THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.divination,alt.consciousness.mysticism,talk.religion.misc From: haraSubject: Pagan Kabbalah Fantasies (was Pagan Kabbalah) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 10:47:00 GMT 50011206 VI! om Hail Samuel! Carroll 'Poke' Runyon (Gnomedplume@aol.com/Gnome d Plume): >>> ...on the Pagan roots (both Assyrian and Greek) of Kabbalah not established. you are perhaps talking about tree diagrams and numerolinguistics. these are responsibly discerned from Kabbalah, which may use a a set of diagrams or teachings, but is more a sociocultural complex, primarily transmitted orally through time and space. to represent its roots as located in Assyrian and Greek cultures is to omit the wealth of original construction and actual social origins of this longstanding Jewish mystical tradition. Scholem warns against it and you seem to tread the edge here. >>> and our newly rectified Hermetic/Pagan version version of a Tree of Life symbol-lattice? this further confirms the confusion. what justifies the term 'rectification'? >>> using the intrinsic Mother Letter-based Tetragrammatons >>> (22 and 24 letter versions) sounds like the Hebrew language. if, as you believe, the Kabbalah is rooted in Assyrian and Greek cultures, why not use their languages? did either or both of these have "Mother-letters"? mefistof13@aol.comnospam (Mephistopheles): >> ...In searching for a pagan Kabbalah, "a pagan Kabbalah" is meaningless, because as far as I know the sociocultural oral tradition cannot be shown to have preceded Jewish mystics. if you have found these "roots", I'd like to know more about them (as would countless Hermetic magicians vying for attention surrounding the hot-term "qabalah". >> we must look to its essential emanationism. this is merely conceptual and hardly central. you must be talking about the value of emanationism to (Lurianic?) Kabbalah and its ideas of cosmogenesis (in fact that is where you wind up below). >> ...Neoplatonist emanationism, the notion of divinity existing >> in layers, is at the root of the kabbalistic system. how does one determine where "the root of the Kabbalistic system" lies? is it conceptual? practical? social? symbolic? theological? defining it tightly, it is easier to co-opt. >> ...a coherent emanationist system that passed back and forth >> between east and west, its last westward movement being the >> Rosicrucian enlightenment, which "coincided" with the >> Lurianic movement in Jewish Kabbalah. is Luria primary in Kabbalism or is it just the obsession of Hermetic mages? >> ...Hermetic and Jewish Kabbalah continually enriched and >> challenged each other, and await but the right ecumenical >> movement, in imitatione Nag Hammadis, to unify them. then why does Scholem slam Hermetic "qabalah" as largely unworthy of attention and attribute so little value to it? Gnomedplume@aol.com (Gnome d Plume): > ...even Scholem admites that the Sepher Yetzirah is > "Pythagorean" in what sense? could you identify to what you are referring so I can read that in "Kabbalah"? or are you talking about a different book in which he 'admits' this? > and Barry cites the 1st Century Gnostic Marcus with > creating the first astrological letter-number esoteric > system. as late as that? I'd guessed it would be earlier. > The Assyrians placed their Gods and Goddesses on the Tree > and attributed them to the planets. Parpola demonstrates > that these attributes had a numerical symbolism. I think you've misunderstood the import of Parpola's essay. he does not explain the significance of the numerical symbolism in his reconstructed 'Assyrian Tree' and he goes so far as to distinguish it from 'the Sefirotic Tree' of Jewish Kabbalah. if you could explain the logic of the 'reconstructed Tree' he presents I'd be more inclined toward your way of thinking. in fact, Parpola doesn't explicitly do more than provide reason to go looking for the Tree he has posited is a kind of 'missing link' between Assyrian culture, with its gods' mystical numbers, and a later Tree he projects backwards from Jewish Kabbalists. here're the details of his construction: roughly, using as a reference what I have come to know as a Lurianic naming scheme, omitting the circle and lines to Malkuth in a somewhat conventional occult Tree of Life diagram, Parpola's thought-experiment included the following substitutions: (SEPHIROTH=NAME=NUMBER) Kether=Anu=1, Chokmah=Ea=60, Binah=Sin=30, Da'ath=0=Mummu, Chesed=Marduk/Enlil=50, Geburah=Samas=20, Tiphareth=Istar=15, Netzach=Nabu/Ninurta=40, Hod=Adad/Girru/Nusku=10, Yesod=Nergal/Sakkan=14). "The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy", Professor Simo Parpola, University of Helsinki, in The Journal of Near Eastern Studies, #3, 1993, copyright University of Chicago. > I don't want to give the impression that the Rabbinical > Kabbalah is flawed or not important. arguably to suggest that there is anything other than (Jewish) Rabbinical Kabbalah is insulting to Jewish mystics. > It is, and they made a great contibution, and we owe a > great debt to them I'd suggest that your sources (Parpola, Scholem, et al) will argue that Jewish Kabbalists owe "Pagans", such as Assyrians and Greeks, a great debt for their contributions of tree-diagrams and numerolinguistic systems, whereas the actual Kabbalah was entirely the fabrication and society of Jewish people whom later Christians, Hermetics, and Thelemites have been consistently been attempting to most rudely displace by misidentifing new constructions with ancient elements with identical labels ("qabalah"). > -- but the Kabbalah is universal with precisely this kind of assertion. I'd suggest that if you wish to be taken seriously you may wish to consider where the term "kabbalah" originates, to what it actually applies, and what these Greeks and Assyrians called "it" before "it", as you may be supposing, entered into Jewish mystical culture (obviously I think there is a stronger case to be made that the elements you are talking about were grabbed up by Jews in order to CREATE Kabbalah, and Christians and Hermetics after them just sought to steal and lie in order to convert to their preferred brand of religion (however syncretic)). > and Pagans, Thelemites and other "Chicken" Kabbalists > should not be made to feel like second class wannabes the argument for religious rivalry is pretty strong. if the shoe fits.... > if they find in the great old system their own niche > and inspiration. projecting beyond and through that which we might wish to co-opt toward our own purposes and for which we would like to see attention drawn our way, it is easy to compliment the "messengers of a great old system" when it is arguably these very "messengers" who are responsible for making what Kabbalah is today. > To suggest otherwise is so selfish and zenophobic as to > degrade the very concept of Kabbalah itself. Kabbalah is a concept? I wonder. it isn't that I haven't stood where you are standing and posited an universal QBL, but I have been persuaded over time that the elements which modern mages find compelling about Kabbalah (geometric diagrams and numerolinguistics) are not primary delimiters for the mystical tradition (which pretty clearly arises in Judaism and are constituted of the rabbis who established and still perpetuate the oral traditions that make it up). peace be with you, hara nagasiva@luckymojo.com ======================== Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.divination,alt.consciousness.mysticism,talk.religion.misc Subject: QBL: Origins and Co-options (was Parpola Discovered! (was: Pagan Kabbalah Fantasies (was Pagan Kabbalah) From: hara Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 06:56:18 GMT 50011210 VI! om Hail Samuel! Gnomedplume@aol.com (Gnome d Plume): > Aside from your obligatory satanic (Jewish satanic???) shenanigans, response to this appended to this post [cf. note 1]. > this is a pretty good post.... thank you, and thank you very much for responding so fully. I find it more valuable to continue a discussion with you when you address the various points I've made rather than responding to the whole post with a single paragraph (no matter how extensive). I'm going to spend quite a bit of time discussing this subject with those who post here, because I see there is a plethora of ambiguity and controversy. Gnome d Plume (Gnomedplume@aol.com/Gnome): >>>>> ...on the Pagan roots (both Assyrian and Greek) of Kabbalah hara : >> not established. > ...If you'll read Gershom Scholem's *Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism* > carefully and with an open mind you might come to a different point of > view. For one thing he definitely states that the *Sepher Yetzirah* is > Pythagorean.