[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Eno Mag

Aug 21, 1996 03:48 PM
by Jerry Schueler

>        Are these Watchtowers symbolic for some part of the human constitution?
>And why the number of 156 squares?
	Neither Dee nor the Golden Dawn attempted to correlate
the Watchtowers with a human being, but since they do correspond
to cosmic elements, such a correlation should be easily possible.
	Why 156?  Noone but the Angels really know that one.
Each tablet is simply divided into 12x13 grid of 156 Squares.  However,
it is extremely interesting to me that the numbers 4 (Watchtowers, Calvary
Crosses per Watchtower), 8 (Demons per subquadrant, Kerubic Angels
per Watchtower), 16 (Lesser Squares per Subquadrant and the number of
Subquadrants), 32 (Calvary Cross Angels), 64 (Archangels & Kerubic
Angels),  128 (Demons), and 256 (lesser Squares) keep coming up
all the time.  These are squares of 2, and are the binary numbers used
in coding computers.  My publisher swears that most of the avid Enochian
practitions are also computer nerds.  Something to think about.

>        So, you've created a map of the (inner) universe, so to speak?
There must be some correspondences with the sephiroth, I think?
	Not very many.  Crowley tried this too, and found out that
no clear correspondences exist.  However, both have the Great Outer
Abyss separating the higher 3 planes from the lower 4.  At the end
of my Enochian Magic (my first book), Figure 35 attempts to
correlate the 30 Aethyrs with HPB's planetary chain of 12 Globes.

>Do you describe different types of energies/states of consciousness
>(I gather you do - what are the correspondences with the theosophical
>principles-elements ?)
	The Enochian system, like other magical systems, are
described largely in terms of imagery rather than "principles."
The elements are used to transform each Square into a Truncated
Pyramid ala the Golden Dawn (Mathers was truly a genius).  But
even with this, the goal is largely one of imagery (if water, you would
expect to see a lake, etc).

>: Ken Wilber and Ken Wilbur. I thought these were different
>persons, but I just like to know if that's the case or if it was a typo
>(by Chuck?).  (Ken Wilber I know from his writings on transpersonal
>psychology, but who's the other Ken?)
	Wilber is correct.  I think "Wilbur" was a Freudian typo.

Jerry S.
Member, TI

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application