(O) Gematria and Other Systems of Numerology
nagasiva
a correspondent writes:
# I've been trying to get a firm hold on the gematria system of
# qabalah. So many books have left me more confused than
# enlightened, I was wondering if you could recommend one or two?
the numerology of Kabbalah appears to be somewhat diverse with
regard to its practice and application. there are several modes
of relating the Hebrew letters (22) to numerical values (10), even
though there is an historical identification between the counting
numbers and the aleph-beth (aleph = 1; beth = 2; etc.).
Nigel Pennick wrote a lovely little text called _Magical
Alphabets_ which contains quite a bit of data on the relationship
between letters and numerical values, inclusive of several systems
to use. often the system is named by virtue of the linguistic
constructions made when the whole of the alphabet is laid out with
their assigned values (e.g. AIQ BEKR, or whatever it was called,
which sets up equal rows and assigns values to those in the proper
columns).
another Hebrew system is called 'Notariqon', though as my library
is in shambles I'm afraid I can't detail the differences at present.
these (Gematria, Aiq bekr, Notariqon) are merely systems of
association between letters and numbers such that words can be
compared in value and investigated with respect to the words that
add up to the same (or similar) numbers. like a tarot spread,
what is made of this comparison depends upon the interpretation
of the viewer/occultist.
those with similar value are often presumed to have 'esoteric'
connections on the basis that inasmuch as the divine constructs
the cosmos like a book, those items with common qualities may
be discovered through deciphering the code of the Great Geometer.
I consider all types of numerology to be styles of *divination*,
and do not invest them with the truth-source value that so many
occultists have seen fit to assign (e.g. Crowley at times).
qabalah is much more than a concise and self-integral composite,
but is instead a grand confluence of ideas from different authors
that are at variance as often as they are in conformity. the
exploration of new means of comparing and correlating letters
and numbers is a science of subtle skill and imaginative
incentive. may we see more and more ways of going about this.
blessed beast!
=========================================================================
nagasiva -- ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com; http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/
cc replies to me if this was read in Usenet. replies may be posted.
____________...oooOOO---occult@hollyfeld.org---OOOooo..._____________
To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe" to occult-...@hollyfeld.org
To unsubscribe yo...@email.com send "unsubscribe yo...@email.com"
http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven/elists/occult.phtml
occult
a thoroughly Jewish system. This includes Crowley and Eliphas Levi. If you
really want to learn the nuances of qabalah go straight to the source.
After that, move on to the europeans who attempt, via their own culture and
limited knowledge of Judaism, to intepret it.
Not that european qabalists aren't fine individuals.
Second, learn the Hebrew alphabet. Gematria is intended for use with the
hebrew alphabet, which is considered to be so sacred by some qabalists that,
for example, the first seven letters of the alphabet are believed to have
brought into existence the seven relative directions of space (up, down,
left, right, above, below, and center). If you're going to use roman
letters, just study plain old western numerology.
Third - you'll have to get out of digital mode. Qabalistic numerology is
not digital. Our arabic number system has a radix of 10. In other words,
we write numbers using 10 symbols (the digits '0' - '9') in various
combinations. Qabalistic numerology is not digital but additive. Qabalah
uses symbols for "10", "20", "100", "200", etc. The symbols (which double
in function as the Hebrew alphabet) are added to each other in a
non-exponential fashion, much like with the Roman numeral system.
In other words, if you really want to understand qabalah, my recommendation
is that you don't try to westernize it, but rather easternize yourself!
nagasiva wrote in message <1998121323...@shell.accesscom.com>...
richard sprigg
>
> 49981213 IIIom
>
> a correspondent writes:
> # I've been trying to get a firm hold on the gematria system of
> # qabalah. So many books have left me more confused than
> # enlightened, I was wondering if you could recommend one or two?
>
> regard to its practice and application. there are several modes
> of relating the Hebrew letters (22) to numerical values (10), even
> though there is an historical identification between the counting
> numbers and the aleph-beth (aleph = 1; beth = 2; etc.).
>
> Nigel Pennick wrote a lovely little text called _Magical
> Alphabets_ which contains quite a bit of data on the relationship
> between letters and numerical values, inclusive of several systems
> to use. often the system is named by virtue of the linguistic
> constructions made when the whole of the alphabet is laid out with
> their assigned values (e.g. AIQ BEKR, or whatever it was called,
> which sets up equal rows and assigns values to those in the proper
> columns).
The theory here is to compare the alphabet which is moved about the
point of two letters (i.e. AQ/BR or AT/BS ) to vary the gematria of a
word or phrase to examine the "hidden meanings" therein.
This may sound rather like mystical masturbation, and I find it hard to
argue with that assessment. Many find it useful, however.
>
> another Hebrew system is called 'Notariqon', though as my library
> is in shambles I'm afraid I can't detail the differences at present.
Notariquon is using the initial letters of a word or phrase to create a
word which carries the import of the complete phrase, yet has a new and
congruent gematria.
Many practitioners use Notariquon without even being aware of it: for
example, AGLA is notariquon.
Any similarities to be seen between this and Spare's work are completely
intentional.
S.Kell
Hello,
> >a correspondent writes:
> ># I've been trying to get a firm hold on the gematria system of
> ># qabalah. So many books have left me more confused than
> ># enlightened, I was wondering if you could recommend one or two?
A good starter is the Sefer Yetzirah, preferably with the longest
commentary you can find, Aryeh Kaplan's edition being one of the best
i've come across. His version is chock full of understandable qabalah
and gematria, with magickal mystical sprinkles. The text of the
yetzirah itself is short and leaves much left unsaid, but gives the
story of the begining of the Hebrew alphabet, it's magick, creation
itself, and where the 'tree of life' glyph is explain at it's root,
earlier form than today's tree. The sefer yetzirah text can be found on
the web in a few versions.
Also i'd recommend the biggest Hebrew-english language dictionary you
can afford, it will come in handy.
