A question about 9 foot circles
faielyne
that most circles are 9 feet. My question is this: if just about
everywhere in the world besides USA goes by the metric system, why
does the Goddess suddenly use feet? I guess I wonder why this
specific measurement keeps popping up. I just wonder what witches and
or wiccans in other areas think about this. I hope this isn't a dumb
question, thanks again everyone.
Rhiannon
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
because England wasn't metric when Gerald Gardner first circled - ;-) -- BB, Gale
Lindentree
I wondered the same thing for a long time. I found a possible answer
when I began investigating electro-magnetic vibrational frequencies of the
planet Earth. The Earth vibrates on a frequency of 7.5 cycles per second
(cps). [Established by Tesla et al - pre standardization of 60 cps AC
current] If the harmonics are followed 7.5 : 15 : 30 : etc. up to 60 cps
which allows transmission of electric current over long distances without
too much loss to interference from the Earth's electromagnetic (EM) field.
If the diameter of the Earth is repeatedly divided by the frequency of 7.5
cps or by the various harmonics, nine feet one inch (which can be translated
to metric with no problems) is a harmonic portion of the Earth's surface and
therefore vibrating in perfect 'tune' with the Earth's innate EM field.
Following this logic a little farther, the 9' 1" circle would act as a lens
for EM fields generated in or around it (depending on how it was used).
This would tend to 'boost' the energy of magickal workings done in the
circle, while providing a localized EM 'shield' due to the lensing effect
offering protection from "outside" energy forms. Why the English measure
in feet and inches? Because when the original calculations for many of our
traditions were done. that was the standard of measure in the sciences and
mathematics for most Western cultures.
For those of an experimental bent of mind, try drawing a PHYSICAL circle
9' 1" in diameter [or equivalent] and stepping in and out of it. (I use
chalk to draw the circles. It's easy to eliminate) My friends and
acquaintances who have been shang-haied into assisting me with my
experiments have reported several assorted reactions to 'inside' and
'outside'. If any of you do try this, please let me know what YOUR
observations are. I'm trying to collect as much data as I can. I do
recommend disrupting the edge of the circle (origin of sweeping?) before
leaving the area. You don't want to leave a potential "door" unguarded and
unlocked, do you?
Love and Blessings
-Adrian- e-mail me at Sha...@frontiernet.net
faielyne <faie...@nospam.usa.net> wrote in message
news:37e14ea7...@nntp.mindspring.com...
EsoterraMoon
(http://www.hlalapansi.demon.co.uk/Metric/index.html#history) it is unlikley
that any circles were originally measured in meters or in feet, for that
matter. I would guess that this has just been translated into measurements that
make sense to us.
What did they use long before that? The one measurement that comes to mind is
the cubit. Unfortunately the cubit is not a precise measurement. Basically, it
was the distance from a man's elbow to the tip of the middle finger, and varied
from country to country. Longer arms = longer cubits :-)
Esoterra Moon
Within the Earth and Moon
Esoter...@aol.com
Alexander Smales
The message <37e14ea7...@nntp.mindspring.com>
from faie...@nospam.usa.net (faielyne) contains these words:
> I am curious about something. Everything I have read so far has said
> that most circles are 9 feet. My question is this: if just about
> everywhere in the world besides USA goes by the metric system, why
> does the Goddess suddenly use feet? I guess I wonder why this
> specific measurement keeps popping up. I just wonder what witches and
> or wiccans in other areas think about this. I hope this isn't a dumb
> question, thanks again everyone.
> Rhiannon
As far as I practice, circles are supposed to be 9 Cubits across
(Cubit = from wrist to elbow) thus it differs for every person.
But for most people a cubit will be close to a foot long, so perhaps
its easier for some authors to simply say feet.
Britain used imperial messurments (Inches, feet and Lbs) until
just a few years ago, and old habits die hard!
--Alexander
wampus
from faie...@nospam.usa.net (faielyne) contains these words:
As far as I practice, circles are supposed to be 9 Cubits across
(Cubit = from wrist to elbow) thus it differs for every person.
***actually... a cubit... from wrist to elbow IS a foot... it is the length
of your own foot...
this works unless there are abnormalities of some kind
wampus
Silverhawk
> that most circles are 9 feet.
The measurement unit is simply one that is familiar to people who use it.
You could as easily say "3 meters". I think the distance is no more
esoteric than the fact that you can reasonably comfortably fit 12 people
around a circle with a diameter of 9 feet. What if your coven has 40
people, though? Or only five? The circle you use should simply be of a
size that is convenient. When I'm doing solitary work I generally use a
circle with a diameter of only a little more than my outstretched arms,
unless I need to walk around within it or I have a specific need to
encompass a large area.
B*B,
Silverhawk
Jessica Rasku
Two things here... 1 my foot is 2.5 inches shorter than from the
point of my elbow, to my wrist. Which, if you speak of the INSIDE forarm,
actually works out quite closely (within about a quarter inch), THAT
equivelency, depends on HOW you measure it. But a Cubit is the length
from the tip of your middle finger, to the point of your elbow. On me,
that's a good 9.5 inches longer than my foot, and a good 7 inches longer
than from elbow to wrist (as I'd measure that). The OUTSIDE ``short''
cubit (point of elbow, to wrist) on me is about 12 inches. Now body
measurments will CERTIANLY be diffrent for diffrent people, but you can
count on a cubit being close to 18 to 21 inches.
Jessica
--
Jessica Rasku, Box 270, Rossland, B.C., V0G 1Y0, (250) 362-5701,
LinuxBox: (250) 362-9668.
List manager: majo...@ArmispianSystems.Rossland.bc.ca
send command help ---- To get help with majordomo
or lists ---- To get a list of all lists on server.
Baird Stafford
> Since the metric system didn't go into effect until the 1875
> (http://www.hlalapansi.demon.co.uk/Metric/index.html#history) it is unlikley
> that any circles were originally measured in meters or in feet, for that
> matter.
