Tetragrammaton And Yhvh Options

Tetragrammaton and YHVH (yod heh vau heh) . . . .

I'm to understand that the reference "Tetragrammaton" and "YHVH" aren't necassarily the same thing.

Tetragrammaton is a greek word referring (occult-wise) to the four principal elemental components of the Divine Body
YHVH are the four-fold power of the body of the divine (GOD) in any particular manifest aspect. (a semetic/hebrew theological origin)

Is that right . . . the four-fold YaHoWaH and the (nearly barbarous name) Tetragrammaton aren't necassarily referring the the exact same concept ?

(this make sense in light of the Triangle of Art . . . though I'm not using the archangelic binding/controlling formula, only the three greek barbarous names of manifestation)

This post has been edited by palindroem: Aug 27 2006, 11:54 AM

YHVH is certainly reserved in orthodox Judism for only the high priest to say.
Often in jewish literagy the written word YHVH is replaced with some 'lesser' word when spoken . . . such as ADNI
Within the western magickal tradition its a different thing altogether . . . we say it all the time.

Literally in greek (well, transliterally) Tetragrammaton means "The Four Lettered" . . . and its certainly assumed to mean YHVH.
If we assume that the only possible purpose of the greek word Tetragrammaton is in referrence to a correlate hebrew word ... it might be acceptable to mean YHVH or ADNI or EHIH or AGLA (or any other four lettered word).
Its certainly appropriate, in most situations, to assume it to mean the four-fold aspect of the Divine YHVH.

This post has been edited by palindroem: Aug 29 2006, 03:12 PM

Interesting idea, although I have never heard anyone else question that Tetragrammaton = YHVH.

It is the accepted "truth", but that doesn't mean we cannot question accepted concepts. Although Tetragrammaton is rarely used within modern circles except when dealing with grimoric magick. I had always assumed the use of Tetragrammaton came about due to the inablity to read and write hebrew very well. The medieval authers weren't known for their hebrew scholarship.

Interesting idea, although I have never heard anyone else question that Tetragrammaton = YHVH.

It is the accepted "truth", but that doesn't mean we cannot question accepted concepts. Although Tetragrammaton is rarely used within modern circles except when dealing with grimoric magick. I had always assumed the use of Tetragrammaton came about due to the inablity to read and write hebrew very well. The medieval authers weren't known for their hebrew scholarship.

NERO!!
(how'd the triA go for you? . . . . you still on YM?)

Far be it for me to question accepted truth (IMG:style_emoticons/default/hmm.gif) . . . well . . .

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that Tetragrammaton doesn't generally equal YHVH . . . but that their are other aspects to the value of Tetragrammaton in addition to the more general Tetragrammaton = YaHoWaH.
I'm getting information about the formula of the Triangle (in its current "evolved" state), with the suggestion that Tetragrammaton is utilized instead of YHVH very specifically . . . not simply to avoid YHVH (for whatever theological or scribal reasons)

Certainly Tetragrammaton is prevelent in grimoric magick . . . but also in evocational magick . . . and to some degree any magick that focus' on a loci of manifestation (talisman consecrations...).
And its really that, that Tetragrammaton seems to me resonant with . . . the loci of manifestation.
Granted, the old boys sometimes didn't get thier hebrew perfect . . . they did seem to get the four-lettered words right for the most part though.

I guess the real crux (and the real point of my question) is to verify the follow:
"The formula of the classic Triangle of Art would be broken if the "barbarous word" Tetragrammaton were replaced with YHVH."

(I certainly understand that other, self-styled, magicians have made and effectively used Triangles were all the words have been replaced . . . Boobs, LOL . . . thats reall an entirely different issue though)

In this regard tho,
"each word is an important part of the formula of the whole . . . and the whole is "tuned" by its applied geometry with regards to the process of manifestation through the union of two parts of a tripolarity (as opposed to the more abstract duality) into the functional (foundational ?) third component."
"Turn the angle, tune the tool."
(my impression is that the difference is in how "Tetragrammaton" functions with the other two greek barbarous words)

I'm just trying to either make sense of that or reject it as useless/inacurate information.

Smasher . . . Yeah, basically.

This post has been edited by palindroem: Sep 7 2006, 03:56 PM

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that Tetragrammaton doesn't generally equal YHVH . . . but that their are other aspects to the value of Tetragrammaton in addition to the more general Tetragrammaton = YaHoWaH.
I'm getting information about the formula of the Triangle (in its current "evolved" state), with the suggestion that Tetragrammaton is utilized instead of YHVH very specifically . . . not simply to avoid YHVH (for whatever theological or scribal reasons)

Well obviously the use of YHVH in respect to the triangle is more for the forumula of creation than the divine name. The divine spark into the womb transported through intellegent design into formation. So it's use in the triangle makes perfect sense for manifestation into the 3-D confines of the triangle with the use of the archangel for control. BUT that being said I do not have a good reason why tetragammaton would be used instead of YHVH directly.

Now a clue would be looking at the circle design used in the goetia. The "snake" has all the correct divine names of the tree of life but the internal circle about the hexagram has adoni but in english letters instead of hebrew. I have always found that funny. The person who designed the circle knew hebrew or at least the divine names in hebrew but still used english there. Not consistant in the use.

I see what you mean with the circle comparison . . . I'm not sure that the words in the Triangle are showing any inconsistancies.
Actually, quite the opposite . . . very specific consistancy. Thats really whats got me going down that rabbit-hole.
(although I'm not convinced that the archangel isnt included as a later adaptation for new theological sensitivities (IMG:style_emoticons/default/Symbols_1911.gif) )

Perhaps the person (IMG:style_emoticons/default/egypt1.gif) that designed that circle didn't need any of the extra consistancies of all the words in hebrew.