• This page is changing constantly (as is the source of aleph): do not cache : instead reload

(if you should learn to do this will your toys of knowing, you will achieve a form of liberty
more valuable than any other skill








One of the interesting things about Hebrew is the way that its surface will fool most adventurers away from understanding its source, core. and powers unless their heart is in the right place. Imagine what happened the first time a human being bit into an apple; the redness on the outside ‘gave way to an impossible new thing’ inside it — and this ‘tree-fruit’ was nourishing. If one could ‘only eat the skin’, it would not be nourishing at all. Such is too often the case with language, and even alphabets. We ‘take the red on the outside’ for the ‘nourishing meat within’, and ceasing there — are never fed.

In this case ‘the right place’ really translates into the heartEye’s ability to, in valuing and assembling and arranging, put ‘the first things in front of those which are not the first things, thus that the first is always revealed and magnified, rather than hidden’. From my perspective, this propensity arises naturally in our desire to rescue, adore, adopt, uplift and protect all living beings in every possible domain and circumstance. Following this path requires that one eventually come to realize directly — quite experientially — that saving others and saving self are always and everywhere synonymous — and the way in which this is so is one of the mysteries that lives as one of the petals on the flower we refer to as love.

In anyone seeking something secret, sacred, or supernal — one’s ideas and ability to locate or correct ‘first things’ becomes more and more crucial as any progress is made.

If one is admonished to always put first things first, this seems at once obvious, and impossibly general. There is no added information about what, for example, ‘first things’ are. There is no information about what ‘ordering’ is, such that one might discern what ‘putting first’ is hoped to convey.

But what if one could decode the phrase “Always put first things first” such that all of what was needed was made clear by study of the way of the assembly of each letter, then of each word, then of each pair of words, then of their symmetries...such that the ‘missing instructions’ in all cases — could always be found within the words themselves? Early language was made of stuff like this, and hearing it wasn’t merely an admonitory experience, it was... something we don’t have a word for. We take so for granted what is essentially magical that its magical nature is impossible for us to discern or notice. We get stuck with ‘a game of shells’ or as a kabbalist might say: we trade the qliphoth for the sum of all doors.

In a sacred and magical language such as hebrew this was a part of the essential assembly of language itself. In many early languages, the ‘poetic coincidence’ arising in arranging letters was a valued transport of wisdom, instruction, illumination and revelation. Hebrew is embodied such that it’s ‘first thing’ is always to record, magnify, and provide access to its sources — directly — not through mere reference or rePresentation. What is the hope of a language or discipline which does not conserve its sources?

In English, for example, we may learn that A is for Apple and B is for Bunny, but we do not conserve this ‘form of relation-idea’ into adulthood, considering it primitive, and perhaps even ‘silly or absurd’. We have (as yet) no ‘Sacred Aleph-Bet’, because we simply refuse to value, acknowledge, or conserve this domain of meaning-relation. Since we purposefully discard this, we have no tradition of considering letters to be in themselves magical or sacred — they must then become mechanical, rather than illuminative.

In English, this means that we value mechanism over poetry to such a degree that not only do individual letters ‘have no real or poetic meaning’ for us, but words are the same! We cannot (or do not) ‘play with the anatomy of the formation’ of words such that a single word becomes magically relational with all others — and we have no common or traditional practices of this sort of thing. We value words (and their letters) only by the context of phrases or statements, and most English speakers (and writers) will live and die with nothing but the most superficial of experiential, intellectual and poetic understandings of one of the primary toys of knowledge used to assemble self and reality. Our relationship with them, outside of the metaphors they convey, is at once linear, and flat. Yet language and writing are in no way alike with this. In fact, to end up in such a situation we must practically fight against our own natures, and become unlike ourselves — else we will ‘automatically’ (the only other metaphor for this we have is instinctually) notice the essential playfulness and power of letterforms and their assemblies without much guidance at all. Languages cannot help but conserve such features of lineage. In order for us to miss this, and its benefits, we need to little more than pretend something else is true.

English is precisely alike with Hebrew in this regard, and this can be discerned merely by a careful and intimate exploration of the English alphabet’s ancestry, lineages, and poetic sources of relation. It is impossible to craft a language except that one refer to and include ’a sort of ladder’ that, within the structure of the letters and the meanings of their assemblies, conserves the essential forms and stories of its sources and origins. To make a language, one must first be steeped in language — but to craft a language that survives requires an entire culture, acting in unison and agreement.