And may want to bookmark this site
http://www.rahoorkhuit.net/library/libers/lib_0500.html
it is a fine gematria listing to get started with, ideal for a magickal
student.
px,..
steve
nagasiva
I'd like to review this individual's post as it presents a few
commonplace (and unsubstantable) claims of kabbalists and mages.
in Usenet, "occult" <american@(nospam)qabalah.com> writes:
# ...stay away with the attempts of gentile europeans to enterpret
# a thoroughly Jewish system. This includes Crowley and Eliphas Levi.
while the history of kabbalah (cf. Scholem for a decent overview) is
such that it does appear (esp. by this name) to have been a Jewish
mystical construct, the discussion of the numerolinguistic systems
of divination prevalent within Hermetic history which have been at
least in part *inspired* by this body of work (Luria et al) should
include those who contributed to it. this does indeed include such
individuals (however unreliable they may be at history, citation or
even composition) as Aleister Crowley and Eliphas Levi.
note that we are here dealing with the historical and Hermetic
cultures, not with the Jewish (or arguably many other cultural)
mystics from whom these Hermeticists have been inspired. it is
as rational to say that one should go to the sources for Jewish
kabbalah as it is to say go to the sources for Hermetic qabalah.
dismissing the more modern on account that it was inspired by an
older body of work is ridiculous, however.
# If you really want to learn the nuances of qabalah go straight
# to the source.
this could be interpreted in a number of ways. some will contend
that going to other HUMANS is just taking a detour. the source,
these will contend, is the DIVINE, and so unless one can see their
way to identifying the divine with these humans (a common practice
among the pyramid-schemers ;>), if one has a satisfactory route
to the divine, THIS ought be the preferred source on QBL.
barring this, one's taste and notions on what QBL is, where it
comes from, who are its primary authorities, what it should be
used to achieve (if anything), etc., will determine one's best
approach to the subject.
the writer to whom I am responding here is talking about Jewish
kabbalah, a body of diagrams and ideas which are associated with
a longstanding tradition of writings and mystics. these are
indeed identifiable, and writers like Scholem have performed
a helpful service by analyzing their basics for us to pursue if
we have further interest. one may also find social connections
online to mystical lineages (of variable quality no doubt) that
presume to afford an instruction on kabbalah in its modern form.
whether this person intends such a thing or not, many
occultists have been bitten by QBL-fundamentalism in which they
assert that nothing other than Jewish kabbalah is the 'real
thing'. this continues an unresolved dispute between Jewish
and Hermetic (the latter often Christian in character at its
greatest extreme, often syncretic at its best) mystics as regards
what is the 'real' QBL (a term I use to designate the whole of
kabbalistic/Jewish, qabalistic/Hermetic/Christian, and
cabalistic/New Age/popular types, with no necessary cultural
limitation of which I am aware).
# After that, move on to the europeans who attempt, via their own
# culture and limited knowledge of Judaism, to intepret it.
# Not that european qabalists aren't fine individuals.
this is quite possible. it is also the case that europeans have
merely created their own *style* of qabalah in the manner that
Christianity was created out of Judaism or Buddhism was created
out of the Hindu milieu. these will necessarily be pioneering
works, perhaps not always with the benefit of the genius that
obtained in the Jewish originals. I would submit, however, that
differences or misunderstandings of Jewish kabbalah may serve
to allow very interesting variations which simultaneously
depart from and fashion new constructions aside from their
Jewish precursors.
# Second, learn the Hebrew alphabet. Gematria is intended for use
# with the hebrew alphabet,
this is less and less the case as the term 'gematria' is applied
for usage in any linguistic context which allows a defined set
of alphabetics. it is my understanding (and I would like to hear
with citation from those who disagree) that the Jews did not
originate the concept of gematria -- that Sumerians or Babylonians
or others preceded them. the term 'gematria' itself does not
appear to be Jewish, resembling the term 'geometry' more than it
does any cognate word of which I am aware and establishing a very
imaginative and mystical linkage (however unsubstantiatable)
between numbers, the Pythagorean and other mysticism which attends
to these, and letters, which have been so important to so many
early cultures that influenced at least the 'western' world (as
well as some parts of the 'East'; cf. Sanskrit).
I therefore contend that Hebrew-centrism where gematria is
concerned is a mere fundamentalism which need not be regarded
seriously aside from those who are tradition-bound or who find
the history of the practice to be important to their studies.
one might as well start with one's *own* language (this is my
own preference, as this is what Jews and others did ;>) and
proceed from there.
# which is considered to be so sacred by some qabalists that,
# for example, the first seven letters of the alphabet are believed
# to have brought into existence the seven relative directions
# of space (up, down, left, right, above, below, and center).
this I would describe as a conflation of numerical and symbolico-
historic origination that is a part of very many mystical systems
quite transcending the Jewish culture (cf. Taoists and their ideas
about the various Taos (?-0-1), Yin and Yang (2), the Elements (5),
and the 10000 Things (infinity)). the correlation between numbers
and mythology (mystical or no) is not unique to the Jewish, and
qabalistic progressions and identifications of number/letter and
origination-scheme may also be found described in the works of
Hermetic occultists (however less ancient they may be).
# If you're going to use roman letters, just study plain old
# western numerology.
there is no reason to perpetuate a stark divide between the
numerological systems devised and promulgated by expositors
such as Agrippa and other europeans and qabalah. it is only
a classist and elitist 'hi/lo magic' mentality which breeds
it, from what I can see, and I aim to forge them securely
together into a modern version which draws from all sides.
# ...you'll have to get out of digital mode. Qabalistic numerology is
# not digital. Our arabic number system has a radix of 10. In other
# words, we write numbers using 10 symbols (the digits '0' - '9') in
# various combinations. Qabalistic numerology is not digital but
# additive. Qabalah uses symbols for "10", "20", "100", "200", etc.
# The symbols (which double in function as the Hebrew alphabet) are
# added to each other in a non-exponential fashion, much like with the
# Roman numeral system.
in the strict sense this is quite true on account of the cultural
divide between Hebrew and English languages, yet there is no reason
that this places one system (that which arises within a culture
that apparently identifies these numbers and letters) in a more
exalted position with respect to another (as that which doesn't
or merely has to be seen this way; note that 'A' in English is
often used as a 'top quality' or 'best performance' and that this
can be translated quite easily, see my _Liber Gematria_:
http://www.hollyfeld.org/Esoteric/Avidyana/Plebe/l.gematria.fn
on for an example here, roughly constructed though it may be).
for this reason I say that one may also construct a 'cyber-QBL'
(nobody's come up with a differentiating name for it yet, though
I suggest 'ckabala' ;>) in which some bit- or ASCII-association schema
produces the numerolinguistic evaluation table. it has certainly
been suggested many many times and in a variety of different ways
(say, taking the common ASCII values as they stand in the
computer industry, or using the columnar linkage in a QWERTY or
DVORJAK keyboard -- QWERTY: 1:qaz; 2:wsx; etc.), but none of these
has seized the fascination of modern mages.
