Pagan Kabbalah
Gnome d Plume
on the Pagan roots (both Assyrian and Greek) of Kabbalah and our newly
rectified Hermetic/Pagan version using the intrinsic Mother
Letter-based Tetragrammatons (22 and 24 letter versions). The purpose
of this discussion--from our point of view--is to liberate non
Judeao-Christian magicians from the notion that they have to bow down
to parochial Biblical archetypes in order to access the Q.B.L. system.
We will discuss the Assyrian origins of the Tree of Life and the Greek
origins of letter-number esoteric symbolism. To get a leg up on this
subject, I suggest Kiren Barry's *The Greek Qabalah* and, if you can
find it, Prof. Parpola's article on *Assyrian Origin's of the Tree of
Life* in the *Journal of Middle Eastern Studies* ---Let the fun begin!
*******
Serious old Gnome
hy
That sounds pretty cool, when are you going to start this? Will you
give us time to read? I think it would be great to start maybe Jan 1
or something.
Hieronymous707
>That sounds pretty cool, when are you going to start this? Will you
>give us time to read? I think it would be great to start maybe Jan 1
>or something.
I wouldn't waste my time, if I were you. The Kabbalah is definitively
rabinical in origin, and the book cited is crap.
-hi-
hybiscus
Yes, but I was interested in this topic a while ago, so, I would be
interested in hearing what Gnome has to say on this issue.
Hieronymous707
>Yes, but I was interested in this topic a while ago, so, I would be
>interested in hearing what Gnome has to say on this issue.
Yeah, me too. This should be funny.
-hi-
Nightshade & Flat
"Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3c0e5a09...@trialnews.peoplepc.com...
How would I get a copy of the Parpola article? A search on Google came up
with nothing but references to it.
Love & Laughter,
Nightshade
>
>
>
Rick
promise. I'll request that you refrain from personal references to my
height and penis size, but of course, you may do as you will.
I have a couple of questions for you, and here's a little background on
my current approach to help you understand where I'm coming from. Your
criticism is welcome:
I've studied kabbalah intermittently since I began serious practice
about 15 years ago. I've spent several of those years doing the DMK
dailies. I've also delved into various practical operations: talismans
and Spare-style sigil workings, etc., often including SIRP or The
Watchtower ritual as part of the overall working. I've also done some,
but not a lot, of TOL pathwork, and some evocative work with the Goetic
pantheon.
There came a point in time, not long before I met you in person the
first time at Ken and Becky's shop in Riverside, when the entire system
that I associate with kabbalah began to feel rather cumbersome to me. I
don't think this was a typical "dark night of the soul" thing, it was
something else. Later I came to think of it as more of a calling, but
I'll get to that in a minute. Suffice it to say that this was no small
dilemma, having invested so much of my time and energy on kabbalah-ish
magick.
I was living in the mountains (Running Springs) at the time and was free
from the burdens of labor (meaning I'd been sacked). I spent countless
hours wondering the woods around my cabin, pondering, meditating, etc.,
and (as promised) realized my calling, a decidedly Pagan urge toward The
Pan. After a couple of very intense invocative experiences, the path
I've been on ever since began to unfold. I shifted from something of a
pantheistic approach (or multilevel kabbalistic/TOL approach) to an
exclusive, dedicated-to-Pan approach.
Since that time, what has evolved is a personal system, directly guided
by my Patron. The TOL correspondences I spent so much time and effort
internalizing have gradually been replaced by personal correspondences
forged (or realized) through direct experience (and differing
considerably from sources like "777"), and the need for references
outside of my own journals simply evaporated.
Given all that, I'll pose a single question for now:
What value, do you consider, is there in adopting the correspondences
and symbolism of foreign cultures and long-since-past eras?
To me, it seems that the mainstreamed systems (in neo-pagan/modern
magick terms, i.e. kabbalah), are thoroughly laced with the cultural
baggage from whence they rose, much of which has little to no relevance
to the practical experiences and challenges we face today (in the U.S.
at least). But, as an anthropologist, you may have a different view and
I'm open to hear about it if you're willing to share.
--
Rick
http://home.earthlink.net/~iopan/
Blazin' Tommy D.
BTD:)
Nightshade & Flat <ande...@eatel.net> wrote in article
<jtuP7.152415$8q.16...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
Gnome d Plume
****I may start before that date, but I did think that this time I
ought to give some advance warning. You might also read Fiedler's
*Jesus Christ, Sun of God* (terrible title but it is pro-Pagan!) ,
Flowers' *Hermetic Magic,* and Kevin Townley's *The Cube of Space.*
******
Gnome
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
***** Oy vey! Have we a got a book for you! Try Rabbi Ben Clifford's
*The Chicken Qaballah.* (Unless you pronounce kabbalah, "Kha-ba-LAH",
in which case there is no way we can reach you--nor should you want us
to.) ******
Hadji Gnome Pasha
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
******You already are. Get out your Gershom Scholem and your Aryah
Kaplan and let's rock-and-roll! *****
Gnome
Gnome d Plume
********In the distant past we had such a thing as "Inter Library
Loan" and even libraries (buildings with lots of real books in them).
But I am being cruel. I xeroxed my copy in the basement of Fuller
Seminary's library. You might have to find a University library to get
it. It is worth the effort.....******
Gnome
>
>>
>>
>>
>
Blazin' Tommy D.
Gnome d Plume <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in article
<3c0e7f08...@trialnews.peoplepc.com>...
Hieronymous707
>******You already are.
LOL ... er
707 ...
that's me.
>Get out your Gershom Scholem and your
>Aryah Kaplan and let's rock-and-roll! *****
Thanks, but I don't think I'll need to do that. In fact, I think I've given
away most of my Sholem. I still have Kaplan though.
What exactly is it about the rabbinical origin of Kabbalah that cows you so?
-hi-
Hieronymous707
>***** Oy vey! Have we a got a book for you! Try Rabbi Ben Clifford's
>*The Chicken Qaballah.*
I'm familiar with it. It reminds me of brownies.
(Unless you pronounce kabbalah, "Kha-ba-LAH",
>in which case there is no way we can reach you--nor should you want us
>to.) ******
Actually, I rarely pronounce the word at all anymore, and you can reach me just
about anytime, or you can leave a message and I'll get back to you.
-hi-
hy
YA, injuring minds want to know!~
hy
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
******** If the "rabbinical origin" of Kabbalah "cowed" me, I would
not dare to suggest that it actually has Assyrian Pagan and Classical
Pagan origins, and then go on to construct a modern Hermetic/Pagan
version of it. Apparently that bothers you more than rabbinical
kabbalah bothers me. Have you ever taken a university course in
rabbinical kabbalah? You'd be surprised what you might learn, even
from a rabbi.****
Gnome d Plume
Blazin' Tommy D.
Gnomey will get mad
did I really write "man" instead of "many"
Freudian slip:)
BTD
P.S. I wish Victoria Secrets would carry these:)
hy <hybi...@shaw.ca> wrote in article <3C0DF542...@shaw.ca>...
> eek inquiring
>
Mephistopheles
>on the Pagan roots (both Assyrian and Greek) of Kabbalah and our newly
>rectified Hermetic/Pagan version using the intrinsic Mother
>Letter-based Tetragrammatons (22 and 24 letter versions)
I can address the former, not the latter: In searching for a pagan Kabbalah, we
must look to its essential emanationism.
Here, I would refer the reader to Plotinus. There is little doubt in the mind
of any except the faith-driven that Neoplatonist emanationism, the notion of
divinity existing in layers, is at the root of the kabbalistic system.
(From the faith-driven, there is little of worth to be considered, tantum
religio potuit suadere stultorum, to paraphrase Lucretius).
From there, let us pass to Philo of Alexandria, who, good Hellenized Jew that
he was, sought to bring concordance between Jewish and Pagan systems of
mystical thought
The Jung Codices demonstrate amply that there was in Egypt a fairly unique set
of ecumenical communities whose mission was to synthesize mystical thought
across cultural and religious frameworks. The results of the labors of all the
above were 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.
From the latter fact, and the events in Prague described in Frances Yates'
excellent tomes, I would assert that Hermetic and Jewish Kabbalah continually
enriched and challenged each other, and await but the right ecumenical
movement, in imitatione Nag Hammadis, to unify them.
--M
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius
Hieronymous707
>******** If the "rabbinical origin" of Kabbalah "cowed" me, I would
>not dare to suggest that it actually has Assyrian Pagan and Classical
>Pagan origins,
The inference was specifically to your view about the "purpose of this
discussion".
"--from our point of view--is to liberate non
Judeao-Christian magicians from the notion that they have to bow down
to parochial Biblical archetypes in order to access the Q.B.L. system."
> and then go on to construct a modern Hermetic/Pagan
>version of it.
I'm making cookies for Christmas. No offense, but I like my cookies better
than your construct.
>Apparently that bothers you more than rabbinical
>kabbalah bothers me.
You're going to "liberate" those that "bow down", and all I'm saying is that
through inquiry and study of all available data, it is reasonable to postulate
that Kabbalah is of rabbinical origin, and you think I'm bothered?
That's funny.
> Have you ever taken a university course in
>rabbinical kabbalah?
Is that important?
>You'd be surprised what you might learn, even
>from a rabbi.****
You'd be surprised how many rabbin I know.
-hi-
Gnome d Plume
*****I was going to let it pass, Tommy.****
Gnome
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
>>From: Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume)
******** Lord George knows my father,
Father knows Lord George!
Lord George knows my faaaaaaather!
Faaaaather knows Lord George!
Go away.*******
Gnome
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
******Excellent! I'm glad this time I didn't start this off myself
but threw it out for a suggested topic. It also acted as a troll
catcher.....But your observations on Plotinus' emanation concept is
most applicable--in fact the later rabbin (not Luria) became so
concerned about the NeoPlatonic non-judgemental, impersonal
connotations of Atziluth that they created their own Trinity concept
to circumvent the obvious: that at the highest level God simply IS,
and to imply that He sits in "judgement" implies that He is
dissatisfied, and thus insults Him. --Now even Scholem admites that
the Sepher Yetzirah is "Pythagorean" and Barry cites the 1st Century
Gnostic Marcus with creating the first astrological letter-number
esoteric system. 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 don't want to give the
impression that the Rabbinical Kabbalah is flawed or not important. It
is, and they made a great contibution, and we owe a great debt to them
--but the Kabbalah is universal and Pagans, Thelemites and other
"Chicken" Kabbalists should not be made to feel like second class
wannabes if they find in the great old system their own niche and
inspiration. To suggest otherwise is so selfish and zenophobic as to
degrade the very concept of Kabbalah itself. *******
Gnome d Plume
Asiya
news:3c0f8084...@trialnews.peoplepc.com...
>
> (Unless you pronounce kabbalah, "Kha-ba-LAH",
> in which case there is no way we can reach you--nor should you want us
> to.) ******
ummm....*cough* How it is pronounced then?
Asiya
**********
www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
Eat the meatballs to email me.
Gnome d Plume
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
>"Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3c0f8084...@trialnews.peoplepc.com...
>>
>> (Unless you pronounce kabbalah, "Kha-ba-LAH",
>> in which case there is no way we can reach you--nor should you want us
>> to.) ******
>
>ummm....*cough* How it is pronounced then?
>
>Asiya
******* "Don't worry about it. You're a Chicken Kabbalist. Pronounce
it any way you like!"
Rabbi Lamed ben Clifford
G.
Gnome d Plume
******Okay. Good question. I said somewhere (in the Cypher book I
think) that it is better to anchor yourself in a system that draws
from ancient archetypes and symbols that have been perfected by your
culture through the ages than to merely swallow your own psychic
saliva, with all the personal errors, omissions and distortions that
might entail. I think that says it basically.*******
Gnome
Tom
"Asiya" <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9umn0l$330$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3c0f8084...@trialnews.peoplepc.com...
> >
> > (Unless you pronounce kabbalah, "Kha-ba-LAH",
> > in which case there is no way we can reach you--nor should
> > you want us to.) ******
>
> ummm....*cough* How it is pronounced then?
Ka-boo-dle
Kah-bloo-ey
Kra-po-la
Pronunciation of this word is important only when you're trying to appear
impressive to your audience.
Gnome's temple has beautiful furniture. It's very impressive, too.
hara
Carroll 'Poke' Runyon (Gnome...@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"?
mefis...@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?
Gnome...@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,
Hieronymous707
>******** Lord George knows my father,
> Father knows Lord George!
> Lord George knows my faaaaaaather!
> Faaaaather knows Lord George!
Tell them both I said hi.
> Go away.*******
What are you talking about, I just got back.
-hi-
Starlancer
You make the same point he does in regard to pronunciation. As for
impressive furniture, there is no reason that it should be in any way
harmful to serious spirituality. You don't HAVE to look like a filthy
wild eyed bedraggled raving loon from the desert to achieve profundity,
you know.
I just got the book. I've read a few chapters at the front, but have
been awfully busy with work and Cisco studies. So far the book is very
good. Of course, you have to have both a mind and a sense of humor to
enjoy it, and the requirement for both in the same person no doubt
leaves out a lot of folks around here, but to me DuQuette just keeps
getting better and better.
His info on the jacket mentions he does workshops and such. There are
few people I'm impressed enough with to seek out that kind of thing, but
he's definitely one of them.
Starlancer
Hieronymous707
>******Excellent!
You must grade on a rather steep curve.
>It also acted as a troll
>catcher.