"Feet" have been a basic measurement since at least the Norman Conquest
of England, I believe - which long predates the development of the
metric system. That system was developed, if memory serves, in 1785
(rather than 1875) by the French in an effort to topple all remaining
vestiges of the ancien regime. (They also invented a whole new
calendar, the only month from which that comes to memory being Thermidor
- which appears to have had nothing to do with lobsters - but that one
didn't catch on.) Something I read somewhere, probably in Costain's
histories of the Plantagenets, suggests that there was some confusion at
the accession of every new King of England, since his feet were seldom
the same size as his father's - and the King's feet were the feet that
measured.
The inch was estimated, I think, by the distance between the first and
second knuckles of a finger (I've forgotten which one) - which
apparently was believed to divide into the length of one's foot about
twelve times.
Yards are also old in the "English" system, though the yard may have
been predated by the ell.
It should be easy enough to draw a circle nine feet one inch in
diameter; the string would have to be (if my math is correct) five feet
six and a half inches long rather than five feet six inches.
Blessed be,
Baird
cursing the lack of diacritical marks in USASCII
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Visit me at <http://newstaffinc.com/stafford>
Jess Cullinan
<snip>
> people, though? Or only five? The circle you use should simply be of a
> size that is convenient. When I'm doing solitary work I generally use a
> circle with a diameter of only a little more than my outstretched arms,
> unless I need to walk around within it or I have a specific need to
> encompass a large area.
one thing that i've always wondered since i read it (wherever.. not sure
anymore...) is how one can make a nine foot circle that is a sphere and still
be able to stand up? i mean, wouldn't your head poke out of the top, since
it would only be 4'5" off the floor? that's why i make my circles nice and
big. then i don't have to worry about stuff like that. ;)
-mj
Gem
"Lindentree" <sha...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Hi, again.
> I wondered the same thing for a long time. I found a possible
answer
> when I began investigating electro-magnetic vibrational frequencies of
the
> planet Earth. The Earth vibrates on a frequency of 7.5 cycles per
second
> (cps). [Established by Tesla et al - pre standardization of 60 cps AC
> current] If the harmonics are followed 7.5 : 15 : 30 : etc. up to
60 cps
> which allows transmission of electric current over long distances
without
> too much loss to interference from the Earth's electromagnetic (EM)
field.
Wow! I love it when Religion precedes Science. I actually never paid
any attention to the 9 foot rule before. But I'll try a few experiments
now, too, and let you know.
Blessings,
Gem
--
Live a little, love a lot, beat the clock that
time forgot. Turn a cheek and rub a wrong, look
me up to hear my song.
http://www.drivezero.com/herbal/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
EsoterraMoon
>(rather than 1875) by the French in an effort to topple all remaining
>vestiges of the ancien regime.
Oops, the website I found did say the French Academy of Science was
commissioned by the National Assembly to design a new system of units for use
throughout the world in 1790. However it wasn't commonly accepted into practice
until 1875. at which point 15 countries agreed to use it.
BB
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> It should be easy enough to draw a circle nine feet one inch in
> diameter; the string would have to be (if my math is correct) five feet
> six and a half inches long rather than five feet six inches.
Bah! FOUR feet six and a half inches and FOUR feet six inches,
respectively.
Blessed be,
Baird
who has just demonstrated to the world why he did not adopt mathematics
for his vocation....
Vievenege
> one thing that i've always wondered since i read it (wherever.. not sure
> anymore...) is how one can make a nine foot circle that is a sphere and still
> be able to stand up? i mean, wouldn't your head poke out of the top, since
> it would only be 4'5" off the floor? that's why i make my circles nice and
> big. then i don't have to worry about stuff like that. ;)
Two thoughts come to mind:
[A fact as far as I know] People used to be shorter, long ago.
[Speculation] Also, if 9'1" has to do with meta/physics, and if mesured
in cubits instead (which vary with each individual), might it explain
why some people would get better results than others?
-- Vievenege
Robin R.
petroleum storage tanks - flattened cylinders. Nobody's ever complained
when in them. :) (Course, I'd just collapse it on them if they did -
and I have perceptive friends!)
BB Robin (only occasionally deranged)
Jess Cullinan wrote:
> one thing that i've always wondered since i read it (wherever.. not sure
> anymore...) is how one can make a nine foot circle that is a sphere and still
> be able to stand up? i mean, wouldn't your head poke out of the top, since
> it would only be 4'5" off the floor? that's why i make my circles nice and
> big. then i don't have to worry about stuff like that. ;)
>
> -mj
--
"There's a Time and a Place for everything...and this is neither!"
Silverhawk
news:37e1efdf$0$40...@news.execpc.com...
> one thing that i've always wondered since i read it (wherever.. not sure
> anymore...) is how one can make a nine foot circle that is a sphere and
still
> be able to stand up? i mean, wouldn't your head poke out of the top,
since
> it would only be 4'5" off the floor?
*Good* question! This point has always amused me, in fact. My own
resolution for this is that my "circles" are actually ellipsoids. I don't
buy into the notion that they have to be perfectly globular. After all, a
circle is only a special case of an ellipse and a sphere is only a special
case of an ellipsoid. Besides, magick is as much about your intent as it is
about your forms. If your intent is to create a protective area that is
nine feet in diameter, and you're standing at it's circumference, then that
protection will not be spherical or it would not protect you.
B*B,
Silverhawk
kas...@acadia.net
>======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> because England wasn't metric when Gerald Gardner first circled - ;-) --
> BB, Gale
Now *this* seems like a sensible answer. Isn't the 9-foot
business one of the (many) things that Gerald Gardner just -- not to
put too fine a point on this -- made up?
