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: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (hara)
Subject: QBL, Judaism, Hermeticism and History (was Re: Gematria and Other Systems....)
Date: 22 Dec 1998 18:30:07 -0800

49981222 IIIom

"occult" (Tim) :
#>#> ...stay away with the attempts of gentile europeans to enterpret
#>#> a thoroughly Jewish system.  This includes Crowley and Eliphas 
#>#> Levi.

here I enter into a more thorough QBL-philosophic investigation.

*IS* it 'a system'?  is it without exception Jewish?  what the limits
of QBL?  is it possible that some contributions to it have been from
outside Jewish culture?  my questions are about the absoluteness of
the claim and an analysis of the subject matter.


#># while 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, the discussion of the numerolinguistic systems
#># of divination prevalent within Hermetic history which have been at
#># least in part *inspired* by this body of work (Luria et al) should
#># include those who contributed to it.  this does indeed include such
#># individuals (however unreliable they may be at history, citation or
#># even composition) as Aleister Crowley and Eliphas Levi.

#>#  "occult"  writes:
#> Qabalah does not simply "appear" to be Jewish, it is unequivocally
#> Jewish.  

ah but you ignored my main point in favor of qbling.  by acknowledging
the general Jewish origin of kabbalah I made plain the limitations of
my knowledge as well that I understood it may be possible that all
that is associated with it may not originate in Judaism.  the origin
of gematria (the original focus of this discussion prior to the
tangent which Tim/occult has inspired here) still appears to be
somewhat clouded, and I have seen no sourcing or citation to beef
up the extensiveness of his claims.


catherine yronwode :
# I am with Occult (Tim) on this one, [hara] In your attempt to be
# scholastically inclusive, you come across as outright dismissive of the
# actual history of the subject. The Kaballah *IS* Jewish in root, origin,
# core, and sum. 

ROOT: I am unsure from where the roots of what has become the kabbalah 
      have been derived.  in at least one case (gematria) there is
      some scholarly dispute as to ROOTS; that neither you nor Tim
      knew about this doesn't lead me to trust your absolute claims
      about how completely the subject of kabbalah (does a prefacing
      'the' before a capitalized 'Kabbalah' somehow pin down what we
      should and should not include in the subject?  I've always
      been confused by this usage into thinking that 'the Kabbalah'
      must be the title of some book or other -- which in fact it
      sometimes is, but not those which are central to Jewish
      mysticism).

      I am functioning as a philosopher here, not an historian and
      not as a Kabbalist, Jewish scholar, etc.  the exhortations of
      those who are categorical deserve challenge, however idiotic
      they may seem, however basic they may appear to those who have
      'superior knowledge'.  I am not trying to be dismissive, I am
      asking upon what basis are these categorical claims being made
      and why is it that apparent exceptions or ambiguities in the
      subject about which I am aware aren't being represented.  the
      failure to address these points leads me to doubt those who
      make the categorical claims.  I hope you see my logic.

ORIGIN: generally I am agreed as I said above.  however, the question
	must be asked: what constitutes 'a kabbalah'?  where should
	it be said to originate?  is a specific type of QBL the only
	type?  are the first authors of a type of material the only
	authors?  if a style of mysticism is developed, does this
	make the original authors the owners of that style, the most
	authoritative, or does it make them the originators of THEIR
	style and the authorities of their specific legacy?  if there
	are others who create something comparable, should they be
	dismissed outright or should their work be compared without
	bias as regards its qualities and characteristics?  all I
	hear from Tim/occult is dismissal.  I don't think that I have
	offered such categorical rejection in my text (even if I
	leave room for doubt in an area which may be, by those who
	have a greater knowledge of the subject matter, considered
	'decided' -- it may be that these are not philosophers and
	have decided without sufficient cause).