no, I think that this is a mistake of evaluating the MEDIUM for
the information rather than the language. we might as well say
that English cannot be used since the culture which uses this
language doesn't conventionally identify its letters with its
numbers, or that they haven't been used in this numerative,
transferrable manner. the transition to cyberspace is merely
the usage of a medium to *speak* this language, just as Hebrew
can be typed and spoken 'here'.
what seems more important to me is to ask why the values of
500-900 should be considered seriously if they aren't actual
letters in the Hebrew system (being final usages of letters
already described), rather than omitted on the basis that
they were additions in order to obtain the numbers 500-900.
if we allow this numerical 'fix', then we might also wish to
ask whether a Romanized version should contain sufficient
'letters' (or unusual usages of letters and/or letter
combinations) so as to flesh out the system to 900 (in the
system I have rediscovered and elaborated upon elsewhere,
a single addition).
# ...if you really want to understand qabalah, my
# recommendation is that you don't try to westernize it,
# but rather easternize yourself!
and I say transcend this silly dualism, assimilate the various
types of QBL, and settle into whatever system or lack thereof
that you prefer! this be a globe, after all, not a rational
East-West orientable duality. ;>
occult
four Hebrew letters: qoph, beth, lamed, and he. As someone who propounds
to understand Qabalah, you of all people should be aware of the importance
of individual letters. "QBL" is transliterated from a root word meaning "to
receive" and is grammatically incorrect when used as a noun.
2) Qabalah does not simply "appear" to be Jewish, it is unequivocally
Jewish. This is in regard to your claim in paragraph three of your post.
3) You're making up your own definitions. I refer you to paragraph nine of
your post where you make this admission in your own words.
4) You're undermining how important a proper understanding of Jewish
culture, philosophy, and theology is to a comprehension of the spirit and
nuances of Qabalah. This is an anti-intellectual approach.
5) You mentioned Scholem as a source. I trust you are referring to Gershom
Scholem, whose book, "Kabbalah", on page 203 of the Meridian paperback
version, says the following:
"...the activities of French and English occultists _contributed
nothing_ and only served to create considerable confusion between the
teachings of the Kabbalah and their own _totally unrelated inventions_...To
this category of _supreme charlatanism_ belong the many and widely read
books of Eliphas Levi...Papus...and ... Aleister Crowley...all of whom had
an _infinitesimal knowledge of Kabbalah_ that did not prevent them from
drawing freely on their imaginations instead." (emphasis mine)
So your own sources are contradicting you.
6) You are way too verbose. In the future, please edit your opinions before
forcing me to have to wade through them. Bloated verbiage does not indicate
that its author is either intelligent or right. It indicates poor writing
skills and a lack of consideration for the reader.
I understand what you are saying. One does not have to become a Jew in
order to study Qabalah. It is more important spiritually to have a
connection to the divine than it is to have book knowledge. I personally
enjoy the writings of Crowley and Eliphas Levi. But they reflect Qabalah
about as well as Shylock from Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" reflects
Jewish culture.
Cheers,
Tim
==================================================================
nagasiva wrote in message <1998121421...@shell.accesscom.com>...
Maeve
An excellent book is Franz Barton's key to the Qabbalah. I think if any of
you read it you will find it most insightful.
Peace
Maeve
occult wrote in message <75454c$l3q$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Shawn Ogden
>
> 49981214 IIIom
>
> I'd like to review this individual's post as it presents a few
> commonplace (and unsubstantable) claims of kabbalists and mages.
>
I don't want to overkill everyone with a rehashing of everything, but
I think these are important points to make. We are in a sense,
dealing with a kind of ignorance that doesn't allow for the
intermixing of systems. I think this is the best course of action,
because you don't limit yourself to just one type or derivation.
I hold, as my personal opinion, that favorable results can be attained
with 'bastardized' systems, comparable to those 'pure' systems. It's
all a matter of perspective, and sometimes you have to look beyond
those things you are comfortable with to find new paths that will take
you in further and interesting directions.
I think there are a few methodologies that are good starting points,
but for something to really work, you need to develop it on a personal
level. A man can attempt to perfect a system all of his life,
completely documented with amazing results, but another person will
follow things to the exact letter of the first man and fail completely.
Every person needs to strive to develop their own systems, based on
what works for them, otherwise it's just trying to imitate someone and
copies can never be as effective as the original.
Shawn
==
******************** -========]===o ********************
"We are not alone..." - Project: Babylon |
-- Slaykat, techno/industrial electronic composer |
Member, Vindictive Bitchiness and Manipulation Division|
EvilPeople, INC. |
Shawn Ogden, deme...@petrini.net |
sla...@yahoo.com |
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
american qabalah
Shawn Ogden wrote in message
<19981215015138....@send103.yahoomail.com>...
>I don't want to overkill everyone with a rehashing of everything, but
>I think these are important points to make. We are in a sense,
>dealing with a kind of ignorance that doesn't allow for the
>intermixing of systems. I think this is the best course of action,
>because you don't limit yourself to just one type or derivation.
It is not my place to disallow anything. Do whatever you want, mix and
match whatever you feel like, and best of luck to you. My point is that
Qabalah is Jewish. If you really want to understand Qabalah, study it as a
facet of Judaism as a whole.
That's not ignorance, it's context. Ignorance is when one ignores
something, like, say, context.
richard sprigg
> this is less and less the case as the term 'gematria' is applied
> for usage in any linguistic context which allows a defined set
> of alphabetics. it is my understanding (and I would like to hear
> with citation from those who disagree) that the Jews did not
> originate the concept of gematria -- that Sumerians or Babylonians
> or others preceded them.
Certainly.
Tablets discovered in Canaan recently suggest that many of the biblical
tales were extant in Sumerian mythology and/or history in the third
millenium.
It is also interesting that Eve is one name of a goddess, associated
with serpents.
The hebrews lived in babylon for some time, until being repatriated by
Cyrus, and left without the majority of their holy books, which were
then reconstructed from memory.
It is not beyond probability that many Babylonian ideas and conventions
were incorporated at the time of this reconstruction.