I mean, yes, 9 is a traditional sacred number. And the foot is a
good human/Earth-oriented unit of measure. And maybe if we really
scrape we can find some kind of correspondence to wavelengths or
whatever. Plus, no doubt after 60-plus years of devoted practice, all
aspects of Gardnerian Wicca, including the 9-foot circle, have
acquired a kind of psychic "morphic resonance" (in Rupert Sheldrake's
phrase).
But still. I resist the idea that there's anything eternal or
unchangeable about this particular distance. I made a stone circle
several years ago whose proportions felt much more balanced and
pleasing at 12 feet. Also this allows room for ivy and flowers to
spring up at the base of the stones without getting squished.)
--
Leider lässt sich noch kaum was rechtes denden und sagen,
Das nicht grimmig den Staat, Götter und Sitten verletzt.
Alas, even today there's little worth thinking and saying
That does not grievously wound the state, the gods, and
common decency.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
Gale
> Backing up a few steps here:
>
> >======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> > because England wasn't metric when Gerald Gardner first circled - ;-) --
> > BB, Gale
>
> Now *this* seems like a sensible answer. Isn't the 9-foot
> business one of the (many) things that Gerald Gardner just -- not to
> put too fine a point on this -- made up?
To finally follow my brief comment -- the British Commonwealth nations and the
United States were the last major nations to refuse to *fully* employ the
metric system. Under pressure from the many proponents of international
commerce, the United States opened its doors to the metric system (but
retained the English system under the pressure of its own hard-headed
consumers!!!) in the late '60s. The British Parliament enacted a planned
transition to metric measure in 1968. My _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ did not
state the year the transition was completed. Today the U.S. is the only major
nation which does not fully employ the metric system.
Gerald Gardner, writing from England in the 50's & 60's about techniques
employed in the 30's & 40's, would naturally have used the English system of
measure throughout, therefore feet & not meters.
> I mean, yes, 9 is a traditional sacred number.
> ***And the foot is a
> good human/Earth-oriented unit of measure. ****
My highlight - good point, in fact *great* point. The dear, messy English
system evolved from very "natural" measures.
(snip rest)
--
Blessed Be,
Gale
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html (Tarot)
modstaff, alt.religion.wicca.moderated
shipping assistant: Capstone Jewelry Co. (we sell beads & semi-precious
stones)
http://www.capstonebeads.com
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Now *this* seems like a sensible answer. Isn't the 9-foot
> business one of the (many) things that Gerald Gardner just -- not to
> put too fine a point on this -- made up?
Actually, no. If memory serves, it appears in some of the
medieval/early Renaissance grimoires. The fact that it is that old
suggests to me that that size for the Circle might have been common
practice amongst many practitioners of Magic, not just "Ceremonial
Magicians."
However, Gardner may easily have become acquainted with the requirement
that circles be nine feet in diameter through Ceremonial Magic (via his
association with Crowley) rather than as a number figured by a
traditional coven.
On the other hand, please regard this as pure guess at the source for
Gardner's figure as pure speculation: there is absolutely no way I
could know it for certain.
<snip>
Blessed be,
Baird
BMW
Gale <ga...@futuresouth.com> wrote in message
news:37E3B3BE...@futuresouth.com...
> kas...@acadia.net wrote:
>
> > Backing up a few steps here:
> >
> > >======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> > > because England wasn't metric when Gerald Gardner first circled -
;-) --
> > > BB, Gale
> >
> > business one of the (many) things that Gerald Gardner just -- not to
> > put too fine a point on this -- made up?
Too add to the discussion I was told that your cord /belt should be 4ft 6in
long so that you could easily mark out the circle, and I think the idea of
the circle as a protctive sphere came from a different source, after all
witches raise cones of power, so the head room wouldn't be an issue.
<snip>
>The British Parliament enacted a planned
> transition to metric measure in 1968. My _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ did
not
> state the year the transition was completed.
That's because it isn't really, we still use both, labels often give both
imperial and metric measures. Think children get taught metric only at
school now, but imperial at home
--
BMW
The Goddess loves everyone, but some
strange people love her
Morgana
diameter, it probably is a good space for the traditional number of 13
members, plus a small bonfire, plus adequate walking area to spin a Circle
without being so close as to get singed, or so far away as to get lost in
the woods. Our ancestors, Goddess love them, were quite practical. I have
no proof of this, other than my experience in Circle, my belief in my
ancestors, and that sometimes things should not be quite so "mystified".
Goddess Bless and have a Bountiful Mabon.
Lady Morrigan
Seshen wrote in message <7ruib6$580$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>9 is a sacred number of the Goddess, but I don't recall offhand if there
was
>a more specific reason as to the 9-ft diameter. Our tradition (Lycian)
>doesn't have a hard & fast rule about diameter. The circle is cast however
>wide or small it needs to be, dependent on # people, space available etc.
>BTW, the only dumb question is one unasked.
>
>In service to God/dess & community,
>
>Seshen
>The Lycian Goddess @ http://home.att.net/~lygoddess
>The Lycian Sanctuary @ http://www.lycianwicca.org
>
>
>
>faielyne wrote in message <37e14ea7...@nntp.mindspring.com>...
>>I am curious about something. Everything I have read so far has said
>>that most circles are 9 feet. My question is this: if just about
>>everywhere in the world besides USA goes by the metric system, why
>>does the Goddess suddenly use feet? I guess I wonder why this
>>specific measurement keeps popping up. I just wonder what witches and
>>or wiccans in other areas think about this. I hope this isn't a dumb
>>question, thanks again everyone.
>>
>>Rhiannon
>>
>>
Sinegreg
appears to perhaps be applicable.
A husband noted to his wife as she prepared a holiday ham, "dear why do you
always cut the small end off the ham before you cook it?"
"Because that's the way you are supposed to prepare a ham." she replied.
"but why?" he continued.
"I don't know, why don't you ask my mother, now get out of the kitchen." she
replied bothered.
So he asked his mother-in-law, "Mom why do you always cut the small end off the
ham?"