Children will often lay hold of these gardens of relational symmetry immediately if led even vaguely in this direction — because their organismal relationships with language give them far better access to sources than are common with adults. Children are still ‘in direct contact’ with the sentient sources of language, and are reliving and uniquely recapitulating not only human experience (all of the history of human cognition) but also planetary experience (all of the experience of all terrestrial organism before and around them at birth). This grants them a simple and celestially-sourced expertise which is too often silenced and preyed upon by the adults and cultures they arise and come to know themselves with(in).

If the eidos, or semantic/ poetic/ linguistic/ metaphoric environment which we arrive in actively abhors our flexibility, the multiplicity of ‘ways of prodigy’, and our organismal connectivity, lineages — and even the living environment — how then shall we recollect them from the desperate obscurity of their predicament?

It is a dilemma which is at the core of everything we consider, believe, express and come to ‘know about’; for this reason the crucial importance of this essential matter cannot be overstated.

In many other languages, especially ancient languages, not only is idea of preserving the poetic ladder of creation and cosmology not absurd, it is instead seen as crucial — a necessity for the conservation of impossible platforms of knowledge-learning — in a form that is difficult to erase: a living language. To erase a language, you must silence and erase its people and culture, and then, perhaps as an afterthought, its texts. But while any given people can preserve a sacred link with their culture and language, the magical property of the language to embody an ancient ladder of ascension ‘of a kind of miraculous tree’ will always remain alive within the forms of the letters, the songs of assembly, the readers, and the world itself.

It is not really necessary to erase a language to deaden it — and a deadened or deadening (a language of silencing) language can grow rapacious and popular — easily erasing more complex and metaphorically friendly languages merely by the power of its flat, compressive pragmatism.

In other words, a flat language can crush most opposition in a popularity contest — especially because those introduced to it become pseudo-mechanical in a way that embodies the mechanical-ness of their flat transports of knowing and relation. Any word, is really a set of spheres — infinitely divisible, or unifyable — extensible. But if we render this as a ‘authorized definition’ we get something more like a flat line drawn on a flat sheet of paper with a small circle bisecting it at some point. This is an interesting and useful toy, but it is a horror when misauthorized as something more: fact, for example.

A language can be formed such that it is like an onion, and if its source and methods of self-assembly are true – every language (perhaps some more than others) conserves something that as modern peoples we actually have ‘no reasonable metaphor’ for, at all. It is a thing of shocking force, and magic; a momentum so powerful it can take our people to the stars.

Of course, the loss or theft of such a power can silence our human sentience and sanity forever, and this very thing has in fact forced us into a circus of servitudes that silence our living world — and all of its many (to us impossible) domains of truly magical relation. What it cannot silence with death, it silences with mimicry, noise, and connection-disorder. There is a name for and an answer to this ‘it’, however, and they are more accessible than we might like to believe. The answer is written in the language we learned and use. The text you‘re reading right now contains it.

Early written languages were records of ‘elements’ of experience and relation which occurred ‘in a state of inward light’. These revelations and traditions of ‘contact with the celestial ones’ were recorded in a peculiar fashion that we take so for granted as to entirely miss its significance. The making of marks in a media, for the later retrieval and interpretation of another such as oneself is an impossible leap in human cognitive evolution. This is an event no less interesting than if humans had suddenly sprouted wings — for in fact, we did. Inward wings, that could carry a portion of our experience-meaning-identity across time, and space.

In order to accomplish this feat, an amazing relationship had to be able to be assembled, before the intention could be formed and carried into action. One had to essentially realize that light could move across time and distance. Thus, in light, one’s hand could ‘touch the eye’ of a distant other — or perhaps oneself, in a distant time or place.

So before there were any sort of marks that were symbolically meaningful, there had to be a series of events that led to the metaphor of this, and that means direct experience. We might not think much of this at first glance — for example, a woman could mark a tree in the morning with a stick, pass it at noon, at see her own mark. And in fact, if this sort of thing were to happen in the modern moment, we’d make nothing of it at all.

