Taoism and kabbalah.
Hermes Trismegistus
Hi,
what does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
In addition does the Tao correspond with the Neoplatonic One?
I have so far got some very mixed and inconsitant answers
to these questions
Cheers
dez
Hermes Trismegistus <mwa...@kingston.net> wrote:
> What does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
> In addition does the Tao correspond with the Neoplatonic One?
> I have so far got some very mixed and inconsitant answers
> to these questions
tao is
(not a concept)
how does a butterfly
correspond with a rock?
there!
(hope that clears things up. if not, ask rick:)
dez ;-)
peter li'ir key
Hermes Trismegistus <mwa...@kingston.net> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
since you have obviously not crossed da'ath,
i doubt you'd understand.
> what does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
prolly ain soph.
>In addition does the Tao correspond with the Neoplatonic One?
perhaps. depends how you envision.
>I have so far got some very mixed and inconsitant answers
>to these questions
'cuz you're just using words.
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
Allan Gorochow
Pick up a copy of "The Tao & The Tree Of Life" by Eric Steven Yudelove.
This book by a 30 year student of Taoism describes the structure of
Taoist Yoga by comparing it to the tradition of the Kaballah. There is
a growing trend among the major Western Kabbalists to absorb and use the
lower formulas of Taoist Yoga into their Tradition. Yudelove and his
teacher Master Mantak Chia ,found remarkable similarities in the two
systems.
Quester
In article <slrn6mrjb6...@boggle.dyn.ml.org>, mwa...@kingston.net
says...
>
>Hi,
> what does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
>to these questions
>
>
Kabbalah...(cabala)
Maybe closer to the I Ching than having anything in common with Tao. Since it
was devised by a secret society, if someone told you the you would have to be
silenced. Hermes would know the secrets left by the Pythagorian societies and
the mysteries surrounding numbers. Certain Jewish students of the cabala
extracting for Hebrew lore the mysteries of interpreting Biblical passages by
certain words, word placements, letters/numbers, and even special accents...
Ask again when you cross paths with a good Jew schooled in Hasidism. Research
Sefer Yezira =Book of Creation= and the second Zohar.
I still think it's fun throwing five coins and counting heads and tails for the
I Ching. I hit five numbers in the Arizona lottery once.... but it's a lousy
weather predictor! *grin*
Quester (aren't you sorry you asked?)
------------------
Spam free Usenet news http://extra.newsguy.com
JayBuzin
mwalton (Hermes Trismegistus) wrote:
>Hi,
Howdy!
> what does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
Probably "nothing."
However,
in my understanding;
when one experiences One\none,
it oft becomes ineffable.
[knot to mention silly]
For me, the term Tao points to this *One\none*.
For me; Kabbalah tends to G-d,
which is a branch of the tree of Tao.
In attempting to describe the collide-oscope
thru which we return to duelistic\normal conversation
many similarities may be percieved in various world-views.
While I won't go so far as to say all inexpressables are identical,
it appears to me that as we share one Earth, many maps arise
out of mystical states of consciousness.
[...]
>I have so far got some very mixed and inconsitant answers
>to these questions
As each of our enculturation processes differ
words connote and denote hodge-podges with mucho baggage.
Could be a hornet's nest for sum.
>Cheers
Likewise!
{:-])))
-J
ld...@pathcom.com
Quester wrote:
mwalton wrote:
M:
> >Hi,
> > what does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
> >I have so far got some very mixed and inconsistent answers
> >to these questions
> >
> >Cheers
Q:
> Kabbalah...(cabala)
> Maybe closer to the I Ching than having anything in common with Tao. Since
it
> was devised by a secret society, if someone told you the you would have to
be
> silenced. Hermes would know the secrets left by the Pythagorian societies
and
> the mysteries surrounding numbers.
(snip)
ld:
If cabala deals with numerological 'mysteries' it would quickly find company
with Pythagoras and the ancient Chinese theoretical structure behind the
I-ching, (generally considered 'taoist'). What they share is a world-view
where One (conscious) is the originator, it fragments to numbers, numbers
multiply into
forms (also known as symbols, archetypes, patterns etc) and forms lead to the
concrete world in which we live in.