***** it is obvious when looking at this text that Scholem identifies Kabbalah with Jewish mysticism. he admits that the Jewish mystics used many different 'language sets' to express their mystical feelings and ideas, inclusive of some outside Jewish tradition. some quotes from this text which pertain to this assertion and others which you have made are: The existence of speculative Gnostic tendencyies in the immediate neighborhood of Merkabah mysticism has its parallel in the writings grouped together under the name of *Maaseh Bereshith*. These include a document -- the *Sefer Yetsirah* or Book of Creation -- which represents a theoretical approach to the problems of cosmology and cosmogony. [AUTHOR'S NOTE: There exists a vast literature on this book, cf. my article Jezira in EJ vol. IX col. 104-111 where bibliographical notes are given. The English translations and commentaries of W. Westcott (1895) and K. Stenring (1923) contaim some rather fantastic passages.] The text probably includes interpolations made at a later period, but its connection with the Merkabah literature is fairly evident, at least as regards terminology and style. Written probably between the third and the sixth century, it is distinguished by its brevity; even the most comprehensive of the various editions does not exceed sixteen hundred words. Historically, it represents the earliest extant speculative text written in the Hebrew language. Mystical meditation appears to have been among the sources from which the author drew inspiration, so far as the vagueness and obscurity of the text permits any judgment on this point. The style is at once pompous and laconic, ambiguous and oracular, -- no wonder, therefore, that the book was quoted in evidence alike by medieval philosophers and by Kabbalists. Its chief subject- matters are the elements of the world, which are sought in the ten elementary and primordial numbers -- *Sefiroth*, as the book calls them -- and the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. These together represent the mysterious forces whose convergence has produced the various combinations observable throughout the whole of creation; they are the "thirty-two secret paths of wisdom," through which God has created all that exists.... After the author has analyzed the function of the *Sefiroth* in his cosmogony, or rather hinted at the solution in some more or less oracular statements, he goes on to explain the function of the letters in creation.... He then proceeds to discuss, or rather to unveil, the secret meaning of each letter in the three realms of creation known to him: man, the world of the stars and planets, and the rhythmic flow of time through the course of the year. The combination of late Hellenistic, perhaps even late Neoplatonic numerological mysticism with exquisitely Jewish ways of thought concerning the mystery of letters and language is fairly evident throughout. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism", Gershom Scholem, Shocken Books, 1969 (Fourth Printing; original 1961); pp. 75-6. I noticed, in my skim of the text, a couple of mentions of numbers and letters in relation to the *Sefer Yetsirah*, and most interestingly what Abulafia called "the methods of Kabbalah, being *Gematria*, *Notariqon*, and *Temurah*)" (Ibid., p. 127) and never found a specific characterization of this book as "Pythagorean", though the above gives you sufficient evidence to support your contention in a loose way, though I'll presume that you don't believe the text had some sort of mythic Pythagorean origin. it does seem that the character resembles Pythagorean notions of number and metaphysics (if you know of a more firm support from Scholem here, please point it out for us). of note I think pertains to our discussion and to the forums to which this is being posted: MEANING OF "SEFIROTH" ...the Kabbalistic term *Sefiroth* -- a term for which the approximate translation would be 'spheres' or 'regions' (although the Hebrew word *sefirah* has nothing to do with the Greek *sphaira*, various hypotheses to the contrary notwithstanding). In the "Book of Creation" [the *Sefer Yetsirah*] from which it was originally taken, Sefiroth simply meant numbers, but with the gradual development of mystical terminology, with which I cannot deal here, it changed its meaning until it came to signify the emergence of divine powers and emanations. ---------------- Ibid., p. 206. HERMETIC MAGICIANS SUCH AS LEVI AND CROWLEY AS COMPARED