Yet those who lived during the genesis and development of the languages we use today had a very different experience of self, consciousness, root-meanings (of everything), and expression than we do. Often magically different. The way they ‘made and used’ the space within we refer to as consciousness was not alike with the way we do — in vast and fundamental ways.

Making a mark and seeing it later was one thing. Realizing that this was a transport of connectivity that could be utilized to cross time, space, distance and receiver was quite another. Using that to actually encode and send something was, to early humans, akin to us being able to travel in time and space at whim. It was not an accident, it was a revelation — and the story of this ‘invention’ is not a story of humans inventing something at all, at least — not in the English meaning of invent. The real story is hidden in the English word, just as it might be in an ancient language — playfully. Invention To inwardly vent an ion, or to ‘open an inward eye-vent’ such that an ‘eye from above’ comes ‘on’ inside you. It isn’t your eye, and you aren’t creating anything. It’s something instead that happens to a sentient vessel in resonance with its sources and participants.

Yet it is not my place here to tell stories of the beginnings of things, except perhaps to notice that hebrew as a written language, and I am certain its sources and predecessors magnify this, is not merely a set of letters. Hebrew can be understood as an artifact resulting from a series of impossible contacts, formed like an onion of many layers. I suspect that it arose at least in part from revelatory experience, and was the instrument of recording for prophets who consistently experienced direct and complexly embodied contact with a celestial sentience. It is a language uniquely intended and formed as a codicil that leads to its directly to its source. As one descends into each layer — new relations and meanings (and ways of assembling them) are illuminated. It is a language that describes a path, and the path has many features and potentials we would consider impossible in our modern perspective. Yet they are there, to be explored, by those who will.

My own experience of Hebrew is extremely limited, and I am not any sort of scholar on the subject. I speak primarily from my experience with fastLearning, which revealed elements common in all human languages that are specifically apparent in Hebrew as a living sacred language. I suppose I could as easily have said that English, once errant in quest of becoming a sacred tongue, gave up and whored itself out to commerce and technology — shedding much of its poetics in the process, and gaining mechanical wings. Those who understood Hebrew would never make such a mistake, for in the loss of poetry and sacred relation, the loss of personhood and the silencing of the celestial sources cannot in any way be avoided.

It is my strong sense that the translations of the Old Testament we’ve lived with in the Western World are horribly (and possibly apocalyptically) botched. It may be that common understandings of their sources are similarly artifacted. Yet hidden within the texts themselves, and in our potential for relation with them is something far more valuable than the entire sum of books — a chance to discover the very source of language. The place from which the organismal inspiration toward song is sourced.

The OT vision of an aggressive, hateful, god and ‘original sin’ are in my opinion grossly misapprehended due to the bizarre and often protectively hateful biases and utter misapprehension of translators, as well as to those errors of ‘copying’ which due either to ignorance or the desire to please some human agency, have tarnished the ancient documents as much as our understanding of them, and in many ways ourselves.

In my recent explorations of Hebrew, which are at best formative, I’ve noticed a variety of interesting features of the language, most of which I somewhat expected to find, and a few of which still elude my understanding. For sacred purposes, the language is formed into what we might call ‘three worlds’ — the archetypal, the existential, and the celestial or cosmic. Formed of 22 letters, each set of 9 correspond, such that the first 9 are the archetypal. The language is written and read Right to Left.

I will not delve deeply into the poetics I have thus far discerned in Hebrew, but each letter has a poetic or sacred symbolic equivalent, and the study of the kabbala is in part the understanding of the numeric, geometric, magical, and poetic layers and relations of Hebrew as they accord with faith-based understandings and paradigms. These matters relate at once to understanding the missions and sources of life on Earth, and also to understanding the corresponding celestial transports, participants, relations and kingdoms, and is often pursued in a form that in some cases uses the Tree of Life as inspiration for symmetry and relation in exploration and expression.


Aleph is the first anything... resulting in all other movement, and thus the inspiration for (and a structural as well as magical participant in) all future embodiment. It is silent, and is formed from a celestial Yod above a Vav and the ‘emanation’ Yod below. It is ‘read’ iconically from right to left. Viewed structurally it’s ‘anatomy’ or structure is thus Yod Vav Yod : 10 6 10 = 26.