I assume that is intended to be insulting ... at least that's what it smells
like. Must you speak, or in this case write, pejoratively of all those with
whom you disagree, or is it just something you do for fun?
> I don't want to give the
>impression that the Rabbinical Kabbalah is flawed or not important.
Think about that sentence, grammatically, in juxtaposition to the beginning of
the next.
> It is,
Doesn't that sound funny to you? It should.
>and they made a great contibution, and we owe a great debt to them
Enough said.
>--but
I knew it. There's always a but with you.
> the Kabbalah is universal and Pagans, Thelemites and other
>"Chicken" Kabbalists should not be made to feel like second class
>wannabes if they find in the great old system their own niche and
>inspiration.
Who is making anyone "feel like second class wannabes"? As far as I can see,
that is a strawman of your construction. You and your constructs are really
something, Carroll.
>To suggest otherwise is so selfish and zenophobic as to
>degrade the very concept of Kabbalah itself. *******
To suggest that Kabbalah has anything other than rabbinical origins is just
silly.
It also reflects poor study habits.
-hi-
Hieronymous707
>>From: Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume)
>>***** Oy vey! Have we a got a book for you! Try Rabbi Ben Clifford's
>>*The Chicken Qaballah.*
>I'm familiar with it. It reminds me of brownies.
It occurred to me that you probably have no idea what I mean by that. It
refers to a story my mother told me.
A father of some teenage children had established a family rule that they could
not attend R rated movies. His three children wanted to see a particular
popular movie that was playing at local theaters. It was rated R.
The children interviewed friends and even some members of their family's church
to find out what was offensive in the movie. The kids made a list of pros and
cons about the movie to use to convince their dad that they should be allowed
to see it.
The con's were that it contained few swear words, the only violence was a
building exploding (and you see that on TV all the time they said),and you
actually did not "see" the couple in the movie having sex - it was just implied
sex, off camera.
The pros were that it was a popular movie - a blockbuster. Everyone was seeing
it. If the teens saw the movie then they would not feel left out when their
friends discussed it. The movie contained a good story and plot. It had some
great adventure and suspense in it. There were some fantastic special effects
in this movie. The movie's stars were some of the most talented actors in
Hollywood. It probably would be nominated for several awards. Many of the
members of their Christian church had even seen the movie and said it wasn't
"very bad".
Therefore, since there were more pros than cons the children said they were
asking their father to reconsider his position on just this ONE movie and let
them have permission to go see it. The father looked at the list and thought
for a few minutes. He said he could tell his children had spent some time and
thought on this request. He asked if he could have a day to think about it
before making his decision.
The children were thrilled thinking, "Now we've got him! Our argument is too
good! Dad can't turn us down!" So, they happily agreed to let him have a day to
think about their request.
The next evening the father called in his three kids, who were smiling smugly,
into the living room. There on the coffee table he had a plate of brownies.
The kids were puzzled. The father told his children he had thought about their
request and had decided that if they would eat a brownie then he would let them
go to the movie.
But just like the movie, the brownies had pros and cons.
The pros were that they were made with the finest chocolate and other good
ingredients. They had the added special effect of yummy walnuts in them. The
brownies were moist and fresh with wonderful chocolate frosting on top. He had
made these fantastic brownies using an award-winning recipe. And best of all,
the brownies had been made lovingly by the hand of their own father.
The brownies only had one con. He had included a little bit of a special
ingredient. The brownies also contained just a little bit of dog poop. But he
had mixed the dough well - they probably would not even be able to taste the
dog poop and he had baked it at 350 degrees so any bacteria or germs from the
dog poop had probably been destroyed.
Therefore, if any of his children could stand to eat the brownies which
included just a "little bit of crap" and not be effected by it, then he knew
they would also be able to see the movie with "just a little bit of smut" and
not be effected.
'The Chicken Qaballah' is like brownies.
You, on the other hand, are simply full of crap.
-hi-
Tris
Starlancer <starl...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3C0F5506...@bigfoot.com...
<snip>
> > Gnome's temple has beautiful furniture. It's very impressive, too.
>
> You make the same point he does in regard to pronunciation. As for
> impressive furniture, there is no reason that it should be in any way
> harmful to serious spirituality. You don't HAVE to look like a filthy
> wild eyed bedraggled raving loon from the desert to achieve profundity,
> you know.
Damn.
It took me ages to get this filthy.
Blazin' Tommy D.
hara <naga...@yronwode.com> wrote in article
<E0IP7.10723$DD2.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> 50011206 VI! om Hail Samuel!
>
> Carroll 'Poke' Runyon (Gnome...@aol.com/Gnome d Plume):
> >>> ...on the Pagan roots (both Assyrian and Greek) of Kabbalah
> 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"?
>
-edit-
>
> 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
BTD: Assyrians were historical enemies of Israel. They were bred from
Giants which resulted from Fallen angels having intercourse with humans.
They consumed mass quantities of meat, ravished forests and worshipped
Baal. I don't think there is any question they possessed magical powers and
taught them to humans in fact a King I think it was, was a human but bred
from the Giants and other humans and these powers were taught to others. My
people did from time to adopt practices from other cultures but if any did
from here they weren't considered Jews they were considered people that
denounced their Covenant. This is not to say that scholars did not pretend
to be Jews, develop the system and if caught blame it on us. To me that has
always been the more plausible explanation. Torah - the unwritten law - was
complemented by the Zohar
and Greeks, a great debt for their contributions
BTD: But Phoenician merchants owe everything to Jews for our contracts
which were even then internationally recognized. In fact Britain
constructed a special archive to store them called "Star Chamber".
> 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").
>
-edit-
>
> 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,
BTD: Shalom
>
> hara
> naga...@luckymojo.com
>
Rick
> >What value, do you consider, is there in adopting the correspondences
> >and symbolism of foreign cultures and long-since-past eras?
> ******Okay. Good question. I said somewhere (in the Cypher book I
> think) that it is better to anchor yourself in a system that draws
> from ancient archetypes and symbols that have been perfected by your
> culture...
But you're not talking about the symbols of my culture, except perhaps
in such a liberal sense as to entirely negate the practical meaning of
the word, "culture."
> ... through the ages than to merely swallow your own psychic
> saliva, with all the personal errors, omissions and distortions that
> might entail.
This seems to imply that you think the truth lies in the symbols
themselves. Is that what you think? Aren't we all as subject to error,
all else being equal, no matter what symbols we use?
> I think that says it basically.*******
I must say, I'm unsatisfied with your response. Why is a symbol set
based on cultural elements that I've never been exposed to in my life
more useful, or as you seem to imply here, somehow safer to use, than my
own discovery and recognition of what correlates with what, based
exclusively on practical and direct experience?
How do you suppose the people who originated the symbol set you use
today discovered it?
--
Rick
Gnome d Plume
******Nagasiva:
Aside from your obligatory satanic (Jewish satanic???)
shenanigans, this is a pretty good post. I'll go through it and
put in my Hermetic/Pagan two cents worth.....*****
>50011206 VI! om Hail Samuel!
>
****Shouldn't use "real names". Bad form, Peter Pan! (as Capt. Hook
would say) Gnome d Plume (Gnome...@aol.com/Gnome ):
>>>> ...on the Pagan roots (both Assyrian and Greek) of Kabbalah
>
>not established.
**** IYO. 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.*****
>
>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....And where, and with
whom did the Jews spend their captivity? *******
>
>>>> 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.
Also note that all configurations of the Otz Chim derived from the
master grid of Pythagoras, the Tetractys.******
>
>>>> 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. 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. Scholem
admits that the Hebrew alphabet is short a separate letter for
"Earth". ******
>
>mefis...@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).*****
>
>>> 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.
****Unfortunately in the above you've turned into a meandering side
road. Stay on the subject, please.*****
>
>>> ...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.*****
>
>>> ...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. He also wrote that Aleister
Crowley had "An infinitesimal knowledge of kabbalah."---To which
I once dared to reply: "Gershom Scholem had an infinitesimal
knowledge of Crowley." *****
>
>Gnome...@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.
****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.*****
>
>> 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." ***
>
>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. ******
>> 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.
****Only if they want and need to be insulted. A really wise rabbi
would probably say: "Well, if they want to have what they think is
'kabbalah', let them have it." On that I'll tell you a story:
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
(See *The Book of Solomon's Magick* where it is an appendix.)
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. The generic Pagan, Sepher Yetziratic based (Three Mothers
derived Tetragrammatons should be the subject of a separate post.)
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.*******
>
>> 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").
******You've contradicted yourself in the above. ******
>
>> -- 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)).
****** Kabbalah means "Mouth-to-ear." So much for that argument.
And Christians and Hermetics "sought to steal" Do you have any idea
how petty and xenophobic that sounds? And you are a Satanist?
Bad Lord! *******
>
>> 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! *****
>
>> 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.*****
Good Magick!
(Good kabbalah too)
Gnome d Plume
Come visit us and have a peek at something really magical. . . .
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/dmirror.html
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
>>From: hierony...@aol.com (Hieronymous707)
>
>>>From: Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume)
>
>>>***** Oy vey! Have we a got a book for you! Try Rabbi Ben Clifford's
>>>*The Chicken Qaballah.*
>
>>I'm familiar with it. It reminds me of brownies.
>
>It occurred to me that you probably have no idea what I mean by that. It
>refers to a story my mother told me.
>
(60 lines of boring ramblings deleted)
>
>'The Chicken Qaballah' is like brownies.
>
>You, on the other hand, are simply full of crap.
>
>-hi-
******I haven't seen so much effort put into a such a minor
presentation since the convoluted mendacious meaderings of the late
John Day. As for Kabbalah study, you couldn't come up to Lon
DuQuette's shoe lace level.******
Gnome
William Tucker
"Gnome d Plume" wrote in message
<snip>
> ******I haven't seen so much effort put into a such a minor
> presentation since the convoluted mendacious meaderings of the late
> John Day. As for Kabbalah study, you couldn't come up to Lon
> DuQuette's shoe lace level.******
>
> Gnome
Is that John Day related to the one that the John Day river is
named after?
Wm
Tom
Poke and I agree quite often. Much more often than anyone notices.
> As for impressive furniture, there is no reason that it should be
> in any way harmful to serious spirituality.
And yet... It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
> You don't HAVE to look like a filthy wild eyed bedraggled
> raving loon from the desert to achieve profundity,
> you know.
The point is that it doesn't matter how you look.
> His info on the jacket mentions he does workshops and such.
> There are few people I'm impressed enough with to seek out
> that kind of thing, but he's definitely one of them.
See? People give you money and attention when they're impressed.
Gnome d Plume
****Goddess! I hope not. No self-respecting river deserves that.*****
Gnome
Gnome d Plume
*******Rick:
I didn't quote myself very well. This may make it clearer:
".....if individual reality can be influenced by creative
visualization, then why shouldn't each individual visualizer find and
create his own personal system? Certainly you can, but the advantage
of mastering your traditional system (e.g. Tantra for an Easterner or
Golden Dawn magick for a Westerner) is that you are not measuring
yourself by your own standard---but reaching beyond the
desire-and-fear-bound limits of your own personal subconscious. You
are sharing the carefully nurtured and evolved psychocosm of your
forebears. You are drinking from The Well of your cultural heritage
rather than swallowing your own psychic saliva."
As a cultural anthropology student you should relate to the
above.******
Carroll "Poke" Runyon, M.A. -- *Secrets of the Golden Dawn Cypher
Manuscript* --- page 183.
Gnome d Plume
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html
William Tucker
went crazy at that point in the exploration and died and they
named the river after him.....I think it's Lewis and Clark related.
Wm
"Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3c0fcd21...@trialnews.peoplepc.com...
Ogi Vidol
>
> > I think that says it basically.*******
>
> I must say, I'm unsatisfied with your response. Why is a symbol set
> based on cultural elements that I've never been exposed to in my life
> more useful, or as you seem to imply here, somehow safer to use, than my
> own discovery and recognition of what correlates with what, based
> exclusively on practical and direct experience?
I'd love to make a reference to Jungian archetypal images, which would
of course be intrinsic into Kabbalistic symbology (ie. Kabbalistic
symbology are Jungian archetypes)...but I'm not familiar enough with
his work to do it proper justice.
...I will, however, leave that thread dangling for another to pick up.
Nightshade & Flat
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 19:21:51 GMT, "Nightshade & Flat"
> <ande...@eatel.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> ******I'd like to start a serious thread (how long will that last?)
> >> on the Pagan roots (both Assyrian and Greek) of Kabbalah and our newly
> >> rectified Hermetic/Pagan version using the intrinsic Mother
> >> Letter-based Tetragrammatons (22 and 24 letter versions). The purpose
> >> of this discussion--from our point of view--is to liberate non
> >> Judeao-Christian magicians from the notion that they have to bow down
> >> to parochial Biblical archetypes in order to access the Q.B.L. system.
> >> origins of letter-number esoteric symbolism. To get a leg up on this
> >> subject, I suggest Kiren Barry's *The Greek Qabalah* and, if you can
> >> find it, Prof. Parpola's article on *Assyrian Origin's of the Tree of
> >> Life* in the *Journal of Middle Eastern Studies* ---Let the fun begin!
> >> *******
> >>
> >> Serious old Gnome
> >
> >How would I get a copy of the Parpola article? A search on Google came
up
> >with nothing but references to it.
> >
> >Love & Laughter,
> >Nightshade
>
> ********In the distant past we had such a thing as "Inter Library
> Loan" and even libraries (buildings with lots of real books in them).