WITH WAITE AND MOLITOR It is not to the credit of Jewish scholarship that the works of the few writers who were really informed on the subject [of Kabbalah] were never printed, and in some cases were not even recorded, since there was nobody to take an interest. Nor have we reason to be proud of the fact that the greater part of the ideas and views which show a real insight into the world of Kabbalism, closed as it was to the rationalism prevailing in the Judaism of the nineteenth century, were expressed by Christian scholars of a mystical bent, such as the Englishman Arthur Edward Waite of our days and the German Franz Josef Molitor a century ago. It is a pity that the fine philosophical intuition and natural grasp of such students lost their edge because they lacked all critical sense as to historical and philological data in this field, and therefore failed completely when they had to handle problems bearing on the facts. The natural and obvious result of the antagonism of the great Jewish scholars was that, since the authorized guardians neglected this field, all manner of charlatans and dreamers came and treated it as their own property. From the brilliant misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Alphonse Louis Constant, who has won fame under the pseudonym of Eliphas Levi, to the highly coloured humbug of Aleister Crowley and his followers, the most eccentric and fantastic statements have been produced purporting to be legitimate interpretations of Kabbalism. [AUTHOR'S NOTE PERTAINING TO THIS STATEMENT: Eliphas Levi is a Judaization of his Christian names Alphonse Louis. No words need be wasted on the subject of Crowley's "Kabbalistic" writings in his books on what he was pleased to term "Magick," and in his journal, The Equinox.] ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ibid., p. 2; and p. 353 (apparently intended as a note to p. 2). L. Baeck has tried to show that the Book of Creation [the *Sefer Yetsirah*] is a Jewish adaptation of certain basic ideas of Proclus, much as the books of Dionysus the pseudo-Areopagite are a Christian one, cf. MGWJ vol. 70 (1926) p. 371-6; vol. 78 (1934) p. 448-455. But his reasoning is not convincing, although his thesis looks fascinating enough. Some very remarkable similarities between the Book of Creation and early Islamic gnosticism have been pointed out by Paul Kraus, Jabir ibn Hayyan vol. II (Cairo 1942) p. 266-268. ----------------------------------------- Ibid., p. 368. On the question of whether the author believes in the emanation of his *Sefiroth* out of each other and of God it is possible to hear directly conflicting views. According to some writers, he identifies the *Sefiroth directly with the elements of creation (the spirit of God; ether; water; fire; and the six dimensions of space). Others with whom I am inclined to agree, see in this description a tendency towards parallelism or correlation between the *Sefiroth* and the elements. In any event, the *Sefiroth* which, like the host of angels in the Merkabah literature, are visualized in an attiude of adoration before God's throne, represent an entirely new element which is foreign to the conception of the classical Merkabah visionaries. On the other hand, one cannot overlook the connection between the "Book of Creation" and the theory of magic and theurgy which, as we have seen, plays its part in Merkabah mysticism. The ecstatic ascent to the throne is not the only element of that mysticism; closely connected with magical practices. One of these, for example, is the "putting on, or clothing, of the name," a highly ceremonious rite in which the magician impregnates himself, as it were, with the great name of God -- i.e. he performs a symbolic act by clothing himself in a garment into whose texture the name has been woven. The adjuration of the prince or archon of the Torah, *Sar Torah*, belongs to the same category. The revelation sought through the performance of such rites is identitical with that of the Merkabah vision. The "Prince of the Torah" reveals the same mysteries as the voice which speaks from the throne of fire; the secret of heaven and earth, the dimensions of the demiurge, and the secret names the knowledge of which gives power over all things. ---------------------------------------- Ibid., pp. 77-8. it is not, at least according to Scholem, therefore, that we're always talking about emanations, as