CORE: where what has come first to be called kabbalah is concerned
      I strongly agree. that about which I was first asking and
      which Tim/occult was disputing as relevant to the subject,
      however, is a *different* core (an alternative, perhaps one
      with universalist aims, perhaps those without sufficient
      development to warrant comparison -- I don't know yet).

      where does the core of a multi-faceted, globally-inspired
      mystical corpus having origins of Jewish culture yet
      expanding beyond it by some assessments truly reside?  how
      can these boundaries and identifications be made easily?
      why make them?  what are the consequences of failing to
      make them?

SUM: I suspect that this is merely a tautological claim, and I
     want to showcase this in the series of exchanges on the
     subject of QBL and kabbalah here.  if one defines kabbalah
     as Jewish in sum, then of course by definition the kabbalah
     is Jewish in sum.  if one understands that kabbalah may
     have manifestations comparable to it outside Jewish culture,
     then the claim that it (kabbalah) is Jewish in sum is only
     defensable if one dismisses these alternatives as not
     kabbalah (and here I have called for the criteria for these
     dismissals and received no response as yet, interestingly
     enough) or that they *are* in fact Jewish.  given the surprise
     with which I have met how many beautiful and imaginative
     things were created by Jews, I would not be entirely surprised
     to learn that even Hermetic QBL is created by Jews, but I
     have not been informed of this yet.

     where does the 'sum' end and why?  what qualities are they
     which must be present in order to call something 'kabbalah'?
     if Jewish context is one of these, then what happens if all
     the other criteria except Jewish culture have been met?  why
     in this case should we not call the alternative a kabbalah
     of a different sort?  do Jews ever refer, speaking 
     universally (and perhaps loosely), to other systems of 
     mysticism as 'kabbalahs'?  I wouldn't be surprised if this
     were the case, since I've seen its like in the mystical
     expressions of the cultures which I've studied.

     
# The fact that a couple of French and British Gentiles
# wrote about it in the 19th and early 20th centuries means 
# nothing in terms of its history or utility....

here we agree.  I think that European occultists have for
years been talking about "qabalah" as if it were something they 
have understood and (re?)created, and I am wondering when what
they have created ought be considered something comparable
to the Jewish original rather than merely dismissed outright.


#># note that we are here dealing with the historical and Hermetic
#># cultures, not with the Jewish (or arguably many other cultural)
#># mystics from whom these Hermeticists have been inspired.  it is
#># as rational to say that one should go to the sources for Jewish
#># kabbalah as it is to say go to the sources for Hermetic qabalah.
#># dismissing the more modern on account that it was inspired by an
#># older body of work is ridiculous, however.

#> 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.  This is an anti-intellectual approach.

I'm not undermining it, Hermeticists have been undermining it in the
creation of an alternative (Christian from what I can tell, but
mostly syncretic) for a long time.  I'm merely asking when it ought
be taken seriously.  you say never, I say why not?

'anti-intellectual' isn't in my Bible, sorry.  if you can provide
some sort of rational definition for this term which describes how
I am proceeding with this inquiry, I'd be happy to see it and
respond.  right now I take it as ad hominem and ignore it.


# What you suggest is not only anti-intellectual, it is also, 
# presumeably unintentionally, an anti-Semitic approach.... 

I find no grounds for this assessment.  neither have I sought
to undermine Jewish culture, nor slander or abuse any culture.
in fact I was trying to see if dismissing Hermetics (what I
would call 'anti-Hermetic' if I had more information and could
make a case for it) was warranted.  again, until you can
explain why my continued and respectful questions qualify for
what I consider to be ridiculously unrelated characterizations
of my 'approach', I'll consider them ad hominem and ignore them.