I took the time to examine the first letter, which being the first, may be understood to contain and be contained by all the other letters.

Aleph (Aleph Lammed Phay (or Phay-sofit)) is an Ox : The most penultimate causation (who is).

There is a not inconsequential relationShip betwixt this ‘aleph-ox’ and the ‘10-ox (’ of the Zen ‘ox-herding images’. The images comprise a commonly experienced ‘picture-ladder’ that records ‘a path of phases’ in a quest that has little physical evidence of its presence in most cases. It is a quest that happens in the world, but somehow the quest is occurring behind what is seen, in a manner of speaking.

We might call it simply the quest for the source of the one and the many, with(in) the self.

To speak of ‘Zen’ is not like saying ‘christianity’ or even ‘buddhism’. In fact it is like saying ‘erase every idea you ever had for a moment, start over, and then start starting over in waves of starting’ — or something like that. The traditions of Zen ‘study’ would more wisely be called something that translated in the West into a metaphor meaning ‘rescue-game (heartPlay) that grows fast in(out)side’. And that’s saying too much and too little.

My point is that ‘Zen’ is not a spirituality so much as it is a sort of game. It is better played than studied, and better experienced than ‘practiced’.

Here are a couple of interesting reSources on the Ox-herding pictures conserved as a toy of teaching in many if not most modern branches of Zen tradition:



There is something about Ox this which involves the ‘unusual gesture’ allowing one to fold oneself inward, become smaller (in phases and simultaneous scales), and thus receive the most infinite of expansions via a magical (or sacred) sort of inward division (two-seeing).

Lammed (Lammed Mem Dallet) is a Goad or Staff

Mem is the ‘living waters’ above, below and with(in) creation

Dallet (Dallet Lamed Tav) is a Door, entranceWay or Way of Access

Lammed is the Goad of the Ox, or a Staff, or Rod.

Tav is the X - or Cross-Vein/Vane: The sum, That which is complete in the four quartiles of the circle.

Waw is a hook, or yoke: The connector, or ‘transport of connectivity’.

Phay is the Mouth, to exhale or express. To (pro)creatively charge matter with the essence of living song.

He is Light: Rays and Stars, who rePresent in material existence the communal transports, sources and access to eternal gifts of infinite magic

Someone with no experience with Hebrew, but some experience in understanding their own sources and ways of assembly and relation might be able to ‘decode’ aleph — in a playful way, rather than one that bespeaks some submission to this or that formal system. Here is my interpretation, from my own exploration and experience, coupled with what I have come to understand with a little bit of research into the matter. I am supposing that, unlike a system, the context, person, circumstance and many other matters would affect how I or another might interpret the aleph — so this instance is really a very intimate moment, for it records the person in me right now, making my first gestures toward a poetic and perhaps even magical understanding of this venerable and majestic portal into our spiritual and cognitive history — as well as our future.

Aleph: The first one (the unityBeing) in arising is plowing the cosmos inwardly, a vast and sovereign ‘minuteness’ which grows vaster faster while simultaneously growing smaller in progressions that swallow themselves. This being is in everywhen and is like a bull, pulling a vast and causative dream-blanket that is exploding inwardly with souls, mixing self and medium in magical spirals. This is a very mysterious and sovereign Ox indeed, and the ‘manner of its travel’ causes universes with(in) universes to spring into joyous co-elaboration in its wake.

•Lammed: There is a goad or staff, which has also the appearance of a serpent. This is a ‘organ of touching and direction’ such as in learning and teaching — and also in ‘sensing’ (the way a blind person might use a staff). The ‘emotion’ of the staff is sources in the living waters (the feminine and matronly aspect of ether, or vacuum or void — with is anything but empty). And the ‘direction’ is ‘toward a door, an access’. One might more playfully assemble this in English as the ‘establishment of adoration’ ( a door ration) — to see that each participant is and has access to an eternal and heartfully hyperconnective ‘door particle’ — such that isolation (i am a so late particle) could never be real — no matter how it may be appearing.

