore we use it sometimes and sometimes not, whereas we always have use of the understanding the Intellectual-Principle is ours when we act by it, not ours when we neglect it. But what is this acting by it Does it mean that we become the Intellectual-Principle so that our utterance is the utterance of the Intellectual-Principle, or that we represent it We are not the Intellectual-Principle we represent it in virtue of that highest reasoning faculty which draws upon it. Still we perceive by means of the perceptive faculty and are, ourselves, the percipients: may we not say the same of the intellective act No: our reasoning is our own we ourselves think the thoughts that occupy the understanding - for this is actually the We - but the operation of the Intellectual-Principle enters from above us as that of the sensitive faculty from below the We is the soul at its highest, the mid-point between two powers, between the sensitive principle, inferior to us, and the intellectual principle superior. We think of the perceptive act as integral to ourselves because our sense-perception is uninterrupted we hesitate as to the Intellectual-Principle both because we are not always occupied with it and because it exists apart, not a principle inclining to us but one to which we incline when we choose to look upwards. The sensitive principle is our scout the Intellectual-Principle our King. 4. But we, too, are king when we are moulded to the Intellectual-Principle. That correspondence may be brought about in two ways: either the radii from that centre are traced upon us to be our law or we are filled full of the Divine Mind, which again may have become to us a thing seen and felt as a presence. Hence our self-knowing comes to the knowing of all the rest of our being in virtue of this thing patently present or by that power itself communicating to us its own power of self-knowing or by our becoming identical with that principle of knowledge. Thus the self-knower is a double person: there is the one that takes cognisance of the principle in virtue of which understanding occurs in the soul or mind and there is the higher, knowing himself by the Intellectual-Principle with which he becomes identical: this latter knows the self as no longer man but as a being that has become something other through and through: he has thrown himself as one thing over into the superior order, taking with him only that better part of the soul which alone is winged for the Intellectual Act and gives the man, once established There, the power to appropriate what he has seen. We can scarcely suppose this understanding faculty to be unaware that it has understanding that it takes cognisance of things external that in its judgements it decides by the rules and standards within itself held directly from the Intellectual-Principle that there is something higher than itself, something which, moreover, it has no need to seek but fully possesses. What can we conceive to escape the self-knowledge of a principle which admittedly knows the place it holds and the work it has to do It affirms that it springs from Intellectual-Principle whose second and image it is, that it holds all within itself, the universe of things, engraved, so to say, upon it as all is held There by the eternal engraver. Aware so far of itself, can it be supposed to halt at that Are we to suppose that all we can do is to apply a distinct power of our nature and come thus to awareness of that Intellectual-Principle as aware of itself Or may we not appropriate that principle - which belongs to us as we to it - and thus attain to awareness, at once, of it and of ourselves Yes: this is the necessary way if we are to experience the self-knowledge vested in the Intellectual-Principle. And a man becomes Intellectual-Principle when, ignoring all other phases of his being, he sees through that only and sees only that and so knows himself by means of the self - in other words attains the self-knowledge which the Intellectual-Principle possesses. 5. Does it all come down, then, to one phase of the self knowing another phase That would be a case of knower distinguished from known, and would not be self-knowing. What, then, if the total combination were supposed to be of one piece, knower quite undistinguished from known, so that, seeing any given part of itself as identical with itself, it sees itself by means of itself, knower and known thus being entirely without differentiation To begin with, the distinction in one self thus suggested is a strange phenomenon. How is the self to make the partition The thing cannot happen of itself. And, again, which phase makes it The phase that decides to be the knower or that which is to be the known Then how can the knowing phase know itself in the known when it has chosen to be the knower and put itself apart from the known In such self-knowledge by sundering it can be aware only of the object, not of the agent it will not know its entire content, or itself as an integral whole it knows the phase seen but not the seeing phase and thus has knowledge of something else, not self-knowledge. In order to perfect self-knowing it must bring over from itself the knowing phase as well: seeing subject and seen objects must be present as one thing. Now if in this coalescence of seeing subject with seen objects, the objects were merely representations of the reality, the subject would not possess the realities: if it is to possess them it must do so not by seeing them as the result of any self-division but by knowing them, containing them, before any self-division occurs. At that, the object known must be identical with the knowing act or agent, the Intellectual-Principle, therefore, identical with the Intellectual Realm. And in fact, if this identity does not exist, neither does truth the Principle that should contain realities is found to contain a transcript, something different from the realities that constitutes non-Truth Truth cannot apply to something conflicting with itself what it affirms it must also be. Thus we find that the Intellectual-Principle, the Intellectual Realm and Real Being constitute one thing, which is the Primal Being the primal Intellectual-Principle is that which contains the realities or, rather, which is identical with them. But taking Primal Intellection and its intellectual object to be a unity, how does that give an Intellective Being knowing itself An intellection enveloping its object or identical with it is far from exhibiting the Intellectual-Principle as self-knowing. All turns on the identity. The intellectual object is itself an activity, not a mere potentiality it is not lifeless nor are the life and intellection brought into it as into something naturally devoid of them, some stone or other dead matter no, the intellectual object is essentially existent, the primal reality. As an active force, the first activity, it must be, also itself, the noblest intellection, intellection possessing real being since it is entirely true and such an intellection, primal and primally existent, can be no other than the primal principle of Intellection: for that primal principle is no potentiality and cannot be an agent distinct from its act and thus, once more, possessing its essential being as a mere potentiality. As an act - and one whose very being is an act - it must be undistinguishably identical with its act: but Being and the Intellectual object are also identical with that act therefore the Intellectual-Principle, its exercise of intellection and the object of intellection all are identical. Given its intellection identical with intellectual object and the object identical with the Principle itself, it cannot but have self-knowledge: its intellection operates by the intellectual act which is itself upon the intellectual object which similarly is itself. It possesses self-knowing, thus, on every count the act is itself and the object seen in that act - self, is itself. 