Page 469
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2025 2:38 pm
Next is a very interesting image, the fifteenth. On the left we see the seated Sun, on the right the seated Moon, and we see steps. And it turns out that the Sun has one, two, three, four, five lions, and the Moon also has five lions, and in the center they show how these lions collide — solar ones with lunar ones. So how do I interpret this? That the triangle pointing upward is the red lion, the triangle pointing downward is the white lion, the lunar one. One is solar, the other lunar. If we merge them, we get this — what is called Merkabah, what I call a little star. The little star is also the octahedron — in the plane it looks like a hexagram, of course, but in fact it has eight points. So we get this star, but how many such stars do we get? We get five such stars — if there are five red lions and five white ones, that is, five solar and five lunar. We combine them and get five stars.
And here’s the question — do I also need to merge the Sun and the Moon themselves as a sixth star and add that? Or not? Or are five enough? Or should the Sun be counted as a separate star and the Moon as a separate one? But right now, this is where I’ve paused. I’m a bit stuck, because I’m now reasoning that, in principle, when we talk about stars, it’s always five stars depicted in all these alchemical Works, drawings — they’re just playing tricks on people, these alchemists, they show something elementary but in a very complex way, and only the initiated will understand. They show that to understand the Philosopher’s Stone, one needs to find five stars and somehow unite them all so that they become a single star. And those are five stars. And they got those five stars thanks to the tetrahedrons pointing up and tetrahedrons pointing down. That is, there are tetrahedrons that are the Sun, and ones that are the Moon — they depicted all this in a flat plane, of course. And now I have this question: are the five stars I’ve identified, which were formed through the Sun and Moon, enough — or do I still need to add a sixth star by merging the Sun and Moon themselves? But in principle, I’ve already done that. So it’s unclear how many elements really need to be used. That is, should I simply make those five stars in the image, as they depict — five stars, which I’ve made? Or should I also make a sixth star from the Sun and Moon, or is that already done since they were the ones that formed them? That’s the question.
And here’s the question — do I also need to merge the Sun and the Moon themselves as a sixth star and add that? Or not? Or are five enough? Or should the Sun be counted as a separate star and the Moon as a separate one? But right now, this is where I’ve paused. I’m a bit stuck, because I’m now reasoning that, in principle, when we talk about stars, it’s always five stars depicted in all these alchemical Works, drawings — they’re just playing tricks on people, these alchemists, they show something elementary but in a very complex way, and only the initiated will understand. They show that to understand the Philosopher’s Stone, one needs to find five stars and somehow unite them all so that they become a single star. And those are five stars. And they got those five stars thanks to the tetrahedrons pointing up and tetrahedrons pointing down. That is, there are tetrahedrons that are the Sun, and ones that are the Moon — they depicted all this in a flat plane, of course. And now I have this question: are the five stars I’ve identified, which were formed through the Sun and Moon, enough — or do I still need to add a sixth star by merging the Sun and Moon themselves? But in principle, I’ve already done that. So it’s unclear how many elements really need to be used. That is, should I simply make those five stars in the image, as they depict — five stars, which I’ve made? Or should I also make a sixth star from the Sun and Moon, or is that already done since they were the ones that formed them? That’s the question.