"well I am sure that part shouldn't be cooked with the rest"
"But why, it is perfectly fine, you use it in soup...Why cut it off?"
"I don't know ask grandma"
"Grandmother, why do you always cut the small end off a ham?"
"Because a whole ham is always bigger than my roasting pan."
hmmm...corallary
We have always done it that way..
Seshen
with 30-50 folks. I have the idea that a 9-ft diameter is probably a recent
innovation; from what I understand it may be a Gardner invention. I agree
with the statement that some things shouldn't be so "mystified."
Practicality is a major consideration for doing a lot of things in ritual!
In service to God/dess & community,
Seshen
The Lycian Goddess @ http://home.att.net/~lygoddess
The Lycian Sanctuary @ http://www.lycianwicca.org
Morgana wrote in message ...
N`osal Woodbender
where my alter is. It works, but mostly my circles are 3-5 people. It
would defiantly not be workable for a larger group.
Seshen
area 3 times with a chant. We do not specify the size of areas above,
below, etc. We call the Watchers in each quarter to guard the gates of
their respective directions, and rely upon those Watchers to expand the
sacred space as needed during the ritual.
In service to God/dess & community,
Seshen
The Lycian Goddess @ http://home.att.net/~lygoddess
The Lycian Sanctuary @ http://www.lycianwicca.org
N`osal Woodbender wrote in message <37E591E1...@concentric.net>...
> I use the "standard" 9" circle because if fits into my bedroom. That is
>where my alter is. It works, but mostly my circles are 3-5 people. It
>would defiantly not be workable for a larger group.!
cthulhu
definitely *not* traditional or anything, but.... It seems to me that a
workable method of getting your Circle's diameter/circumference would be to
have all participants join hands and stretch outward, ring-around-the-rosey
fashion.
Nothing high-browed or mystical about it, just practical. Hmm...and
definitely a measurement made on natural forms. ;)
cthulhu
Baird Stafford wrote in message
<1dyc3p0.1wf...@tsmlb1-107.gate.net>...
><kas...@acadia.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Actually, no. If memory serves, it appears in some of the
>medieval/early Renaissance grimoires. The fact that it is that old
>suggests to me that that size for the Circle might have been >common
practice amongst many practitioners of Magic, not just >"Ceremonial
Magicians."
>
>However, Gardner may easily have become acquainted with the >requirement
that circles be nine feet in diameter through Ceremonial >Magic (via his
association with Crowley) rather than as a number >figured by a traditional
coven.
>
>On the other hand, please regard this as pure guess at the source >for
Gardner's figure as pure speculation: there is absolutely no way I
>could know it for certain.
>
><snip>
>
>Blessed be,
>Baird
>
Good guess. In Gardner's "Ye Bok of ye Art Magical" (which is quoted in
various authors' texts), his notes on p. 65 re. the circle casting are
almost identical in wording to the _Greater Key of Solomon_.
I've yet to be fully convinced of Gardner's alleged ties with Crowley.
However, he would still have access to the Ceremonial teachings, as many
within his original circle (a.k.a the New Forest coven) were occultists
within Hermetic orders.
Tall Sword & Cliona
> that most circles are 9 feet. My question is this: if just about
> everywhere in the world besides USA goes by the metric system, why
> does the Goddess suddenly use feet? I guess I wonder why this
> specific measurement keeps popping up. I just wonder what witches and
> or wiccans in other areas think about this. I hope this isn't a dumb
> question, thanks again everyone.
>
> Rhiannon
Nine is the number of the Lady and all numbers that are multiples of nine
and most factors of nine are magickal
3
3+3=6
3x3=9
3x9= 27
ETC.
Tall Sword
Tall Sword & Cliona
news:7rrrn0$smo$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
> Hi, again.
> I wondered the same thing for a long time. I found a possible answer
> when I began investigating electro-magnetic vibrational frequencies of the
> planet Earth. The Earth vibrates on a frequency of 7.5 cycles per second
Hertz
> (cps). [Established by Tesla et al - pre standardization of 60 cps AC
> current] If the harmonics are followed 7.5 : 15 : 30 : etc. up to 60
cps
> which allows transmission of electric current over long distances without
> too much loss to interference from the Earth's electromagnetic (EM) field.
OH, the eighth harmonic
Is that why you need to xmit 2000 Volts to get 110 at a house?
> If the diameter of the Earth is repeatedly divided by the frequency of 7.5
> cps or by the various harmonics, nine feet one inch (which can be
translated
> to metric with no problems) is a harmonic portion of the Earth's surface
and
> therefore vibrating in perfect 'tune' with the Earth's innate EM field.
> Following this logic a little farther, the 9' 1" circle would act as a
lens
> for EM fields generated in or around it (depending on how it was used).
> This would tend to 'boost' the energy of magickal workings done in the
> circle, while providing a localized EM 'shield' due to the lensing effect
> offering protection from "outside" energy forms. Why the English measure
> in feet and inches? Because when the original calculations for many of
our
> traditions were done. that was the standard of measure in the sciences and
> mathematics for most Western cultures.
Except France were the metric system was born and used since Napoleon.
> For those of an experimental bent of mind, try drawing a PHYSICAL
circle
> 9' 1" in diameter [or equivalent] and stepping in and out of it. (I use
> chalk to draw the circles. It's easy to eliminate) My friends and
> acquaintances who have been shang-haied into assisting me with my
> experiments have reported several assorted reactions to 'inside' and
> 'outside'. If any of you do try this, please let me know what YOUR
> observations are. I'm trying to collect as much data as I can. I do
> recommend disrupting the edge of the circle (origin of sweeping?) before
> leaving the area. You don't want to leave a potential "door" unguarded
and
> unlocked, do you?
