Talk:777 and Other Qabalistic Writings of Aleister Crowley

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thelema, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ThelemaWikipedia:WikiProject ThelemaTemplate:WikiProject ThelemaThelema articles

Occult Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kabbalah (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kabbalah, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.KabbalahWikipedia:WikiProject KabbalahTemplate:WikiProject KabbalahKabbalah articles

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

re {{cleanup-citation}}

I have attempted cleaning up the References section using the {{Book reference}} template. The results are as followes:

Regardie, Israel (June 1977). 777 And Other Qabalistic Writings of Aleister Crowley, Fourth Printing, York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser.

Since I don't know who put the {{cleanup-citation}} here in the first place and I don't really know the procedure for removing it without ticking somebody off. I'm leaving this message here in hope that someone may be watching this page. If no one responds of objects is a week or two I'll make the change myself. <Puck 15:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{cleanup-citation}} after cleaning up up the book reference per this MLA guide and added some external links. Is it just me or is this still any ugly article?--◀Puck^talk▶ 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is still an ugly article :) No, seriously, I'm making a suggestion below this. Zos 07:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the {{wikibooks}} template or the {{Book reference}} one? You link to the former, but the text says the latter. --Swift 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict

I see a conflict here. I wish to expand this article, but the article name does not reflect the picture on this article. I think this should be changed to the full title in print now. Otherwise I'd have to create another article, on the actual book, and merge this one with the new one. I believe the article's name should be 777 and Other Qabalistic Writings. Seeing as how this is the name of the book, and Liber 777 is refering to a part of this book, hence the conflict in actually adding to this page. Zos 07:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liber 777 is one book. Liber 777 and other Qabalistic Writings contains at least three, and maybe more books. [My copy seems to have the disappearing trick, otherwise I would state exactly how many books are contained in it.]

I found my copy of 777 and Other Qabalistic Writings of Aleister crowley. It contains:

Gematria, which originally found in Equinox vol 1 number 5. Liber number is not listed in the book.
An Essay Upon Number. Original source not stated. No Liber number given.
Liber 777
Sepher Sphiroth SVB Figure D

And glued into it,obviously pirate copies of

Liber MCCLXIV;
Liber Oz;

--jonathon 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC) The question is whether to do n article for every Liber that Crowley wrote, or for every book currently (July 2006) in print, that contains his Libers.[reply]

There already exists a page for called Works of Aleister Crowley and linked from there is the Libri of Aleister Crowley. I wouldnt go so far as to create all his libri, since most are short, and unheard of. They were reproduced, or produced in many published works, so if there are major works that include them, the article needs creation. Otherwise, no. It will more than likely be deleted. SynergeticMaggot 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Investment" Qabala

If there is no citation, why not just delete this sentence? I've never heard of "investment" Qabala...let's just say Jewish Kabala and Magickal Qabala are two prominant forms today?

Study of 777

This site helped me out in the study of 777. http://hometown.aol.com/donluceano/gematria777.html --DreHectik 11:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say Kabalah, I say Qabalah

I don't see the reason why the Jewish form should be called "Kabalah" and the western version "Qabalah" in this article. Both of them come from the same Hebrew word QBL (Qabal), and there's no official example of the those different spellings being used for specific versions. I have a Jewish book on the Qabalah and it transliterates the word naturally as "Qabalah". It is a personal preference of the person who edited my original text. I changed it back but they remained stubborn.

If you thought the new-age was without fundamentalism then you were wrong, because here is a dogmatic nuance based on nominalism. Someone agree with me and change it back to "Qabalah" (for the sake of the title) or both to "Kabalah" if they are daring.

Saturn-opposition-Uranus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Favonich (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am quite sure this has been talked about in mostly modern new age books, that many in the hermetic, non-jewish, Qabalah have made the distinction that there's is Q, Jewish is K, and Christian is Cabalah or the like... It is just a minor distinction that is only followed by the neo-pagan type hermetic Qabalah. Christians too may use the C more often... but the Jews use any they please and do not follow such modern differentiating (they consider it all theirs perhaps?) It is just a modern suggestion which I have read in quite a few modern works of the new age variety. I cannot source any but I know it is several, that state that is "the difference", so it was a "concensus" from some influential, likely new age, book from the '80s or some such. 4.242.174.243 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those diamond shapes working as word separators in the punctuation of 777

Talk:Interpunct#colon-like (diamond shape) interpunct ... 4.242.174.243 (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]