> But I am being cruel. I xeroxed my copy in the basement of Fuller
> Seminary's library. You might have to find a University library to get
> it. It is worth the effort.....******
Don't worry, I didn't take offense. It's just that my transportation is
rather limited at this point, among other things, and many of texts
mentioned are unobtainable by me at the present time. I'll just have to
make do with my personal collection, I suppose. I was just hoping that it
was indeed out there on the Internet somewhere.
Love & Laughter,
Nightshade
catherine yronwode
>
> "Starlancer" <starl...@bigfoot.com>
> > You make the same point he does in regard to pronunciation.
>
> Poke and I agree quite often. Much more often than anyone notices.
Noted.
> > As for impressive furniture [in Poke's temple], there is no reason
> > that it should be in any way harmful to serious spirituality.
>
> And yet... It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
> needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
"A rich man"? Poke is an artist and a craftsperson, and he built and
painted the fuirnishings hiumself. Aesthetic inclinations and
hand-eye-coordination are a matter of genetics, not the result of
inherited wealth or capitalist endeavour.
cat yronwode
Jason
"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:3C0FFC...@luckymojo.com...
Noted. Universal Vision, Universal Peace.
> cat yronwode
catherine yronwode
>
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 19:42:47 GMT, Rick <io...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > What value, do you consider, is there in adopting the
> > correspondences and symbolism of foreign cultures and
> > long-since-past eras?
>
> from ancient archetypes and symbols that have been perfected by your
> culture through the ages than to merely swallow your own psychic
> saliva, with all the personal errors, omissions and distortions that
> might entail.
Then, pleae note, you are addressing a roomful of people here in
alt.magick who (with a few exceptions, such as the Asians among us) come
from European and European-American sucltures which "through the ages"
have been primarily Jewish and Christian.
So why tell these people -- including the many Jews here -- that you
will "liberate" them from their "parochial" cultural baggage and
"rectify" the Jewish Kabbalah into something pagan?
Don't you see that paganism, and particularly the Assyro-Babylonian
religion which you endorse, represents a cultural symbol-system about
which most contemporary Jewish and Christian Americans know nothing and
to which they have no "ancient" ties?
There is an arrogance here, Poke, that disturbs me. Not only are you
running farther with the "Assyrian roots" theme than is justified by the
archaeological and textual evidence, you are disrespecting (as hi has
been pointing out) the actual rabbinical sources of the kabbalah you
claim to be "rectifying."
To "rectify" means to remove an error or to correct. As a Jew, i am very
tired of hearing that my culture's mystical tradition needs "correction"
by an outsider, no matter how erudite.
I am going to propose an analogy here that may make sense to you:
We all know that the trumnpet, the saxophone, and the clarinet were
European band instruments, originating in Europe, by Europeans, and
designed for Europeans to play their culturally stylized music -- and we
all know that jazz music originated in the African-American community.
Anyone who claimed that jazz "originated in Europe" would be laughed at.
Anyone who claimed that jazz needs to be "rectified" by European
performers would be laughed at.
Likewise, with the kabbalah: Sacred tree imagery can be found throughout
the ancient Middle East and numerical-linguistic association schemes of
various sorts date back to the invention of alphabetic language -- but
despite this, the kaballah is Jewish. It was created and developed by
Jewish rabbis to shed light upon the mysteries of the Jewish religion.
To claim otherwise is laughable. To claim that the kabbalh requires
"recrification" by non-Jews is laughable.
The Jewish big band leader Artie Shaw played pretty fancy jazz clarinet
-- but he stood in the same relationship to the great African-American
New Orleans jazz clarinetist George Lewis that you do to Rabbi Isaac
Luria: an embellisher, a follower, an exponent, and an excellent
developer -- of somebody else's riffs. At least he had the good grace to
admit it.
Now, as to the WORD kabbalah, i think this is where a great deal of
antagonism arises.
This name -- KABBALAH -- is something that the non-Jews want very badly
to possess. In my life and through my reading, i have seen dozens of
non-Jews create all manner of non-Jewish numero-linguistic
correspondence schemes and mystical emanation systems in the service of
all manner of non-Jewish gods -- but they all insisted on using the word
KABBALAH to describe what they did.
Why do you think that is? What is it about the word KABBALAH that is so
valuable?
Note also that now we see how angry Hindus are becomming at the way that
contemporary non-Hindus create all manner of non-Hindu sex-religion
schemes and chakra systems in the service of all manner of non-Hindu
gods -- but they all insist on using the word TANTRA YOGA to describe
what they do.
Why do you think that is? What is it about the word TANTRA that is so
valuable?
I submit that a great deal of what is going on with the "pagan kabbalah"
and "cChristian kabbalah" and so forth is not and has always been a
struggle over brand name recognition. In support of this belief, i
submit that you must have noticed by now that people get mad at you for
promoting your mystical system under the same name their culture has
used to describe their own mystical system for centuries.
Take a tip from Artie Shaw. He called what he did BIG BAND MUSIC, not
jazz. He knew something you would do well to learn.
Give it another name, Poke. Tell your students, truthfully, that in
creating your system, you draw from the kabbalah and from pagan sources
-- but leave off the bit about Judaism being a "parochial" religion and
leave off the part about "rectifying" Jewish mysticism as if it were
inferior or errant, and leave off using the word kabbalah ... and pass
in peace.
cat yronwode
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice -- http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
Mephistopheles
>You must grade on a rather steep curve
Really? Was what I said that badly thought out? Perhaps you would be so good as
to refute me point by point. I can always use polite correction.
>I assume that is intended to be insulting ... at least that's what it smells
>like.
I wasn't insulted. But then I'm hard to insult, absent name-calling.
>Who is making anyone "feel like second class wannabes"?
There are some Torah-centric, one-true religion types who do that
periodically... they are far more rare than Xtian scripture-nuts, though.
>To suggest that Kabbalah has anything other than rabbinical origins is just
>silly.
I maintain that it is based on Pagan emanationism, and that there is a
historical back-and-forth exchange of concepts and challenges throughout the
history of both non-Jewish and Jewish kabbalistic literature. Ergo, that the
origin is more complicated than merely rabbinical.
Regards,
Mephistopheles
I won't presume to answer for Gnome, but to the points where I am quoted.
>"a pagan Kabbalah" is meaningless, because as far as I know
>the sociocultural oral tradition cannot be shown to have
>preceded Jewish mystics
In terms of the "Receipt" and its form, I quite agree. But as I maintain that
the "Receipt" is based in large part on earlier Pagan emanationist, this can
certainly be shown to predate Kabbalah.
(emanationism)
>this is merely conceptual and hardly central.
That depends on whether one is theist or deist. Being Deist, the concept is
more central to me. To me it is central, anyway; you may differ, and if so, I
look forward to your thoughts on that.
>how does one determine where "the root of the Kabbalistic system"
>lies? is it conceptual? practical? social? symbolic? theological?
Conceptual, certainly; practical, doubtful except for a few; social, not at
all, outside the odd microcosm; symbolic, absolutely; theological is where the
Jewish students of Kabbalah get into the most trouble with their peers, rather
to my amusement.
>is Luria primary in Kabbalism or is it just the obsession of
>Hermetic mages?
Luria is primary in modern Jewish Kabbalah, yes. His was an important
historical stage in its development. Indeed, for the Jewish Kabbalist, it is
probably its golden age. It is Hermetic only inasfar as it received influence
from the coeval Hermetics; Luria did not deal with Hermetic Kabbalah at all, to
my knowledge, although some of the symbolism creeps in. For that matter, there
was Christian symbolism that crept into mainstream Judaism at that time, e.g.,
Yahrzeit candles and esoteric rather than maimonidean messianism.
>then why does Scholem slam Hermetic "qabalah" as largely
>unworthy of attention and attribute so little value to it?
We mustn't forget the third system: Christian Kabbalah. The early Christian
Kabbalists, Bruno et al., began to study it as part of a plan to convert Jews
to Christianity; they wound up converting themselves to Hermeticism instead, in
my view. Scholem was painfully aware that non-Jewish study of Kabbalah begins
with the sin of proselytism. I don't think he addresses Hermetic Kabbalah at
all, just Christian, as far as non-Jewish systems go. The Christian Kabbalah is
full of large errors based entirely on imperfect Hebrew. Inserting a He and
Shin between YH and WH are a good example.
I am not unsympathetic with his viewpoint--from under the boot, the entire
out-group looks the same.
But on another level, Scholem's interest in it is more theological than
conceptual, symbolic, etc., I think. He took even its conceptual aspects as
Jewish, without considering pagan emanationism at all. That is fine by me, mind
you; as Jewish Kabbalah is intensely torah-centric, particularly by Luria's
time; hence of limited usefulness or interest to me.
It is entirely possible to pick up the pieces of a pagan emanationist system,
even a Gnostic (large "G") one, and develop it for modern intellectual use. But
nobody does this--as, indeed, why should one? The Jewish Kabbalah is richly
developed, and to go after Plotinus and to rebuild it is like building a new
road when a good freeway already exists. I have no problem with letting new
people use the same road, as long as they acknowledge the builders of it--who,
in the case of Kabbalah, were entirely Jewish.
Thus, I do not argue that the Jewish Kabbalah is Pagan in origin; but rather,
that it has some Pagan roots, and that it both took and gave with them. Most
importantly, I argue that as a system of mysticism and formal emanationist
thinking, it is entirely appropriate that the non-Jew study it.
Hieronymous707
>Really? Was what I said that badly thought out?
No, it doesn't appear that you thought badly, merely incorrectly.
>Perhaps you would be so good as
>to refute me point by point.
Perhaps. We'll see.
> I can always use polite correction.
I think that goes for a lot of people.
>I wasn't insulted.
Neither was I. But as the reference to troll baiting was tossed in with no
apparent relevence to the topic of discussion, I thought something smelled a
little fishy.
>But then I'm hard to insult, absent >name-calling.
I've been called a troll before too. I'm not even sure how it obtains.
>There are some Torah-centric, one-true religion types who do that
>periodically... they are far more rare than Xtian scripture-nuts, though.
That reminds me, I've got to show you something I think you'll get a kick out
of.
I'll post it in a day or two.
>I maintain that it is based on Pagan emanationism, and that there is a
>historical back-and-forth exchange of concepts and challenges throughout the
>history of both non-Jewish and Jewish kabbalistic literature. Ergo, that the
>origin is more complicated than merely rabbinical.
Nothing you've stated is particularly "wrong" ... except that it isn't really
that complicated, and it is rabbinical.
>Regards,
Same to you, pal.
-hi-
Hieronymous707
>******I haven't seen so much effort put into a such a minor
>presentation since the convoluted mendacious meaderings of the late
>John Day.
Then you haven't been paying attention closely enough.
> As for Kabbalah study, you couldn't come up to Lon
>DuQuette's shoe lace level.******
Wow, you sure got me there.
Can't argue with that one.
-hi-
Gnome d Plume
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>Gnome d Plume wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 19:42:47 GMT, Rick <io...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > What value, do you consider, is there in adopting the
>> > correspondences and symbolism of foreign cultures and
>> > long-since-past eras?
>>
>> it is better to anchor yourself in a system that draws
>> from ancient archetypes and symbols that have been perfected by your
>> culture through the ages than to merely swallow your own psychic
>> saliva, with all the personal errors, omissions and distortions that
>> might entail.
>
>Then, pleae note, you are addressing a roomful of people here in
>alt.magick who (with a few exceptions, such as the Asians among us) come
>from European and European-American sucltures which "through the ages"
>have been primarily Jewish and Christian.
>
>So why tell these people -- including the many Jews here -- that you
>will "liberate" them from their "parochial" cultural baggage and
>"rectify" the Jewish Kabbalah into something pagan?
*******I am not telling them that. This news group also serves an
equally large number of Pagans, and people who have been raised in
a Judeo-Christian ethos but are looking for something beyond the Jesus
and Jehovah sticks they were beaten with when they were kids.
Nagasiva, for instance. Why is he a satanist? I'm not trying to covert
Jews and Christians to Paganism, nor am I trying to belittle the Grand
old Orthodox Jewish Kabbalah. All I am saying is that The Tree of Life
and the structure of Kabbalah as it has spread out into the non-Jewish
world and been adapted and adopted in the West as the base
architecture for spiritual technologies: Tarot, Magick, etc. ---is
available for those who do not wish to venerate someone else's "God."
That's all---and I always call it the "Hermetic-pagan Kabbalah".******
>Don't you see that paganism, and particularly the Assyro-Babylonian
>religion which you endorse, represents a cultural symbol-system about
>which most contemporary Jewish and Christian Americans know nothing and
>to which they have no "ancient" ties?
******Not so really. I do not endorse Assyro-Babylonian religion. I
endorse Canaanite Religion, (along with Solomon and also remember the
two Hirams from good old Canaanite/Phonecian Tyre) and the Bible is
full of references to it and its deities (mostly negative, I'll admit,
but then maybe that is something nagasiva can explain to you better
than I can--he being a satanist....)****
>
>There is an arrogance here, Poke, that disturbs me. Not only are you
>running farther with the "Assyrian roots" theme than is justified by the
>archaeological and textual evidence, you are disrespecting (as hi has
>been pointing out) the actual rabbinical sources of the kabbalah you
>claim to be "rectifying."
****Here again, not so. "hi" would have been treated with respect by
myself had he behaved like a gentleman and a scholar. He did not.