••Mem: The living waters, pierced and adored with(in) the unityBeing. An ancient symbol recalls an angel with a vase that has a hole in each end. Tipped down toward a river, water flows endlessly from this ‘vase with a magical hole’ into the river. This is also rePresented in the vesica piscis, a lens-like or protovaginal geometry within the tree of life, and a likely candidate for the what ‘the fish symbol’ of the christians actually refers to, although how it ‘fell upon its side’ is a mystery likely resolved in it being hidden in the common symbol for fish, which is usually drawn sidewise. This is also the source of ‘reflection’ and thus a primal requirement, or progenitor of ‘knowing’. Without reflection, there is neither knowing nor knowledge of any sort at all.

••Dallet: A dividing betwixt domains...such as an arch, a door or portal. The ‘end of the rod’ matters — for one is death and the other life, as it is spoken: This rod is Metatron, from one end proceedeth life, and from the other Death (daath?). The Staff, Goad, or Rod is a divisor, and a division betwixt. It ‘crosses gaps’ and thus is also an organ of the establishment of connectivity across ‘domain barriers’.

•••Lammed: An instance of self-reference, to the ‘place in the story’ where we have arrived, which we might playfully call Lammed in Dallet in Lammed in Aleph. And we refer back to the ‘dividing power’ of the Rod (which is Metatron (in facsimile only)). This goad or staff, or rod divides (stands in the center) of the spelling of Dallet, with(in) itself, with(in) aleph.

•••Tav: The ending of the door, is the ending of the end, and thus always a new beginning. It is also ‘stashed’ with(in) Lammed, with(in) Dallet. Thus, aleph is ‘swallowing its tail’ here, and granting us that each ‘round of the circle’ leads us to another scale of perspective — so the snake who has swallowed his tail is in fact a spiral... This symbol is also an X and this is a sign of ‘crossing all gaps’ and of universal and pantemporal connectivity, co-emergence, and resurrection. It is ‘infinite blessings, in infinite domains, at all speeds, sizes and positions, in all moments'. A sign of the ancient gift of belonging.

••••Waw: The yoke, and a nail. That which binds together, as in the sacred and magical sense, rather than the mechanical. The ‘transport of joining’ which surpasses and exceeds all possible mechanism — by virtue of the unifying momentum of actual sources, which is in every place and participant and relation always being magnified in exponentia.

••Phay: Opening and closing, in and out — the mouth, through which we receive sustenance and sing our person to the world. The output of expression, through the mouth, which is the appearance of the spirit in animate manifestation, and relation.

•••He: Light rays...the song of the transports of Light emerge from the ‘mouth’ of Phay in Aleph. Within and across these rays, the body of the unityBeing is exploding in adoration, co-emergence, and hyperconnectivity (barrier-crossing). The ‘sound’ of the voice in Aleph is unity, and liberty. It is the shout of celebration arising at dawn, arising again, in common celebration of the most essential of illuminations.


The unityBeing (a magical sort of Ox) bears a cup upon its brow (two horns), and divides the living waters by dividing itself such that at all places of division, the division is growing — whilst all divisions contribute to greater and more general unity. This movement is alike with adoration. This contains ‘the beginning and the end’, but the Light spoken of is not merely the visible variety — it is the light of mutual reCognition, the reMembrance that we are each ‘all of those who are and will be’ and that, like an organ of assembly, itself a participant in such an organ — at every scale and perspective the sound of the trumpets from home are clear. We are called to reCognize the Sun, and what lies at its ‘core’ — the source of stars, and also their connectivities. The voice of the Ox is the source of Life, Light, and Revelation, and its voice ‘is like light to the eye of the spirit’.

[click to enlarge]

This map shows the anatomy of the first hebrew letter, Aleph. The spelling of each letter begins ‘with itself’. In this case there are two places where this letter could be said to ‘depart into sudden scalarity’ — at ‘Mem Mem’ and ‘Waw Waw’ — for if we continued our chart as above, we would have to add two Mems for each Mem in Mem Mem, and so on, soon finding ourselves in the domain of the infinite. In each of these locations in this partially speculative anatomy of the Aleph there are windows into ‘forever(y)thing’. Note that Aleph is commonly ‘spelled’ with Phay-final or Phay-sofit at the end. I have used Phay, since Aleph is commonly ‘counted’ as though the spelling ends in Phay (80).