A 'reading' is only a cross-section in time, but it describes the here and now
in terms of 'patterns', 64, 8x8, like dna would regard it, in binary.
Pythagoras's 'Egyptian' system supports a 'divination' process called Tarot.
The Chinese system also creates a divination system, I-ching. In a way they
are similar because they are both based on the One--that is, mathematically,
that if you know what you have, you can subtract from the Whole and deduce
what you do not have. Both systems are holistic/wholistic/holyistic.
They differ in that Taoism (at least in the number-and-symbol school) has a
more complex and rationally evolved world view.
The Pythagoreans adopted as their symbol of reality the 'holy tetractys'
which looks like this:
.
. .
. . .
. . . .
It represents point, line, area, 3-d space when read like a paragraph
from the top.
The ten dots can be read also as a hexagram enclosed in a triangle,
or by taking the central dot with the 4 on each side (3 x 5) as cosmos.
While this system only goes up to 10, (or 9 and a zero) taoist
numerology adds another row to the bottom of the pyramid
to add up to 15:
.
. .
. . .
. . . .
. . . . .
The 15 dots represent Tao.
In the resulting divination system
the 3 coins with heads labelled as 3 and tails as 2 always add up to 15 for
each toss.
A toss is a binary division,
seperating seen and unseen as heads or tails.
Dividing the present moment into seen and unseen the sum of the sides you can
see will always be 6,7,8, or 9.
7's and 8's, being close to the 'mean' are stable and unchanging,
but the 6's and 9's, composed of 3 heads or 3 tails are considered extreme,
and everything extreme changes to its opposite.
These numbers are the basis of the 'book of changes' or i-ching.
(An example: of 6 tosses the fifth produces 3 heads; that's 3 times 3, 9. So
reading in the commentary a 'Nine in the Fifth place' for the particular
pattern--which will only be a 64th of totality--would give particular
advice/weather forecast based on that situation's pattern itself.)
Note 6 tosses are necessary to describe 3-dimensional reality.
Note also that 69 is the dynamic symbol of taoism, the yin-yang.
This shows clearly where 'arabic' numbers originated.
,
re: the Neoplatonic One,
hmmm, i'm leery, because it is the grandchild,
like neo-taoism: dredged up, or neo-confucianism
punch drunk from Chan.
When in doubt,
the earliest source is probably the most accurate imo.
When I hear neo-
it's the deer's ears onto alert..
excuse the digression,
lawrence
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Quester
In article <6kpgaa$eio$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>, ld...@pathcom.com says...
>
>Quester wrote:
>mwalton wrote:
>M:
>> >Hi,
>> > what does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
>> >In addition does the Tao correspond with the Neoplatonic One?
>> >I have so far got some very mixed and inconsistent answers
>> >to these questions
>> >
>> >Cheers
>
>Q:
>> Kabbalah...(cabala)
>> Maybe closer to the I Ching than having anything in common with Tao. Since
>be silenced. Hermes would know the secrets left by the Pythagorian societies
>and the mysteries surrounding numbers.
>(snip)
>>doubt,the earliest source is probably the most accurate imo. When I hear neo-
>it's the deer's ears onto alert.. excuse the digression,
>lawrence
>
>
Hey Lawrence...
Your mother taught you well at her knee. Tip of the ol' Quester hat on that
response. Great depth to your knowledge. (Maybe you could tell me what
happened to Craig. Another mystery...
Q.
dez
ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
> The Pythagoreans adopted as their symbol of reality the 'holy tetractys'
I was wondering when Al Bob's side kick, Billy Bob de Tractor, would show
up again.
> These numbers are the basis of the 'book of changes' or i-ching.
To me, numbers represent a first step towards division.
A baby in the womb experiences one.
Upon birth, the baby soon learns to see two (self and not self.)
Then, distinguishing things starts, and counting begins soon thereafter.