> Love and Blessings
> -Adrian- e-mail me at Sha...@frontiernet.net
EsoterraMoon
>definitely a measurement made on natural forms. ;)
>
I like your thinking.
vic bonds
faielyne wrote:
> I am curious about something. Everything I have read so far has said
> that most circles are 9 feet. My question is this: if just about
> everywhere in the world besides USA goes by the metric system, why
> does the Goddess suddenly use feet? I guess I wonder why this
> specific measurement keeps popping up. I just wonder what witches and
> or wiccans in other areas think about this. I hope this isn't a dumb
> question, thanks again everyone.
ok, i am in the underground alot..i am druid and there are rock people
or baal bodies in the spirit that are ancient. some are vampiric
and these eagles , i am being trained to be one..
they look like huge eagle wolf insects with large bat wings
come and project interdemensional intent rods that sweep the
grounds up , nabbing all the vampires that are like the bubonic
plague right now..they feed off the human light and pull them down
to the underground...these eagles get the witches and vampires
and put them to sleep forever more..they are lifeless beings anyway..
the immortals like me they by pass and even protect.
many times i have been surrounded by vampiric bodies and
they were feeding off my life force and an eagle would come..
these vampires gang up in large groups and have a great spirit
devil like intell that is remarkable and hard to beat..
some times they try to kill me and take me in as the leader
of the pack cause i am immortal and they feel protected from
the eagle if they stay close to me..
they realize that if they kill me they are gone too.
they become dependent on my field magnetic and my expanded consciousness
and, cant leave my space...they are destineds to be my helpers since i am
being trained as a hub or center of their wheel of destiny..
they take orders from me if they want to live forever...
and i am the one to serve god in the lower lawless country..
i am the eclipse...
the black sun..
Lindentree
Yes, the number 9 is a sacred number and therefore would be quite
appropriate for a circle diameter. My comments are based on personal
investigation of a number of subjects and personal observation of
experimentation. I am not requiring anyone to change their practices or
beliefs.
Yes, cycles per second, abreviated as 'cps' are also known as 'Hertz'.
Cycles per second is a specific description and therefore not easily
mistaken or needing translation for those who do not have an electronics
background.
2000 volts are transmitted so you and your neighbors will be able to enjoy
bountiful electricity, all together, rather than one at a time.
Hope this clears up the (possible) misunderstandings.
Blessed Be.
-Adrian- (Lindentree)
Tall Sword & Cliona <circle_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7s6s8k$3n2s$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
Lindentree
Seems to me most people here are dedicated to protecting the world in
general.
Confused---
-A-
vic bonds <vbo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37E7CAE5...@worldnet.att.net...
Shez
writes
>In article <7rrrn0$smo$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Lindentree" <sha...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>> I wondered the same thing for a long time. I found a possible
>answer
>> when I began investigating electro-magnetic vibrational frequencies of
>the
>> planet Earth. The Earth vibrates on a frequency of 7.5 cycles per
>second
>> current] If the harmonics are followed 7.5 : 15 : 30 : etc. up to
>60 cps
>> which allows transmission of electric current over long distances
>without
>> too much loss to interference from the Earth's electromagnetic (EM)
>field.
>
>
>any attention to the 9 foot rule before. But I'll try a few experiments
>now, too, and let you know.
>
>Blessings,
>Gem
>
>
>
and inches are the normal measurements in use their.
Most of us still use feet and inches, or yards instead of metres.
Its going to be a long time before we change over completely most
business show both metric and imperial sizes.
>--
>Live a little, love a lot, beat the clock that
>time forgot. Turn a cheek and rub a wrong, look
>me up to hear my song.
>http://www.drivezero.com/herbal/
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
--
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/shez/
Shez
<ga...@futuresouth.com> writes
>> > because England wasn't metric when Gerald Gardner first circled - ;-) --
>> > BB, Gale
>>
>> business one of the (many) things that Gerald Gardner just -- not to
>> put too fine a point on this -- made up?
>
>United States were the last major nations to refuse to *fully* employ the
>metric system. Under pressure from the many proponents of international
>commerce, the United States opened its doors to the metric system (but
>retained the English system under the pressure of its own hard-headed
>transition to metric measure in 1968. My _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ did not
>nation which does not fully employ the metric system.
No its not, measurements fluid or solid, are still sold with both
English measurements and metric. the old sizes die hard here to. in fact
I would have trouble working out a metre, where I have a good idea of a
Yard, however I can translate easily centimetres, because I worked in
newspaper office, and that is the measurement used for column length and
advertisement sizes.
>
>Gerald Gardner, writing from England in the 50's & 60's about techniques
>employed in the 30's & 40's, would naturally have used the English system of
>measure throughout, therefore feet & not meters.
>
>> I mean, yes, 9 is a traditional sacred number.
>
>> ***And the foot is a
>> good human/Earth-oriented unit of measure. ****
>
>My highlight - good point, in fact *great* point. The dear, messy English
>system evolved from very "natural" measures.
>
>(snip rest)
>
>--
>Blessed Be,
>Gale
>
>http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html (Tarot)
>modstaff, alt.religion.wicca.moderated
>shipping assistant: Capstone Jewelry Co. (we sell beads & semi-precious
>stones)
> http://www.capstonebeads.com
>
>
--
Shez
<snd...@concentric.net> writes
> I use the "standard" 9" circle because if fits into my bedroom. That is
>where my alter is. It works, but mostly my circles are 3-5 people. It
>would defiantly not be workable for a larger group.
Probably the idea was originally that the circle should be drawn so that
when powered it became a sphere, a bubble that went both over the heads
of the tallest and under the feet of all.
I guess Nine feet would have just about done that, people on the whole
were shorter then, perhaps today with people on average being tall, it
needs to be bigger.
Personally I prefer a personal circle one that I can expand to suit the
circumstances.
>
>Seshen wrote:
>>
>> It would probably work OK for the standard 13, but not for say, a Sabbat
>> with 30-50 folks. I have the idea that a 9-ft diameter is probably a recent
>> innovation; from what I understand it may be a Gardner invention. I agree
>> with the statement that some things shouldn't be so "mystified."