It is beyond argument that the sumerian tablets are significantly older
than any extant hebrew source.
hara
"occult" <american@(nospam)qabalah.com>:
# 1) Your transliteration is wrong; it's not "QBL", it's "QBLH".
# There are four Hebrew letters: qoph, beth, lamed, and he.
did I say it was a transliteration? no I did not, nor did I
intend it to be. the Hebrew asciifications came the closest.
# As someone who propounds to understand Qabalah
the subject line used to read "Gematria and Other Systems of
Numerology". it didn't pertain specifically to QBL, though
there was an important touch-point on this subject (the
history of gematria appears to intersect kabbalah and
continues to be contained in many QBL systems) which we seem
to have left behind for a greater depth of QuibBLing.
# you of all people should be aware of the importance of individual
# letters. "QBL" is transliterated from a root word meaning "to
# receive" and is grammatically incorrect when used as a noun.
I use it because when pronounced fonetikally it sounds like QUIBBLE,
and I think kabbalists/qabalists/cabalists are very fond of doing
this -- exemplified by your response to me.
# 2) Qabalah does not simply "appear" to be Jewish, it is unequivocally
# Jewish.
actually not all of it is, as I have already said. you have not
sourced gematria, for example, and I am aware of assertions that
the popular Tree of Life schematic isn't unique to the Jews. if
we eliminate numerology, numerolinguistics and mysticism that
relates to letters (cf. old Indian ideas about Sanskrit), then
we are left with the particular social tradition and its specific
texts that it generated. I already categorized this as an old
and venerable social tradition (usually oral it seems -- I must
say 'it seems' and 'it appears' because I am not a part of it
and am merely reflecting what I consider to be fairly reliable
sources without attribution).
# 3) You're making up your own definitions.
I choose those I prefer, that is correct. cf. Lewis Carroll and
the argument made by Humpty Dumpty within Alices adventures.
imagine a QBList who is subject to the terrors of linguistic
totalitarianism!
# 4) You're undermining how important a proper understanding of Jewish
# culture, philosophy, and theology is to a comprehension of the spirit
# and nuances of Qabalah.
no, I stated clearly that Scholem has a good line on the Jewish QBL
(kabbalah), but that Hermetic qabalists may be sourced elsewhere.
you as much say so yourself when quoting Scholem. I'm merely
saying that kabbalah isn't the only strain. I don't have to know
model Ts inside and out in order to appreciate and drive a modern
automobile.
# This is an anti-intellectual approach.
hardly. it is merely honest. if you want to know about Hermetic
qabalah (notice that I use my words carefully while you want to
encapsulate everything under 'qabalah', which I am not doing),
then seek Hermetic sources, that's all I'm saying.
# 5) You mentioned Scholem as a source. I trust you are
# referring to Gershom Scholem....
that is correct. good author on Jewish QBL and its history.
I imagine even he has his limitations, but I am not sufficiently
familiar with the subject to know. perhaps you could elaborate
on that for us.
you quote Scholem:
# "...the activities of French and English occultists _contributed
# nothing_ and only served to create considerable confusion between
# the teachings of the Kabbalah and their own _totally unrelated
# inventions_...To this category of _supreme charlatanism_ belong
# the many and widely read books of Eliphas Levi...Papus...and
# ... Aleister Crowley...all of whom had an _infinitesimal knowledge
# of Kabbalah_ that did not prevent them from drawing freely on
# their imaginations instead." (emphasis mine)
lovely! this matches with what I'd presumed about these people,
yes, and the text you quote is an example of why I did not
recommend Scholem as a source on Hermetic qabalah, which would
better be approached by someone with less vitriol and bias.
the Hermetics are not so much anti-intellectual as anti-authority
and charlatan-ridden. this doesn't mean they have no quality, as
you yourself have admitted. the point isn't that one should not
consult them on the subject of kabbalah (which is true), but that
if one wishes to learn about what Hermetic qabalah it is likely
best to see it for oneself from the sources (namely authors like
Levi, Crowley and Gray).
# So your own sources are contradicting you.
really? check my text again. I stand by what I wrote:
#> ...the history of kabbalah (cf. Scholem for a decent overview) is
#> such that it does appear (esp. by this name) to have been a Jewish
#> mystical construct....
if you can't understand my taxonomical language, then I don't under-
stand your desire to appear to be a lover of words and their
complexity/value/depth. see what I'm saying, rather than what you
would like to interpret.
# I understand what you are saying. One does not have to become a
# Jew in order to study Qabalah. It is more important spiritually
# to have a connection to the divine than it is to have book
# knowledge.
actually I didn't say those things, I merely reported that some
believe them. please read more carefully and stop attributing
things to me which I did not say. have a gander:
#> ...some will contend that going to other HUMANS is just
#> taking a detour. the source, these will contend, is the
#> DIVINE, and so unless one can see their way to identifying
#> the divine with these humans (a common practice among the
#> pyramid-schemers ;>), if one has a satisfactory route
#> to the divine, THIS ought be the preferred source on QBL.
note that I am careful to separate my own opinions from this
and that I am merely reporting on what I have seen. I am not
talking about Judaism here so much as methods of obtaining
the experiences or knowledge attributed to those who may be
part of Jewish (and other) mystical systems.
I'm reporting on something much more radical than that for
which you give me credit. after all, what I'm saying is
that the variety of systems and edifices of QBL are,
according to some, COMPLETELY DISPENSABLE as regards an
apprehension of the mysteries and profundities with which
they are associated -- that the Jewish (or Hermetic or
Sumerian or whatever) QBL systems are merely instances of
human expression surrounding the divine and Hir relation
to numerolinguistics, cosmogenesis, eschatology, and the
development of the individual, and that their longevity
of tradition means NOTHING as regards their ability to
communicate anything true or important to the modern mage.
so when you say 'go to the source', one might argue that
those who go to something ancient are doing something akin
to seeking out old, rancid butter in order to get the
fresh butter flavor (rather than going to the cow (god) or
or to the local dairy farmer (Hermetic). it is an error.
according to this argument the fresher, more worldly and
lively is likely to be the more reliable. the old
traditions become hide-bound, stagnant, and callous over
with too many gates and obscurations to be easily
accessible to the aspirant.
to apply this to the study of QBL (note that I say QBL here
rather than kabbalah -- Jewish QBL), the idea is that going
to the older traditions (why not go to Sumerians or
Babylonians? presumably because they have a less intact
social structure after all these years ;>) is a wild goose
chase unless one is already steeped in it. instead, it
would be preferrable to look *right around oneself* (some
would no doubt suggest we begin by looking *at* ourselves,
and with good reason; cf. mysticism the world over),
creating one's *own* QBL. this is what Crowley and other
Hermetics have recommended, and I think there is a validity
to these assertions which you have not addressed here.