Chuang Tzu says, "If we go on this way, then even the cleverest
mathematician can't tell where we'll end, much less the ordinary man. If
by moving from nonbeing to being we get three, how far will we get if we
move from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be!"
(Chuang Tzu, Ch. 2, Watson, Tr.)
What I think Chuang Tzu is getting at is the house of cards. It is a human
tendency to construct a belief system out of "things" (or divisions.)
Certainly academia is the ultimate expression of this art - - all these
wonderful theories, distinctions and labels that are almost laughable to a
nonparticipant. It seems to me that Chuang Tzu warned against this because
such divisions focus on the husk, not the kernel. Theories based on things
are themselves things and hence cannot grasp that which is unlimited by
divisions. Also, theories exhibit an "impetus" direction - - they push out
away from self in a grasping manner. The Way is found not in the grasping,
but in the return.
Chuang Tzu (hi george!) continues: "If the Way is made clear, it is not
the Way. If discriminations are put into words, they do not suffice. . . .
Therefore, understanding that rests in what it does not understand is the
finest." (Watson)
Paul
peter li'ir key
dez <d...@swamp.grove> wrote:
>To me, numbers represent a first step towards division.
>A baby in the womb experiences one.
>Upon birth, the baby soon learns to see two (self and not self.)
>Then, distinguishing things starts, and counting begins soon thereafter.
first there was no baby.
then it lived in a womb.
upon birth it learned it was not the womb.
slowly it learned of that which it could affect,
of that which it could not affect, and
of that which is could not understand.
then it learned to talk.
Hermes Trismegistus
On Sat, 30 May 1998 17:40:26 GMT, ld...@pathcom.com <ld...@pathcom.com> wrote:
>Quester wrote:
>mwalton wrote:
>M:
>Hi,
> what does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
>In addition does the Tao correspond with the Neoplatonic One?
>I have so far got some very mixed and inconsistent answers
>to these questions
>
>Cheers
>
ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
>ld:
I have decided to dissect your post in the perfunctory usenet manner.
>If cabala deals with numerological 'mysteries'
I believe that it does but not in way that convinces me at the moment.
However, a kabbalist can discount the numerolgical facets and still
believe in the rest. (I may be completely wrong about this).
>it would quickly find company
>with Pythagoras and the ancient Chinese theoretical structure behind the
>I-ching, (generally considered 'taoist'). What they share is a world-view
>where One (conscious) is the originator,
The One is a non-concious principle. It is the begetter of duality.
It gives concepts such as nothing and something relative meaning,
by uniting the concepts of nothing and something.
Describing being as that to which attributes may be assigend,
The One has not being. If "to think is to be" then it does not
have being. According to Plotinus even saying that it exists
is an outrage of sorts because after all this requires
the dual concept of something and nothing to exist a priori.
But here i am talking about The One, which makes this all
very maddening. How can I talk about something (granted that
even ideas are things [materialists will balk at this]) which
does not exist? The short answer is that i'm not talking about
it. It's impossible. I am only pointing in the direction.
What i have just described is what i understand to be the Neoplatonic
One. It struck me as very similar to what i briefly read about the Tao,
which is why i was asking.
BTW, Two of the replies to my original thread, are what
I consider to be rude sophistry (i'm not talking about yours, lawrence).
>it fragments to numbers, numbers
It never fragmented.
>multiply into
>forms (also known as symbols, archetypes, patterns etc) and forms lead to the
>concrete world in which we live in.
I agree with this.
>A 'reading' is only a cross-section in time, but it describes the here and now
>in terms of 'patterns', 64, 8x8, like dna would regard it, in binary.
>Pythagoras's 'Egyptian' system supports a 'divination' process called Tarot.
>The Chinese system also creates a divination system, I-ching. In a way they
>are similar because they are both based on the One--that is, mathematically,
> that if you know what you have, you can subtract from the Whole and deduce
>what you do not have. Both systems are holistic/wholistic/holyistic.
>They differ in that Taoism (at least in the number-and-symbol school) has a
>more complex and rationally evolved world view.