>> Practicality is a major consideration for doing a lot of things in ritual!
>>
>> In service to God/dess & community,
>>
>> Seshen
>> The Lycian Goddess @ http://home.att.net/~lygoddess
>> The Lycian Sanctuary @ http://www.lycianwicca.org
>>
>> Morgana wrote in message ...
>> >Yes, 9 is a sacred number, 3x3 and all that. I think for the actual
>> >diameter, it probably is a good space for the traditional number of 13
>> >members, plus a small bonfire, plus adequate walking area to spin a Circle
>> >without being so close as to get singed, or so far away as to get lost in
>> >the woods. Our ancestors, Goddess love them, were quite practical. I have
>> >no proof of this, other than my experience in Circle, my belief in my
>> >ancestors, and that sometimes things should not be quite so "mystified".
>> >Goddess Bless and have a Bountiful Mabon.
>> >Lady Morrigan
>
--
Kwaw
Baird Stafford <ba...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:1dyc3p0.1wf...@tsmlb1-107.gate.net...
> <kas...@acadia.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Now *this* seems like a sensible answer. Isn't the 9-foot
> > business one of the (many) things that Gerald Gardner just -- not to
> > put too fine a point on this -- made up?
>
> medieval/early Renaissance grimoires.
Gardner borrowed extensively from Mather's translation of the Key of Solomon
from which I quote:
"Having chosen a place for preparing and constructing the Circle, and all
things necessary being prepared for the perfection of the Operations, take
thou the Sickle or Scimitar of Art and stick it into the centre of the place
where the Circle is to be made; then take a cord of nine feet in length,
fasten one end thereof unto the Sickle and with the other end trace out the
circumference of the Circle, which may be marked either with the Sword or
with the Knife with the Black hilt. "
A cord of 9 feet would obviously give a radius of 18 feet, the 9 foot radius
could possibly be either an error or an 'adaption' on Gardner's part?
Alternatively, in the Goetia, it merely says of the circle that:
"The circle of Salomon [sic] is to be made nine feet across."
Gardner used the Crowley/Mathers edition (a signed and dedicated copy given
to him by Crowley himself).
Kwaw
N`osal Woodbender
<snip>
This size circle would make much more sense for a coven or outdoor
ceremony. Thanks for the info. :)
Kwaw
cthulhu <cth...@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:wCxF3.122$0J.4...@ratbert.tds.net...
> I've yet to be fully convinced of Gardner's alleged ties with Crowley.
> However, he would still have access to the Ceremonial teachings, as many
> within his original circle (a.k.a the New Forest coven) were occultists
> within Hermetic orders.
>
Blessed be
Could you please clarify what you mean by the above?
There have of course been specific allegations about Crowley/Gardner's
working relationship of which there are doubts, ie, the speculation by
various occult 'historians' that Crowley wrote the Book of Shadows.
Speculation which is refuted by most wiccans and IMHO correctly so.
However, it appears from what you have written above, that you do not
believe that there were any ties between Crowley and Gardner whatsoever. If
so I wondered what makes you dispute what I believed to be a well
established acquaintanship; at least, this is the first time that I have
heard anyone deny they knew each other (if this is indeed what you meant).
Kwaw
cthulhu
is conceivable that they may have known one another, or at least of each
other. As to how far their personal ties extended...well, there I'm at a
loss. I haven't the faintest clue on it. From the picture I've formulated
over the years, I assumed it wasn't a close one. It'd certainly be an
interesting sidelight if it were closer. Do you have any information along
those lines?
In the end, though, the main point I was trying to get across was that a
relationship with Crowley wasn't necessary for Gardner's access to
Ceremonial (et. al) information, as others within his early working group
were either active members in Hermetic orders or past members. Two of these
were Seymour and Hartley, who were the heads of the pagan section of the
Fraternity of Inner Light (an offshoot of the Hermetic Order of the Golden
Dawn) in the mid 1930s-1940s.
With the Book of Shadows, however, let's not forget to give credit to the
efforts of Doreen Valiente, Dolores North, and Dorothy Fordham-Clutterbuck.
These three were instrumental in working with the raw materials (sometimes
sloppy ones) that Gardner provided to develop a more robust BOS.
Kwaw wrote in message ...
cthulhu
Kwaw wrote in message ...
>Gardner borrowed extensively from Mather's translation of the Key of
>Solomon from which I quote:
>
>"Having chosen a place for preparing and constructing the Circle, >and all
things necessary being prepared for the perfection of the >Operations, take
thou the Sickle or Scimitar of Art and stick it into >the centre of the
place where the Circle is to be made; then take a >cord of nine feet in
length, fasten one end thereof unto the Sickle and >with the other end trace
out the circumference of the Circle, which >may be marked either with the
Sword or with the Knife with the Black >hilt. "
Thanks for providing the quote. Just for kicks, here's Gardner's directions
("Ye Bok of Art Magical", p. 65 -- unsure of the exact date for this entry,
but I think it's somewhere around 1953):
"Having chosen a place proper, take the sickle or scimitar of Art or a
Witch's Athame, if thou mayest obtain it, and stick it into the center, then
take a cord, and 'twere well to use the Cable Tow for this, aand loop it
over the Instrument, four and one half feet, and so trace out the
circumference of the circle, which must be traced either with the Sword, or
the knife with the black hilt, or it be of little avail, but ever leave an
open door towards the North. Make in all 3 circles, one within the other,
and write names of power between these."
As an aside it's been suggested, and I believe rightly so, that the earlier
triple circle is the reason for many of the contemporary practices of
walking its boundary thrice while casting (to draw, to cense, and to seal).
However, given this practice of three circles, combined with many Ceremonial
references where the dagger traces the Circle at waist-height (rather than
directing the Power at the "floor"), makes me wonder if the cylinder-shaped
concept of the Circle might actually be the older one. If so, where did the
concept of a sphere come in? (I personally use the sphere and doubt if my
practice would change much.) Any clues to the first concepts of spherical
Circles?