Mephistopheles seems to contend. a part of the Jewish mystics may accept this notion, but there is debate about whether it may be used to directly connect Kabbalah with Plotinus. >> you are perhaps talking about tree diagrams and numerolinguistics. >> these are responsibly discerned from Kabbalah, which may use a >> a set of diagrams or teachings, but is more a sociocultural >> complex, primarily transmitted orally through time and space. >> >> to represent its roots as located in Assyrian and Greek cultures >> is to omit the wealth of original construction and actual social >> origins of this longstanding Jewish mystical tradition. Scholem >> warns against it and you seem to tread the edge here. > I don't recall him warning about that.... maybe you didn't see this in "Kabbalah": The many books written on the subject [of Kabbalah] in the 19th and 20th centuries by various theosophists and mystics lacked any basic knowledge of the sources and very rarely contributed to the field, while at times they even hindered the development of a historical approach. Similarly, the activities of French and English occultists contributed nothing and only served to create considerable confusion between the teachings of the Kabbalah and their own totally unrelated inventions, such as the alleged kabbalistic origin of the Tarot-cards. To this category of supreme charlatanism belong the many and widely read books of Eliphas Levi (actually Alphonse Louis Constant; 1810-1875), Papus (Gerard Encausse; 1868-1916), and Frater Perdurabo (Aleister Crowley; 1875-1946), all of whom had an infinitesimal knowledge of Kabbalah that did not prevent them from drawing freely on their imaginations instead. The comprehensive works of A.E. Waite, (*The Holy Kabbalah*, 1929), S. Karppe, and P. Vulliaud, on the other hand, were essentially rather confused compilations made from secondhand sources [e.g. Knorr Von Rosenroth's "Kabbalah Denudata" -- hara]. ---------------------------------------------- "Kabbalah", Gershom Scholem, Dorset Press, 1987 (1974 copyright), pp. 202-3. and in this text he characterizes some aspects of *Lurianic* Kabbalah as containing one or two ideas which are "essentially ... a restatement Pythagorean geometrical symbolism" (Ibid., p. 136). I also found an assertion in "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism" indicating that it wasn't even *Luria* who focussed so heavily on Platonist Emanationism as might be believed. someone by the name of (Israel Surag) who'd stolen the texts of Luria's most important follower (Hayim Vital) and promoted his own interpretation of them with missionary zeal. (Ibid., pp. 254-7). > And where, and with whom did the Jews spend their captivity? um, you mean the Babylonian Captivity? how does this relate? where I've heard about that before was in relation to the Jewish notion of demons and the negative side of Jehovah as a separate entity, essentially taking on some of the dualism of the Babylonians, including accepting some of their demons into their cosmological speculations. >>>>> and our newly rectified Hermetic/Pagan version >> >> version of a Tree of Life symbol-lattice? this further confirms >> the confusion. what justifies the term 'rectification'? > You have a copy of *Secrets of the Golden Dawn Cypher Manuscript* > go to the appendix on *The Secret Path System* and work through > the conceptions of the Tree before and after The Fall. if I have that text I don't know where it is. you believe that some expostulation by the Golden Dawn is sufficient? > Also note that all configurations of the Otz Chim derived from > the master grid of Pythagoras, the Tetractys. explain please. >>>>> using the intrinsic Mother Letter-based Tetragrammatons >>>>> (22 and 24 letter versions) >> >> sounds like the Hebrew language. if, as you believe, the Kabbalah >> is rooted in Assyrian and Greek cultures, why not use their >> languages? did either or both of these have "Mother-letters"? > We do. this appears to be contradictory to this statement: > Our Pagan version of the Kabbalah employs Phoenician > letters throughout--with Crater = 0 and Omega = 800 added > front--and-back to give a more elegant 24 letter alphabet. in that you've 'rectified' the Phoenician alphabet too (not using the original alphabet, had to add two letters). > Scholem admits that the Hebrew alphabet is short a separate > letter for "Earth". citation? (just the book