6. Thus we have shown that there exists that which in the strictest sense possesses self-knowing. This self-knowing agent, perfect in the Intellectual-Principle, is modified in the Soul. The difference is that, while the soul knows itself as within something else, the Intellectual-Principle knows itself as self-depending, knows all its nature and character, and knows by right of its own being and by simple introversion. When it looks upon the authentic existences it is looking upon itself its vision as its effective existence, and this efficacy is itself since the Intellectual-Principle and the Intellectual Act are one: this is an integral seeing itself by its entire being, not a part seeing by a part. But has our discussion issued in an Intellectual-Principle having a persuasive activity furnishing us with probability No: it brings compulsion not persuasion compulsion belongs to the Intellectual-Principle, persuasion to the soul or mind, and we seem to desire to be persuaded rather than to see the truth in the pure intellect. As long as we were Above, collected within the Intellectual nature, we were satisfied we were held in the intellectual act we had vision because we drew all into unity - for the thinker in us was the Intellectual-Principle telling us of itself - and the soul or mind was motionless, assenting to that act of its prior. But now that we are once more here - living in the secondary, the soul - we seek for persuasive probabilities: it is through the image we desire to know the archetype. Our way is to teach our soul how the Intellectual-Principle exercises self-vision the phase thus to be taught is that which already touches the intellective order, that which we call the understanding or intelligent soul, indicating by the very name that it is already of itself in some degree an Intellectual-Principle or that it holds its peculiar power through and from that Principle. This phase must be brought to understand by what means it has knowledge of the thing it sees and warrant for what it affirms: if it became what it affirms, it would by that fact possess self-knowing. All its vision and affirmation being in the Supreme or deriving from it - There where itself also is - it will possess self-knowledge by its right as a Reason-Principle, claiming its kin and bringing all into accord with the divine imprint upon it. The soul therefore to attain self-knowledge has only to set this image that is to say, its highest phase alongside the veritable Intellectual-Principle which we have found to be identical with the truths constituting the objects of intellection, the world of Primals and Reality: for this Intellectual-Principle, by very definition, cannot be outside of itself, the Intellectual Reality: self-gathered and unalloyed, it is Intellectual-Principle through all the range of its being - for unintelligent intelligence is not possible - and thus it possesses of necessity self-knowing, as a being immanent to itself and one having for function and essence to be purely and solely Intellectual-Principle. This is no doer the doer, not self-intent but looking outward, will have knowledge, in some kind, of the external, but, if wholly of this practical order, need have no self-knowledge where, on the contrary, there is no action - and of course the pure Intellectual-Principle cannot be straining after any absent good - the intention can be only towards the self at once self-knowing becomes not merely plausible but inevitable what else could living signify in a being immune from action and existing in Intellect 7. The contemplating of God, we might answer. But to admit its knowing God is to be compelled to admit its self-knowing. It will know what it holds from God, what God has given forth or may with this knowledge, it knows itself at the stroke, for it is itself one of those given things - in fact is all of them. Knowing God and His power, then, it knows itself, since it comes from Him and carries His power upon it if, because here the act of vision is identical with the object, it is unable to see God clearly, then all the more, by the equation of seeing and seen, we are driven back upon that self-seeing and self-knowing in which seeing and thing seen are undistinguishably one thing. And what else is there to attribute to it Repose, no doubt but, to an Intellectual-Principle, Repose is not an abdication from intellect its Repose is an Act, the act of abstention from the alien: in all forms of existence repose from the alien leaves the characteristic activity intact, especially where the Being is not merely potential but fully realized. In the Intellectual-Principle, the Being is an Act and in the absence of any other object it must be self-directed by this self-intellection it holds its Act within itself and upon itself all that can emanate from it is produced by this self-centering and self-intention first - self-gathered, it then gives itself or gives something in its likeness fire must first be self-centred and be fire, true to fires natural Act then it may reproduce itself elsewhere. Once more, then the Intellectual-Principle is a self-intent activity, but soul has the double phase, one inner, intent upon the Intellectual-Principle, the other outside it and facing to the external by the one it holds the likeness to its source by the other, even in its unlikeness, it still comes to likeness in this sphere, too, by virtue of action and production in its action it still contemplates, and its production produces Ideal-forms - divine intellections perfectly wrought out - so that all its creations are representations of the divine Intellection and of the divine Intellect, moulded upon the archetype, of which all are emanations and images, the nearer more true, the very latest preserving some faint likeness of the source. 