The arrogance you refer to was his, and so he got short shrift---but
that does not mean that I don't respect his God, his tradition, his
beliefs and his right to express them, and defend them. You mistake my
shortness with the man for a lack of respect for his God. Frankly if
he wanted to honor his God and his religion, he would have made a more
dignified presentation.******
>
>To "rectify" means to remove an error or to correct. As a Jew, i am very
>tired of hearing that my culture's mystical tradition needs "correction"
>by an outsider, no matter how erudite.
****If I implied that, I certainly did not mean to. I thought my use
of the term "rectification" was used in connection with the qualifying
term "Pagan". In any case, if that bothered you, I apologize.******
>
>I am going to propose an analogy here that may make sense to you:
>
>We all know that the trumnpet, the saxophone, and the clarinet were
>European band instruments, originating in Europe, by Europeans, and
>designed for Europeans to play their culturally stylized music -- and we
>all know that jazz music originated in the African-American community.
>Anyone who claimed that jazz "originated in Europe" would be laughed at.
>Anyone who claimed that jazz needs to be "rectified" by European
>performers would be laughed at.
>
>Likewise, with the kabbalah: Sacred tree imagery can be found throughout
>the ancient Middle East and numerical-linguistic association schemes of
>various sorts date back to the invention of alphabetic language -- but
>despite this, the kaballah is Jewish. It was created and developed by
>Jewish rabbis to shed light upon the mysteries of the Jewish religion.
>To claim otherwise is laughable. To claim that the kabbalh requires
>"recrification" by non-Jews is laughable.
******No one is claiming that. I would the last person in the world to
try to sell my Pagan/Hermetic version of kabbalah to a rabbi--although
my Kabbalah instructor (who was a rabbi) very much enjoyed my straight
line kabbalistic chakra system. We were discussing it on one day in
the university library lounge. The head librarian came by, listened in
and said: "You guys sound like two medieval Jews doing your thing."
Rabbi Bill burst out laughing, and replied: "Yeah, and he
isn't even Jewish!"
Lighten up, cat. *******
>
>The Jewish big band leader Artie Shaw played pretty fancy jazz clarinet
>-- but he stood in the same relationship to the great African-American
>New Orleans jazz clarinetist George Lewis that you do to Rabbi Isaac
>Luria: an embellisher, a follower, an exponent, and an excellent
>developer -- of somebody else's riffs. At least he had the good grace to
>admit it.
****However "cool" was an African-American mood that was an imitation
of the cool, reserved attitude of White people. This then was adapted
by Brubeck and others as "Cool Jazz", which has been cited by cultural
anthropologists as the originators imitating and imitation of
themselves. And the beat goes on.....*******
>
>Now, as to the WORD kabbalah, i think this is where a great deal of
>antagonism arises.
>
>This name -- KABBALAH -- is something that the non-Jews want very badly
>to possess. In my life and through my reading, i have seen dozens of
>non-Jews create all manner of non-Jewish numero-linguistic
>correspondence schemes and mystical emanation systems in the service of
>all manner of non-Jewish gods -- but they all insisted on using the word
>KABBALAH to describe what they did.
>
>Why do you think that is? What is it about the word KABBALAH that is so
>valuable?
*****As I said to your husband: it means "from-mouth-to-ear." Secret
teachings. And as for the goyum lusting after it, you may recall that
the Jewish community virtually abandoned kabbalah in the 17th and 18th
centuries. There were probably more students of the Christian/Hermetic
version of it from then to the 1970s, than Jewish students. Then Zen
Buddhism began to make inroads into the young Jewish intelligentsia
and this sparked a revival of interest on the Jewish side. At this
point that sequence of events has been forgotten, and the
re-discovered Jewish Kabbalah is being presented as something that was
always overwhelmingly Jewish. Now I don't mind that. I enjoy reading
Scholem and Khaplan, but please don't tell me that I can't have my own
kabbalah--because until 1970 nobody cared. It's like locking the barn
after the horse has run away. *******
>
>Note also that now we see how angry Hindus are becomming at the way that
>contemporary non-Hindus create all manner of non-Hindu sex-religion
>schemes and chakra systems in the service of all manner of non-Hindu
>gods -- but they all insist on using the word TANTRA YOGA to describe
>what they do.
****Well, I did, but I don't.*****
>
>Why do you think that is? What is it about the word TANTRA that is so
>valuable?
>
>I submit that a great deal of what is going on with the "pagan kabbalah"
>and "cChristian kabbalah" and so forth is not and has always been a
>struggle over brand name recognition. In support of this belief, i
>submit that you must have noticed by now that people get mad at you for
>promoting your mystical system under the same name their culture has
>used to describe their own mystical system for centuries.
>
>Take a tip from Artie Shaw. He called what he did BIG BAND MUSIC, not
>jazz. He knew something you would do well to learn.
>
>Give it another name, Poke.
****I did. I call it "The Hermetic-Pagan Kabbalah." *****
>Tell your students, truthfully, that in
>creating your system, you draw from the kabbalah and from pagan sources
>-- but leave off the bit about Judaism being a "parochial" religion and
>leave off the part about "rectifying" Jewish mysticism as if it were
>inferior or errant, and leave off using the word kabbalah ... and pass
>in peace.
*****Here again you are mis-interpeting my statements--and to the
extent that you've been hurt by your mis-interpretation, I sincerely
apologize.******
Good Magick!
Gnome d Plume
William Tucker
"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:3C100C...@luckymojo.com...
> Gnome d Plume wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 19:42:47 GMT, Rick <io...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > What value, do you consider, is there in adopting the
> > > correspondences and symbolism of foreign cultures and
> > > long-since-past eras?
> >
> > it is better to anchor yourself in a system that draws
> > from ancient archetypes and symbols that have been perfected by your
> > culture through the ages than to merely swallow your own psychic
> > saliva, with all the personal errors, omissions and distortions that
> > might entail.
>
> Then, pleae note, you are addressing a roomful of people here in
> alt.magick who (with a few exceptions, such as the Asians among us) come
> from European and European-American sucltures which "through the ages"
> have been primarily Jewish and Christian.
>
> So why tell these people -- including the many Jews here -- that you
> will "liberate" them from their "parochial" cultural baggage and
> "rectify" the Jewish Kabbalah into something pagan?
I've not studied a lot of stuff that I consider "too much head,"
but I've always been under the general impression that the
Kabbalah was sort of lifted from the chakra system, and some
other areas, perhaps divinely inspired....but I guess my thought
here is that on some level it sounds like you're are claiming
ancestral ownership...
I thought it came into being in the seventh century, maybe I'll look it
up on the web, I like your comparison to jazz, it sheds some light
on where your feelings come from....they seem sort of strong, not
that that is bad....I'm just not into ethnicity, I consider it a hindrance.
> To claim otherwise is laughable. To claim that the kabbalh requires
> "recrification" by non-Jews is laughable.
>
> The Jewish big band leader Artie Shaw played pretty fancy jazz clarinet
> -- but he stood in the same relationship to the great African-American
> New Orleans jazz clarinetist George Lewis that you do to Rabbi Isaac
> Luria: an embellisher, a follower, an exponent, and an excellent
> developer -- of somebody else's riffs. At least he had the good grace to
> admit it.
>
> Now, as to the WORD kabbalah, i think this is where a great deal of
> antagonism arises.
>
> This name -- KABBALAH -- is something that the non-Jews want very badly
> to possess. In my life and through my reading, i have seen dozens of
> non-Jews create all manner of non-Jewish numero-linguistic
> correspondence schemes and mystical emanation systems in the service of
> all manner of non-Jewish gods -- but they all insisted on using the word
> KABBALAH to describe what they did.
>
> Why do you think that is? What is it about the word KABBALAH that is so
> valuable?
I believe it's called name recognition like "Coke" served to describe all
sodas
during my youth, no matter what parochial brands were available, I think the
sense of legitimacy is also involved here though
>
> Note also that now we see how angry Hindus are becomming at the way that
> contemporary non-Hindus create all manner of non-Hindu sex-religion
> schemes and chakra systems in the service of all manner of non-Hindu
> gods -- but they all insist on using the word TANTRA YOGA to describe
> what they do.
>
> Why do you think that is? What is it about the word TANTRA that is so
> valuable?
>
> I submit that a great deal of what is going on with the "pagan kabbalah"
> and "cChristian kabbalah" and so forth is not and has always been a
> struggle over brand name recognition. In support of this belief, i
> submit that you must have noticed by now that people get mad at you for
> promoting your mystical system under the same name their culture has
> used to describe their own mystical system for centuries.
>
> Take a tip from Artie Shaw. He called what he did BIG BAND MUSIC, not
> jazz. He knew something you would do well to learn.
>
> Give it another name, Poke. Tell your students, truthfully, that in
> creating your system, you draw from the kabbalah and from pagan sources
> -- but leave off the bit about Judaism being a "parochial" religion and
> leave off the part about "rectifying" Jewish mysticism as if it were
> inferior or errant, and leave off using the word kabbalah ... and pass
> in peace.
>
> cat yronwode
>
> Hoodoo in Theory and Practice -- http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
>
Wm
Tom
> Tom wrote:
> >
> > And yet... It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
> > needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
>
> "A rich man"?
"A camel"? "A needle?" "The kingdom of heaven?"
I don't intepret the bible literally. Do you?
What could I possibly mean by "a rich man"?
catherine yronwode
>
> "catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
> news:3C0FFC...@luckymojo.com...
> > Tom wrote:
> > >
> > > And yet... It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
> > > needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
> >
> > "A rich man"?
>
> "A camel"? "A needle?" "The kingdom of heaven?"
>
> I don't intepret the bible literally. Do you?
I take the parables of Jesus as fairly straightforward statements of his
belief.
> What could I possibly mean by "a rich man"?
Well, i don't know what *you* could possibily mean, of course... but to
me the phrase Jesus used -- "a rich man" -- seems to have meant a
wealthy person in the conventional sense of that term. It does not seem
to me that he applied this term to an artisan or carpenter, such as a
person of the class from which he himself came, and thus it seems that a
literal interpretation is the simplest and most straighforward one.
I see no reason to convolute the term "a rich man" into an unsupported
ascetic-renunciate vision of Christianity, whereby one might assert that
Jesus really meant "materialistic" or "worldly" but just said "rich" by
mistake or in a willful act of metaphor. I simply think that Jesus was
applying the term to a person of an economic class above that of himself
and his father Joseph, the artisan-carpenter.
cat yronwode
No personal e-mail, please; just catch me in usenet; i read it daily.
Jason
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MTZP7.4086$h3.7...@news.uswest.net...
Ummm, just one guess? Hmm..an onion?
Satyr
<Gnome...@aol.com> wrote:
>>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. He also wrote that Aleister
> Crowley had "An infinitesimal knowledge of kabbalah."---To which I once
> dared to reply: "Gershom Scholem had an infinitesimal knowledge of
> Crowley." *****
Yep. When I took a university course in Jewish mysticism, the professor
was as surprised as myself. He was dumbfounded that I had emerged with a
decent grasp of the fundamentals of kabbalah, despite having studied
Crowley's work and that of his followers. He *reluctantly* revised his
opinion of at least some Western occultists, admitting to me that perhaps
Scholem may have been a bit hasty in reaching his conclusions. For my
part, I was shocked that what I had learned and the insight I had gained
would be accepted by a scholar within that tradition.
I think anytime we approach mutual ground with an attitude of mutual
respect, such agreement is always at least possible, and that despite the
obvious cultural and historical differences. For the record, the
professor made no attempt to hide or deny non-Jewish influences in
kabbalah.
--
Satyr
Listen to the fools reproach! It is a kingly title!
-Wm. Blake
Blazin' Tommy D.
areas of expertise, have what I feel is an equal relationship, we have
disagreements, fights, &c. But you all should realize that Gnome is a
professional, is in the public eye and thus has a larger audience to appeal
to and I think does an exemplary job of it. Cool guy. He should have a
round of applause:0
Anyway - the idea of a god of Israel or a "personal god" of Jews is the
attempt to understand Judaism thru Xtian eyes - or for that matter, any
religion that utilizes some lesser figure. This relationship has to be
considered within the time frame of the Old Testament. Baal was a generic
name for a local god and it was a common practice for peoples, tribes, &c.
to erect a huge stone statute, claim it as their god, and use it as a sort
of scarecrow - you mess with us our god will mess with you.
Likewise, the idea of a Hebrew race is inaccurate too (someone else brought
this up but it's pertinent) Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of
race (which is actually derived from Old High German?) Jews are a people
comprised of different men that decided to make lots of children with
several wives who were apparently happy to go along and formed a community
as such. Self determination of peoples. We can do the same thing if we
bought land and started fucking each others. It's that simple. This is why
the Bible says such and such lived 700 years or whatever. This means that
this is how long his bloodline ran until no other male heir was produced.
The idea of G_d in the Old Testament (I hate to make this such a platitude)
is G_d -viz., to attain the state of cosmic consciousness is to transcend
space, time, measurement, &c. The place we refer to in terms of seeing the
past or future. G_d is outside of said realm from whence all within issues
as a perpetual act of creation because this occurs outside of time. G_d can
enter this realm but you cannot enter the realm of G_d. People like to
believe they can after they die and some even before. Personally I don't
know why.
I appreciate cat's statement and to a certain degree I agree with her and
Siva regarding doing things under color of - people in government do things
under color of law all the time which is actionable under federal law.
CI
Gnome d Plume <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in article
<3c1122eb...@trialnews.peoplepc.com>...
