THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.divination
From: "american qabalah" 
Subject: Re: Q(uib)BL(ing) and Hermetic Sources (was something else long)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:07:45 -0800

More verbiage.  Please have more respect for your readers.

I will restate the points from my initial post, from which we seem to have
departed into complete confusion.  Since your post, as you stated, was in
direct response to mine, please allow me to bring you back to this point.

* The main point of my first post is that if you want a thorough, organic,
comprehensive understanding of a subject such as Qabalah, you should study
it in the context of its cultural and philosophical heritage.

The minor points, which relate directly to my main point, were:

* Gematria, in the context of Qabalah, is intended for use with Hebrew
letters.  For our alphabet I recommend using western numerology, which,
while derived either in part or in whole from Gematria, has been fine-tuned
especially for that purpose.

* Arabic numerals, in order to be used with traditional Hebrew Gematria,
require some extra-qabalistic system of correspondences.  so I encouraged
the author of the post to whom I was responding to get out of our system of
digital thinking and "Easternize" himself for a while, as opposed to
"Westernizing" Qabalah.  Once again, this is in the context of my main
point.

There, I stated my opinions in less than fifty million words.  Maybe you can
do the same?  Some of us have a life.

Your humble servant,
Timothy

----------------------------

hara wrote in message <756cn3$ihg$1@shell.accesscom.com>...
>49981215 IIIom Hail Shaitan!
>
>"occult" :
># 1)  Your transliteration is wrong; it's not "QBL", it's "QBLH".
># There are four Hebrew letters:  qoph, beth, lamed, and he.
>
>did I say it was a transliteration?  no I did not, nor did I
>intend it to be.  the Hebrew asciifications came the closest.
>
>
># As someone who propounds to understand Qabalah
>
>the subject line used to read "Gematria and Other Systems of
>Numerology".  it didn't pertain specifically to QBL, though
>there was an important touch-point on this subject (the
>history of gematria appears to intersect kabbalah and
>continues to be contained in many QBL systems) which we seem
>to have left behind for a greater depth of QuibBLing.
>
>
># you of all people should be aware of the importance of individual
># letters.  "QBL" is transliterated from a root word meaning "to
># receive" and is grammatically incorrect when used as a noun.
>
>I use it because when pronounced fonetikally it sounds like QUIBBLE,
>and I think kabbalists/qabalists/cabalists are very fond of doing
>this -- exemplified by your response to me.
>
>
># 2) Qabalah does not simply "appear" to be Jewish, it is unequivocally
># Jewish.
>
>actually not all of it is, as I have already said.  you have not
>sourced gematria, for example, and I am aware of assertions that
>the popular Tree of Life schematic isn't unique to the Jews.  if
>we eliminate numerology, numerolinguistics and mysticism that
>relates to letters (cf. old Indian ideas about Sanskrit), then
>we are left with the particular social tradition and its specific
>texts that it generated.  I already categorized this as an old
>and venerable social tradition (usually oral it seems -- I must
>say 'it seems' and 'it appears' because I am not a part of it
>and am merely reflecting what I consider to be fairly reliable
>sources without attribution).
>
>
># 3) You're making up your own definitions.
>
>I choose those I prefer, that is correct.  cf. Lewis Carroll and
>the argument made by Humpty Dumpty within Alices adventures.
>imagine a QBList who is subject to the terrors of linguistic
>totalitarianism!
>
>
># 4) You're undermining how important a proper understanding of Jewish
># culture, philosophy, and theology is to a comprehension of the spirit
># and nuances of Qabalah.
>
>no, I stated clearly that Scholem has a good line on the Jewish QBL
>(kabbalah), but that Hermetic qabalists may be sourced elsewhere.
>you as much say so yourself when quoting Scholem.  I'm merely
>saying that kabbalah isn't the only strain.  I don't have to know
>model Ts inside and out in order to appreciate and drive a modern
>automobile.
>
>
># This is an anti-intellectual approach.
>
>hardly.  it is merely honest.  if you want to know about Hermetic
>qabalah (notice that I use my words carefully while you want to
>encapsulate everything under 'qabalah', which I am not doing),
>then seek Hermetic sources, that's all I'm saying.
>
>
># 5) You mentioned Scholem as a source.  I trust you are
># referring to Gershom Scholem....
>
>that is correct.  good author on Jewish QBL and its history.
>I imagine even he has his limitations, but I am not sufficiently
>familiar with the subject to know.  perhaps you could elaborate
>on that for us.
>
>you quote Scholem:
># "...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_...To this category of _supreme charlatanism_ belong
># the many and widely read books of Eliphas Levi...Papus...and
># ... Aleister Crowley...all of whom had an _infinitesimal knowledge
># of Kabbalah_ that did not prevent them from drawing freely on
># their imaginations instead." (emphasis mine)
>
>lovely!  this matches with what I'd presumed about these people,
>yes, and the text you quote is an example of why I did not
>recommend Scholem as a source on Hermetic qabalah, which would
>better be approached by someone with less vitriol and bias.
>
>the Hermetics are not so much anti-intellectual as anti-authority
>and charlatan-ridden.  this doesn't mean they have no quality, as
>you yourself have admitted.  the point isn't that one should not
>consult them on the subject of kabbalah (which is true), but that
>if one wishes to learn about what Hermetic qabalah it is likely
>best to see it for oneself from the sources (namely authors like
>Levi, Crowley and Gray).
>
>
># So your own sources are contradicting you.
>
>really?  check my text again.  I stand by what I wrote:
>#> ...the history of kabbalah (cf. Scholem for a decent overview) is
>#> such that it does appear (esp. by this name) to have been a Jewish
>#> mystical construct....
>
>if you can't understand my taxonomical language, then I don't under-
>stand your desire to appear to be a lover of words and their
>complexity/value/depth.  see what I'm saying, rather than what you
>would like to interpret.
>
>
># I understand what you are saying.  One does not have to become a
># Jew in order to study Qabalah.  It is more important spiritually
># to have a connection to the divine than it is to have book
># knowledge.
>
>actually I didn't say those things, I merely reported that some
>believe them.  please read more carefully and stop attributing
>things to me which I did not say.  have a gander:
>#> ...some will contend that going to other HUMANS is just
>#> taking a detour.  the source, these will contend, is the
>#> DIVINE, and so unless one can see their way to identifying
>#> the divine with these humans (a common practice among the
>#> pyramid-schemers ;>), if one has a satisfactory route
>#> to the divine, THIS ought be the preferred source on QBL.
>
>note that I am careful to separate my own opinions from this
>and that I am merely reporting on what I have seen.  I am not
>talking about Judaism here so much as methods of obtaining
>the experiences or knowledge attributed to those who may be
>part of Jewish (and other) mystical systems.
>
>I'm reporting on something much more radical than that for
>which you give me credit.  after all, what I'm saying is
>that the variety of systems and edifices of QBL are,
>according to some, COMPLETELY DISPENSABLE as regards an
>apprehension of the mysteries and profundities with which
>they are associated -- that the Jewish (or Hermetic or
>Sumerian or whatever) QBL systems are merely instances of
>human expression surrounding the divine and Hir relation
>to numerolinguistics, cosmogenesis, eschatology, and the
>development of the individual, and that their longevity
>of tradition means NOTHING as regards their ability to
>communicate anything true or important to the modern mage.
>
>so when you say 'go to the source', one might argue that
>those who go to something ancient are doing something akin
>to seeking out old, rancid butter in order to get the
>fresh butter flavor (rather than going to the cow (god) or
>or to the local dairy farmer (Hermetic).  it is an error.
>according to this argument the fresher, more worldly and
>lively is likely to be the more reliable.  the old
>traditions become hide-bound, stagnant, and callous over
>with too many gates and obscurations to be easily
>accessible to the aspirant.
>
>to apply this to the study of QBL (note that I say QBL here
>rather than kabbalah -- Jewish QBL), the idea is that going
>to the older traditions (why not go to Sumerians or
>Babylonians? presumably because they have a less intact
>social structure after all these years ;>) is a wild goose
>chase unless one is already steeped in it.  instead, it
>would be preferrable to look *right around oneself* (some
>would no doubt suggest we begin by looking *at* ourselves,
>and with good reason; cf. mysticism the world over),
>creating one's *own* QBL.  this is what Crowley and other
>Hermetics have recommended, and I think there is a validity
>to these assertions which you have not addressed here.
>
>
># I personally enjoy the writings of Crowley and Eliphas Levi.
># But they reflect Qabalah about as well as Shylock from
># Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" reflects Jewish culture.
>
>this statement exemplifies the very problem I have had with
>'serious kabbalists' whose blinders about what QBL could include
>lead them to think that every expression that I make about
>the subject relates to Judaism and its culture.  I have made
>no claims about my knowledge of Judaism and I welcome what
>you'd like to share of it that pertains to your kabbalah.
>
>my comment is not that one ought to go to Crowley and Levi to
>obtain information about Jews.  on the contrary, I think this
>would be a terrible mistake, and I agree with your assertion.
>instead I was saying that if you want to learn about Hermetic
>QBL, then it would be better obtained by going to Hermetics than
>to listen to people who are antagonistic or misunderstanding
>of their ideas, those who think that QBL is the sole property
>of Jewish mystics, or those who think that no QBL can be
>created (however rudimentary) outside established lineages.
>
>I will prove this wrong through the course of my life. ;>
>
>hara
>--
>tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (emailed replies may be posted); cc me replies;
>http://www.abyss.com/tokus; http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatSPELLS.html




Path: ultra.sonic.net!jupiter.dnai.com!uunet!in5.uu.net!nntp.ntr.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!lsanca1-snf1!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail
From: "american qabalah" 
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick
Subject: Re: (O) Gematria and Other Systems of Numerology - correction
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:10:45 -0800
References: <199812142104.NAA30930@shell.accesscom.com> <75454c$l3q$1@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3676C326.6A7E@luckymojo.com> <757013$10d$1@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
X-ELN-Date: 16 Dec 1998 01:10:56 GMT
X-ELN-Insert-Date: Tue Dec 15 17:15:05 1998
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
Lines: 15
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust238.tnt12.sfo3.da.uu.net
Message-ID: <7571b0$2hi$1@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.magick:129171 alt.magick.tyagi:14947 alt.pagan.magick:12954

My earlier post, for whom this subthreaded message is intended, has a
mistake.  I wrote:


"Plain-old western numerology" is more suited to digital number systems.

I meant:

"Plain-old western numerology" is more suited to our alphabet.

Sorry for the mixup.

T