8. Now comes the question what sort of thing does the Intellectual-Principle see in seeing the Intellectual Realm and what in seeing itself We are not to look for an Intellectual realm reminding us of the colour or shape to be seen on material objects: the intellectual antedates all such things and even in our sphere the production is very different from the Reason-Principle in the seeds from which it is produced. The seed principles are invisible and the beings of the Intellectual still more characteristically so the Intellectuals are of one same nature with the Intellectual Realm which contains them, just as the Reason-Principle in the seed is identical with the soul, or life-principle, containing it. But the Soul (considered as apart from the Intellectual-Principle) has no vision of what it thus contains, for it is not the producer but, like the Reason-Principles also, an image of its source: that source is the brilliant, the authentic, the primarily existent, the thing self-sprung and self-intent but its image, soul, is a thing which can have no permanence except by attachment, by living in that other the very nature of an image is that, as a secondary, it shall have its being in something else, if at all it exist apart from its original. Hence this image (soul) has not vision, for it has not the necessary light, and, if it should see, then, as finding its completion elsewhere, it sees another, not itself. In the pure Intellectual there is nothing of this: the vision and the envisioned are a unity the seen is as the seeing and seeing as seen. What, then, is there that can pronounce upon the nature of this all-unity That which sees: and to see is the function of the Intellectual-Principle. Even in our own sphere we have a parallel to this self-vision of a unity, our vision is light or rather becomes one with light, and it sees light for it sees colours. In the intellectual, the vision sees not through some medium but by and through itself alone, for its object is not external: by one light it sees another not through any intermediate agency a light sees a light, that is to say a thing sees itself. This light shining within the soul enlightens it that is, it makes the soul intellective, working it into likeness with itself, the light above. Think of the traces of this light upon the soul, then say to yourself that such, and more beautiful and broader and more radiant, is the light itself thus you will approach to the nature of the Intellectual-Principle and the Intellectual Realm, for it is this light, itself lit from above, which gives the soul its brighter life. It is not the source of the generative life of the soul which, on the contrary, it draws inward, preserving it from such diffusion, holding it to the love of the splendour of its Prior. Nor does it give the life of perception and sensation, for that looks to the external and to what acts most vigorously upon the senses whereas one accepting that light of truth may be said no longer to see the visible, but the very contrary. This means in sum that the life the soul takes thence is an intellective life, a trace of the life in the divine Intellect, in which alone the authentic exists. The life in the Divine Intellect is also an Act: it is the primal light outlamping to itself primarily, its own torch light-giver and lit at once the authentic intellectual object, knowing at once and known, seen to itself and needing no other than itself to see by, self-sufficing to the vision, since what it sees it is known to us by that very same light, our knowledge of it attained through itself, for from nowhere else could we find the means of telling of it. By its nature, its self-vision is the clearer but, using it as our medium, we too may come to see by it. In the strength of such considerations we lead up our own soul to the Divine, so that it poses itself as an image of that Being, its life becoming an imprint and a likeness of the Highest, its every act of thought making it over into the Divine and the Intellectual. If the soul is questioned as to the nature of that Intellectual-Principle - the perfect and all-embracing, the primal self-knower - it has but to enter into that Principle, or to sink all its activity into that, and at once it shows itself to be in effective possession of those priors whose memory it never lost: thus, as an image of the Intellectual-Principle, it can make itself the medium by which to attain some vision of it it draws upon that within itself which is most closely resemblant, as far as resemblance is possible between divine Intellect and any phase of soul. 9. In order, then, to know what the Divine Mind is, we must observe soul and especially its most God-like phase. One certain way to this knowledge is to separate first, the man from the body - yourself, that is, from your body - next to put aside that soul which moulded the body, and, very earnestly, the system of sense with desires and impulses and every such futility, all setting definitely towards the mortal: what is left is the phase of the soul which we have declared to be an image of the Divine Intellect, retaining some light from that sun, while it pours downward upon the sphere of magnitudes that is, of Matter the light playing about itself which is generated from its own nature. Of course we do not pretend that the suns light as the analogy might imply remains a self-gathered and sun-centred thing: it is at once outrushing and indwelling it strikes outward continuously, lap after lap, until it reaches us upon our earth: we must take it that all the light, including that which plays about the suns orb, has travelled otherwise we would have a void expanse, that of the space - which is material - next to the suns orb. The Soul, on the contrary - a light springing from the Divine Mind and shining about it - is in closest touch with that source it is not in transit but remains centred there, and, in likeness to that principle, it has no place: the light of the sun is actually in the air, but the soul is clean of all such contact so that its immunity is patent to itself and to any other of the same order. And by its own characteristic act, though not without reasoning process, it knows the nature of the Intellectual-Principle which, on its side, knows itself without need of reasoning, for it is ever self-present whereas we become so by directing our soul towards it our life is broken and there are many lives, but that principle needs no changings of life or of things the lives it brings to being are for others not for itself: it cannot need the inferior nor does it for itself produce the less when it possesses or is the all, nor the images when it possesses or is the prototype. Anyone not of the strength to lay hold of the first soul, that possessing pure intellection, must grasp that which has to do with our ordinary thinking and thence ascend: if even this prove too hard, let him turn to account the sensitive phase which carries the ideal forms of the less fine degree, that phase which, too, with its powers, is immaterial and lies just within the realm of Ideal-principles. One may even, if it seem necessary, begin as low as the reproductive soul and its very production and thence make the ascent, mounting from those ultimate ideal principles to the ultimates in the higher sense, that is to the primals. 