Suares: Bayt (or Vayt), no. 2, is the archetype of all "dwellings", of all containers:
the physical support without which nothing is.
With Bayt, a Double Letter, we enter into the realm of the thinkable, in contrast to the infinite, unknowable, energy/consciousness of Aleph. In thinking about Bayt, we create Bayt's of thought about what Bayt might be. This is the logical place to realize that Bayt is not any specific Bayt (container) of thought (an idea or image or abstraction). The problem with thought (Bayt-ing) is that sensuously-based, colloquial languages train our minds to think in semantically arbitrary specifics (the signs point to the material world). To understand Bayt, we have to train our minds to think in semantically non-arbitrary generalities (the signs point in the opposite direction).
Bayt is not any of our Bayts about Bayt, such as container, matter, duality, separation, division. It is the Bayt-ness of all those specific qualifications, across the entire range of structuration of matter and consciousness. Similarly, as we encounter each letter, Ghimel is not our Bayt of Ghimel, but a sign for a completely generalized abstract organizational principle underlying all our Bayts of motion, movement, change, interchange and relationship. In fact, Ghimmel is not in our Bayts at all, but rather in the movement of our Bayts animated by Aleph, of which we have no Bayt (thought) at all.
The particular words or descriptions chosen to describe the basic energies are simply intended to be as general as possible and to lead the mind away from specifics and towards a set of underlying, generalized, structures. The reader can use more appropriate terms from their own language or experience.
The other quality of our new way of thinking, besides learning to Bayt in the most generalized structural terms instead of about specific objects, is the non-arbitrary part. It is difficult to even begin to think about a non-arbitrary language because we are so saturated in arbitrary ones.
To use our example of linguistic arbitrariness from Aleph, "casa" or "building" or "house" can all be used to point to the same thing (material object), but neither the words nor their letters have any inherent connection to either the physical structure or our ideas of what makes a house a "house."
In Hebrew, both Bayt the letter and Bayt the word, both spelled Bayt-Yod-Tav, mean house. Bayt, in formative semantics (a phrase for our non-arbitrary language) means an abstract, generalized container, the "houseness" of house. Bayt is the container for the uncontainable, Aleph; in its most generalized sense it is Bayt-El (Bethel), the Bayt of Aleph, or the "house" of Aleph-Lammed, "God:" Bayt-Yod-Tav -- Aleph-Lammed-(Phay).
Each letter of the Hebrew alphabet, in addition to signifying a basic creative energy or fundamental power, is itself spelled by the letters of the same alphabet of basic energies. This means that the Hebrew letters are self-defining and self-signifying when their basic (generalized) meanings are understood. Each letter has an inner structure of its own and in half the cases, a role in the spelling and meaning of the other letters.
It is a trivial task to assign abstract meaning to twenty-two letters. It is much more difficult to spell those letters with meanings from the other letters in a consistent and coherent way, and account for their positions in a logical array of meaning. If the initial meanings are arbitrary, the system will fail as a language.
Using our basic generalized summary of the fundamental creative powers, we can begin to explore our non-arbitrary language starting at the beginning with the letters themselves and their non-arbitrary relationships to each other and the whole.
If Aleph, spelled Aleph-Lammed-Phay projects (Lammed) into unstructured substance (Phay), Bayt announces the counterpart theme of the dual structuration of energy: the response of Tav. Infinite energy expands though the alphabet to Tav, where it meets its mirror, infinite compressive energy, and is reflected back. These two flows, or "breaths," corresponding to the structuration of material and psychological (spiritual) energies, create all that exists.
Bayt, abstract archetype of containing energy or structure, shows what a generalized container is from the inside by its spelling. Bayt-Yod-Tav: 2-10-400: Bayt: archetypal container -- Yod: in existence -- Tav: cosmic resistance. Bayt's roots span the three worlds: it already contains Aleph's projection in existence, Yod and it ends with the last letter of the alphabet.
The first two letters establish the complete dual circuit of energy, from Aleph to Tav and back: Aleph acts on unstructured substance; Tav gives existence to containers for Aleph.
Tav is already present as the seed of the seed within the Dallet of the Lammed of Aleph (see the full expansion). It becomes explicit in Bayt-Yod-Tav, where it provides the backstop of cosmic resistance that allows Aleph the uncontainable to be contained at all. Reading "backwards": as Tav in existence -- Yod -- Aleph contains -- Bayt -- itself.
The Aleph-Bayt, the Aleph and the Tav, and the letter or sign (Aleph-Waw-Tav) are all equivalent in signifying the "alphabet" as a total set of semantically-accurate signs (their Alephs are linked to their Tavs). The signifier is the signified.
Having introduced the idea of analyzing the meaning of a letter by its own spelling and checking for internal consistency, and then the idea that the spellings of the letters have spellings, we can open a small porthole into the matrix with the full spellings of the first two letters of the alphabet.