Tall Sword & Cliona
question mark) in to the ground it would stick most easily at an angle to be
somewhat parallel to the ground. The cord attached would allow one to
trace an ovoid or ellipse, but not a circle.
Tall Sword
cthulhu <cth...@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:rjiG3.33$YX2....@ratbert.tds.net...
Tall Sword & Cliona
> Yes, cycles per second, abreviated as 'cps' are also known as 'Hertz'.
> Cycles per second is a specific description and therefore not easily
> mistaken or needing translation for those who do not have an electronics
> background.
In the US the use of CPS is uncommon whereas hertz is common it has nothing
to do with the study of electronics.
> 2000 volts are transmitted so you and your neighbors will be able to enjoy
> bountiful electricity, all together, rather than one at a time.
It has to do with reluctance and line loss and several other factors. I f
Edson had had his was it would still be standart for a house to have 7
lightbulbs and it would be DC.
Tall Sword, ASEE
(NO that aint Ass it is Associate of Science in Electonic Engineering)
Altair
<cth...@uslink.net> wrote:
> Kwaw wrote in message ...
> <snip>
*snip*
> However, given this practice of three circles, combined with many Ceremonial
> references where the dagger traces the Circle at waist-height (rather than
> directing the Power at the "floor"), makes me wonder if the cylinder-shaped
> concept of the Circle might actually be the older one. If so, where did the
> concept of a sphere come in? (I personally use the sphere and doubt if my
> practice would change much.) Any clues to the first concepts of spherical
> Circles?
I'm not sure as to the reality of the situation, but here are my own
(entirely speculative) views on the matter. The "cylinder" is possibly
the result of two ideas converging-that the Earth was flat, and that
the Circle is the meeting place of all the Planes of Reality. Back
when the Flat Earth Theory was still the accepted one, a cylinder
extending infinitely upwards and downwards would intersect all the
Planes (if we take the Christian "Heaven = Up/Hell = Down" idea as
indicitave of the magickal thinking of the time). Its' protective
qualities would likely only be effective if one ritually cleansed the
area, while leaving the actual energies of the Planes intact. The
Circle thus really *would* be "the meeting place of Gods and men."
The sphere eventuated later as a result of the discovery that the Earth
itself was spherical. Suddenly a column extending in both directions
was messy, and since Heaven could not be both "above and below" (little
joke [chuckle]) it had to be somewhere else-namely everywhere and
nowhere. The sphere was a response to this change in metaphysical
theory, and also gave much greater protection than an infinite (or
open-ended) column. There was no need to extend the Circle into the
Realms of the Gods, because everywhere contained those Realms. All
that was needed was a protective Circle that also could hold in the
energies summoned; thus, a sphere.
Another point is that I have been told by more than one person I have
trained with that the circle is meant to be a Microcosm. Cylinders for
Flat Earths, Spheres for Spherical Earths/Universes.
Well, that's just my humble opinion on the matter. I don't know how
right I am, but I suspect that someone will tell me...
Blessed Be,
Altair
Diem, dies, docet.
LORNE R WARDELL
Solomon says to use a nine foot cord fastened in the centre at one end,and
the other end used to trace around a cicumference,the circle resulting is 18
feet in diameter-a much bigger area!
cthulhu wrote in message ...
>
>Kwaw wrote in message ...
><snip>
>>Solomon from which I quote:
>>
>>"Having chosen a place for preparing and constructing the Circle, >and all
>things necessary being prepared for the perfection of the >Operations, take
>thou the Sickle or Scimitar of Art and stick it into >the centre of the
>place where the Circle is to be made; then take a >cord of nine feet in
>length, fasten one end thereof unto the Sickle and >with the other end
trace
>out the circumference of the Circle, which >may be marked either with the
>Sword or with the Knife with the Black >hilt. "
><snip>
>
directions
>("Ye Bok of Art Magical", p. 65 -- unsure of the exact date for this entry,
>but I think it's somewhere around 1953):
>
>"Having chosen a place proper, take the sickle or scimitar of Art or a
>Witch's Athame, if thou mayest obtain it, and stick it into the center,
then
>take a cord, and 'twere well to use the Cable Tow for this, aand loop it
>over the Instrument, four and one half feet, and so trace out the
>circumference of the circle, which must be traced either with the Sword, or
>the knife with the black hilt, or it be of little avail, but ever leave an
>open door towards the North. Make in all 3 circles, one within the other,
>and write names of power between these."
>
>As an aside it's been suggested, and I believe rightly so, that the earlier
>triple circle is the reason for many of the contemporary practices of
>walking its boundary thrice while casting (to draw, to cense, and to seal).
>
cthulhu
they certainly seem logical. For some time, I've had the nagging feeling
that it had something to do with spatial perception and worldview...guess I
never really put the pieces together.
In conclusion (for this post at least)...one big "DOH!" for cthulhu here.
P.S., If I get a chance, I'll check out this lead and follow it up with
another post if I find anything.
Altair wrote in message
<240919991151182852%aale002SP...@student.auckland.ac.nz>...
cthulhu
there, in case someone hadn't come across it before. (Also threw a couple
more twists into the thread for the fun of it.)
But, yes...a much bigger area, indeed. Are there any more textual
precedents for the 18 foot Circle? (BTW, the triple Circle employed by
Gardner would've been 11 feet at it's outmost border.)
LORNE R WARDELL wrote in message
<7selfl$8c0$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
Lindentree
point. Please email me so we don't take up too much of the ng.
With Blessings
-Adrian-
Tall Sword & Cliona <circle_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7sedon$2shi$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> But, yes...a much bigger area, indeed. Are there any more textual
> precedents for the 18 foot Circle? (BTW, the triple Circle employed by
> Gardner would've been 11 feet at it's outmost border.)