10. This matter need not be elaborated at present: it suffices to say that if the created were all, these ultimates the higher need not exist: but the Supreme does include primals, the primals because the producers. In other words, there must be, with the made, the making source and, unless these are to be identical, there will be need of some link between them. Similarly, this link which is the Intellectual-Principle demands yet a Transcendent. If we are asked why this Transcendent also should not have self-vision, our answer is that it has no need of vision but this we will discuss later: for the moment we go back, since the question at issue is gravely important. We repeat that the Intellectual-Principle must have, actually has, self-vision, firstly because it has multiplicity, next because it exists for the external and therefore must be a seeing power, one seeing that external in fact its very essence is vision. Given some external, there must be vision and if there be nothing external the Intellectual-Principle Divine Mind exists in vain. Unless there is something beyond bare unity, there can be no vision: vision must converge with a visible object. And this which the seer is to see can be only a multiple, no undistinguishable unity nor could a universal unity find anything upon which to exercise any act all, one and desolate, would be utter stagnation in so far as there is action, there is diversity. If there be no distinctions, what is there to do, what direction in which to move An agent must either act upon the extern or be a multiple and so able to act upon itself: making no advance towards anything other than itself, it is motionless and where it could know only blank fixity it can know nothing. The intellective power, therefore, when occupied with the intellectual act, must be in a state of duality, whether one of the two elements stand actually outside or both lie within: the intellectual act will always comport diversity as well as the necessary identity, and in the same way its characteristic objects the Ideas must stand to the Intellectual-Principle as at once distinct and identical. This applies equally to the single object there can be no intellection except of something containing separable detail and, since the object is a Reason-principle a discriminated Idea it has the necessary element of multiplicity. The Intellectual-Principle, thus, is informed of itself by the fact of being a multiple organ of vision, an eye receptive of many illuminated objects. If it had to direct itself to a memberless unity, it would be dereasoned: what could it say or know of such an object The self-affirmation of even a memberless unity implies the repudiation of all that does not enter into the character: in other words, it must be multiple as a preliminary to being itself. Then, again, in the assertion I am this particular thing, either the particular thing is distinct from the assertor - and there is a false statement - or it is included within it, and, at once, multiplicity is asserted: otherwise the assertion is I am what I am, or I am I. If it be no more than a simple duality able to say I and that other phase, there is already multiplicity, for there is distinction and ground of distinction, there is number with all its train of separate things. In sum, then, a knowing principle must handle distinct items: its object must, at the moment of cognition, contain diversity otherwise the thing remains unknown there is mere conjunction, such a contact, without affirmation or comprehension, as would precede knowledge, the intellect not yet in being, the impinging agent not percipient. Similarly the knowing principle itself cannot remain simplex, especially in the act of self-knowing: all silent though its self-perception be, it is dual to itself. Of course it has no need of minute self-handling since it has nothing to learn by its intellective act before it is effectively Intellect, it holds knowledge of its own content. Knowledge implies desire, for it is, so to speak, discovery crowning a search the utterly undifferentiated remains self-centred and makes no enquiry about that self: anything capable of analysing its content, must be a manifold. 11. Thus the Intellectual-Principle, in the act of knowing the Transcendent, is a manifold. It knows the Transcendent in very essence but, with all its effort to grasp that prior as a pure unity, it goes forth amassing successive impressions, so that, to it, the object becomes multiple: thus in its outgoing to its object it is not fully realised Intellectual-Principle it is an eye that has not yet seen in its return is an eye possessed of the multiplicity which it has itself conferred: it sought something of which it found the vague presentment within itself it returned with something else, the manifold quality with which it has of its own act invested the simplex. If it had not possessed a previous impression of the Transcendent, it could never have grasped it, but this impression, originally of unity, becomes an impression of multiplicity and the Intellectual-Principle, in taking cognisance of that multiplicity, knows the Transcendent and so is realized as an eye possessed of its vision. It is now Intellectual-Principle since it actually holds its object, and holds it by the act of intellection: before, it was no more than a tendance, an eye blank of impression: it was in motion towards the transcendental now that it has attained, it has become Intellectual-Principle henceforth absorbed in virtue of this intellection it holds the character of Intellectual-Principle, of Essential Existence and of Intellectual Act where, previously, not possessing the Intellectual Object, it was not Intellectual Perception, and, not yet having exercised the Intellectual Act, it was not Intellectual-Principle. The Principle before all these principles is no doubt the first principle of the universe, but not as immanent: immanence is not for primal sources but for engendering secondaries that which stands as primal source of everything is not a thing but is distinct from all things: it is not, then, a member of the total but earlier than all, earlier, thus, than the Intellectual-Principle - which in fact envelops the entire train of things. Thus we come, once more, to a Being above the Intellectual-Principle and, since the sequent amounts to no less than the All, we recognise, again, a Being above the All. This assuredly cannot be one of the things to which it is prior. We may not call it Intellect therefore, too, we may not call it the Good, if the Good is to be taken in the sense of some one member of the universe if we mean that which precedes the universe of things, the name may be allowed. The Intellectual-Principle is established in multiplicity its intellection, self-sprung though it be, is in the nature of something added to it some accidental dualism and makes it multiple: the utterly simplex, and therefore first of all beings, must, then, transcend the Intellectual-Principle and, obviously, if this had intellection it would no longer transcend the Intellectual-Principle but be it, and at once be a multiple. 