# It appears to partake of the anti-Semitism of those who have 
# appropriated Jewish mysticism for their own purposes, while 
# stripping it of its cultural and theological basis in the 
# process of rendering it a "module" in their role-playing game 
# version of (Aryan, Gentile) "mage-hood."

when does the genericizing of a mystical or religious path
become 'disrespectful appropriation'?  when the sources are
not admitted?  this sourcing issue appears to be very common
without regard for any particular culture in Hermeticism.  I
notice that many Hermetic authors don't bother to provide
references for their claims, but not all authors do.  mystics
may be even more likely to omit this scholastic approach.

denigrating an alternative (rival?) culture's development of
a mystical corpus in apparent mimicry of that from which it
derives its impetus (Christianity appears to have arisen out
of Jewish culture unless I am misinformed) seems to me to be
very disrespectful.  I have noticed that this is the attitude
of a number of "kabbalists", some of whom are Jewish.  I am
asking why this is perpetuated and why it is justified.  if
these questions are dismissed as themselves disrespectful, I
hope you can understand why I fail to take the objections to
my own creations in reflection of Hermetic qabalists seriously.


#># the writer to whom I am responding here is talking about Jewish
#># kabbalah, a body of diagrams and ideas which are associated with
#># a longstanding tradition of writings and mystics.  these are
#># indeed identifiable, and writers like Scholem have performed
#># a helpful service by analyzing their basics for us to pursue if
#># we have further interest.  one may also find social connections
#># online to mystical lineages (of variable quality no doubt) that
#># presume to afford an instruction on kabbalah in its modern form.

notice how I am sourcing the mystical heritage, how I am referring
the interested to valuable information sources on the kabbalah.
I don't think this is a sign of "anti-Semitism" and I dislike
intensely being associated with such things.


#> You mentioned Scholem as a source.  I trust you are referring to 
#> Gershom Scholem, whose book, "Kabbalah", on page 203 of the Meridian 
#> paperback version, says the following:
#> 
#>     "...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)
#> 
#> So your own sources are contradicting you.

as I have said elsewhere, Scholem is a good source on kabbalah.
I didn't say that he was a good source on qabalah (which I am
saying is a different animal, inspired by kabbalah).


# That quote from Scholem is central to this debate. 

ok, if it is central, then I will address it more directly.  Scholem
here describes "inventions" which he says are "totally unrelated"
to the teachings of kabbalah.  and yet these individuals called
their inventions "qabalah", so it was at least related by name.
they attempted to utilized numerological systems such as gematria
and notariqon and so it was related by virtue of numerolinguistics.
they took as their hierophant and qabalistic dogmatist a man by
the name of Luria (Isaac?), whose writings on the kabbalah are
apparently very influential in Jewish mysticism, so it was related
inasmuch as their understanding of Luria was in any way proximate.

I agree with the criticism that Hermetic qabalah was in its origins
a skeleton reflection of the Jewish originals, but this is hardly
a criticism which can be used to dismiss outright whatever was made 
from them.  Christianity could be dismissed in its origins for
the same reasons (as could many progenetic cultural developments),
but this would be unfair.  The same could be said about Buddhism
(that it should be dismissed because it reflected the original
Hindu cosmology and retained many of the old Indian cosmological
presuppositions like karma).


# ...I think, [hara], that you should consider it very seriously 
# before going on further about the "modern" Kaballah. 

what do you think my questions here *are*?  they are serious
evaluations and questions about what should and should not be 
considered 'seriously'.  when I hear simplistic dismissals
of that which I know to have at least a hundred years of
history (Hermetic qabalah, however blotchy or unbelieveable),
I begin to wonder what Tim/occult and you are trying to
achieve aside from a SQUELCHING of the philosophic inquiry.

instead I would prefer that which I have come to associate
with Jewish intellectualism: a pleasant suspension of that
certainty which is so important to so many for their own
reasons and an imaginative dissection of the philosophic
bases of the discussion.  if this can't be accomplished
(and I've met many kabbalists and qabalists who could not
ever enter into this kind of discussion, which I used to
find disturbing and hilarious, but am somewhat saddened),
then that's fine.  but please don't smear my character.