>The Pythagoreans adopted as their symbol of reality the 'holy tetractys'
>These numbers are the basis of the 'book of changes' or i-ching.
>(An example: of 6 tosses the fifth produces 3 heads; that's 3 times 3, 9. So
>reading in the commentary a 'Nine in the Fifth place' for the particular
>pattern--which will only be a 64th of totality--would give particular
>advice/weather forecast based on that situation's pattern itself.)
>Note 6 tosses are necessary to describe 3-dimensional reality.
>Note also that 69 is the dynamic symbol of taoism, the yin-yang.
>This shows clearly where 'arabic' numbers originated.
>,
Interesting discussion of The I-Ching. i have not studied that yet,
but I may.
>re: the Neoplatonic One,
>hmmm, i'm leery, because it is the grandchild,
grandchild of what? It's certainly not the grandchild of Plato.
Uknowability of The One
automatically disqualifies it from platonicness.
>like neo-taoism: dredged up, or neo-confucianism
>punch drunk from Chan.
>When in doubt,
>the earliest source is probably the most accurate imo.
>When I hear neo-
Plotinus considered himself to be following in the path of plato,
using him as an authority as much as possible (although some of
what he wrote was certainly very un-Platonic).
The neo prefrix was added fairly recently in history,
in order to distinguish the work of plotinus and his students,
from that of Plato.
>it's the deer's ears onto alert..
>
>excuse the digression,
>lawrence
>
I spoke too much about the neoplatonic One because that is all
i know about. i do not understand the kabbalistic ideas at all.
i cannot distinguiush between ain soph and kether, and i get
different answers to exactly what corresponds with the Tao of Taoism
and the neoplatonic/hermetic One.
Maybe someone will clarify these issues for me.
Cheers,
Hermes Trismegistus
George Henry
dez (d...@swamp.grove) wrote:
: ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
: > The Pythagoreans adopted as their symbol of reality the 'holy tetractys'
: I was wondering when Al Bob's side kick, Billy Bob de Tractor, would show
: up again.
: > These numbers are the basis of the 'book of changes' or i-ching.
: To me, numbers represent a first step towards division.
: A baby in the womb experiences one.
: Upon birth, the baby soon learns to see two (self and not self.)
: Then, distinguishing things starts, and counting begins soon thereafter.
watching dancing motes in a sunbeam.. the rain hitting and sliding down
the pane. i dreaded the thought of another shoe-tieing lesson. (i was
dyslexic)
: Chuang Tzu says, "If we go on this way, then even the cleverest
: mathematician can't tell where we'll end, much less the ordinary man. If
: by moving from nonbeing to being we get three, how far will we get if we
: move from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be!"
: (Chuang Tzu, Ch. 2, Watson, Tr.)
the dust will never settle except when we cease to move.. i think we are
taught to think but are never taught how to stop.. even for a moment.
on hands and knees planting seeds without thinking covering them up.
i was looking at once was the garden and then forgot how i did it.
: What I think Chuang Tzu is getting at is the house of cards. It is a human
: tendency to construct a belief system out of "things" (or divisions.)
: Certainly academia is the ultimate expression of this art - - all these
: wonderful theories, distinctions and labels that are almost laughable to a
: nonparticipant. It seems to me that Chuang Tzu warned against this because
: such divisions focus on the husk, not the kernel. Theories based on things
: are themselves things and hence cannot grasp that which is unlimited by
: divisions. Also, theories exhibit an "impetus" direction - - they push out
: away from self in a grasping manner. The Way is found not in the grasping,
: but in the return.
I'd like to find the guy that turned Chuang-chou into a Tze.. whatever.. I
would like to meet the teachers teacher. (burrowing back)
: Chuang Tzu (hi george!) continues: "If the Way is made clear, it is not
: the Way. If discriminations are put into words, they do not suffice. . . .
: Therefore, understanding that rests in what it does not understand is the
: finest." (Watson)
Yo bro.. attracted to the duck and pork and the various sauces.. it was
the nutty tast of plain brown rice that won me.. .. I carried the Fung
translation in my tool-box for years..