<snip>
Yes, more textual precedents do exist. If I recall correctly, the 18
foot circle also is specified in a coupld of books of the Lesser Key and
in the writings of Cornelius Agrippa, on whose work much medieval and
renaissance Magic was based.
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Visit me at <http://newstaffinc.com/stafford>
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Back when the Flat Earth Theory was still the accepted one, a cylinder
> extending infinitely upwards and downwards would intersect all the Planes
> (if we take the Christian "Heaven = Up/Hell = Down" idea as indicitave of
> the magickal thinking of the time).
<snip>
A very interesting theory and one which carries a certain ring of
probability....
Actually, the "Heaven = Up/Hell = Down" idea may not have been the
origin of such a theory, since it accords beautifully with Qabbalistic
notions of the Tree of Live and the Sephira thereon. The Circle might
thus represent something like the Middle Pillar - in effect, the trunk
of the Tree. (In point of fact, the wording of the Lesser Banishing
Ritual of the Pentagram might actually support the theory!)
And since so much Magic (even Wiccan Magic) in these modern times is
based upon Qabbalistic practice and theory....
Kwaw
> I am mainly refering to the Book of Shadows. Beyond that I am unsure. It
> is conceivable that they may have known one another, or at least of each
> other. As to how far their personal ties extended...well, there I'm at a
> loss. I haven't the faintest clue on it. From the picture I've
formulated
> over the years, I assumed it wasn't a close one. It'd certainly be an
> interesting sidelight if it were closer. Do you have any information
along
> those lines?
>
Well, you will know from the Book of Shadows that Gardner was 'at the least'
well acquainted with the works of Crowley. As you will be aware Gardner
'cut and paste' the BOS together from a variety of sources; the great bulk
of 'borrowings' however, with the possible exception of Aradia - Gospel of
the Witches, come from Crowley (mainly the Book of the Law and the Gnostic
Mass but also from a variety of poems and essays). Other sources are the
Key of Solomon (Mather's translation), rituals from the Golden Dawn and also
(as well as many others) the Crowley/Mather edition of the Goetia, a signed
and dedicated copy of which Crowley gave to Gardner.
According to Doreene Valiente Gardner met Crowley in 'the last years' of the
latters life and were introduced by Anthony Crowther. For exactly how many
years 'last years' refers to Louise Wilkinson tells us that they first met
at the time Crowley was giving his Eight Lectures on Yoga which was 1939 (a
good 7 to 8 years before Crowley's death in 1947). Gardner was initiated
into the OTO as Crowley's protege and it may indicate something as to how
close they became by the fact that Gardner was the only UK member of the
order to be chartered by Crowley to conduct a lodge of the OTO. In effect
this meant that after Crowley's death in 1947 Gardner was the only member to
be in a position to claim Head of the UK branch. However, when it became
clear to Karl Germer, Outer Head of the Order, that Gardner was not going to
take up the charter it was passed on to Kenneth Grant.
As to the BOS Valiente tells us that, along with some other rather dubious
and homophobic reasons, that Crowley being 'in the last years of his life,
an enfeebled old man being kept alive by drugs' was incapable of such a
'tour de force' as the BOS. Well, we know from his acquaintances, from his
correspondence (some of which was published as 'Magick without Tears') and
from his later works such as Eight Lectures on Yoga and the Book of Thoth,
that he was far from being 'an enfeebled old man'. My own reasons for
doubting that Crowley wrote the BOS is that as an accomplished writer, a
scholar and a poet I would have expected something far greater and
'original' from him than what we have in Gardner's BOS. Which, far from
being a 'tour de force' is cobbled together, word for word and paragraph for
paragraph, from a variety of well established sources. The only original
material in it is that which was later added by Doreene Valiente herself.
I do not doubt however that Crowley greatly encouraged, if he was not indeed
the inspiration for, Gardners efforts to promulgate a new pagan religion.
As early as 1914 Crowley wrote in a letter to a young Neophyte of the OTO:
".....I hope you will arrange to repeat this [a 'lunar' ritual] all the
time, say every full or new moon so as to build up a regular force. You
should also have a solar ritual to balance it, to be done each time the Sun
enters a new sign, with special festivity at the Equinoxes and the Soltices.
In this way you can establish a regular cult; and if you do them in a truly
magickal manner, you create a vortex of force that will suck in all the
people you want. The time is just ripe for a natural religion. People like
rites and ceremonies, and are tired of hypothetical gods. Insist on the
real benefits of the Sun and the Moon, the Mother-Force, the Father-Force
and so on; and show that by celebrating these benefits worthily the
worshippers unite themselves more fully with the current of life. Let the
religion be Joy, with but a worthy and dignified sorrow in death itself; and
treat death as an ordeal, an initiation. Do not gloss over the facts, but
transmute them in the athanor of your ecstacy. In short be the founder of a
new and greater Pagan cult in the beautiful land which you have made your
home. As you go on you can add new festivals of corn and wine, and all
things useful and noble and inspiring."
Also of interest is this rather provocative statement Crowley made in the
conclusion of the Gospel According to St. Bernard Shaw, 1916:
"For not only do I hold the cult of John Barleycorn to be the only true
religion, but have established his worship anew; in the last 3 years
branches of my organisation have sprang up all over the world to celebrate
the ancient rite. So mote it be."
So mote it be.
Kwaw
cthulhu
some have noted (perhaps a bit wryly) that, aside from the scourging and the
Ordains, that the BOS as it stood through the mid 1960's really didn't have
anything in it not associated with an existing occult order. Even with the
Ordains (labelled "The Old Laws" in this instance), it's been pointed out
that they, too, are drawn from an existing text...in this case, Ned's
(Doreen's High Priest from the coven hiving of Feb. 1957) "Proposed Rules
for the Craft", circa June 1957.
I wasn't aware of Gardner's involvement in the OTO until your post.
Informative.