# I personally enjoy the writings of Crowley and Eliphas Levi.
# But they reflect Qabalah about as well as Shylock from
# Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" reflects Jewish culture.
this statement exemplifies the very problem I have had with
'serious kabbalists' whose blinders about what QBL could include
lead them to think that every expression that I make about
the subject relates to Judaism and its culture. I have made
no claims about my knowledge of Judaism and I welcome what
you'd like to share of it that pertains to your kabbalah.
my comment is not that one ought to go to Crowley and Levi to
obtain information about Jews. on the contrary, I think this
would be a terrible mistake, and I agree with your assertion.
instead I was saying that if you want to learn about Hermetic
QBL, then it would be better obtained by going to Hermetics than
to listen to people who are antagonistic or misunderstanding
of their ideas, those who think that QBL is the sole property
of Jewish mystics, or those who think that no QBL can be
created (however rudimentary) outside established lineages.
I will prove this wrong through the course of my life. ;>
hara
--
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (emailed replies may be posted); cc me replies;
http://www.abyss.com/tokus; http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatSPELLS.html
catherine yronwode
"occult" (Tim) <american@(nospam)qabalah.com> wrote:
> nagasiva wrote in message <1998121421...@shell.accesscom.com>
> > "occult" <american@(nospam)qabalah.com> writes:
> ># ...stay away with the attempts of gentile europeans to enterpret
> ># a thoroughly Jewish system. This includes Crowley and Eliphas
> ># Levi.
> >while the history of kabbalah (cf. Scholem for a decent overview) is
> >such that it does appear (esp. by this name) to have been a Jewish
> >mystical construct, the discussion of the numerolinguistic systems
> >of divination prevalent within Hermetic history which have been at
> >least in part *inspired* by this body of work (Luria et al) should
> >include those who contributed to it. this does indeed include such
> >individuals (however unreliable they may be at history, citation or
> >even composition) as Aleister Crowley and Eliphas Levi.
> Qabalah does not simply "appear" to be Jewish, it is unequivocally
> Jewish.
I am with Occult (Tim) on this one, Tyagi In your attempt to be
scholastically inclusive, you come across as outright dismissive of the
actual history of the subject. The Kaballah *IS* Jewish in root, origin,
core, and sum. The fact that a couple of French and British Gentiles
wrote about it in the 19th and early 20th centuries means nothing in
terms of its history or utility. Like, as if Eric Clapton and Led
Zeppelin "contributed to" Delta style guitar blues, ya know what i mean?
> >note that we are here dealing with the historical and Hermetic
> >cultures, not with the Jewish (or arguably many other cultural)
> >mystics from whom these Hermeticists have been inspired. it is
> >as rational to say that one should go to the sources for Jewish
> >kabbalah as it is to say go to the sources for Hermetic qabalah.
> >dismissing the more modern on account that it was inspired by an
> >older body of work is ridiculous, however.
> You're undermining how important a proper understanding of Jewish
> culture, philosophy, and theology is to a comprehension of the spirit
> and nuances of Qabalah. This is an anti-intellectual approach.
Tyagi, again i agree with Tim. What you suggest is not only
anti-intellectual, it is also, presumeably unintentionally, an
anti-Semitic approach. It appears to partake of the anti-Semitism of
those who have appropriated Jewish mysticism for their own purposes,
while stripping it of its cultural and theological basis in the process
of rendering it a "module" in their role-playing game version of (Aryan,
Gentile) "mage-hood."
> >the writer to whom I am responding here is talking about Jewish
> >kabbalah, a body of diagrams and ideas which are associated with
> >a longstanding tradition of writings and mystics. these are
> >indeed identifiable, and writers like Scholem have performed
> >a helpful service by analyzing their basics for us to pursue if
> >we have further interest. one may also find social connections
> >online to mystical lineages (of variable quality no doubt) that
> >presume to afford an instruction on kabbalah in its modern form.
> You mentioned Scholem as a source. I trust you are referring to
> Gershom Scholem, whose book, "Kabbalah", on page 203 of the Meridian
> paperback version, says the following:
>
> "...the activities of French and English occultists _contributed
> nothing_ and only served to create considerable confusion between the
> teachings of the Kabbalah and their own _totally unrelated
> inventions_...To this category of _supreme charlatanism_ belong the
> many and widely read books of Eliphas Levi...Papus...and ... Aleister
> Crowley...all of whom had an _infinitesimal knowledge of Kabbalah_
> that did not prevent them from drawing freely on their imaginations
> instead." (emphasis mine)
>
> So your own sources are contradicting you.
That quote from Scholem is central to this debate. I think, Tyagi, that
you should consider it very seriously before going on further about the
"modern" Kaballah. Elsewise, you seem to be saying that as far as you
are concerned, only the Kaballah of 19th century hegemonic Gentile
European hermeticists was "modern" and as if what you dismissively call
"the Jewish Kaballah" were a mere thing of the past.
Furtermore, as Scholem points out, these late 19th century hermetic
folks, whom i jokingly refer to as "the fucking Frenchies" (Eliphas
Levi, Papus, et al) and "the bloody Brits" (Crowley, MacGrethor-Mathers
et al) were about as well-versed in Judaism as they were in Hinduism,
Sufiism, and Taoism. That is to say -- not al all. Their interpretations
of the Kaballah (and their flagrant attempt to extricate it from
Judaism) were not the product of advanced scholarship but of cultural
warfare in which the peoples who had been conquered by European
imperialism were made to yield up not only their natural resouces and
national treasures, but also their religious beliefs and their systems
of mysticism.
The leaders of what you call "modern lineages" of Kaballastic
scholarship were hegemonically inclined European (Christian) charlatans
who earned their renown and income by popularizing snippets of captured
cultural beliefs, which they understood poorly if at all. They had a
vested interest in promoting the mysticism of other cultures as
"exotic," "spooky," and "weird." To attract followers, they grossly
misinterpreted and "improved" upon the religio-magical systems of these
diverse conquered cultures, claiming the discovery of a unified theory
of cross-cultural esotericism. Crowley's pathetically laughable attempt
to "correlate" the Chinese I Ching with the Jewish Kaballah is my
favourite case in point.