and page number would be k00l; I might type it in for you. ;> mefistof13@aol.comnospam (Mephistopheles): >>>> ...In searching for a pagan Kabbalah, >> >> "a pagan Kabbalah" is meaningless, because as far as I know >> the sociocultural oral tradition cannot be shown to have >> preceded Jewish mystics. if you have found these "roots", >> I'd like to know more about them (as would countless Hermetic >> magicians vying for attention surrounding the hot-term "qabalah". > I've suggested Barry's *The Greek Qabalah,* and Parpola's essay > (which you cite below). I'm not aware of the background of either of these individuals. are either of them part of some Jewish mystical lineage? do they have some reason to understand the subject moreso than Scholem? after all, Scholem is (or was, according to the book you studied, "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism") Professor of Jewish Mysticism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. what is Barry's background? why should we trust Parpola's insights, however fabulous his info about Assyrian tree-diagrams? >>>> we must look to its essential emanationism. >> >> this is merely conceptual and hardly central. you must be talking >> about the value of emanationism to (Lurianic?) Kabbalah and its >> ideas of cosmogenesis (in fact that is where you wind up below). >> >>>> ...Neoplatonist emanationism, the notion of divinity existing >>>> in layers, is at the root of the kabbalistic system. >> >> how does one determine where "the root of the Kabbalistic system" >> lies? is it conceptual? practical? social? symbolic? theological? you didn't address these important questions. >>>> ...a coherent emanationist system that passed back and forth >>>> between east and west, its last westward movement being the >>>> Rosicrucian enlightenment, which "coincided" with the >>>> Lurianic movement in Jewish Kabbalah. >> >> is Luria primary in Kabbalism or is it just the obsession of >> Hermetic mages? > > He was a very significant figure in Jewish mysticism who came > closest to the Neoplatonic conceptions that are at the base of > Renaissance Hermeticism. so this makes him a stable cover for Christian and Hermetic versions of Kabbalistic text (because there are ideas in common). however, you and Mephistopheles don't account for the fact that Lurianic ideas aren't coincident with Lurianic kabbalists. that is, reading a book doesn't necessarily (if one interprets the Kabbalah as primarily a mystical community and its expressions) make one a kabbalist, whether or not it is Lurianic in some way. Mephistopheles doesn't explain why the entire Kabbalah ought to be considered contained in Lurianic exposition on emanationism, such that not just these ideas, but that Kabbalah itself should be identified as originating amongst non-Jewish emanationists. >>>> ...Hermetic and Jewish Kabbalah continually enriched and >>>> challenged each other, and await but the right ecumenical >>>> movement, in imitatione Nag Hammadis, to unify them. >> >> then why does Scholem slam Hermetic "qabalah" as largely >> unworthy of attention and attribute so little value to it? > > That was Scholem's personal bias..... why accept him as an authority with respect to some aspects of Kabbalah but not others (such as how well Hermetic occultists wishing to pose as kabbalists measure up to the Jewish mystical tradition proper)? what justification do you have that he was or is biased as compared to clear-sighted? Gnomedplume@aol.com (Gnome d Plume): >>> ...even Scholem admites that the Sepher Yetzirah is >>> "Pythagorean" >> >> in what sense? ... >>> and Barry cites the 1st Century Gnostic Marcus with >>> creating the first astrological letter-number esoteric system. >> >> as late as that? I'd guessed it would be earlier. > Not really. The *Sepher Yetzirah* is 3rd century. Barry reinforces > his point by showing that the earliest Hebrew Torahs used Greek > letters (also numbers) as numerical indicators. very nice, and the quotes around "Pythagorean" seem important. >>> The Assyrians placed their Gods and Goddesses on the Tree >>> and attributed them to the planets. Parpola demonstrates >>> that these attributes had a numerical symbolism. >> >> I think you've misunderstood the import of Parpola's essay. >> he does not explain the significance of the numerical >> symbolism in his reconstructed 'Assyrian Tree' and he goes >> so far as to distinguish