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2001 00:14:47 GMT, catherine yronwode
> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> >Gnome d Plume wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 19:42:47 GMT, Rick <io...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > What value, do you consider, is there in adopting the
> >> > correspondences and symbolism of foreign cultures and
> >> > long-since-past eras?
> >>
> >> it is better to anchor yourself in a system that draws
> >> from ancient archetypes and symbols that have been perfected by your
> >> culture through the ages than to merely swallow your own psychic
> >> saliva, with all the personal errors, omissions and distortions that
> >> might entail.
BTD: This is axiomatic. Why reinvent the Pythagorean theorem each lifetime.
It was already worked out and works.
this is merely the wise exploitation of the collective wisdom of mankind.
As we continue we have greater degrees of free time as a result and through
innovation we evolve as people or as a people.
> >
> >Then, pleae note, you are addressing a roomful of people here in
> >alt.magick who (with a few exceptions, such as the Asians among us) come
> >from European and European-American sucltures which "through the ages"
> >have been primarily Jewish and Christian.
BTD: I'm going to be chauvinistic here based upon what I said above. Jews
are in a distinct and special circumstance in this regard and cannot be
pidgin holed with Xtians, Hindus, Moslems &c.
> >
> >So why tell these people -- including the many Jews here -- that you
> >will "liberate" them from their "parochial"
BTD: Hence this is a misnomer is regards to Judaism, but I'm not sure about
this in terms of the Kabbalah which has always seemed to me to have Greek
and Egyptian influence with common principles regarding Hermetics. I
believe this is the position of Gnostics.
cultural baggage
BTD: Assyrian cultural baggage?
and
> >"rectify" the Jewish Kabbalah into something pagan?
>
> *******I am not telling them that. This news group also serves an
> equally large number of Pagans, and people who have been raised in
> a Judeo-Christian ethos but are looking for something beyond the Jesus
> and Jehovah sticks
BTD: The only sticks I was beaten with is work hard so that the others
won't complain about us and don't get into any fights with them.
they were beaten with when they were kids.
> Nagasiva, for instance. Why is he a satanist?
BTD: Because he wants to be? Ofcourse I wish he'd come back we used to have
so much fun slinging those one eyed Assyrian giants that wandered into our
territory:)
I'm not trying to covert
> Jews and Christians to Paganism, nor am I trying to belittle the Grand
> old Orthodox Jewish Kabbalah. All I am saying is that The Tree of Life
> and the structure of Kabbalah as it has spread out into the non-Jewish
> world and been adapted and adopted in the West as the base
> architecture for spiritual technologies: Tarot, Magick, etc.
BTD: Well this is obviously true
---is
> available for those who do not wish to venerate someone else's "God."
BTD: This does not apply to Judaism.
> That's all---and I always call it the "Hermetic-pagan Kabbalah".******
>
>
> >Don't you see that paganism, and particularly the Assyro-Babylonian
> >religion which you endorse, represents a cultural symbol-system about
> >which most contemporary Jewish and Christian Americans know nothing and
> >to which they have no "ancient" ties?
BTD: Actually I'm a descendant of Meshak, my grandfather's name. From a
long line of firewalkers:)
>
> ******Not so really. I do not endorse Assyro-Babylonian religion. I
> endorse Canaanite Religion, (along with Solomon and also remember the
> two Hirams from good old Canaanite/Phonecian Tyre) and the Bible is
> full of references to it and its deities (mostly negative, I'll admit,
> but then maybe that is something nagasiva can explain to you better
> than I can--he being a satanist....)****
> >
> >There is an arrogance here, Poke, that disturbs me. Not only are you
> >running farther with the "Assyrian roots" theme than is justified by the
> >archaeological and textual evidence, you are disrespecting (as hi has
> >been pointing out) the actual rabbinical sources of the kabbalah you
> >claim to be "rectifying."
>
> ****Here again, not so. "hi" would have been treated with respect by
> myself had he behaved like a gentleman and a scholar. He did not.
> The arrogance you refer to was his, and so he got short shrift---but
> that does not mean that I don't respect his God, his tradition, his
> beliefs and his right to express them, and defend them. You mistake my
> shortness with the man for a lack of respect for his God. Frankly if
> he wanted to honor his God and his religion, he would have made a more
> dignified presentation.******
BTD: Yes but you see what you're saying then is essentially that there is
no G_d. See above. It's quite another to say (1) G_d is too remote, Lucifer
is light so I'll deal with hir or (2) I am (you the individual are) the
only G_d -e.g., Ayn Rand.
> >
> >To "rectify" means to remove an error or to correct. As a Jew, i am very
> >tired of hearing that my culture's mystical tradition needs "correction"
> >by an outsider, no matter how erudite.
BTD: That's refreshing
>
> ****If I implied that, I certainly did not mean to. I thought my use
> of the term "rectification" was used in connection with the qualifying
> term "Pagan". In any case, if that bothered you, I apologize.******
BTD: Yeah I believe him.
> >
> >I am going to propose an analogy here that may make sense to you:
> >
> >We all know that the trumnpet, the saxophone, and the clarinet were
> >European band instruments, originating in Europe, by Europeans, and
> >designed for Europeans to play their culturally stylized music -- and we
> >all know that jazz music originated in the African-American community.
> >Anyone who claimed that jazz "originated in Europe" would be laughed at.
> >Anyone who claimed that jazz needs to be "rectified" by European
> >performers would be laughed at.
> >
> >Likewise, with the kabbalah: Sacred tree imagery can be found throughout
> >the ancient Middle East and numerical-linguistic association schemes of
> >various sorts date back to the invention of alphabetic language -- but
> >despite this, the kaballah is Jewish. It was created and developed by
> >Jewish rabbis to shed light upon the mysteries of the Jewish religion.
> >To claim otherwise is laughable. To claim that the kabbalh requires
> >"recrification" by non-Jews is laughable.
>
> ******No one is claiming that. I would the last person in the world to
> try to sell my Pagan/Hermetic version of kabbalah to a rabbi--although
> my Kabbalah instructor (who was a rabbi) very much enjoyed my straight
> line kabbalistic chakra system. We were discussing it on one day in
> the university library lounge. The head librarian came by, listened in
> and said: "You guys sound like two medieval Jews doing your thing."
> Rabbi Bill burst out laughing, and replied: "Yeah, and he
> isn't even Jewish!"
> Lighten up, cat. *******
BTD: Plausible. Kabbalah isn't mainstream Judaism.
> >
> >The Jewish big band leader Artie Shaw played pretty fancy jazz clarinet
> >-- but he stood in the same relationship to the great African-American
> >New Orleans jazz clarinetist George Lewis that you do to Rabbi Isaac
> >Luria: an embellisher, a follower, an exponent, and an excellent
> >developer -- of somebody else's riffs. At least he had the good grace to
> >admit it.
BTD: riffs:) cool cat:)
>
> ****However "cool" was an African-American mood that was an imitation
> of the cool, reserved attitude of White people. This then was adapted
> by Brubeck and others as "Cool Jazz", which has been cited by cultural
> anthropologists as the originators imitating and imitation of
> themselves. And the beat goes on.....*******
BTD: Nawh. "Take Five: 5/4 Jazz Waltz with the unremarkable Joe Morello
drum solo?! Soft White Tom Carvelle Ice cream. I had a guitar player Wild
Man Jimbo Graves sat in with a blues group with a Black Piano player as
leader who asked him what he wanted to play . Jim said "Blues in C"? the
guy said "WHAT"!? "We don't play blues in C". Jim paused and they asked,
"Why"? the guy said "Why!? . . . All white keys" pause the band cracked up
while Jimbo was standing around all nervous:)
> >
> >Now, as to the WORD kabbalah, i think this is where a great deal of
> >antagonism arises.
> >
> >This name -- KABBALAH -- is something that the non-Jews want very badly
> >to possess. In my life and through my reading, i have seen dozens of
> >non-Jews create all manner of non-Jewish numero-linguistic
> >correspondence schemes and mystical emanation systems in the service of
> >all manner of non-Jewish gods -- but they all insisted on using the word
> >KABBALAH to describe what they did.
> >
> >Why do you think that is? What is it about the word KABBALAH that is so
> >valuable?
>
> *****As I said to your husband: it means "from-mouth-to-ear." Secret
> teachings. And as for the goyum lusting after it
BTD: 0
BTD: I knew he was going to say that:)
>
> >Tell your students, truthfully, that in
> >creating your system, you draw from the kabbalah and from pagan sources
> >-- but leave off the bit about Judaism being a "parochial" religion
BTD: Whistle, yeaaaaa, applause. I agree.
and
> >leave off the part about "rectifying" Jewish mysticism as if it were
> >inferior or errant, and leave off using the word kabbalah ... and pass
> >in peace.
>
> *****Here again you are mis-interpeting my statements--and to the
> extent that you've been hurt by your mis-interpretation,
BTD: I have to agree with her on parochial Gnome. Judaism is open to
everyone and no one has a monopoly on G_d
I sincerely
> apologize.******
BTD: Gnome has supported me when I came under anti-Judaic attack. Whatever
his beliefs he respects others. Gnome a cool guy:)
Tom
> Tom wrote:
> >
> > "catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C0FFC...@luckymojo.com...
> > > Tom wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And yet... It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
> > > > needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
> > >
> > > "A rich man"?
> >
> > "A camel"? "A needle?" "The kingdom of heaven?"
> >
> > I don't intepret the bible literally. Do you?
>
> I take the parables of Jesus as fairly straightforward statements
> of his belief.
Even this is a limited view.
> > What could I possibly mean by "a rich man"?
>
> Well, i don't know what *you* could possibily mean, of course...
> but to me the phrase Jesus used -- "a rich man" -- seems to
> have meant a wealthy person in the conventional sense of that
> term.
No, I don't think he did. He meant the man who is attached to possessions.
> It does not seem to me that he applied this term to an artisan
> or carpenter, such as a person of the class from which he
> himself came, and thus it seems that a literal interpretation is
> the simplest and most straighforward one.
You should know better than to limit yourself to only the simplest and most
straightforward literal interpretation.
Jesus was not talking about a class struggle.
> I see no reason to convolute the term "a rich man" into an
> unsupported ascetic-renunciate vision of Christianity, whereby
> one might assert that Jesus really meant "materialistic" or
> "worldly" but just said "rich" by mistake or in a willful act of
> metaphor. I simply think that Jesus was applying the term to
> a person of an economic class above that of himself
> and his father Joseph, the artisan-carpenter.
Who did Jesus say his Father was? When he said he was doing his Father's
work, did he mean carpentry?
Rick
> ".....if individual reality can be influenced by creative
> visualization, then why shouldn't each individual visualizer find and
> create his own personal system? Certainly you can, but the advantage
> of mastering your traditional system (e.g. Tantra for an Easterner or
> Golden Dawn magick for a Westerner) is that you are not measuring
> yourself by your own standard---but reaching beyond the
> desire-and-fear-bound limits of your own personal subconscious. You
> are sharing the carefully nurtured and evolved psychocosm of your
> forebears. You are drinking from The Well of your cultural heritage
> rather than swallowing your own psychic saliva."
> As a cultural anthropology student you should relate to the
> above.******
My studies and experience on the whole don't lead me to agree with it.
We're not having much of a dialogue here, though I'll remain hopeful
that we can.
First, what lead to my current approach isn't the result of mere
creative visualization, unless that's your term for mystical experience.
You should know the difficulties of trying to relate mystical experience
to other people. Linguistic limitation tends to result in considerable
trivializing; too much is lost in the transition from experience to
language.
That problem of relating mystical experience (even to oneself), together
with cultural variation (driven mostly by geographical issues in the
distant past), probably account for most if not all variation in
religious expression throughout history, controlling for political
motivation of course.
The visualization exercises (very much in line with the types of prep
work you promote) that I engaged in early on certainly prepared me,
taught me self-discipline, trained me to focus acutely, to switch off
internal chatter, to attain other perspectives, expanding awareness,
etc., but don't you agree that for the sincere and diligent seeker,
striving with true heart, engaged body, mind, and soul in the endeavor,
there comes a point where the creative process, at least perceptually,
is joined by something greater than himself?
We shouldn't confuse the tools with the purpose for using them.
You say:
> ...is that you are not measuring
> yourself by your own standard---but reaching beyond the
> desire-and-fear-bound limits of your own personal subconscious.
It's my contention that anyone putting sincere effort toward moving
"beyond the desire-and-fear-bound limits of your own personal
subconscious" is capable of doing so, with or without elaborate symbolic
systems.
> You
> are sharing the carefully nurtured and evolved psychocosm of your
> forebears. You are drinking from The Well of your cultural heritage
> rather than swallowing your own psychic saliva."
The Neo-Pagan movement, if nothing else, is attempting to repair some of
the psycho-spiritual damage caused by imperialistic and usurping
religion. I doubt that the sons of Abraham, left to their own devices,
would have carried their system(s) about the globe, but the Christians
(perhaps filled with envy, as Catherine suggests) brought shades of it
with them on their crusades, and forced reflections of it down every
throats within their considerable reach. This appears to be the
"cultural heritage" to which you refer, that which the mystical
descendants of those very crusaders, the Rosicrusians and their spawn,
now call "Western Tradition."
It seems to me a terrible mismatch, a misguided attempt at making peace
with ones conquerors, which simply can't be done effectively from bended
knee, still heavy with the weight of their imports.
If there is to be a neo-pagan current operant in the world today, it's
going to have to flow from the gods themselves, and come through those
hearts that are open to receive it, those souls willing to channel it,
those tongues brave enough to share it with their fellows.