---george
--
Hermes Trismegistus
On 29 May 1998 19:44:35 GMT, peter li'ir key <k...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
I promised myself that i wouldn't bother replying to you,
but what the heck. Now that i am knee deep in the muck
I may as well sink lower.
>since you have obviously not crossed da'ath,
>i doubt you'd understand.
Why do I have to cross DA'ATH, before I can get simple answers to
simple questions?
>
>> what does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
>
>prolly ain soph.
>
>>In addition does the Tao correspond with the Neoplatonic One?
>
>perhaps. depends how you envision.
OK, I have decided to envision the Tao as fluffy cloud, and the Neoplatonic
One as a daisy. How will this effect the correspondence?
>
>>I have so far got some very mixed and inconsitant answers
>>to these questions
>
>'cuz you're just using words.
Would you prefer it if I also used emoticons?
>
>
>peter li'ir key
>k...@springhaven.org
Cheers,
Hermes T.
dez
George Henry <gch...@panix.com> wrote:
> watching dancing motes in a sunbeam.. the rain hitting and sliding down
> the pane. i dreaded the thought of another shoe-tieing lesson. (i was
> dyslexic)
hey bro. where would I be without your humor. . .
> the dust will never settle except when we cease to move..
> the dust will never settle except when we cease to move..
> the dust will never settle except when we cease to move..
They claim that if you say something three times it is more easily
remembered. I like this...
> Yo bro.. attracted to the duck and pork and the various sauces.. it was
> the nutty tast of plain brown rice that won me.. ..
Hey Jay, fix this man up with a large bowl of rice.
-Paul
dez
peter li'ir key <k...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> first there was no baby.
> then it lived in a womb.
> upon birth it learned it was not the womb.
> slowly it learned of that which it could affect,
> of that which it could not affect, and
> of that which is could not understand.
> then it learned to talk. <---- Egad! ;-)
"I told him that I was good to sixes,
but all hell broke loose after that."
Liz Phair
George Henry
dez (d...@swamp.grove) wrote:
: George Henry <gch...@panix.com> wrote:
: > watching dancing motes in a sunbeam.. the rain hitting and sliding down
: > the pane. i dreaded the thought of another shoe-tieing lesson. (i was
: > dyslexic)
: hey bro. where would I be without your humor. . .
: > the dust will never settle except when we cease to move..
: > the dust will never settle except when we cease to move..
: > the dust will never settle except when we cease to move..
: They claim that if you say something three times it is more easily
: remembered. I like this...
to be a 'mote' with others..
suspended (?? perspectual) i do not move.
: > Yo bro.. attracted to the duck and pork and the various sauces.. it was
: > the nutty tast of plain brown rice that won me.. ..
: Hey Jay, fix this man up with a large bowl of rice.
and some cold Tsing Tao to wash it down..
---george
--
ld...@pathcom.com
In article <slrn6n0gev...@boggle.dyn.ml.org>,
mwa...@kingston.net (Hermes Trismegistus) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 May 1998 17:40:26 GMT, ld...@pathcom.com <ld...@pathcom.com> wrote:
> >Quester wrote:
> >mwalton wrote:
>
> ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
Hermes:
> I have decided to dissect your post in the perfunctory usenet manner.
> >If cabala deals with numerological 'mysteries'
> I believe that it does but not in way that convinces me at the moment.
> However, a kabbalist can discount the numerolgical facets and still
> believe in the rest. (I may be completely wrong about this).
likewise lots of Taoists are not into divination,
'one hub shares many spokes'.
ld:
> >it would quickly find company
> >with Pythagoras and the ancient Chinese theoretical structure behind the
> >I-ching, (generally considered 'taoist'). What they share is a world-view
> >where One (conscious) is the originator,
> The One is a non-concious principle. It is the begetter of duality.
> It gives concepts such as nothing and something relative meaning,
> by uniting the concepts of nothing and something.