it from 'the Sefirotic Tree' of >> Jewish Kabbalah. if you could explain the logic of the >> 'reconstructed Tree' he presents I'd be more inclined toward >> your way of thinking. in fact, Parpola doesn't explicitly >> do more than provide reason to go looking for the Tree he >> has posited is a kind of 'missing link' between Assyrian >> culture, with its gods' mystical numbers, and a later Tree >> he projects backwards from Jewish Kabbalists. > What you have done above is similar to analysing *The > Declaration of Independence* and concluding that it is not a > "declaration" nor does it have anything to do with "independence." so you have no response to my qualifications of Parpola above? are you aware that this missing link actually exists? or do you understand the logic behind the numerical attributions which Parpola constructs after identifying the gods which conform (roughly, with slight fudging) with the qualities assigned to the various sephiroth? >>here're the details of his construction: >> >>roughly, using as a reference what I have come to know as a Lurianic >>naming scheme, omitting the circle and lines to Malkuth in a somewhat >>conventional occult Tree of Life diagram, Parpola's thought-experiment >>included the following substitutions: (SEPHIROTH=NAME=NUMBER) >> >> Kether=Anu=1, Chokmah=Ea=60, Binah=Sin=30, Da'ath=0=Mummu, >> Chesed=Marduk/Enlil=50, Geburah=Samas=20, Tiphareth=Istar=15, >> Netzach=Nabu/Ninurta=40, Hod=Adad/Girru/Nusku=10, >> Yesod=Nergal/Sakkan=14). >> >>"The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish >>Monotheism and Greek Philosophy", Professor Simo Parpola, >>University of Helsinki, in The Journal of Near Eastern >>Studies, #3, 1993, copyright University of Chicago. >Thanks for posting this. I was hoping somebody would dig up the >reference. I wish we could get the whole article (long as it is) on >line somehow. you're welcome. I aim to archive much of our discussion. I'd hoped that you'd elaborate on what you think Parpola's numerical assignments mean, why they are of value or more valuable, than, say, Crowley's mapping the I Ching on the Sefirotic Tree. without such an undersupport, I don't feel his thought-experiment worthy of concluding as you have done. >>> I don't want to give the impression that the Rabbinical >>> Kabbalah is flawed or not important. > In our Jewish Mysticism class we had a fundamental Christian. > He was always making obtuse and inappropriate comments during class > He was driving Rabbi Bill up the wall and embarrassing the rest > of us. After class I suggested to our venerable sage that we might > placate him by divulging Pico's formula inserting Shin into YHVH to > produce a version of Jesus, whereupon the Rabbi thundered: "You've got > a 'A' going in this course, but if you do that I'll flunk you!" > And this was after I had submitted my paper of Goetia demonology.... > Respect for Holy Names is important. This is one of the reasons > why we stopped using YHVH in our Hermetic/Pagan version of the > Kabbalah.... so you agree it is a version (copy), rather than a continuation or part and representative. > The Jewish diaspora largely abandoned and even discredited the > kabbalah in the 18th century. Since that time--and until recently-- > --there were perhaps as many or even more non-Jewish students of > kabbalah than Jewish. There is a 500 year old history of > Hermetic/Rosecrucian "Kabbalah" that also deserves a modicum of > respect from reasonable, intelligent people--both Jewish and gentile, > providing that respect goes both ways. aye, there's the rub. >>> It is, and they made a great contibution, and we owe a >>> great debt to them >> >> I'd suggest that your sources (Parpola, Scholem, et al) >> will argue that Jewish Kabbalists owe "Pagans", such as >> Assyrians and Greeks, a great debt for their contributions >> of tree-diagrams and numerolinguistic systems, whereas the >> actual Kabbalah was entirely the fabrication and society >> of Jewish people[,] whom later Christians, Hermetics, and >> Thelemites have ...consistently ...attempt[ed] to most >> rudely displace by misidentifing new constructions [as] >> ancient elements with identical labels ("qabalah"). > > You've contradicted yourself in the above. I tried to shape it more closely to my intent and do not now see any self-contradiction. do you have a response? I've actually inverted your original claim with Jewish