> >whether this person intends such a thing or not, many
> >occultists have been bitten by QBL-fundamentalism in which they
> >assert that nothing other than Jewish kabbalah is the 'real
> >thing'. this continues an unresolved dispute between Jewish
> >and Hermetic (the latter often Christian in character at its
> >greatest extreme, often syncretic at its best) mystics as regards
> >what is the 'real' QBL (a term I use to designate the whole of
> >kabbalistic/Jewish, qabalistic/Hermetic/Christian, and
> >cabalistic/New Age/popular types, with no necessary cultural
> >limitation of which I am aware).
Is it "fundamentalism" to tell the truth about history? You yourself
leave room for doubt about the sincerity of your syncretism when you
begin a post by stating that the Kaballah "appears to be" Jewish. What
is so repulsive to you about it actually BEING Jewish? Why can't you
admit it? Why call a person who insists that it IS Jewish a
"fundamentalist"?
You like old blues music, right? You KNOW that the guys and gals who
created this music were African-Americans, right? You have no problem
with *that*...so why do you waffle and waver over whether the Kaballah
is -- or merely "aopears to be" -- Jewish? Don't you see how
disrespectful and anti-Semitic that sounds?
And why do you insist that anyone who castigates Crowley, Papus, Eliphas
Levi et al as poor sources for study of the subject is a
"fundamentalist"? If someone came to you asking to learn about the
blues, whom would you recommend they listen to? -- Robert Johnson, Blind
Willie McTell, and Memphis Minnie?...or Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, and
Janis Joplin?
I am all in favour of One World Anarchy and Lord knows i appropriate the
bright and shiny things of any culture that interests me. An ethnic Jew,
i last night decorated my beautiful Yule Tree with you and got so drunk
on Kahlua that you took me upstairs and lovingly tucked me in bed where
i could gaze upon my altar, at the center of which is a bronze statue of
Siva. I enjoy the benfits of syncretism, but i don't claim that Yule
"appears to be" Northern European or that Siva "appears to be" Indian. I
KNOW they are. This debate on Kaballah is not about "fundamentalism" --
it is about standing up for the cultural roots of a system of mystical
thought that you are fully entitled to study and enjoy and contribute
to, but will *NOT* be permitted to claim as your own (Gentile) cultural
heritage.
> ># Second, learn the Hebrew alphabet. Gematria is intended for use
> ># with the hebrew alphabet,
> >
> >this is less and less the case as the term 'gematria' is applied
> >for usage in any linguistic context which allows a defined set
> >of alphabetics.
Here i jump ship and side with tyagi -- Gematria is a Jewish system of
thought that can be applied to any alphabet. One *can* play the blues on
an accordian, as Clifton Chenier proved.
> >it is my understanding (and I would like to hear
> >with citation from those who disagree) that the Jews did not
> >originate the concept of gematria -- that Sumerians or Babylonians
> >or others preceded them.
Sources of YOUR claim, please? I have never heard of this, ever! Why
must *i* supply a citation in order to disagree with you? You make an
OUTRAGEOUS claim with no citation and expect me to believe it?
By the way, the Babylonians did not "precede" Isaraelites; they were
contemporaries. Perform a quick web search on the history of the Middle
East, keywording on the terms Sumerian, Assyrian, Mesopotamian,
Babylonian, Canaanite, and Israelite. Construct a little taxonomic list.
You'll be spared much criticism in the future.
> >the term 'gematria' itself does not
> >appear to be Jewish, resembling the term 'geometry' more than it
> >does any cognate word of which I am aware
Geo-metry means "earth measurement" in Greek. Geometry as we know it
arose in Sumer (and later was refined in Egypt and Greece) from the need
to measure the areas and perimeters of fields, heance, earth-measurment.
Gematria has nothing to do with earth measurement. I do not know the
root meaning of the word, however, and await information.
> >I therefore contend that Hebrew-centrism where gematria is
> >concerned is a mere fundamentalism which need not be regarded
> >seriously aside from those who are tradition-bound or who find
> >the history of the practice to be important to their studies.
> >one might as well start with one's *own* language (this is my
> >own preference, as this is what Jews and others did ;>) and
> >proceed from there.
> > the correlation between numbers
> >and mythology (mystical or no) is not unique to the Jewish, and
> >qabalistic progressions
True... but the "meaning" of the correlation will vary by culture.
> > and identifications of number/letter and
> >origination-scheme may also be found described in the works of
> >Hermetic occultists (however less ancient they may be).
Oh, *those* guys again, huh? I liked their music okay...i just fucking
HATED the way they claimed the copyright on "Crossroads Blues."
> ># If you're going to use roman letters, just study plain old
> ># western numerology.
Here, Tim, i think you err: there is no "plain old western numerology."
It derives from Jewish gemntria. Kinda like rockabilly derives from post
War jump-blues, y'know?
> >there is no reason to perpetuate a stark divide between the
> >numerological systems devised and promulgated by expositors
> >such as Agrippa and other europeans and qabalah. it is only
> >a classist and elitist 'hi/lo magic' mentality which breeds
> >it, from what I can see, and I aim to forge them securely
> >together into a modern version which draws from all sides.
Well, hooray for your syncretist playlist -- just don't forget who wrote
the danged tunes when you are typesetting the label-copy, okay?
cat yronwode, stationary Jew
Lucky Mojo Curio Co: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
The Lucky W Amulet Archive: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
Sacred Sex: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html
The Sacred Landscape: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
Freemasonry for Women: http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
check out news:alt.lucky.w for discussions on folk magic and luck
hara
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>...The Kaballah *IS* Jewish in root, origin, core, and sum.