How does Astarte feel about being masculinized and degraded to the rank
of demon by those who defiled her ancient temples? How can you seek to
restore her to rightful stature when measuring your experience by the
standards her rapists?
--
Rick
Rick
> I'd love to make a reference to Jungian archetypal images, which would
> of course be intrinsic into Kabbalistic symbology (ie. Kabbalistic
> symbology are Jungian archetypes)...but I'm not familiar enough with
> his work to do it proper justice.
> ...I will, however, leave that thread dangling for another to pick up.
Jung was a great thinker. But we can safely give him his place along
side Uncle Siggy and others who thought and said a lot, perhaps provided
some philosophical fodder for the more adventurous among us, but did
very little in practical terms, and so often missed the practical boat.
Mr. Runyon, for example, appears to build many of his conversational
construct around jungian thought, but more importantly, he's a doer, and
so has actual practical experience to share with us (or at least it
seems that way to me).
--
Rick
mika
> In article <3c0fab4b...@trialnews.peoplepc.com>, "Gnome d Plume"
> <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>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. He also wrote that Aleister
> > Crowley had "An infinitesimal knowledge of kabbalah."---To which I once
> > dared to reply: "Gershom Scholem had an infinitesimal knowledge of
> > Crowley." *****
>
> Yep. When I took a university course in Jewish mysticism, the professor
> was as surprised as myself. He was dumbfounded that I had emerged with a
> decent grasp of the fundamentals of kabbalah, despite having studied
> Crowley's work and that of his followers. He *reluctantly* revised his
> opinion of at least some Western occultists, admitting to me that perhaps
> Scholem may have been a bit hasty in reaching his conclusions. For my
> part, I was shocked that what I had learned and the insight I had gained
> would be accepted by a scholar within that tradition.
there is also the issue of secrecy and access involved.
on one of my last trips back home to ny, i had dinner with a couple of
religious jewish friends who were taking a traditional qabala course through
their temple. they expressed frustration that they're not actually 'getting
it', they learned bits and pieces but couldn't really grasp the essence of
the qabala, so to speak, or its practical purpose. (these are engineers too
so certainly have the intellectual capability). i basically gave them the
half-hour summary of the hermetic qabala symbolism and approach, and they
claimed they learned more in that half hour than they had all year.
some people argue that the traditional jewish qabala is intentionally taught
in a vague and mysterious way in order to maintain the teacher-student
(rabbi-student) power structure. judaism is a religion, after all. just like
the hermetic magickal orders - if the beginners get empowered too quickly
there is no longer any need for the higher-ups. needless to say, this is one
of the reasons why crowley was such a radical - first the hermetic orders
brought qabala to the masses, but still in a controlled power structure.
then, crowley brought it to the masses with unrestricted access. it seems to
me that much of the criticism of hermetic qabala from jewish qabalists is
political in nature, and perhaps religious in nature for the religious
purists, but apparently is not related to any real debate over interpretation
and theory.
mika
Gnome d Plume
*******Tommy:
As Bartles & James used to say: "Thanks for your support!"
But we still have some roiled waters to smooth with oil. As I have
explained to Nag and Cat, I am a Pagan. I am not anti-Semitic but I am
respectfully, and philosophically anti-Monotheistic; that includes
Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Do I believe in "God"? Probably more
deeply and profoundly than some of the fundamentalists of all three
monotheistic religions--but I do not believe that a divine messenger,
prophet or Son of God, has any special right to declare Jihads,
Crusades, pogroms, witch hunts, and blue laws in the Name of a Deity
so far beyond our understanding that to declare that one religion, one
man (or woman for that matter) can dictate the most private and
personal aspects of our lives--and of our search for spiritual
understanding (which seems to be what we are here for) is to me an
anathema.
However, as children we are raised in these "Faiths" and we all
identify with them in varying degrees. When we were in the process of
creating our synthesis of kabbalah and modern Goddess-oriented
Paganism (a task more challenging than we ever imagined) we ran into
certain philosophical and cultural problems. I recall the time in
middle 70s when we invited several orthodox Jewish people (at their
request) to attend a Seasonal Ceremony. We patiently explained our
Pagan position and our use of the kabbalah, and they seemed to
understand------but when our deacon vibrated YHVH in the opening
Pentagram Ritual, the whole orthodox contingent got up and walked out.
Do I blame them? Of course not---but it became one more good
reason to retire YHVH from our rites. To Golden Dawners and non-Jewish
students of kabbalah that conception means a Universal God of all
people, and favoring none, but to some Jewish folks it means the God
of The Chosen People. The egragore is too mixed and contradictory. It
has too much emotional loading--and, in my opinion, it is not
necessary to a Pagan kabbalah. We realized that the basic formula of
creation is the Three Mother Letters and Earth. YHVH is used in the
*Sepher Yetzirah* Cube of Space as a "Seal" containing the dynamic of
creation (check it out). This doesn't make YHVH any less important,
but it does make it (IMO) philosophically replaceable.
YHVH has some very profound kabbalistic correspondences and I do
not mean to degrade the Great Formula---but, out of respect for our
Jewish brothers and sisters, and following our own lights, we have,
quite properly I believe, given it up. So if an orthodox Jew wanted
to say that we don't have a "real" kabbalah (in the Jewish sense) he
is not only welcome to, I encourage him to feel that way---as long as
he doesn't get arrogant and nasty about it.
We borrowed the kabbalah, but we did not steal Jehovah.
Frankly, I think we deserve some credit for this--and some Jewish
support. We are no longer eating ham and bagel sandwiches. You got the
bagels, and we got the ham! *******
Thanks again, and happy Holy Season!
Good Magick!
Gnome d Plume
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/dmirror.html
Gnome d Plume
****** Right again. Did you, in the course of your study, run across
the reason behind the old dictum that a rabbinical kabbalist would not
teach a student QBL until he was 40 years old, married and settled in
a profession? The reason was--as I recall--that some of the
philosophical doctrines of QBL (i.e. the Neoplatonic emanation
theory) were at variance with the ultimate conception of a judgmental
God that most rabbis wanted to maintain. It was thought that only the
most mature and socially committed individuals could be trusted with
this apocryphal concept. I forget where this information comes from,
but I do recall it being discussed in class.*******
Gnome
Satyr
<mka...@envirometrics.com> wrote:
Given my experience in the course I took, this is not surprising. The
source material, and much of the commentary and analysis, presented to
the class was good, but didn't actually explain the purpose of it all. The
professor had an excellent grasp of the subject, but in an accademic
setting had some difficulty attaching meaning to the material without
preaching his religious views to a largely non-Jewish group. On many
occasions, I was the one answering questions from the students, and
explaining key concepts, a thing welcomed by the instructor, much to my
surprise.
> some people argue that the traditional jewish qabala is intentionally
> taught in a vague and mysterious way in order to maintain the
> teacher-student (rabbi-student) power structure. judaism is a religion,
> after all. just like the hermetic magickal orders - if the beginners get
> empowered too quickly there is no longer any need for the higher-ups.
> needless to say, this is one of the reasons why crowley was such a
> radical - first the hermetic orders brought qabala to the masses, but
> still in a controlled power structure. then, crowley brought it to the
> masses with unrestricted access. it seems to me that much of the
> criticism of hermetic qabala from jewish qabalists is political in
> nature, and perhaps religious in nature for the religious purists, but
> apparently is not related to any real debate over interpretation and
> theory.
I really hadn't thought about that angle. Thanks for pointing it out.
There is also an element of danger sometimes associated with the QBL. I
remember telling a Jewish teacher of mine, back when in high school, that
I was studying QBL. She admonished me for pursuing such interests, and
said, "Satyr, those are very dark waters." I wish I could reproduce
exactly how 'waters' was pronounced in that thick 'Hunter' accent, in
order to convey the full effect of her warning.
For instance, did you know that young men are not supposed to study the
QBL? or that one should never read Ezekiel alone, or in large groups? I
stated in class, on one occasion, that I had been reading Ezekiel the night
before. Prof. Schwartz said, "Ya' know, uh, Satyr, uh," and stared
uncomfortably at his hands in his lap, "You really shouldn't be reading
that by yourself like that." One of the students asked why. The
instructor fidgeted about a bit, so I jumped in with, "Because the things
it describes might appear."
"Exactly!" said the professor, and quickly changed the subject.
Hieronymous707
>No, I don't think he did. He meant the man who is attached to possessions.
That's possible, I suppose. I wasn't there, I don't know. He may also have
meant the person who has an exaggerated sense of self worth, which implies
separation (from others) as well as attachment to possessions.
>You should know better than to limit yourself to only the simplest and most
>straightforward literal interpretation.
I'm probably guilty of that as well, Tom.
"I like to keep it simple ..."
>Jesus was not talking about a class struggle.
In a sense, he was ... or may have been.
>Who did Jesus say his Father was?
Is that a trick question?
> When he said he was doing his Father's
>work, did he mean carpentry?
My father is a psychiatrist and I am a carpenter. We have a geat deal in
common and although we have entirely different professions, we often do much
the same work ... if you know what I mean.
-hi-
Satyr
<Gnome...@aol.com> wrote:
It was discussed in class (as I just noted in another post), that much I
recall. I don't remember the source either. One of the surprises for me
was this air of mystery, even danger, surrounding the subject. After
studying kabbalah in an occult context, I had come to think of it as being
relatively harmless, at least in comparison to *some* other practices. It
was pleasant to regain an appreciation of this mysterious aspect.
Ironically, I had taken the course because I assumed I knew all about the
subject, and thought it would be an easy high mark. I learned a lot,
despite my assumptions, and came away with a whole new attitude and
renewed enthusiasm, to say nothing of a deep respect for Jewish thought
and tradition.
It renewed my faith in my own tradition and teachers as well (always a
big plus).
Gnome d Plume
<saty...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
*******This was essentially the same experience I had. Our basic texts
were Gershom Scholem's *Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism* and *On the
Kabbalah and its Symbolism.* I was fortunate to have a wonderful
professor and rabbi for an instructor. He was an inspiration and I
acquired a profound respect for the depth and breadth of the subject
from Merkaba Mysticism, through the Sepher Yetzirah, the Zohar,
Abulafia and Luria. Jewish QBL was and is a treasure, and continues
to be a source of the most profound insights. But I think some of the
ideas I've put into practice may have been what the old close-mouthed
rabbis were afraid of when they tried to restrict and conceal QBL from
the general Jewish and non-Jewish public. They were afraid the genie
would get out of the bottle----and it did. ******
Gnome d Plume
Karipidu
>My father is a psychiatrist and I am a carpenter. We have a geat deal in
common and although we have entirely different professions, we often do much
>the same work ... if you know what I mean.
I don't know.
Marianna
Hieronymous707
Hieronymous707
> Jewish QBL was and is a treasure, and continues
>to be a source of the most profound insights.
No argument there.
> But
Uh-oh ... there always seems to be a but with you, Carroll.
> I think some of the
>ideas I've put into practice may have been what the old close-mouthed
>rabbis were afraid of when they tried to restrict and conceal QBL from
>the general Jewish and non-Jewish public.
That's nothing but ill-founded speculation. You should know better.
>They were afraid the genie
>would get out of the bottle----and it did. ******
Faulty assumptions often arise from ill-founded speculation.
Just something to be aware of for future reference.
-hi-
Tom
"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011207142028...@mb-cn.aol.com...
> >From: "Tom" danto...@earthlink.net
>
> >No, I don't think he did. He meant the man who is attached
> >to possessions.
>
> That's possible, I suppose. I wasn't there, I don't know.
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I should have said that my
interpretation is that a man who is attached to possessions cannot achieve
spiritual bliss.
> He may also have meant the person who has an exaggerated
> sense of self worth, which implies separation (from others) as
> well as attachment to possessions.
Yes, he may also have meant that.
> >Jesus was not talking about a class struggle.
>
> In a sense, he was ... or may have been.
It doesn't seem so in context. I consider that interpretation unlikely as
it's somewhat inconsistent with his overall message.
Hieronymous707
>It doesn't seem so in context. I consider that interpretation unlikely as
>it's somewhat inconsistent with his overall message.
My turn to apologize.
If it can be accepted that Jesus was a teacher, he undoubtedly had a lot of
class ... and it was certainly a struggle.
-hi-
mika
> For instance, did you know that young men are not supposed to study the
> QBL?
yeah. i haven't researched the historical reasons for this, but i can guess
there are two main ones - depends if you're taking the cynical or altruistic
approach.
it could be for protection of the individual because the concepts that are
learned can shatter one's sense of reality. so an over-40 year old will have a
lifetime of religious foundation to support his investigation into the nature
of the universe and keep him from flipping out.
it also could be for protection of the system - the Machine. an over-40 year
old (presumably with wife and children) who is entrenched in the community is
less likely to be radically transformed through his studies. that is, there
may be intense transformations that occur but the individual is less likely to
abandon his place in society and his responsibilities that built up over his
lifetime. thus, the system is protected.
for those of us who have the opportunity and capability of studying the qabala
from an earlier age, we have the danger of losing our minds due to lack of
foundation - grounding in some sense of reality or sanity - but we have the
benefit of being able to transform our selves and our lives as we grow, before
we make committments to the Machine that bind us. from a dogmatic religious
perspective, this is bad, very very bad. from a(n) (r)evolutionary
perspective, this is a risk worth taking...