12. But why, after all, should it not be such a manifold as long as it remains one substantial existence, having the multiplicity not of a compound being but of a unity with a variety of activities Now, no doubt, if these various activities are not themselves substantial existences - but merely manifestations of latent potentiality - there is no compound but, on the other hand, it remains incomplete until its substantial existence be expressed in act. If its substantial existence consists in its Act, and this Act constitutes multiplicity, then its substantial existence will be strictly proportioned to the extent of the multiplicity. We allow this to be true for the Intellectual-Principle to which we have allotted the multiplicity of self-knowing but for the first principle of all, never. Before the manifold, there must be The One, that from which the manifold rises: in all numerical series, the unit is the first. But - we will be answered - for number, well and good, since the suite makes a compound but in the real beings why must there be a unit from which the multiplicity of entities shall proceed Because failing such a unity the multiplicity would consist of disjointed items, each starting at its own distinct place and moving accidentally to serve to a total. But, they will tell us, the Activities in question do proceed from a unity, from the Intellectual-Principle, a simplex. By that they admit the existence of a simplex prior to the Activities and they make the Activities perdurable and class them as substantial existences hypostases but as Hypostases they will be distinct from their source, which will remain simplex while its product will in its own nature be manifold and dependent upon it. Now if these activities arise from some unexplained first activity in that principle, then it too contains the manifold: if, on the contrary, they are the very earliest activities and the source and cause of any multiple product and the means by which that Principle is able, before any activity occurs, to remain self-centred, then they are allocated to the product of which they are the cause for this principle is one thing, the activities going forth from it are another, since it is not, itself, in act. If this be not so, the first act cannot be the Intellectual-Principle: the One does not provide for the existence of an Intellectual-Principle which thereupon appears that provision would be something an Hypostasis intervening between the One and the Intellectual-Principle, its offspring. There could, in fact, be no such providing in The One, for it was never incomplete and such provision could name nothing that ought to be provided. It cannot be thought to possess only some part of its content, and not the whole nor did anything exist to which it could turn in desire. Clearly anything that comes into being after it, arises without shaking to its permanence in its own habit. It is essential to the existence of any new entity that the First remain in self-gathered repose throughout: otherwise, it moved before there was motion and had intellectual act before any intellection - unless, indeed, that first act as motionless and without intelligence was incomplete, nothing more than a tendency. And what can we imagine it lights upon to become the object of such a tendency The only reasonable explanation of act flowing from it lies in the analogy of light from a sun. The entire intellectual order may be figured as a kind of light with the One in repose at its summit as its King: but this manifestation is not cast out from it: we may think, rather, of the One as a light before the light, an eternal irradiation resting upon the Intellectual Realm this, not identical with its source, is yet not severed from it nor of so remote a nature as to be less than Real-Being it is no blind thing, but is seeing and knowing, the primal knower. The One, as transcending Intellect, transcends knowing: above all need, it is above the need of the knowing which pertains solely to the Secondary Nature. Knowing is a unitary thing, but defined: the first is One, but undefined: a defined One would not be the One-absolute: the absolute is prior to the definite. 13. Thus The One is in truth beyond all statement: any affirmation is of a thing but the all-transcending, resting above even the most august divine Mind, possesses alone of all true being, and is not a thing among things we can give it no name because that would imply predication: we can but try to indicate, in our own feeble way, something concerning it: when in our perplexity we object, Then it is without self-perception, without self-consciousness, ignorant of itself we must remember that we have been considering it only in its opposites. If we make it knowable, an object of affirmation, we make it a manifold and if we allow intellection in it we make it at that point indigent: supposing that in fact intellection accompanies it, intellection by it must be superfluous. Self-intellection - which is the truest - implies the entire perception of a total self formed from a variety converging into an integral but the Transcendent knows neither separation of part nor any such enquiry if its intellectual act were directed upon something outside, then, the Transcendent would be deficient and the intellection faulty. The wholly simplex and veritable self-sufficing can be lacking at no point: self-intellection begins in that principle which, secondarily self-sufficing, yet needs itself and therefore needs to know itself: this principle, by its self-presence, achieves its sufficiency in virtue of its entire content it is the all: it becomes thus competent from the total of its being, in the act of living towards itself and looking upon itself. Consciousness, as the very word indicates, is a conperception, an act exercised upon a manifold: and even intellection, earlier nearer to the divine though it is, implies that the agent turns back upon itself, upon a manifold, then. If that agent says no more than I am a being, it speaks by the implied dualism as a discoverer of the extern and rightly so, for being is a manifold when it faces towards the unmanifold and says, I am that being, it misses both itself and the being since the simplex cannot be thus divided into knower and known: if it is to utter truth it cannot indicate by being something like a stone in the one phrase multiplicity is asserted for the being thus affirmed - even the veritable, as distinguished from such a mere container of some trace of being as ought not to be called a being since it stands merely as image to archetype - even this must possess multiplicity. But will not each item in that multiplicity be an object of intellection to us Taken bare and single, no: but Being itself is manifold within itself, and whatever else you may name has Being. This accepted, it follows that anything that is to be thought of as the most utterly simplex of all cannot have self-intellection to have that would mean being multiple. The Transcendent, thus, neither knows itself nor is known in itself. 