I have said as much, yes. the Hermetic qabalah is not, however.
in fact I think there are valuable questions to ask about the
'root' of these mystical tradition (so much so that I have to
couch my words like 'appears'). I omit the balance of your
text for lack of time (I hope that my subsequent response to
occult/Tim was more clear to you) and provide this text in
response to your request for an assertion about the nonJewish
roots of some aspect of kabbalah (gematria):
I liked "The Pythagorean Tarot: An Interpretation of the Major
and Minor Arcana on Pythagorean and Alchemical Principles", by
John Opsopaus ( copyright 1996 at the following URL:
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/PT/
enough to print out a great quantity of it and discuss it
with friends. I am not sure that it is wholly accurate,
but the author appears to be substantiating many of his claims
with citations to reputable books (Fideler, for example).
of which what follows is a brief excerpt on kabbalah (Jewish
QBL) and gematria (which Mr. Opsopaus claims was used by a
variety of cultures -- my main contention when posting to
the Occult Elist and responding to "occult" (amer...@qabalah.com),
as we were talking about gematria until "occult" brought up
kabbalah, which I have always agreed is Jewish in manifestation
and by name).
I'd love to hear the review of those more wide-read than
myself with an acute analysis of his sources and assertions:
[from http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/PT/Intro.html#archetypes ]
Finally, we have to consider the Qabalistic use of gematria: the
esoteric interpretation of Hebrew words by means of the numerical
values of their letters. This is not a major part of traditional
tarot interpretation, but it is a standard esoteric technique, so
I have used it to reinforce the symbolic analyses of the trumps.
However, since I have used isopsephia ("Greek gematria") rather
than the better known gematria based on the Hebrew alphabet, a
few words of explanation are necessary. There are several reasons
for this.
First, an analysis based on the Greek alphabet is more
appropriate to a Pythagorean tarot than one based on the Hebrew
alphabet since, presumably, that is the alphabet Pythagoras would
have used for isopsephia. Second, there is considerable evidence
that the Hebrew practice is later than the Greek and probably
derived from it. We'll consider the evidence briefly.
First, the Greek use of their alphabet for numeration goes back
at least to the end of the fourth century BCE, whereas use of the
Hebrew alphabet for numeration goes no earlier than the end of
the second century BCE (Ifrah, chs. 16, 17). Indeed, Fideler (75)
argues that the standard spellings of the Greek gods' names were
formulated according to isopsephic principles under the influence
of the Pythagorean League c. 500 BCE. He further argues (216-9)
that many Greek temples, such as the Parthenon (447 BCE) and
Apollo's temple at Didyma (300 BCE), were constructed
isopsephically. The Greeks may have learned the idea from the
Babylonians, who as early as the eighth century BCE constructed
buildings according to an isopsephia based on their syllabic
writing system.
Second, the only explanation for the word gematria is that it
derives from the Greek word gametria, which is an alternative
spelling for geometria, "geometry," but literally, "land
surveying" (LSJ s.v. gametria, geometria; OED s.v. gematria).
This is suggestive of its use (in Greece, Babylonia and perhaps
other places) for laying out temples and other important
buildings.
Third, the archaic Greek alphabet had 27 letters; thus it divided
naturally into three Enneads (groups of 9), which were assigned
to the numbers 1-9, 10-90 and 100-900 in order.
A B G D E F Z E Q
I K L M N X O P q
R S T U F C Y W 3
The later alphabet dropped one letter from each group (F q 3),
resulting in three Ogdoads (groups of eight), which was also
considered to be esoterically significant. However, the three
Enneads were retained for writing numbers, which is the basis of
isopsephia. In contrast, the Hebrew alphabet had only 22 letters,
so there were no numerals for 500, 600, 700, 800 or 900. (The use
of the final forms of the letters for these numbers cannot
predate their appearance in the Square Hebrew alphabet of the
first or second century BCE; Diringer 135-7.)
How much significance should be attached to isopsephia? We cannot
fail to be astonished when we discover that a square around
Apollo's temple at Didyma has a perimeter of 1415 Greek feet, and
that 1415 is the numerical value of O QEOS APOLLWN (ho Theos
Apollon, the God Apollo); or that a hexagon inscribed in the same
temple has a perimeter of 1061 feet, which is the numerical value
of APOLLWN (Fideler 216-7). But should we consider these facts
"mere coincidences"? Here Jung's concept of synchronicity is
helpful, for we realize that if the coincidence is symbolically
meaningful, then it is a synchronous event bridging the physical
and psychic worlds. Therefore, if these isopsephic connections
are significant to you, then they are ipso facto meaningful. For
this reason the Pythagorean Tarot includes analyses according to
the principles of isopsephia.
------------------------------------------------------------------
the "Qabalah" section within the work cited above
american qabalah
Let me state in simpler words the main point of my initial post as - and
this point applies to any attempt at scholarly investigation, not just
Qabalah.
--
It is better to study a subject within the context of its own cultural and
philosophical heritage before moving to what outsiders to the culture say
about it, although the work of outsiders may be very helpful.
--
Re. Gematria - my point was that Gematria, within the context of Qabalah,
applies to the numerological values of Hebrew letters. "Plain-old western
numerology" is more suited to digital number systems. Also, please remember
that I said it in the overall context of my main point, which is once again,
for a more thorough and organic comprehension of a subject, study it within
the confines of its own cultural and philosophical heritage - not
exclusively - but primarily.
One can certainly modify or invent a system of correspondence between
traditional Gematria and our alphabet, but since western numerology has done
such a thorough job of this already, then if one is analyzing English words
for numerological significance, why not use western numerology? If you
don't, you will have to reinvent the wheel of a system of correspondence
between a numerological system intended for Hebrew words, written with
Hebrew letters using a non-digital number system, and our alphabet.
You are certainly welcome to reinvent that wheel as you see fit - my point
was simply that it's easier to rely on the work that's already been done.
By the way, I am in no way against syncretism. The main point of my initial
post was intended not to discourage the intermingling of esoteric systems
for one's personal benefit, but rather to encourage respect for the heritage
of the culture that has given the world such an amazing theosophical and
mystical system of beliefs as Qabalah - and encourage a scholarly and
organic approach to the study of the occult in general, a field of study
which can become very convoluted and unscientific.
One last thing: while Gershom Scholem's words about the western european
occultists were quite pointed, I was not castigating Crowley, Eliphas Levi,
etc. I was pointing out that their work regarding the subject of Qabalah is
not taken seriously by at least one scholar, who, incidentally, is the man
considered by many to be the world's leading authority on the subject.
I personally enjoy the writings of Crowley, Levi, Regardie, and Mathers -
whether or not they were charlatans (and I will not opine on that subject),
they are at the very least immensely entertaining and quite clever. I
regard Crowley's essay on demonology in my preface to the Goetia as a
cornerstone of modern western occult philosophy.
