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.pagan.magick,alt.occult
From: z159@ix.netcom.com(Laszlo)
Subject: Re: English Qaballa and Racist Agendae (was re: Gematria and ...)
Date: 4 Jan 1999 22:12:29 GMT

Hail! 
catherine yronwode wrote:
># I think you missed the opening of this thread. It began with a
># discussion between [hara] and tim the occultist about [gematria]. 
># Tim opined that to understand kaballah, one must study Judaism 
># and Jewish culture.  [hara] then asked why, since he had read 
># that the kaballah was not actually Jewish. 
 Caterine is correct, I missed the opening volley of this volatile yet
interesting thread. 
>Laszlo:
>#> ...Magicians draw from many diverse sources...much as computer 
>#> designers draw and build upon the work of previous computer 
>#> designers. 

You wrote:
>but do magicians cite those sources, identify them properly, and
>pay sufficient tribute to these when they relay their creations,
>inventions, and reiterations to others?

IMO they do. Years ago when I first ran accross Crowley and Waite it
seemed abundantly clear to me that Jewish Mysticism as well as
Christian, Egyptian, etc. had been incorporated into their system as
well as Hindu, Yoga and other oriental and western traditions. It was
clear enough to me that it led me to purchase a copy of the Zohar and
even a Hebrew-English dictionary to understand non-translated Hebrew
words I ran across. I will admit it would have been much easier had all
been in English but this forced me to work to expand my knowledge. Most
writers I read seem to name their sources althogh I will assume some do
not. I believe this is a scholarly courtesy but is it necesary? Is it
necesary for me to understand the mechanics of my car to drive it and
benefit from the transportation? I do not think it necesary to study
every culture that has contributed to occult knowledge however doing so
does shed light on the subject.

  this is one of the more
>important issues, as well as why they might NOT do this (such as
>for purposes of anti-Judaism in the displacement of the religious
>context in kabbalah to create their own Christian qabalah and/or
>oppress Jewish culture/people).  the motivation may provide hints 
>as to the fundamental nature of the rivalrous qabalistic text,
>its value, etc.  this is the point that that catherine and Tim 
>have been making all along (which I have acknowledged while also 
>attempting to discover if a respectful and universalist QBL may 
>be possible and what it should be called instead of what it has
>been heretofore).

Are there people who are anti-semetic? Yes. But only a fool could hope
to approprate a Jewish system that has been so widley publicized and
pretend it wasn't Jewish. I don't feel the Jewish can possibly stop
anyone from using the Kabbalah...it's a great contribution to occult
knowledge and naturally others will build on it...it may or may not get
proper recognition as time progresses but that doesn't lesson it's
value. There are many common items I use in life that I have no idea
who invented them but if they work they work. It is ironic  to me that
Christianity which is an extention (often considered heretical) of
Judaism spends so much time trying to distance itself from it's own
roots rather then building on it. Why not call a "universal QBL" a QBL.
I call all makes of automobiles a car...it's a handy label.
>
>
>I would rephrase this assessment (metadiscussion but possibly
>relevant to getting to the core issues) as 'hara then asked
>if Tim was sure, since there were various sources indicating
>that there might be other "kinds" of qaballah, such as
>Christian or Hermetic'.  I cited Scholem, whom we'd all agreed
>was a reliable authority on the subject, as one who used the
>phrase 'Christian Kabbalah'.  I then logically asked whether, 
>if there is such a thing as 'Christian Kabbalah', kaballah
>(by any spelling) could be considered _separately_ from
>Judaism as a thing which transcends religious categories, or
>if I'd missed some crucial element in Scholem's writing.

If Kabballah is originally the "oral" tradition of Jewish mysticism the
greater tribe of humankind could logically have their own. There's
bound to be variations. 

># Tim then quited Scholem back at him, demonstrating that 
># Scholem did in fact believe the kaballah to be Jewish. 
>
>Tim's quote indicated that Scholem's regard for occultists
>is very poor, explaining that Scholem considers them to have an
>"infinitesimal" understanding of kabbalah (by which he means
>Jewish kabbalah, as he describes in the first paragraph in
>his book _Kabbalah_). that is, Tim was trying to show that
>authors like Levi and Crowley and the like were regarded as
>poor sources on the subject of "Qabalah" (Tim's term) by the
>source which I'd suggested was very knowledgeable about
>Jewish kabbalah.  he then claimed that I was self-
>contradictory, something which I denied on the basis that I
>never claimed that Levi or Crowley had any sort of knowledge,
>though they had written about something they called "qabalah".

I agree with you here.
>
>
># [hara] asked for "proof" that the kaballah was Jewish. 
>
>I asked what sources indicated that what should be called
>qabalah (by any name) was entirely Jewish.  When I was
>pointed toward Scholem I produced text indicating that
>there was such a thing as Christian Kabbalah.  the only
>way that I could find to reconcile this was Tim/Bill's
>suggestion (I think I'm sourcing this properly) that
>Christianity was *also* Jewish ("on the mother's side")
>and, ipso facto, Christian Kabbalah was also Jewish.  I
>never responded to this because it seemed too extreme,
>though entirely logical.

I also agree with you on this.
 I've eliminated some text for space purposes but as I stated in my
earlier posting magicians draw from many sources. As a Thelemite I
believe "every man and woman is a star" with their own path to find and
follow. The QBL and it's variations may or may not be beneficial to
all. Not sourceing may or may not be an act of trying to distance
itself from the Hebrew roots but at this stage of the game I'd say it's
probably unnecesary because the root of QBL is already understood. One
doesn't have to pay homage to the source of information to benefit from
it. However doing so makes it easier for those following to further
enlighten themselves.

Fra. Apep
93 93/93