> Describing being as that to which attributes may be assigend,
> The One has not being. If "to think is to be" then it does not
> have being. According to Plotinus even saying that it exists
> is an outrage of sorts because after all this requires
> the dual concept of something and nothing to exist a priori.
imo Plotinus is confused and confusing. His 'One' is a real cripple if
it isn't inclusive (of) consciousness. True, with no subject-object
division, there is no one to make the distinction, however to presume
consciousness arises from the primal division of one is to equate
consciousness with dualism and 'self-awareness' which is also 'outrageous'.
The One clearly has being, regardless of there being no thinker yet to give it
'attributes'. And 'to think' is not 'to be' according to either Taoism or
Chan Buddhism, both of which have well-defined meditation exercises whereby a
person can prove to themself that they still exist even when they are not
thinking. Curiously, in 'thinking' about this, I recall the earlier
'Hermes Trimegistus' working backwards from the consciousness of man to deduce
the consciousness of the totality~~roughly: "Man is all things, man is
everywhere".
h:
> But here i am talking about The One, which makes this all
> very maddening. How can I talk about something (granted that
> even ideas are things [materialists will balk at this]) which
> does not exist? The short answer is that i'm not talking about
> it. It's impossible. I am only pointing in the direction.
I get your point, in fact it reflects Chuang-tzu.. and Heisenberg!
h:
> What i have just described is what i understand to be the Neoplatonic
> One. It struck me as very similar to what i briefly read about the Tao,
> which is why i was asking.
I found the question quite interesting. This ng, colloquially known as 'the
grove', has many contributers who have thought quite a bit on these type of
questions.. and with quite varied conclusions!
h:
> BTW, Two of the replies to my original thread, are what
> I consider to be rude sophistry (i'm not talking about yours, lawrence).
thanks, I agree sophistry is annoying but sometimes it can also be
entertaining or even educational (if you don't take it too seriously),
however 'rudeness' is an old theme in Taoism,
going back at least to Yang-chu in the 4th century BC.
Our resident 'yangists' serve a useful function, since periodically the
'grove' is attacked by 'evangelicals' looking for 'pagans' to convert.
And, actually, you have only been sniffed by guard dogs,
while there are also fire-breathing dragons lurking about.
ld:
> >it fragments to numbers, numbers
> It never fragmented.
l-
no, ok, divided? fractured? My point, poorly expressed I admit,
is that the 'numbers' are fractions of a whole:
2 is halves, 3 is thirds, etc.
ld:
> >multiply into
> >forms (also known as symbols, archetypes, patterns etc) and forms lead to
the
> >concrete world in which we live in.
> I agree with this.
ld:
> >A 'reading' is only a cross-section in time, but it describes the here and
now
(big snip)
h:
> Interesting discussion of The I-Ching. i have not studied that yet,
> but I may.
l-
of all the divination systems it is the most clearly defined and scientific
imo, (after studying tarot, astrology, runes and cartouche).
>
ld:
> >re: the Neoplatonic One,
>
> >hmmm, i'm leery, because it is the grandchild,
h:
> grandchild of what? It's certainly not the grandchild of Plato.
> Uknowability of The One
> automatically disqualifies it from platonicness.
l-
imo Egypt (Thoth) is wise and teaches harmony to grandpa Pythagoras, the
tradition goes on (3 centuries) to Socrates.
Plato is a voyeur (not an initiate), attempting to digest and popularize
Socrates,
creating Aristotle and Alexander~~already the 'son' is dangerous,
wants to take over the world.
Another 5 centuries later grandson Plotinus is confused, attempting to redeem
Plato and unite him with Hebrew and Christian metaphysics with one hand, while
with the other he attempts to destroy the Gnostics (for their pessimism).
Looking back on history in retrospect, and judging by results,
Plotinus seems to have been 'wrong',
Romanizing Christianity, (Catholicism) is a disaster,
spiritualism is swamped by materialism and the 'dark ages' result.
(Peter says I take heresy as my orthodoxy, you can feel free to disagree).
ld:
> >like neo-taoism: dredged up, or neo-confucianism
> >punch drunk from Chan.
> >When in doubt,
> >the earliest source is probably the most accurate imo.