> or that one should never read Ezekiel alone, or in large groups? I
> stated in class, on one occasion, that I had been reading Ezekiel the night
> before. Prof. Schwartz said, "Ya' know, uh, Satyr, uh," and stared
> uncomfortably at his hands in his lap, "You really shouldn't be reading
> that by yourself like that." One of the students asked why. The
> instructor fidgeted about a bit, so I jumped in with, "Because the things
> it describes might appear."
>
> "Exactly!" said the professor, and quickly changed the subject.
i never read ezekiel but now i want to!
mika
Blazin' Tommy D.
BTD: That's for sure:)
>
> Thanks again, and happy Holy Season!
BTD: Same to you. Tanks:)
catherine yronwode
>
> As Bartles & James used to say: "Thanks for your support!"
> But we still have some roiled waters to smooth with oil. As I have
> explained to Nag and Cat,
"Nag"? Shall we call you "Garden Statue," then, or "Carole"? C'mon --
that Nag thing was started by some folks who wanted to make fun of
nagasiva's name -- how can you oil the roil if you use schoolyard-meanie
names like that? Siva (or tyagi, as many still call him) is his usenet
name and his street name.
> I am a Pagan. I am not anti-Semitic but I am
> respectfully, and philosophically anti-Monotheistic;
Fine enough. No argument there. Room for all. Land of the Free.
> that includes Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
And Atenism, too, no doubt.
> Do I believe in "God"? Probably
> more deeply and profoundly than some of the fundamentalists of all
> three monotheistic religions--but I do not believe that a divine
> messenger, prophet or Son of God, has any special right to declare
> Jihads, Crusades, pogroms, witch hunts, and blue laws in the Name of
> a Deity so far beyond our understanding that to declare that one
> religion, one man (or woman for that matter) can dictate the most
> private and personal aspects of our lives--and of our search for
> spiritual understanding (which seems to be what we are here for) is
> to me an anathema.
I agree with all that.
> However, as children we are raised in these "Faiths"
What do you mean, "we," white man?
I was raised by ATHEISTS WHO POSED AS AGNOSTICS during my childhood so
as to not unduly influence my choices but to allow me to come to my own
conclusions about religion and philosophy. Yes, this is true. Strange,
but true.
And you seem to think that siva was "beaten by the stick" of
Christianity (thus causing him to become a Satanist in rebellion), but
his mother is totally anti-church and he never regularly attended any
church. The family did celebrate the popular Pagan-cum-Christian
holidays, however, such as Yule-Christmas and Samhain-Halloween.
> and we all identify with them in varying degrees.
A lot less than you think!
> When we were in the process of
> creating our synthesis of kabbalah and modern Goddess-oriented
> Paganism (a task more challenging than we ever imagined) we ran into
> certain philosophical and cultural problems. I recall the time in
> middle 70s when we invited several orthodox Jewish people (at their
> request) to attend a Seasonal Ceremony. We patiently explained our
> Pagan position and our use of the kabbalah, and they seemed to
> understand------but when our deacon vibrated YHVH in the opening
> Pentagram Ritual, the whole orthodox contingent got up and walked
> out.
> Do I blame them? Of course not---but it became one more good
> reason to retire YHVH from our rites.
I understand. It would have been offensive to them, of course.
> To Golden Dawners and non-Jewish
> students of kabbalah that conception means a Universal God of all
> people, and favoring none, but to some Jewish folks it means the God
> of The Chosen People. The egragore is too mixed and contradictory.
> It has too much emotional loading--and, in my opinion, it is not
> necessary to a Pagan kabbalah.
I submit again that by removing the Jewish God from the kabbalah, you no
longer have a "kabbalah" -- a Hebrew oral tradition of mysticism. You
have a pagan emanation scheme. I think it needs a new and more accurate
name than "kabbalah."
> We realized that the basic formula of
> creation is the Three Mother Letters and Earth. YHVH is used in the
> *Sepher Yetzirah* Cube of Space as a "Seal" containing the dynamic
> of creation (check it out). This doesn't make YHVH any less
> important, but it does make it (IMO) philosophically replaceable.
That is fine -- but then you do not have the kabbalah. And there is
nothing wrong with what you DO have -- just give it another name.
> YHVH has some very profound kabbalistic correspondences and I do
> not mean to degrade the Great Formula---but, out of respect for our
> Jewish brothers and sisters, and following our own lights, we have,
> quite properly I believe, given it up. So if an orthodox Jew wanted
> to say that we don't have a "real" kabbalah (in the Jewish sense) he
> is not only welcome to, I encourage him to feel that way---as long
> as he doesn't get arrogant and nasty about it.
I am not an orthodox Jew -- just a culturally assimilated Jew -- but
even i find it off-putting.
I am not saying this to get your goat (or your gaotu), Poke -- i am
simply telling it as i feel it.
According to my lights, the kabbalah, for better or for worse, is a
Jewish mystical tradition. Build on it, distort it, bend it, skew it,
and do whatever you wish -- and then rename it. Get your own brand name.
If you do not, you are committing the moral equiavalent of trademark
violation -- deliberately creating a similar-looking product with a name
so similar to the original that it will confuse and mislead the public.
You (and i, and siva) have at one time or another called the various
Westernized forms of sex magic and sex mysticism we practice "tantra"
-- and all of us have given that up, in part due top greater learning on
our parts, in part due to protests from Hindus who ask very politiely if
we could stop doing that. And it makes sense.
> We borrowed the kabbalah, but we did not steal Jehovah.
Great. Good for you. As described in the Bible, JHVH is not my fave-rave
deity either, frankly. I particularly despise the thinking behind his
killing of the Egyptian first-born children. After my first child dioed,
in 1970, i realized i would never bow down to a baby-killer god again.
But i am still a Jew, like it or not. And i still think the kabbalh is
Jewish.
> Frankly, I think we deserve some credit for this--and some
> Jewish support. We are no longer eating ham and bagel sandwiches.
> You got the bagels, and we got the ham! *******
Then take the name kabbalah out of it and go forth and prosper!
> Thanks again, and happy Holy Season!
And happy Holy Days to you too, pal!
cat yronwode
Gnome d Plume
********Cat:
I really didn't want to say this. I was hoping you'd accept my
qualified apology above--but you still seem to cling to this stubborn
idea that the term "kabbalah" has some sort of copyright, even when it
became "public domain" in the 17th and 18th centuries and was studied
and practiced by as many or more non-Jews as Jewish people
all the way up to the 1970s when the Jewish community rediscovered it.
But even so, I'll make a hypothetical suggestion: I'll stop calling
our system "The Hermetic Pagan Kabbalah" if you will stop calling
yourself a "Co-Mason." Now understand, I personally don't mind you
calling yourself a Mason, in fact I'm proud and happy to call you a
sister in the Craft------but, by the *exact same logic* you are using
in this "kabbalah" argument, a strict Freemason would be offended by
any woman claiming to be a Mason. He would point out that he, as a
proper Mason, took an obligation never to make a woman a Mason, or be
present when one was made. Please understand, this is not my
argument, or my sentiment, but this is the case---and please don't
hair-split and say that kabbalah is a religion and Masonry is not,
because kabbalah is not a religion and never has been.
It is an esoteric philosophy. You really can't have it both ways. And
no race, creed, religion, philosophy or fraternal affiliation gives
you the special right to violate one venerable tradition (in a
technical -traditional sense) and then turn around and demand that
someone else be absolutely circumspect regarding another tradition.
This is do as I say do, not as I do.
Now let's drop this, shall we? You certainly aren't going to
stop calling yourself a "Co-Mason", and I'm not going to stop calling
our version of kabbalah, the "Hermetic-Pagan Kabbalah."
This discussion goes nowhere from this point. Everything has
been said. I'm still you pal and brother, but I no more on this one.
Happy Holidays to you both, and ---
Mephistopheles
>... the old dictum that a rabbinical kabbalist would not
>teach a student QBL until he was 40 years old, married and settled in
>a profession? The reason was--as I recall--that some of the
>philosophical doctrines of QBL (i.e. the Neoplatonic emanation
>theory) were at variance ...
Another reason: It was a screening process. A serious student of organized
mysticism should be very stable exoterically, grounded in the community, that
sort of thing. More screening like that in Hermetic and Thelemic orders might
be desirable, for that matter... ;-)
Regards,
--M
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius
Joseph
>
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 05:34:06 GMT, catherine yronwode
> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> >Gnome d Plume wrote:
> >>
> >> Do I believe in "God"? Probably
> >> more deeply and profoundly than some of the fundamentalists of all
> >> three monotheistic religions--but I do not believe that a divine
> >> messenger, prophet or Son of God, has any special right to declare
> >> Jihads, Crusades, pogroms, witch hunts, and blue laws in the Name of
> >> a Deity so far beyond our understanding that to declare that one
> >> religion, one man (or woman for that matter) can dictate the most
> >> private and personal aspects of our lives--and of our search for
> >> spiritual understanding (which seems to be what we are here for) is
> >> to me an anathema.
> >
> >I agree with all that.
well put sir. if you are interested in almost the same thought in differant
words i would refere you to my most recent posts in alt.tarot.
the sentiment though not uncommon is rarely exprressed so well. certainly not
by me.
joseph
--
Remember, remember 11 September. Jet fuel, jihad and plot.
Joseph
>
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 05:34:06 GMT, catherine yronwode
> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> >Gnome d Plume wrote:
> >> Do I blame them? Of course not---but it became one more good
> >> reason to retire YHVH from our rites.
> >
> > I understand. It would have been offensive to them, of course.
> >
> >> To Golden Dawners and non-Jewish
> >> students of kabbalah that conception means a Universal God of all
> >> people, and favoring none, but to some Jewish folks it means the God
> >> of The Chosen People. The egragore is too mixed and contradictory.
> >> It has too much emotional loading--and, in my opinion, it is not
> >> necessary to a Pagan kabbalah.
> >
cat (i hope wrote)
> >I submit again that by removing the Jewish God from the kabbalah, you no
> >longer have a "kabbalah" -- a Hebrew oral tradition of mysticism. You
> >have a pagan emanation scheme. I think it needs a new and more accurate
> >name than "kabbalah."
and i interjected;
ill risk an analogy,
its like a rare wine or food theres only so much of the real thing, not enough
for everybody, its very rare and very exspensive and evan if you can afford it
theres so littel of the real thing that you most likely wont be allowed it
evan if you wanted it and could afford it. now this can get complex cause
were talking about god concepts and affirming in the analogie that there is
only the one true food or wine or god. be it beluga cvaviar, perigorde
truffels or YHVH
so evan though the branding aspect of the word QBL, like beluga caviar or
perigord truffefls refers to a judeo specific "emmination". The masses need
to find the best substitue they can get for their time money and energi. the
most rewarding, prestigeious and all around best version of that which there
is not enough of to go around.
and of course there are people who can afford caiviar and truffels and dont
like them and wouldnt buy them and probly wouldnt get offended by some one
mentioning it evan ritualistically in front of them
im not offended when people claim to be pagan kabbalist, in your, cats, ( i
hope) strict deffinition theres only one god and one kabbala and to call its
equvilant in italian truffels and iranian caviar not the real thing, evan
though there both mushrooms and fish eggs, IS offensive to me, however
correct/accurate it may be.
if i make my self clear.
if i ever do discover the "Truth" i'll probably be offended by it.
Joseph
rem
"Mephistopheles" <mefis...@aol.comnospam> a écrit dans le message de news:
20011208015818...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> Hi Gnome,
>
> >... the old dictum that a rabbinical kabbalist would not
> >teach a student QBL until he was 40 years old, married and settled in
> >a profession? The reason was--as I recall--that some of the
> >philosophical doctrines of QBL (i.e. the Neoplatonic emanation
> >theory) were at variance ...
>
> Another reason: It was a screening process. A serious student of organized
> mysticism should be very stable exoterically, grounded in the community,
that
> sort of thing. More screening like that in Hermetic and Thelemic orders
might
> be desirable, for that matter... ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
It was not a Golden Rule, apparently, since Isaac Luria (1534-1572) died at
38!
Bye
Rem
Nightshade & Flat
"Mephistopheles" <mefis...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20011208015818...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> Hi Gnome,
>
> >... the old dictum that a rabbinical kabbalist would not
> >teach a student QBL until he was 40 years old, married and settled in
> >a profession? The reason was--as I recall--that some of the
> >philosophical doctrines of QBL (i.e. the Neoplatonic emanation
> >theory) were at variance ...
>
> Another reason: It was a screening process. A serious student of organized
> mysticism should be very stable exoterically, grounded in the community,
that
> sort of thing. More screening like that in Hermetic and Thelemic orders
might
> be desirable, for that matter... ;-)
Can it not also be said that the reasoning behind this was because by that
stage a man would see far more of himself and his life stages in the
Kabbalah and therefore have a deeper understanding of/affinity to it than
the younger man? That is always how I considered it.
Love & Laughter,
Nightshade
Hieronymous707
>"Nag"? Shall we call you "Garden Statue," then, or "Carole"? C'mon --
>that Nag thing was started by some folks who wanted to make fun of
>nagasiva's name -- how can you oil the roil if you use schoolyard-meanie
>names like that?
I've called him that a few times myself, cat. Granted, I was making fun, but I
intended no slight, and certainly none of the "schoolyard-meanie" variety. My
apology.
People call my dad "Skip", and have since he was six. It wasn't a nick-name he
picked for himself, but once applied, it stuck. He's in his sixties, so I
figure he's used to it by now.