# ...you seem to be saying that as far as you are concerned, 
# only the Kaballah of 19th century hegemonic Gentile European 
# hermeticists was "modern" and as if what you dismissively call
# "the Jewish Kaballah" were a mere thing of the past. 

I used the phrase 'Jewish QBL' and maybe 'Jewish kabbalah' to
set into stark evidence the categories I was delineating for
Tim/occult and which I described very plainly early on.  these
he and you have decided to ignore in favor of castigating me.

I *equate* kabbalah with Jewish QBL and only use the descriptive
for those who begin the tired assertions that the only *kind*
of QBL is Jewish (which is tediously dogmatic without some sort
of followup bases of support).


# Furtermore, as Scholem points out, these late 19th century hermetic
# folks... (Eliphas Levi, Papus, et al) and ...  (Crowley, 
# MacGrethor-Mathers et al) were about as well-versed in Judaism 
# as they were in Hinduism, Sufiism, and Taoism. That is to say -- 
# not [at] all. 

I think this is an overstatement and I want to call you on it.
Crowley referenced the I Ching and Tao Teh Ching (Legge) and 
Patanjali in his explications of Taoist and Yogic philosophy
and mysticism.  'Not at all' means he was one of those
orientalists without even a remote connection to the subject.

your extemism, like Tim/occult's leads me to wonder who well
you have covered the subject of kabbalah if you make such
ill-founded claims about Hermetics.  thus I ask additional
questions to see upon what you are basing your claims.


# Their interpretations of the Kaballah (and their flagrant 
# attempt to extricate it from Judaism) were not the product 
# of advanced scholarship but of cultural warfare in which 
# the peoples who had been conquered by European imperialism 
# were made to yield up not only their natural resouces and
# national treasures, but also their religious beliefs and 
# their systems of mysticism. 

NOW we're getting into the real issues.  granted that many
of these Hermeticists tried to pass off what they were
writing about as if they were scholars, and that they did
base some of what they knew upon referring (though not
sourcing of course) to scholarly texts of their day.

the question becomes: when they set out to catholicize the
mysticism of all religions into a syncretic collage that I
have identified as Hermeticism (this syncretism and
eclecticism appears to be very common and has inspired the
Christian and Neopagan communities profoundly), when did
they go "too far"?  because they failed to source their
inspiration?  because they co-opted the language for their
own purposes (the religious of many cultures do this, as
evidenced by the terms 'messiah'/'kristos' in the develop-
ment of Christianity and 'atman'/'anatman' in the origin
of Buddhism)?  

when does this become religious rivalry for the purposes
of human commonwealth (granted based on some charlatanry)
rather than nefarious culture-stealing?  who owns cultures?
what are the proper limitations of absorption and collage?


# The leaders of what you call "modern lineages" of Kaballastic
# scholarship were hegemonically inclined European (Christian) 
# charlatans who earned their renown and income by popularizing 
# snippets of captured cultural beliefs, which they understood 
# poorly if at all. They had a vested interest in promoting 
# the mysticism of other cultures as "exotic," "spooky," and 
# "weird." To attract followers, they grossly misinterpreted 
# and "improved" upon the religio-magical systems of these
# diverse conquered cultures, claiming the discovery of a 
# unified theory of cross-cultural esotericism. Crowley's 
# pathetically laughable attempt to "correlate" the Chinese 
# I Ching with the Jewish Kaballah is my favourite case in point. 

if it is your favourite case in point, then please make this
case for us.  dredge up his 'pathetically laughable attempt'
for us and explain why this supports you.  I don't remember
that it does.  I suspect that he was merely fabricating a
catholic catch-all, and that it was done with some logic and
reference to both mystical systems.  how would you have done
it differently, if you have a superior understanding than did
Crowley did?

I agree that there were indeed orientalists who did what you
are saying, but I'm unsure that your description really
applies to Crowley, since he appears to have been using the
academic resources available to him at the time and was
interested in fabricating a universal system of mystical
endeavor clearly stated as such in his writings (cf. Liber 31).

