Cosmic symbolism

by Sepharial

Every system of Kabalism employs numbers in a symbolical sense, and attributes to them a significance as if they were causative factors. This is legitimate from the point of view of a philosophy that regards the Universe as Symbol. In such a scheme every cosmical factor assumes a symbolical value, according to its ratio in the sum of things, and each of the planets may thus be symbolized either as deities invested with attributes and virtues of a distinctly human nature, or yet may be expressed in terms of numerical values, quantities, colours, forms, and sounds.

But in all such systems the symbolism employed must finally submit to a mathematical expression, which, indeed, is the test of its truth, for as has been very wisely said, we have reason to suspect all statements of fact which are not capable of a mathematical expression. In this connection the Time factor becomes of the highest importance in Kabalism, and since the matter lies in the region of debate, something may be said in this place that may prove of value.

In my Kabala of Numbers and elsewhere I have repeatedly pointed out the fallacy of those systems which ignore the cosmic factors, which alone give symbolism its coherence. Nobody can reasonably ascribe any specific sound or numerical value to a planet, or any influence to any part of the heavens or to any period of time without having regard to some cosmical factor as the basis of the system to which these planetary or time significations belong.

Yet I find that such systems are all too prevalent, and that in some glaring instances they assume a factor as the basis of the system, and straightway set about to argue it out of existence. Thus it is stated in one small manual intended for the use of those studying the mysteries of sound and number, that it is “essential to have an accurate knowledge of the time of the rising of the sun at places on particular days,” and the “simple method” of doing this, according to its author, is to “take the sunrise from any reliable almanac ... and add to it for western longitude at the rate of four minutes per degree, and subtract for eastern longitude at the same rate, and you have the mean local time of sunrise.”

How far this is from the truth any tyro in astronomy will readily perceive. Yet when the error was pointed out to this would-be exponent of the “Mysteries,” instead of being gratefully accepted as a piece of good information which could be utilized in future publications, the unlucky critic was most thoroughly abused, and the matter being finally referred to the authorities at the Greenwich Observatory, it was clearly shown that the critic was right and the author of the “simple method” wrong in every case. The repetition of these errors in subsequent publications leaves one with no alternative but to conclude that either the intricacies of apparent local sunrise are beyond him, or that their introduction into his simple method of expounding the mysteries would undermine his market by rendering the truth too difficult for popular consumption.

Having already given the correct method of finding the local sunrise by reference to ascensional differences, a process which involves nothing more complex than adding two logarithms together, (tang. of Sun’s declination, × tang. of the latitude of place), from which we derive the ascensional difference (sine log.), and comparing the result with that due to the latitude of Greenwich. I need not waste space on the matter in these pages. But it may be pointed out for the benefit of those who wish to base their calculations of the planetary periods and sub-periods on the correct value of apparent sunrise, that the equation of time at the rate of four minutes for every degree applies only to meridian transit in Right Ascension, and has no connection with the equation by ascensional difference due to the latitude of the place. In fact, to find local sunrise it is absolutely necessary to take notice of “seasons and latitudes of places,” and so long as these are ignored so long will the mysteries of sound and number which depend on calculations made from time of sunrise remain “hidden mysteries” in fact as well as name.

By way of illustrating the inaccuracy and futility of the “simple method” of finding sunrise, I may take an illustration that is actually given by its inventor.

“For instance, the sun rises at Greenwich at 4.50 on the 23rd April, 1912, and we want to know the local sunrise at Epsom. All we have to do is to add the equivalent of 0° 17´ (which is nearly one fourth of a degree), 1 minute to that amount. The local sunrise at Epsom is, therefore, 4.51,” which for all practical purposes it is, since Epsom is on the same, or approximate, latitude as Greenwich. But when it is further said that the local time of sunrise is 4.48 at Newmarket on the same day, in the name of holy Science we must demur.

The sun’s declination at 4.50 on April 23rd is 12° 24´, which, referred to the latitude of Greenwich, gives an ascensional difference of 1 hr. 4 min. 12 sec., and to the latitude of Newmarket 1 hr. 6 min. 0 sec., the difference of these being 1 min. 48 sec., so that if the two places were on the same meridian the sun would rise on Newmarket at this time of the year nearly two minutes before it rises on Greenwich. But Newmarket is 0° 24´ east of Greenwich, and therefore it would further advance the time by 1 min. 36 sec., and taking the two factors into account we have for latitude and longitude combined 3 min. 24 sec. by which the sun rises on April 23rd sooner than at Greenwich, the mean time being some seconds before 4.47 a.m. Had a more northerly place been taken it could be shown that the discrepancy is proportionately greater, and in fact at the summer solstice the sun rises on Liverpool only 1 minute after it rises on Greenwich, although the former place is 11 min. 52 sec. west longitude, or 2° 58´, while at York it actually rises before it does at Greenwich.

Therefore I would urge that a kabalism that has reference to the cosmic factor of the sun’s rising would be more effectually serviceable than it is known to be if regard were had to the truth. A system that is based on error cannot be true in its structure, and this fact will account for the constant falling of bricks upon the hapless heads of those who enter the portals of this pseudo-scientific structure, where everything is at sixes and sevens, making unlucky thirteens, and where you have difficulty in distinguishing Hermes from Aphrodite, on account of their exchange of clothes.