originators being grateful to Pagan from whom they drew some material, rather than (Neo)Pagan expositors being grateful for communicating the originally-Pagan Kabbalah. >>> -- but the Kabbalah is universal >> >> with precisely this kind of assertion. I'd suggest that >> if you wish to be taken seriously you may wish to >> consider where the term "kabbalah" originates, to what >> it actually applies, and what these Greeks and Assyrians >> called "it" before "it", as you may be supposing, entered >> into Jewish mystical culture (obviously I think there is >> stronger case to be made that the elements you are >> talking about were grabbed up by Jews in order to CREATE >> Kabbalah, and Christians and Hermetics after them just >> sought to steal and lie in order to convert to their >> preferred brand of religion (however syncretic)). > Kabbalah means "Mouth-to-ear." So much for that argument. this dissolves support for relying on texts as authorities for the communication of the subject. you haven't described where you think it originates. that you think it applies to numerolinguistics and geometric diagrams seems plain. > And Christians and Hermetics "sought to steal". Do you > have any idea how petty and xenophobic that sounds? just calling a spade a spade. Scholem puts it pretty plainly as regards at least the Hermetic writers like Levi, Papus, and Perdurabo above. are there any authorities on the subject who support your contentions? > And you are a Satanist? Bad Lord! [see note 2 at end of this post] >>> and Pagans, Thelemites and other "Chicken" Kabbalists >>> should not be made to feel like second class wannabes >> >> the argument for religious rivalry is pretty strong. if >> the shoe fits.... > You're right there, brother! 'cept what I meant to imply is that the shoe (being second class wannabes), from what sources I am able to bring to bear on the subject, fits. I await your references. I'm even referring to those you've brought in on your defense. >>> if they find in the great old system their own niche >>> and inspiration. >> >> projecting beyond and through that which we might wish to >> co-opt toward our own purposes and for which we would like >> to see attention drawn our way, it is easy to compliment >> the "messengers of a great old system" when it is arguably >> these very "messengers" who are responsible for making >> what Kabbalah is today. >> >>> To suggest otherwise is so selfish and zenophobic as to >>> degrade the very concept of Kabbalah itself. >> >> Kabbalah is a concept? I wonder. it isn't that I haven't >> stood where you are standing and posited an universal QBL, >> but I have been persuaded over time that the elements >> which modern mages find compelling about Kabbalah (geometric >> diagrams and numerolinguistics) are not primary delimiters >> for the mystical tradition (which pretty clearly arises in >> Judaism and are constituted of the rabbis who established >> and still perpetuate the oral traditions that make it up). > Without Tarot, related mythological god forms, and the other > elements that make Hermetic Kabbalah the base construct for > what we call Magick and The Western Esoteric Tradition. this isn't a complete sentence. maybe something got lost along the way. I don't see your support for your contentions here, just more of the same unfounded claims. blessed beast! (hara) nagasiva@luckymojo.com ============================= AD HOMINEM NOTES NOTE 1 look, can you just get over the fact that I'm a Satanist already? this manifests in every social group of which I'm aware and about which I contribute assertions or queries. are manifestations of your religious choices routinely raised by me in response to your Neopagan religion? the subject of religion is already tangental to the subject of magic, as I see it, and your focus on the person of others, and their religions, is doubly off-topic. I'm a Satanist no matter where you find me, d00d. NOTE 2 my Satanism has little or nothing to do with whether I wish to co-opt the mysticism or religion of another, though I'm sure there are Satanists who would agree quite strongly with you that the quality of adversarial contention Christian and Hermetic writers and mystics bring to Jewish mysticism is valuable. after all, what Satanists call 'Lesser Black Magick' (charlatanry, shams, generally deception) is provided emphasis. END
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|