Bearing in mind that I know practically nothing about Hebrew, or any language other than English, I decided to craft a small chart of relation to aid me in learning the characters, and how they are spelled. Please forgive my errors, as I am nearly certain I have made a few, at least. As I was typing this up, I ‘realized’ what I had read but not clearly understood, which is that Hebrew is a language of linked consonants, where vowels are added according to context and circumstance, rather than rigid rules — when they are added at all. Thus the ‘spellings’ of the letters make a very (seemingly) simple sense: Aleph is ALP. Some are not as easily parsed, such as Gi mel— which an English reader might make GBL out of.

Hebrew letters, alike with greek letters, also have a non-secular ‘magical math’ that is amongst the formative sources of what we today refer to as numerology. The alef-bet consists primarily of 22 letters, and 5 ‘sofit’ or letters who change form when placed at the end of a word. These are Kaph-Sofit, Mem-Sofit, Nun-Sofit, Peh-Sofit, and Tsaddi-Sofit. The ‘sofit values’ are thus 500, 600, 700, 800 and 900 respectively.

Here is an outline of the different methods of ‘spell-counting’ letters, and words, according to one’s desires and thus the path one selects to begin with. The numbers are not meant as mere arithmetic entities, but as numero-poetic expressions (or even appendages) of the unityBeing in the emanative creation of the eL O HiM.


A chart illustrating the Hebrew Alphabet with Gematria for each letter.

Click image to enlarge in a new window or
here to download as a printable poster (.pdf file).

1. Standard Gematria

The standard gematria value of a letter is found by arranging the alef-bet in order, and then counting in 9’s. The first nine letters stand for 1 - 9. The second nine stand for 10 - 90. The last nine stand for 100-900. (This can be seen in the list below under Full Value).


2. Reduction Value ( or reduction class)

If we arrange the letters in three columns of ascending values, with 9 letters in each column, we can see that each letter is really 1 - 9 multiplied either by 10 or 100. Thus each can ‘be reduced’ to an essential digit, 1-9. This is not accomplished by removing the zero — but rather by adding the digits, combining them to form a sum. The chart below lists the gematrian reduction value-class for each letter.

1. Aleph Yod Qof

2. Bayt Kaf Raysh

3. Ghimel Lammed Sheen

4. Dallet Mem Tav

5. He Nun Kaf-sofit

6. Vav Sammekh Mem-sofit

7. Zayin Ayin Nun-sofit

8. Chet Phay Phay-sofit

9. Tayt Tsadde Tsadde-sofit


3. Full Value

This value is obtained by replacing each letter with the ‘spelling of its name’, and then summing (and noticing the possible reduction values of) the result. The table below shows the standard and full values for each letter, as well as their ‘spellings’ — indicating ‘how the full value is arrived at’.

The interesting thing about this is not the complexities of its form and function, but instead the fact that the Hebraic language, and kabbalistic understandings of the ‘ways of playing with letters’ includes numerism and self-reference, or what systems science and mathematics refer to (rather dryly) as ‘recursion’. To ‘expand through a progression of references to self and source’. The poetico-numeric games of the kabbalistic side of judaic and hermetic forms are not mere games. Indeed, they are ‘a secret vessel’ hidden in plain sight, in which the ‘source of languages’ is not only hidden — but living.

The Archetypal (or Primordial) Letters

These letters refer to the foundations of creation, and are direct expressions of the formative ‘ladder’ expressed by the unityBeing in all symmetry, in every domain, before anything else whatsoever.

1. Aleph:

Aleph Lammed Phay — 1 30 80 = 111

2. Bayt/Vayt

Bayt Yod Tav — 2 10 400 = 412

3. Ghimel/Djlmmel/Gimel

Ghimel Mame Lammed — 3 40 30 = 73

4. Dalet/Dalleth/Dallet/Thallet

Dallet Lammed Tav — 4 30 400 = 434

5. Hey/Hay/He/Heh

He He — 10

[Also: He Aleph — 6 and He Yod — 15]

6. Vav/Waw/Vau

Waw Waw — 6 6 = 12

[Also: Vav Yod Vav — 22 and Vav Aleph Vav — 13]

7. Zayin/Zayn

Zayn Yod Noun — 7 10 50 = 67

8. Hahyt/Cheth

Hayt Yod Tav — 8 10 400 = 418

9. Tayt

Tayt Yod Tav — 9 10 400 = 419


The Existential Letters:

These letters refer to the manifestation at our scales of velocity, relation and perspective, of the principles of the first nine.