14. How, then, do we ourselves come to be speaking of it No doubt we deal with it, but we do not state it we have neither knowledge nor intellection of it. But in what sense do we even deal with it when we have no hold upon it We do not, it is true, grasp it by knowledge, but that does not mean that we are utterly void of it we hold it not so as to state it, but so as to be able to speak about it. And we can and do state what it is not, while we are silent as to what it is: we are, in fact, speaking of it in the light of its sequels unable to state it, we may still possess it. Those divinely possessed and inspired have at least the knowledge that they hold some greater thing within them though they cannot tell what it is from the movements that stir them and the utterances that come from them they perceive the power, not themselves, that moves them: in the same way, it must be, we stand towards the Supreme when we hold the Intellectual-Principle pure we know the divine Mind within, that which gives Being and all else of that order: but we know, too, that other, know that it is none of these, but a nobler principle than any-thing we know as Being fuller and greater above reason, mind and feeling conferring these powers, not to be confounded with them. 15. Conferring - but how As itself possessing them or not How can it convey what it does not possess, and yet if it does possess how is it simplex And if, again, it does not, how is it the source of the manifold A single, unmanifold emanation we may very well allow - how even that can come from a pure unity may be a problem, but we may always explain it on the analogy of the irradiation from a luminary - but a multitudinous production raises question. The explanation is that what comes from the Supreme cannot be identical with it and assuredly cannot be better than it - what could be better than The One or the utterly transcendent The emanation, then, must be less good, that is to say, less self-sufficing: now what must that be which is less self-sufficing than The One Obviously the Not-One, that is to say, multiplicity, but a multiplicity striving towards unity that is to say, a One-that-is-many. All that is not One is conserved by virtue of the One, and from the One derives its characteristic nature: if it had not attained such unity as is consistent with being made up of multiplicity we could not affirm its existence: if we are able to affirm the nature of single things, this is in virtue of the unity, the identity even, which each of them possesses. But the all-transcendent, utterly void of multiplicity, has no mere unity of participation but is unitys self, independent of all else, as being that from which, by whatever means, all the rest take their degree of unity in their standing, near or far, towards it. In virtue of the unity manifested in its variety it exhibits, side by side, both an all-embracing identity and the existence of the secondary: all the variety lies in the midst of a sameness, and identity cannot be separated from diversity since all stands as one each item in that content, by the fact of participating in life, is a One-many: for the item could not make itself manifest as a One-and-all. Only the Transcendent can be that it is the great beginning, and the beginning must be a really existent One, wholly and truly One, while its sequent, poured down in some way from the One, is all, a total which has participation in unity and whose every member is similarly all and one. What then is the All The total of which the Transcendent is the Source. But in what way is it that source In the sense, perhaps, of sustaining things as bestower of the unity of each single item That too but also as having established them in being. But how As having, perhaps, contained them previously We have indicated that, thus, the First would be a manifold. May we think, perhaps, that the First contained the universe as an indistinct total whose items are elaborated to distinct existence within the Second by the Reason-Principle there That Second is certainly an Activity the Transcendent would contain only the potentiality of the universe to come. But the nature of this contained potentiality would have to be explained: it cannot be that of Matter, a receptivity, for thus the Source becomes passive - the very negation of production. How then does it produce what it does not contain Certainly not at haphazard and certainly not by selection. How then We have observed that anything that may spring from the One must be different from it. Differing, it is not One, since then it would be the Source. If unity has given place to duality, from that moment there is multiplicity for here is variety side by side with identity, and this imports quality and all the rest. We may take it as proved that the emanation of the Transcendent must be a Not-One something other than pure unity, but that it is a multiplicity, and especially that it is such a multiplicity as is exhibited in the sequent universe, this is a statement worthy of deliberation: some further enquiry must be made, also, as to the necessity of any sequel to the First. 16. We have, of course, already seen that a secondary must follow upon the First, and that this is a power immeasurably fruitful and we indicated that this truth is confirmed by the entire order of things since there is nothing, not even in the lowest ranks, void of the power of generating. We have now to add that, since things engendered tend downwards and not upwards and, especially, move towards multiplicity, the first principle of all must be less a manifold than any. That which engenders the world of sense cannot itself be a sense-world it must be the Intellect and the Intellectual world similarly, the prior which engenders the Intellectual-Principle and the Intellectual world cannot be either, but must be something of less multiplicity. The manifold does not rise from the manifold: the intellectual multiplicity has its source in what is not manifold by the mere fact of being manifold, the thing is not the first principle: we must look to something earlier. All must be grouped under a unity which, as standing outside of all multiplicity and outside of any ordinary simplicity, is the veritably and essentially simplex. Still, how can a Reason-Principle the Intellectual, characteristically a manifold, a total, derive from what is obviously no Reason-Principle But how, failing such origin in the simplex, could we escape what cannot be accepted the derivation of a Reason-Principle from a Reason-Principle And how does the secondarily good the imaged Good derive from The Good, the Absolute What does it hold from the Absolute Good to entitle it to the name Similarity