 
#># whether this person intends such a thing or not, many
#># occultists have been bitten by QBL-fundamentalism in which they
#># assert that nothing other than Jewish kabbalah is the 'real
#># thing'.  this continues an unresolved dispute between Jewish
#># and Hermetic (the latter often Christian in character at its
#># greatest extreme, often syncretic at its best) mystics as regards
#># what is the 'real' QBL (a term I use to designate the whole of
#># kabbalistic/Jewish, qabalistic/Hermetic/Christian, and
#># cabalistic/New Age/popular types, with no necessary cultural
#># limitation of which I am aware).

# Is it "fundamentalism" to tell the truth about history? 

history isn't that clear-cut, I think.  we base our analysis of
what constitutes 'real things' on the criteria we are using to
form that analysis.  without stating the criteria, we merely
espouse a fundamentalism.  it is THIS which is anti-
intellectual, as it bases itself not on reasoned hypotheses,
but on the strength of an assertion.

Tim/occult and you appear to me to be fallaciously arguing with
straw men here.  you cannot tell any 'truth about history'
by virtue of taxonomical rigification around the term 'qabalah'.
you're merely formalizing a dogmatism.  you have not explained 
why the conventions I outlined above are insufficient, how they
fail to take into account the varieties of things which describe
themselves as 'qabalah' or 'kabbalah' or 'cabala' but without so
much of the confusion and dogmatism which contestants favor.


# You yourself leave room for doubt about the sincerity of 
# your syncretism when you begin a post by stating that the 
# Kaballah "appears to be" Jewish. What is so repulsive to 
# you about it actually BEING Jewish? 

here's my text verbatim:
#># while 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,

nothing repulsive, I'm merely being careful in my assertions
until I have more data.  I have heard a variety of very
exclusive and categorical claims surrounding this subject,
and I'm being cautious so as not to make any errors or be
persuaded by fundamentalists.  I hope you see the value of
my approach and how I have indicated sources (Scholem)
who are obviously reputable in this subject area.  I have
not heard the vast continuum of criticism surrounding his
work that I remember being voiced by kabbalists and
qabalists, however, and this gives me pause.  I like to
be cautious and skeptical and I hope to encourage like-
minded circumspection.  if I understate a point based on
my ignorance, please forgive my admitted caution without
projecting antagonistic motives.


# Why call a person who insists that it IS Jewish a
#"fundamentalist"? 

because of the lack of evidence offered in support of the claim.
because of the clear evidence of nonJewish sources on subjects
approximating to this terminology.  because of the repetition of
the claim without addressing the underlying presumptions that
are challenged in response.  basically, because of the manner in
which this insistence is being made (hegemonic terminological
control, dominating intellectual positions, etc.).


# ...why do you waffle and waver over whether the Kaballah is -- 
# or merely "aopears to be" -- Jewish? 

it is not as simple as this, as I hope I have explained.  I was
talking about the vast corpus of text which affiliates or is in
some way related to the term "kabbalah".  not all of it is
Jewish and not all of it is claimed by Jewish mystics.  to
group it all together and all it of Jewish origin is surely a
mistake.  to dismiss all alternatives which come close to an
approximation or comparable mystical endeavor as 'not qabalah'
also seems extreme.  I think "(esp. by this term)" in my text
was sufficiently plain.


# Don't you see how disrespectful and anti-Semitic that sounds? 

I don't fear sounding disrespectful or anti-Semitic.  if I backed
down on my questions merely because they may give the semblance
of anti-anything or disrespect, I would not be true to my
philosophic spirit, cowed by association with untoward accusation.


# And why do you insist that anyone who castigates Crowley, 
# Papus, Eliphas Levi et al as poor sources for study of 
# the subject is a "fundamentalist"? 

I don't, I just think that it ought to be done responsibly,
rather than from overstatement and dogmatism.