10. Yod

Yod Waw Dallet — 10 6 4 = 20

20. Kaf/Kaph

Kaph Phay — 20 80 = 100

30. Lammed

Lammed Mem Dallet — 30 40 4 = 74

40. Mem

Mem Mem — 40 40 = 80

50. Noun/Nun

Noun Waw Noun — 50 6 50 = 106

60. Sammekh

Sammekh Mem Kaph — 60 40 20 = 120

70. Ayn/Ayin/a‘Ayin

Ayin Yod Noun — 70 10 50 = 130

80. Phay/Pe

Phay He — 80 5 = 85

90. Tsadde/Tzadde

Tsadde Dallet Yod — 90 4 10 = 104


The Celestial or Cosmic Letters:

These letters refer to the celestial Throne (which is a living thing, and not preciesly a ‘place’ at all) — it is the movement of manifestation unifying the Existential and the Archetypal.

100. Qof/Qoph

Qof Waw Phay — 100 6 80 = 186

200. Raysh/Resh

Raysh Yod Sheen — 200 10 300 = 510

300. Sheen/Shin

Sheen Yod Noun — 300 10 50 = 360

400. Tav/Tau

Tav Waw — 400 6 = 406

500. Kaf - Final

600. Mem - Final

700. Noun - Final

800. Phay - Final

900. Tsadde - Final

4. Ordinal Value

The ordinal value is obtained merely by the ‘numeric position’ of a letter in the ‘ring’ of letters, such that aleph = 1 and tav = 22. Thus ‘the beginning and the end’ are 23. This could be reduced to five, or if, as with our hands and bodies there are ‘two sides’ to the 5, we could get 10 — or ‘two that are one’. If we include a source, and a unity, and (universes of) identity — we get three. 111 — or the Aleph. The Primordial One. The Living (or manifest) One and the Celestial (atemporal and alocal) One. All of whom are three in one and One in three — a perfect indivisibility abiding invisibly in our most essential of abilities. Knowing.



[click to enlarge]

This professor has crafted an illuminative animation about the ‘symbol drift’ in languages over time. I am indebted to him and other scholars in similar domains. Language change. Here are two resources I found invaluable in creating this document, and in my own research. My thanks to their creators and maintainers:



The following chart illustrates the first 12 words of genesis mapped to their values, as I understand the system. Lest this seem like dead numerism — it is not, it is a map of a riddle that leads deeper into itself with each step. The first 12 words, I have ‘poetically’ taken as the ‘most important’ being ‘the first words’. My experience is that they form a map, and a riddle, and a key...which is easily understood by those who ‘bring the proper sort of light} with which to read the letters. The ‘numbers’ are not abstract — they are like jewels of meaning that can be turned to reveal many facets by linking them with other terms that are gematria-equivalent.

There may be errors in my table, being as it is rather complex:

The first twelve words of Genesis (Sefer Maaseh Bereshith).
The word ‘sefer’ is most likely the source of the English word Cypher.
Masseh was discarded.

Value Columns in the Table:

G. = Gematria
R. = Reduction
F. = Full or Spelling
O. = Ordinal

60 (letterspaces) / 12 (words) = 5 or the sum of the F. Value Column.
[ note: corrections applied 05.14.04 according to this individual’s work ]


This ‘toy of learning’ is incredibly valuable. Learning ‘the hebrew alphabet’ is not alike with what we think of as learning an alphabet, but is in fact a very magical set of toys and assembly-ways that recapitulate much of our cognitive, intellectual and spiritual climb along the ladders of sentience and intellect that led to the (comparatively impoverished) place we modernly resolve ourselves with(in). This alphabet is a meta-toy: it teaches us merely by possessing its images and metaphors — something for which we have no modern term. We might call it a schema of consciousness, which is scalar, in that any particular position represents all possible positions and assemblies — at a particular ‘character-phase-location’.

Here is a simple toy that will allow anyone to rapidly play with learning the hebrew aleph-beit.

l.e. 05.05.11


: home :