to the prior is not enough, it does not help towards goodness we demand similarity only to an actually existent Good: the goodness must depend upon derivation from a Prior of such a nature that the similarity is desirable because that Prior is good, just as the similarity would be undesirable if the Prior were not good. Does the similarity with the Prior consist, then, in a voluntary resting upon it It is rather that, finding its condition satisfying, it seeks nothing: the similarity depends upon the all-sufficiency of what it possesses its existence is agreeable because all is present to it, and present in such a way as not to be even different from it Intellectual-Principle is Being. All life belongs to it, life brilliant and perfect thus all in it is at once life-principle and Intellectual-Principle, nothing in it aloof from either life or intellect: it is therefore self-sufficing and seeks nothing: and if it seeks nothing this is because it has in itself what, lacking, it must seek. It has, therefore, its Good within itself, either by being of that order - in what we have called its life and intellect - or in some other quality or character going to produce these. If this secondary principle were The Good The Absolute, nothing could transcend these things, life and intellect: but, given the existence of something higher, this Intellectual-Principle must possess a life directed towards that Transcendent, dependent upon it, deriving its being from it, living towards it as towards its source. The First, then, must transcend this principle of life and intellect which directs thither both the life in itself, a copy of the Reality of the First, and the intellect in itself which is again a copy, though of what original there we cannot know. 17. But what can it be which is loftier than that existence - a life compact of wisdom, untouched by struggle and error, or than this Intellect which holds the Universe with all there is of life and intellect If we answer The Making Principle, there comes the question, making by what virtue and unless we can indicate something higher there than in the made, our reasoning has made no advance: we rest where we were. We must go higher - if it were only for the reason that the maker of all must have a self-sufficing existence outside of all things - since all the rest is patently indigent - and that everything has participated in The One and, as drawing on unity, is itself not unity. What then is this in which each particular entity participates, the author of being to the universe and to each item of the total Since it is the author of all that exists, and since the multiplicity in each thing is converted into a self-sufficing existence by this presence of The One, so that even the particular itself becomes self-sufficing, then clearly this principle, author at once of Being and of self-sufficingness, is not itself a Being but is above Being and above even self-sufficing. May we stop, content, with that No: the Soul is yet, and even more, in pain. Is she ripe, perhaps, to bring forth, now that in her pangs she has come so close to what she seeks No: we must call upon yet another spell if anywhere the assuagement is to be found. Perhaps in what has already been uttered, there lies the charm if only we tell it over often No: we need a new, a further, incantation. All our effort may well skim over every truth and through all the verities in which we have part, and yet the reality escape us when we hope to affirm, to understand: for the understanding, in order to its affirmation must possess itself of item after item only so does it traverse all the field: but how can there be any such peregrination of that in which there is no variety All the need is met by a contact purely intellective. At the moment of touch there is no power whatever to make any affirmation there is no leisure reasoning upon the vision is for afterwards. We may know we have had the vision when the Soul has suddenly taken light. This light is from the Supreme and is the Supreme we may believe in the Presence when, like that other God on the call of a certain man, He comes bringing light: the light is the proof of the advent. Thus, the Soul unlit remains without that vision lit, it possesses what it sought. And this is the true end set before the Soul, to take that light, to see the Supreme by the Supreme and not by the light of any other principle - to see the Supreme which is also the means to the vision for that which illumines the Soul is that which it is to see just as it is by the suns own light that we see the sun. But how is this to be accomplished Cut away everything. THE KNOWING BY MUHAMMAD And if they incline to peace, do thou also incline to it and trust in Allah He is the Hearing, the Knowing. And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee. 8:61,62 OTHER SACRED NUMBER PAGES ON THIS SITE The Symbolism and Spiritual Significance of the Number Three The Symbolism and Spiritual Significance of the Number Five The Symbolism and Spiritual Significance of the Number Nine The Symbolism and Spiritual Significance of the Number Eleven The Number 26 - The Mayan Connection 49 The Levels of Consciousness connected to 210 The Symbolism and Spiritual Significance of the Number 72 133.33 THE MAGIC NUMBERS The Symbolism and Spiritual Significance of the Number 153 THE CYCLE OF TIME NUMBER 432 THE NUMBERS OF GOD . 270,000 (270000 - 144000 126000) Adam lived 334800days. 1260 of Revelation 11:3) 64800 x 6669990 4320 (Alpha total of Rev.13:18 9990. of beast verse) Mans heart beats an average of 4320. PLANETARY ANOMALIES - MARSMOONANCIENT SITES CONNECTONSWhat is the significance of music for young children Music is all around us. At the start of the 21st century, technology in industrialised societies provides us with easy access to a vast amount of recorded music. We can listen to our favourite music at home, in the car, on the train on home stereos, personal stereos, and through our computers. We are also often surrounded by music which we have not chosen, at the shops, waiting for a train, even at the doctors. Research is beginning to show how music has the power to change the way we feel, think, and behave. We know that music can lift our mood, and certain kinds of music can temporarily boost specific kinds of intelligence. Listening to our favourite music can even help us tolerate high levels of pain. What do we know about how young children engage with music There has been quite a lot of research looking at the very early years. We know that babies can remember music from even before birth. My own study with the Child of Our Time group in 2001 showed that exposure to a particular piece of music before birth had long-lasting effects, as the babies seemed to prefer listening to that music up to 15 months after birth. Other studies have explored the features of maternal singing, showing how this can make the baby feel calm. There are also studies of babies responses to music in the lab that show them