# I am all in favour of One World Anarchy and Lord knows i 
# appropriate the bright and shiny things of any culture 
# that interests me. An ethnic Jew, i last night decorated 
# my beautiful Yule Tree with you and got so drunk
# on Kahlua that you took me upstairs and lovingly tucked 
# me in bed where i could gaze upon my altar, at the center 
# of which is a bronze statue of Siva. I enjoy the benfits 
# of syncretism, but i don't claim that Yule "appears to be" 
# Northern European or that Siva "appears to be" Indian. I
# KNOW they are....

I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject and would
only ask for references so that I may become so knowledgeable
as you.  thanks.  I've had many people tell me how much they
"KNOW" and this didn't convince me that they were right.



# This debate on Kaballah is not about "fundamentalism" --
# it is about standing up for the cultural roots of a system 
# of mystical thought that you are fully entitled to study 
# and enjoy and contribute to....

these questions are a part of my study.  please forebear them
rather than meeting them with bluster.


# but will *NOT* be permitted to claim as your own 
# (Gentile) cultural heritage. 

I have but a pittance of heritage and don't much care about
what I have.  however, I *do* have a logical mind, and I
would like to bring it to bear on this subject, thanks.


#>#> Second, learn the Hebrew alphabet.  Gematria is intended for use
#>#> with the hebrew alphabet,
#># 
#># this is less and less the case as the term 'gematria' is applied
#># for usage in any linguistic context which allows a defined set
#># of alphabetics.  

# Here i jump ship and side with [hara] -- Gematria is a Jewish 
# system of thought that can be applied to any alphabet....

once it is applied to another system of thought and language,
once another corpus concretizes around it, though it be called
by the same name (is it?  there appear to be rough spelling
differentiations as I have contended), should it still be
called Jewish?  or should it be differentiated from the
original?  if Jews got gematria from elsewhere should it be
called 'isopsephia' rather than 'gematria'?  why?  did the
Jews who co-opted this (if indeed it was co-opted, I have not
heard a definitive response on it yet) make the same mistake
as Crowley and Levi et al?  when shall we break with resistance
to this social co-option and call it a new tradition using
different meanings for the same words (compare 'Jesus Christ')?



#># I therefore contend that Hebrew-centrism where gematria is
#># concerned is a mere fundamentalism which need not be regarded
#># seriously aside from those who are tradition-bound or who find
#># the history of the practice to be important to their studies.
#># one might as well start with one's *own* language (this is my
#># own preference, as this is what Jews and others did ;>) and
#># proceed from there.

#>#  the correlation between numbers
#># and mythology (mystical or no) is not unique to the Jewish, and
#># qabalistic progressions 

#True... but the "meaning" of the correlation will vary by culture. 

I agree stongly here and do not hear that you are contradicting me.


# ...there is no "plain old western numerology." It derives from 
# Jewish gemntria. 

which appears to derive from previous sources.  it is a kind of
global web, it seems.  who has ownership rights?  it was Tim's/
occult's overgeneralizations which set me to asking more
questions.  you have corrected him as regards this subject.  I
don't think that there are as many black and white answers on
this subject as is presumed.  so I ask questions.


#># there is no reason to perpetuate a stark divide between the
#># numerological systems devised and promulgated by expositors
#># such as Agrippa and other europeans and qabalah.  it is only
#># a classist and elitist 'hi/lo magic' mentality which breeds
#># it, from what I can see, and I aim to forge them securely
#># together into a modern version which draws from all sides.

# Well, hooray for your syncretist playlist -- just don't forget 
# who wrote the danged tunes when you are typesetting the 
# label-copy, okay?

it is done in religions all the time.  that don't make it right,
but it does entitle us to ask whether those what sung the song
were the originals, even if they are *presumed* to have been so.
.

#cat yronwode, stationary Jew

hara, the philosophical inquirer :*
-- 
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (emailed replies may be posted); cc me replies;
http://www.abyss.com/tokus; http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatSPELLS.html