> >When I hear neo-
h:
> Plotinus considered himself to be following in the path of plato,
> using him as an authority as much as possible (although some of
> what he wrote was certainly very un-Platonic).
> The neo prefix was added fairly recently in history,
> in order to distinguish the work of plotinus and his students,
> from that of Plato.
l-
neo-neo-platonicism is Dan Quayle claiming he read Plato's 'Republic' to get
to sleep.. The 'Republic' bans poets for being confusing.
Isn't that proof of confusion?
> >it's the deer's ears onto alert..
> >
> >excuse the digression,
> >lawrence
> >
> I spoke too much about the neoplatonic One because that is all
> i know about.
l-
knowing what you know and don't know is a treasure.
h:
i do not understand the kabbalistic ideas at all.
> i cannot distinguiush between ain soph and kether, and i get
> different answers to exactly what corresponds with the Tao of Taoism
> and the neoplatonic/hermetic One.
> Maybe someone will clarify these issues for me.
l-
as Quester pointed out, it's a secret society,
they can't tell you straight out,
without violating their vows.
Would you trust someone who violated their vows?
This paradox does not exist in Taoism or Chan,
which is one basic reason I never got around to studying kabala.
> Cheers,
> Hermes Trismegistus
fun rappin with you,
--lawrence
rick
dez wrote:
>
> ld...@pathcom.com wrote:
>
> > The Pythagoreans adopted as their symbol of reality the 'holy tetractys'
>
> I was wondering when Al Bob's side kick, Billy Bob de Tractor, would show
> up again.
>
> > These numbers are the basis of the 'book of changes' or i-ching.
>
> To me, numbers represent a first step towards division.
> A baby in the womb experiences one.
> Upon birth, the baby soon learns to see two (self and not self.)
> Then, distinguishing things starts, and counting begins soon thereafter.
>
> mathematician can't tell where we'll end, much less the ordinary man. If
> by moving from nonbeing to being we get three, how far will we get if we
> move from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be!"
> (Chuang Tzu, Ch. 2, Watson, Tr.)
>
> tendency to construct a belief system out of "things" (or divisions.)
> Certainly academia is the ultimate expression of this art - - all these
> wonderful theories, distinctions and labels that are almost laughable to a
> nonparticipant. It seems to me that Chuang Tzu warned against this because
> such divisions focus on the husk, not the kernel. Theories based on things
> are themselves things and hence cannot grasp that which is unlimited by
> divisions. Also, theories exhibit an "impetus" direction - - they push out
> away from self in a grasping manner. The Way is found not in the grasping,
> but in the return.
>
> the Way. If discriminations are put into words, they do not suffice. . . .
> Therefore, understanding that rests in what it does not understand is the
> finest." (Watson)
>
" 20.
Get rid of "learning" and there will be no anxiety.
How much difference is there between "yes" and "no"?
How far removed from each other are "good" and "evil"?
Yet what the people are in awe of cannot be disregarded.
I am scattered, never having been in a comfortable center.
All the people enjoy themselves, as if they are at the festival of the
great sacrifice,
Or climbing the Spring Platform.
I alone remain, not yet having shown myself.
Like an infant who has not yet laughed.
Weary, like one despairing of no home to return to.
All the people enjoy extra
While I have left everything behind.
I am ignorant of the minds of others.
So dull!
While average people are clear and bright, I alone am obscure.
Average people know everything.
To me alone all seems covered.
So flat!
Like the ocean.
Blowing around!
It seems there is no place to rest.
Everybody has a goal in mind.
I alone am as ignorant as a bumpkin.
I alone differ from people.
I enjoy being nourished by the mother."
Translated during the summer of 1991 by Charles Muller
Revised, July 1997
JayBuzin
Hermes wrote:
[...]
> here i am talking about The One, which makes this all
>very maddening. How can I talk about something (granted that
>even ideas are things [materialists will balk at this]) which
>does not exist? The short answer is that i'm not talking about
>it. It's impossible. I am only pointing in the direction.
Probably *nothing* is the best similarity, imso.