to be really very sophisticated listeners. In their first year, babies can notice all kinds of small differences in musical sequences, and are even better than adults at some tasks. These findings have led some researchers to suggest that we are somehow biologically pre-programmed for responding to music. Music seems to be something that we cant stop ourselves engaging with, right from the very start. As every developmental psychologist knows, it is much harder to study toddlers than pretty much any other age range We know a lot about early babbling and singing, and the sequence of singing development has been intensively studied. In terms of toddlers responses to music, though, less is known. An extensive study of childrens musical behaviours by Helmut Moog in the 1970s showed that children aged 2 tended to move a lot in response to music. Their movements became less frequent from the age of 3 and up, as they began to play more with music and use music in social interactions like dancing. However, technological changes since then have had a large impact on the way that children engage with music, as well as opening up new possibilities for research. Using a new technique called experience sampling, I have just finished a study with three-and-a-half year olds which captures slices of their musical exposure and engagement. This study included nearly all of the Child of Our Time group, as well as other volunteers (thanks to both the BBC and the British Academy for support). In the study, caregivers carry a mobile phone with them for a week, and are phoned at random intervals during the day to find out whether the child is hearing any music (either at the time or within the last 2 hours) and if so, what it is and their response to it. Over the hundreds of episodes analysed so far, music is being heard 77 of the time some children are listening to music every time we call, while even those with the least exposure are still hearing music 42 of the time. This shows us that there is a great deal of music in childrens lives. But what kind of music are todays children listening to Childrens music is the most frequently heard, chosen, and responded to positively by the children. This includes television theme tunes as well as a lot of nursery rhymes Most of the time the children are hearing music in recorded format, from the television, childrens websites (CBeebies is a popular choice), CDs and tapes, and the radio. This is a marked change from 30 years ago, when young children would rarely have been allowed to put on a gramophone record. Children today have access to high quality recordings on relatively durable child-proof formats like CDs, and many of the children in the study put on their own music for themselves. Pop music is also frequently heard by children today, although this tends to be not the childrens own choice. Mothers often put music on, especially the radio, to accompany everyday routines like mealtimes and driving. Older siblings are also influential, in some families, in determining the music choices. For example, Jamie Craven from Child of Our Time is having his musical tastes almost entirely shaped by his older brother Robert, who has a liking for rock music. Some children respond well to pop music and sing along and dance to it, especially some of the cheesier pop with memorable lyrics and fast beats (All the Things She Said by Tatu was a big hit amongst several COOT families last year). Other musical styles such as classical music or folk music are very rare in these childrens lives, and would not typically be chosen by them. One example of the relatively rare occasions when children might listen to classical music is at school nurseries. Many play calming classical music after mealtimes to help children wind down to rest. This hasnt changed much in the last 30 years - many of the childrens parents would have had similar musical experiences but it is only a small part of childrens musical lives today. Alongside the experience sampling I also carried out a lab study of the childrens choice of music, using a toy keyboard and four real recordings. Three pieces were provided for every child (a fast pop piece, a fast jazz piece and a slow jazz piece) with the fourth varying. For the COOT group the fourth piece was their womb music. Overall, the favourite piece for all the children was fast pop (Lazy by XPress 2 and David Byrne). The next most popular choice was the fast jazz piece (Just the Job by the Hung Drawn Quartet), and the least favourite was the slow jazz piece (The Sleeve Notes by the Hung Drawn Quartet). Although none of the COOT children seemed to prefer their womb music overall, this fourth piece was as popular as the fast pop, even for the non-COOT families where the children had not heard these pieces before. This shows that the COOT mothers made good choices of music to play their babies before birth It also shows that children aged three-and-a-half are able to make definite choices about the music they want to hear. So why do children like particular kinds of music The three-and-a-half year olds all tend to choose fast music when theyre given a choice. We know from adult studies that liking for faster music might be related to aspects of personality, such as sensation-seeking. I also studied childrens personalities, but there were no clear links between personality and musical preference at this age. We need to remember that both their music preferences and their personalities are still developing at this age, so these links might become more important later on. This new study shows that music is a very strong influence in young childrens lives, both as part of their routines and their free time. One of the most important uses of music in childrens lives is a social one. Singing songs at nursery, making up rhymes with other children in the car, singing in the bath these are all social forms of musical engagement that have been going on for as long as we know. But Im also seeing more modern kinds of social engagement with music, such as arguing over which CD to put on, dancing around the living room in front of a TV music channel, or singing (and dancing) along to the childrens programmes on TV. There are very few moments when young children listen to music on their own: only one child in my study has her own personal stereo. In my view, music is for sharing, and technology has opened up many opportunities for doing just that. The soundtrack to our lives means we dont always have to sing well or remember all the words to have a singalong this means music can be fun without necessarily being very skilful Taking an interest in childrens musical tastes can help parents and other family members really get to know whats going on in their lives, and it can be a good way of talking about feelings as well as activities. Ultimately musical preferences are individual and personal, but they are also something we can explore and talk about as a way of sharing something important with others.