>I submit again that by removing the Jewish God from the kabbalah, you no
>longer have a "kabbalah" -- a Hebrew oral tradition of mysticism. You
>have a pagan emanation scheme. I think it needs a new and more accurate
>name than "kabbalah."
My father doesn't really skip, you know. Never did. They just call him that.
-hi-
Gnome d Plume
>Gnome d Plume wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 05:34:06 GMT, catherine yronwode
>> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Gnome d Plume wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Do I believe in "God"? Probably
>> >> more deeply and profoundly than some of the fundamentalists of all
>> >> three monotheistic religions--but I do not believe that a divine
>> >> messenger, prophet or Son of God, has any special right to declare
>> >> Jihads, Crusades, pogroms, witch hunts, and blue laws in the Name of
>> >> a Deity so far beyond our understanding that to declare that one
>> >> religion, one man (or woman for that matter) can dictate the most
>> >> private and personal aspects of our lives--and of our search for
>> >> spiritual understanding (which seems to be what we are here for) is
>> >> to me an anathema.
>> >
>> >I agree with all that.
>
>well put sir. if you are interested in almost the same thought in differant
>words i would refere you to my most recent posts in alt.tarot.
>
>the sentiment though not uncommon is rarely exprressed so well. certainly not
>by me.
>
>
>joseph
*******Thank you Joseph. I suspect many magicians and other creative
artists have similar feelings. ******
Gnome d Plume
Hieronymous707
>I suspect many magicians and other creative
>artists have similar feelings. ******
Probably more deeply and profoundly than ... you, sir.
Everyone has both the right and responsibility to declare a jihad with and of
themselves, for a true holy war occurs within the human spirit. It is the
essence of conscience.
-hi-
Gnome d Plume
occurred to me that I myself was guilty of a similar attempt to co-opt
the esoteric term "Magick" a few years back. (I'm sure Tom will
recall this.) I argued that Magick, spelled with a 'k" connoted a
Western Hermetic version of the universally applicable term "magic"
(which has been broadened to include --and in modern times define -- a
form of entertainment.) A few agreed with me, most didn't care, some
said that Crowley had coined the term (not true. It is a Renaissance
spelling) and it should only apply to Thelemic "Magick", and others
wanted to simply differentiate stage "magic" from "real" magic(k) by
using the term to define any psychodynamic system from Ju-ju to
psychocybernetics. I don't recall if anybody "won" the argument, but
I must admit my position was similar to catherine's in this instance.
As for "Tantra", it means "ritual" and it is practiced by Three
(3) different religions in literally hundreds of different systems.
If I were going to call our Western kabbalistic (forgive me!)
straight-line chakra arrangement (forgive me again!) "Western Tantra"
and a Hindu tantrika complained, I would respectfully inform him that
I had studied and practiced tantric yoga with Tibetans and they had
not complained (a phoney Tibetan once did as nagasiva will recall.)
I think the bottom line here is that we are all human. We don't
like to see esoteric systems we have studied, practiced and revered
exploited or degraded by charlatans or fools. I am just as prone to
this as catherine is and I have certainly been just as sensitive about
it---and just as outspoken.
One of the major problems with Western Magick (IMO) is it's lack
of creative innovation, it's inability to adopt and synthesize very
effective Eastern methods and conceptions into a Western philosophical
framework. The O.T.A. represents (again in my opinion) the best modern
vehicle in this regard. But in doing so, we have stepped on some toes,
wounded some sacred cows, and ruffled a lot of feathers.
I apologize to catherine and anyone else who feels offended by
some of the issues we have frankly discussed. It is a cliche that you
can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, but nonetheless true. Our
goal is to offer the Western world a magical system that incorporates
the best techniques and methods of East and West---similar to what
Franz Bardon put together from Eastern and Western sources. This
cannot be done without hitting occasional speed-bumps. *****
Good Magick!
Gnome d Plume
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/dmirror.html
Mephistopheles
>Can it not also be said that the reasoning behind this was because by that
>stage a man would see far more of himself and his life stages in the
>Kabbalah and therefore have a deeper understanding of/affinity to it than
>the younger man?
Yes! Absolutely. Jung noted once that prior to 40, a person looks outward
primarily; after 40, should begin to look inward.I concur with that.
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
(Carefully deleting what he was commenting upon--as re-inserted below)
*******Thank you Joseph. I suspect many magicians and other creative
artists have similar feelings. ******
Gnome d Plume
To which Hieronymous707 replied:
>Probably more deeply and profoundly than ... you, sir.
>
>Everyone has both the right and responsibility to declare a jihad with and of
>themselves, for a true holy war occurs within the human spirit. It is the
>essence of conscience.
>
>-hi-
*******Hi:
The above is a perfect example of why I have not given you or your
posts the consideration and respect you seem to demand. It is
peevish, spiteful and indicates a personal jealousy that over rides
any rational argument. Learn to control your passions and your
prejudices if you wish to be respected as a magical scholar. *****
Gnome d Plume
Re O酬tat
"rem" <strangega...@noos.fr> wrote:
Since the Jewish Kabalists looked for clues in the writings of the Torah
and saw codes, including numeric ones, could it not be possible that the
number 40 was, in fact, a code for something else?
The Torah says that the flood of Noah lasted for 40 days and 40 nights.
Why not 39? Why not 41? Is it not possible that the number 40 has a
meaning beyond PHYSICAL age?
The same thing is true in Tantric texts which suggest as ideal age for a
"girl" who participates in a particular rite. This, of course, is a code
for which personal mansion of the moon she resides in, not her physical
age.
So what could this mysterious 40 (not 39, not 41, but 41) represent? Of
course, it is the numeration of the Hebrew letter M, Mem, which relates
to maim (pronounced My-yeem, not maym) which translates as "water."
Since it is 40 and not 4, it is not talking about physical water, but
the waters of life. So we could say that this represents a person who
has tasted of the waters of life (has a profession, has a wife,
children, etc.).
This, of course, is the same thing as in the traditional Hindu system
wherein a man was supposed to have a career and a family. Then, once
they were set up, he could abandon them and live the life of an ascetic
while he searched for the Divine.
Looking at Sepher Sephiroth, you'll also see that 40 = liberator
(gimmel, vau, aleph, lamed). What is not noted here is that the last two
letters spell AL, (pronounced "ehl") and mean God. Thus, we could say
that a person needs to seek liberation through the Divine in order to
study the Kabalah. Duh.
40 also means "to bind" (chet, bet, lamed). Therefore, it is saying that
the study of the Kabalah is not for the dilettante. Rather, it is for a
person who wants to bind himself to the Divine.
40 also relates to the word "milk" (chet, lamed, bet) which, of course,
has numerous spiritual meanings.
The number also means "the hand of God" (yod, dalet, yod, heh, vau, heh)
indicating that the "hand" of the Divine must touch you in order for you
to want to study the Kabalah.
Finally, the possessive "mine" or "to me" (lamed yod) equals 40, meaning
that you must fully take this path of study. Or perhaps that the Divine
takes you as a possession if you study the Kabalah.
Unfortunately, although there is a good record of there being many women
Kabalists, this is ignored. From this I would contend that the original
idea was also set up by some rather patriarchal blokes, meaning that
this concept was created later in the history of the Kabalah.
The idea of taking the number 40 literally probably occurred even later.
YMMV
Re
IllRefute
>Looking at Sepher Sephiroth, you'll also see that 40 = liberator
Jesus spent 40 days/nights in isolation where he was tempted by the devil,
could this be significant? I lack the ability to find out for myself at the
moment
it slipped my mind I remember Jesus had something to do with water either
symbolically or metaphorically, but I might be wrong
Jesus was a midget, this is subjectively true because he subjected himself to
the midgetries of being a social leper as well as devoting himself to all the
midgets of society
Ben H
> I simply think that Jesus was
> applying the term to a person of an economic class above that of himself
> and his father Joseph, the artisan-carpenter.
Artisan-Carpenter = Architect.
Joseph was not necessarily poor.
Could have been middle-class and wealthy.
--
Ben H
William Tucker
Wm
ps. it is humorous though,
I'm sure He would approve
"IllRefute" <illr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208154147...@mb-cj.aol.com...
Re O'Stat
Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume) wrote:
> the term "kabbalah" ... became "public domain" in the 17th and 18th centuries
Well, maybe.
IMO, whether it is "public domain" or not really isn't relevant.
The concept that anybody can use it *shouldn't* mean anyone can use it
incorrectly.
I say, "shouldn't" because, whether we like it or not, people usurp
terms and change their meanings all the time.
There have been books on Greek Kabalah, Egyptian Kabalah, English
Kabalah, etc., all of which have nothing to do with the Jewish Kabalah.
I've seen books on Tantra which claim to be ancient Egyptian and from
the Pleiades.
So although some may question the use of terms such as "Kabalah" for any
purpose, legitimate or not, it is irrelevant. People will do it. It is
useless to complain.
Well, that's not completely true. If people use a term such as Kabalah
in a non-traditional way without defining it, I do think that is unfair,
illegitimate, and bordering on the deceptive. Note that in the instance
of Poke's using the term, he clearly defines what he means by it, so I
have no complaint at all.
The question really is, "Why do people think it is necessary to use a
term in new way?" The answer, of course, is that they realize that words
such as Kabalah and Tantra have a built-in audience so they can tap into
that audience without doing and real work.
More power to them. Students should ask the sources of their teachers.
If they don't , that's the student's problem and the teacher's karma.
In response to Cat's suggestion that another name which does not include
the Jewish nature of the Kabalah be coined, that was done long ago. It's
called "Neoplatonism."
Re
hy
> Jesus was a midget, this is subjectively true because he subjected himself to
> the midgetries of being a social leper as well as devoting himself to all the
> midgets of society
You know, I just got used to not reading your last sig file every
single time, now I keep reading this one over and over. Shows you how
trained we *I* am, in reading what's put before us, before we realize
what we are reading.
Hieronymous707
>*******Hi:
Hi, Carroll.
>The above is a perfect example of why I have not given you or your
>posts the consideration and respect you seem to demand.
I am nothing if not a perfect example ... of something or other. Sorry I
pissed you off. It was unintentional, I assure you.
> It is
>peevish, spiteful and indicates a personal jealousy that over rides
>any rational argument.
Sheesh. I don't know where that came from, but I hope you feel better now that
you got it out. I've got nothing against you, pal, promise.
>Learn to control your passions and your
>prejudices if you wish to be respected as a magical scholar. *****
you respect what you want to respect,
and for whatever reason you want to
when it comes to the things that i know best,
there is nothing that i can't do
i don't recall writing anything at all
that could or should have hurt you
if we have no doubt that we can talk it out,
i'm here, i won't desert you
-hi-
-hi-
Karipidu
>I lack the ability to find out for myself at the
>moment it slipped my mind I remember Jesus had something to do
with water either
>symbolically or metaphorically, but I might be wrong
WATER and BLOOD came forth (from the side of the Crucified Lord
when it was pierced by the lance of the soldier). "These two sources
(of blood and water) did not spring forth simply by chance, but precisely
because the Church is composed of both these elements. For the
initiated know that by WATER are they reborn and by (His )BLOOD and
flesh are they nourished. Hence do the Mysteries have their source
and beginning. The WATER which ran from the wound is Holy Baptism
and the BLOOD Holy Communion. Therefore, when you approach the
most holy and awe-inspiring chalice, approach as if you were drinking
from His side".
"Through the action of the Spirit the sensible water is trasformed into
a certain divine and secret power (force) and sanctifies those for whom
it is performed" and who with faith and piety accept it without any
reaction or difficulty, i.e. they accept with faith and piety to be
immersed in the sanctified water of the baptismal font.
Marianna
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
******* You probably wouldn't, but I'll accept the above as an apology
(thus extending my tradition of back-handed apologies to the
back-handed acceptance of apologies). ******
Gnome
Hieronymous707
>you respect what you want to respect,
> and for whatever reason you want to
>when it comes to the things that i know best,
> there is nothing that i can't do
>i don't recall writing anything at all
> that could or should have hurt you
>if we have no doubt that we can talk it out,
> i'm here, i won't desert you
>-hi-
>******* You probably wouldn't, but I'll accept the above as an apology
I probably wouldn't what, accept the above as an apology, or accept your
apology?
The above is a poem.
The part I snipped -- the part where I said I was sorry I pissed you off -- I
just wanted to let you know that still stands, although you haven't really
explained exactly how or why what I wrote bothered you.
>(thus extending my tradition of back-handed apologies to the
>back-handed acceptance of apologies). ******
I have a decent back-hand I suppose, competitive, although it is certainly not
my strongest stroke. The fact of the matter is that no one, and I mean no one,
knows the art of the serve and return of service better than me. It's my
specialty.
Are you familiar with a guy named Rudolf Laban? He was supposedly some big
uppity-up in the OTO in the early 1900s. He is more noted for his studies in
human movement potential. He was brilliant. In the early 90s, I studied at
the Laban/Bartenieff Institute of Movement Studies (LIMS), and applied many of
his teachings to the sport of tennis.
Just thought I'd mention it as a point of topicality since you were talking
about backhands.
-hi-
Mephistopheles
Interesting speculations on the number 40! As you know, the number is certainly
used in Hebrew/Aramaic speech, especially archaic forms, to mean "a large
number." It never occurred to me to play with the implications of gematria.
The gematria that you propose for it is fascinating! Perhaps, indeed, taking it
literally came later.
>Unfortunately, although there is a good record of there being many women
>Kabalists, this is ignored.
I was totally unaware of that, I am ashamed to say, outside the modern era.
Could you point me to some?
Regards