The roots of Aleph and Bayt continue forever in the infinite expansions of Waw and Mem, Dallet and Lammed. We find that they are both complementary in their initial spellings and identical in their deeper roots, the biologically-structured energies of Dallet (response), Lammed (equilibrium) and Mem (biological matrix). Aleph contains Hay, life, in its Phay, but it is unitary and terminates, while the Waw of Tav proliferates the containers of Bayt endlessly.
This illustrates the fact that the letters are not so much spelled as structured; they can be seen as patterns of energy or meaning in their full expansions.
Bayt, Dallet (Dallet-Lammed-Tav), Hayt (Hayt-Yod-Tav) and Tayt (Tayt-Yod-Tav) all draw their existence from Tav: signs of containment/division (Bayt), resistance/response (Dallet), unstructured/unconditioned consciousness/energy (Hayt) and seed/formation (Tayt). In Dallet, resistance is defined from the inside as active response/necessary resistance to life. Bayt itself contributes to the structuration of no other letter of the alphabet. None of the first three (Aleph, Bayt, Ghimmel) are found as organizational elements of the other letters: they are the seeds of the seeds.
We've used Bayt to think about the arbitariness of ordinary language, and to begin to consider the Hebrew alphabet as a non-arbitrary language of basic energies defined by the spelling of its own letters, in this case, Bayt, which is all we can think of but not all that is.
GENESIS I, 1-4
Berechiytt Bara Elohim Ett Ha-Chamaim We-Ett Ha-Eretz
Berechiytt: Beitt/2, Reich/200, Aleph/1, Chinn/300, Yod/10, Taw/400
(The reading of the text consists of meditating on these numbers successively.)
BEITT meditation = 2
Tradition teaches that the first five chapters of Genesis are contained in the first, the first in the first verse, the first verse in the first word and finally this one in the first letter.
Indeed, if we fully understand the Beitt, the 2 which in everyday language means house - and the reasons why it is this being which presents itself to consciousness in the first place (and to which is identified, in the course of its appearance, the entire consciousness), if one understands and if one finds by a lived experience (in the immanence of consciousness) the full meaning of the beginning of this message: 2, we can already glimpse the unfolding of the myth in its totality.
That an unintegrated consciousness, that a consciousness in a dream state, be identified with the images which at the both capture it and engender it, the fact is obvious. In the dream state, consciousness has no identity except in depending on the images that contain it. These images are the Beitt, the house of consciousness and this one is only a relation between the images and the state of pseudo-perception involved in the dream. Thus consciousness becomes its own house. It is both the container and the content of a consciousness-something relationship. It's the 2.
From the lowest rung of consciousness to the highest that we can see in the man, the conscience is Beitt. This fact is verifiable in animals, in small children, in dreams or when consciousness is captured by a reading or a performance. So far there is hardly any difficulty perceiving the Beitt. The resistances of a consciousness that affirms "I am" begin as soon as that it is proposed to consider that it is only a phenomenon of relation, always and in all circumstances. She feels unanalyzable and intangible in a metaphysical essence. By projecting the 2 initially, the revelation of Genesis forbids such speculation. She asserts that consciousness means awareness of something. If there is not a something which is the container of consciousness, and whereby consciousness sees the interaction of container and contained, there is no consciousness, because that there is no perception. Thus, the "I am" is not an identity but an identification.
Human consciences are Hindu, Christian, Jewish, French, German, Algerian, capitalists, Soviets, commoners, nobles, males, females. They are reaction to the environment, perceptions, sensations, accumulations of memories, conscious or unconscious memories In short, they are aggregates of social and individual elements. Seeing it clearly -- and admitting it -- is to die as an entity: it is to know that consciousness is the 2. It suffices to know this for the Beitt ceases to have an existence of its own as "I am"
This passage is formidable, because all thought is the 2. A consciousness identified with its thought blocks, immures itself inside a 2, where it dies of suffocation. To think is to think of something or think something. In the first case, the 2 is the object of thought-consciousness. It's the relationship that modifies the object and combines it with other known objects. The second case is that religious and social myths, of the ideal, of faith in general: the object being lacking, the imagination made. These symbols are the container (the Beitt) of the profound insufficiencies of individuals, means of which they give themselves an identity, and consciousness becomes the container (the Beitt) of these waste.
In truth, the deeper one delves into the Beitt, the more it reveals its omnipresence. The psyche is the container of the body and conversely the physiological is the container of the psychological. teaching ontological demands that this fact be experienced at all times, which requires constant and very acute in spirit. The revelations of 2 are inexhaustible. To open up to them and their effects is put into action a movement whose consequences cannot be foreseen. There is no need to indulge cerebral comments about it, the way people say, for example, that it is understood that matter and spirit (or matter and energy) are one and the same thing. This is undoubtedly true, but not for the conscience. The condemnation of duality and the search for unity are artifices of thought, the most certain effect of which is to install consciousness in the fixation of an identify.
As long as the revelation of 2 has not upset the conscience of the reader, Tradition advises not to read no further. The revelation appears at the beginning or never. It is up to the reader here deepen and broaden your meditation.
La Kabale Des Kabales
See: Bereshyt | Bara | Shabatai