This _nothing_ is subject to much debate as of late.
The two views (Tao and eyn sof [God]) are not identical.
The view of God, or the Lord, is not the same as Tao.
As "eyn sof" derives from God, it carries baggage.
Tao, it would appear from a Tao Chia pov, is before God.
I'd suggest reading the TTC and forming your own opinion.
We all tend to disagree on various points.
Scholom edits the Zohar (pgs 78-83),
'However, woe to the man
who should make bold to identify the Lord
with any single attribute ... . Man dare project one
sole conception of the Holy One, be blessed,
that of his sovereignty over some one attribute
or over the creation in its entirety. But if he be
not seen under these manifestations, then there is
neither attribute, nor likeness, nor form in him;
as the very sea, whose waters lack form and solidity
in themselves, having these only when they are
spread over the vessel of the earth.
...
In this same wise has the Cause of causes derived
the ten aspects of his Being which are known as sefirot,
and named the crown the Source, which is a
never-to-be-exhausted fountain of light, wherefrom he
designates himself eyn sof, the Infinite. Neither shape
nor form has he, and no vessel exists to contain him,
nor any means to apprehend him. This is referred to
in the words: "Refrain from searching after the things
that are too hard for thee, and refrain from seeking
for the thing which is hidden from thee." (Ben Sira
as quoted in the Talmud, Hagigah 13a.)'
...
Scholem continues, '... the Israelites wished
to ascertain whether the manifestation of the Divine
which they had been given was of the Ancient One,
the All-hidden One, the Transcendent, who being
above comprehension, is designiate ayin [nothing],
or whether of the "Small Countenance," the Immanent,
which is designated YHVH. ...
One may ask, why then were the Isralites chastised?
The reason is they made distinction between these
two aspects in God, and "tried the Lord" [Exod.],
saying to themselves: We shall pray in one way,
if it is the One, and in another way if it is the Other.'
Even if this is attempted to be taken completely as metaphor,
i.e. both Tao and God as being metaphors *pointing*; imo
that to which they point are not the same.
-in the grove-
now serving
>>a large bowl of rice.
>and some cold Tsing Tao to wash it down..
{;-])))
-J
peter li'ir key
Hermes Trismegistus <mwa...@kingston.net> wrote:
>peter li'ir key <k...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>but what the heck. Now that i am knee deep in the muck
>I may as well sink lower.
you must have a very high opinion of yourself.
>>Hermes Trismegistus <mwa...@kingston.net> wrote:
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>since you have obviously not crossed da'ath,
>>i doubt you'd understand.
>Why do I have to cross DA'ATH, before I can get simple answers to
>simple questions?
because crossing da'ath is not simple, so a simple answer wouldn't
suffice.
which is to say there is no simple answer, but you'd understand
the stupid stuff i say if you crossed da'ath.
>>> what does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
>>prolly ain soph.
pay attention
>>>In addition does the Tao correspond with the Neoplatonic One?
>>perhaps. depends how you envision.
>OK, I have decided to envision the Tao as fluffy cloud, and the Neoplatonic
>One as a daisy. How will this effect the correspondence?
it means you think very strangely and i couldn't figure out a way to
express it for you.
>>>I have so far got some very mixed and inconsitant answers
>>>to these questions
>>'cuz you're just using words.
>Would you prefer it if I also used emoticons?
mixed and inconsistent is a result of just using words.
try not to use symbols.
Robert Cline
In article <slrn6mrjb6...@boggle.dyn.ml.org>, mwa...@kingston.net (Hermes Trismegistus) wrote:
:Hi,
: what does the Tao correspond with in Kabbalah?
:In addition does the Tao correspond with the Neoplatonic One?
:I have so far got some very mixed and inconsitant answers
:to these questions
:
The Kabbalah wont do you any good unless you go back to the original Hebrew.
Plotinus' One is closer to the concept behind the Kabbalah then to the Tao.
( The Hebrew documents were actually written to encode the answers the author
wanted.)
Now for the actual question... The Tao does not coorespond to any "one".
RLC