Cheers, and
Happy Hanukkah,
Timothy
catherine yronwode wrote in message <3676C3...@luckymojo.com>...
american qabalah
mistake. I wrote:
"Plain-old western numerology" is more suited to digital number systems.
I meant:
"Plain-old western numerology" is more suited to our alphabet.
Sorry for the mixup.
T
american qabalah
I will restate the points from my initial post, from which we seem to have
departed into complete confusion. Since your post, as you stated, was in
direct response to mine, please allow me to bring you back to this point.
* The main point of my first post is that if you want a thorough, organic,
comprehensive understanding of a subject such as Qabalah, you should study
it in the context of its cultural and philosophical heritage.
The minor points, which relate directly to my main point, were:
* Gematria, in the context of Qabalah, is intended for use with Hebrew
letters. For our alphabet I recommend using western numerology, which,
while derived either in part or in whole from Gematria, has been fine-tuned
especially for that purpose.
* Arabic numerals, in order to be used with traditional Hebrew Gematria,
require some extra-qabalistic system of correspondences. so I encouraged
the author of the post to whom I was responding to get out of our system of
digital thinking and "Easternize" himself for a while, as opposed to
"Westernizing" Qabalah. Once again, this is in the context of my main
point.
There, I stated my opinions in less than fifty million words. Maybe you can
do the same? Some of us have a life.
Your humble servant,
Timothy
----------------------------
hara wrote in message <756cn3$ihg$1...@shell.accesscom.com>...
american qabalah
>arose in Sumer (and later was refined in Egypt and Greece) from the need
>Gematria has nothing to do with earth measurement. I do not know the
>root meaning of the word, however, and await information.
Well, the gentiles are divided.
"Gematria is a metathesis of the Greek word 'grammateia'." -- from page
xviii of the introduction of Kabbalah Denudata, translated by S.L. MacGregor
Mathers
"Gematria...from the Greek 'geometria' (geometry), not as Ginsburg and after
him Mathers erroneously assert, from 'gramma' (a written character)..." --
Three Books of Occult Philosophy, Appendix VII (Practical Kabbalah)
I can't find an etymology in my Jewish sources. Gershom, Cooper, and ben
Shimon Halevi are holding out on me. I just ordered a shitload of books on
Qabalah, though - maybe they will help us.
It makes more sense to me that it would come from 'gramma' (a written
character), but then, I'm full of ...it.
Yours,
Timothy
Jeffery E Marshall
hara wrote:
>
># 2) Qabalah does not simply "appear" to be Jewish, it is unequivocally
># Jewish.
>
>actually not all of it is, as I have already said. you have not
>sourced gematria, for example, and I am aware of assertions that
>the popular Tree of Life schematic isn't unique to the Jews. if
>we eliminate numerology, numerolinguistics and mysticism that
>relates to letters (cf. old Indian ideas about Sanskrit), then
>we are left with the particular social tradition and its specific
>texts that it generated. I already categorized this as an old
>and venerable social tradition (usually oral it seems -- I must
>say 'it seems' and 'it appears' because I am not a part of it
>and am merely reflecting what I consider to be fairly reliable
>sources without attribution).
FWIW, I think Qabalah was certainly preserved and transmitted to the West by
the Jews. I think there's precious little doubt about that. It's roots,
however, are subject to more debate. I, for one, don't think it's
specifically Jewish, but rather see its Meditterean/Mesopotamian. This
certainly includes the Jews, but also opens up the field to the Sumerians,
the Babylonians, the Egyptians and the Greeks. I think the Jews borrowed a
great deal from these sources. Almost certainly, the first part of
Bereshith comes from Mesopotamian sources. I think the Assyrians and others
had a concept of the Tree of Life. The Egyptian Ennead certainly resembles
the emanations of the sephiroth. Gershom, in Kabbalah cites the influence
of the Greek Gnostics IIRC. I can look up the cite if anyone needs it.
Now, some may argue the Gnostics derive from the Jews, but one can also
argue for Mithraic and other seed ideas as well.
I guess the point is, there was so much exchange of ideas, it's really hard
to say where it exactly it all began and what is truly culturely unique. So
I just work with it as being Mesopotamian/Mediterrean and call it a day.
AOI
Jeff Marshall
jake stratton-kent
<ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com> writes
>
>I therefore contend that Hebrew-centrism where gematria is
>concerned is a mere fundamentalism which need not be regarded
>seriously aside from those who are tradition-bound or who find
>the history of the practice to be important to their studies.
>one might as well start with one's *own* language (this is my
>own preference, as this is what Jews and others did ;>) and
>proceed from there.
93 all,
agreed!
This is a most interesting thread, I hope it's not out of place to post
the 'EQ-FAQ' here, as English Qaballa has been mentioned once or twice.
The only point I wish to make is that a Qabalah as I define it is
essentially a magical and/or mystical 'language' (or model if you
prefer). The test of EQ or any other proposed alpha-numeric system is
nothing to do with a priori considerations, linguistic or otherwise, but
how successful it is as a 'magico-mystical system'. EQ is strongly
gematria based, but is the basis of a gnostico-magical system of great
breadth. This may be tested by accessing information at the addresses
below
Here followeth ye olde EQ FAQ, well overdue for a rewrite, but useful.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A L W H S D O Z K V G R C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
N Y J U F Q B M X I T E P
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Why is the E.'.Q.'. Order & Value a serial order (one to twenty six)
rather than hundreds, tens and units like the Hebrew system and others?
A. Many students of the Golden Dawn system and the better known sources
on Greek and Hebrew Qabalah ask this question. In fact there many
examples of Greek and Hebrew serial order system, which may well be
older; and other ritual alphabets have used serial orders rather than
hundreds, tens and units. There is thus no reason why E.'.Q.'. should
adhere to the same pattern as the systems which have had most currency
since the nineteenth century. On the other hand the vast majority of
alternative English Gematrias proposed since E.'.Q.'.'s discovery have
adopted the 1 to 26 "value" while proposing another "order" for the
letters.
Q. Surely any attribution of numbers to letters would produce results?
Isn't it more a matter of belief and "word association by numbers"?
A. Apparently not, though before my own experience of E.'.Q.'. I might
well have thought so myself. Several alternative gematrias do exist, but
as yet none has produced a magical system. The question of belief is not
appropriate to a true numerical system, numbers are a standard of
immutable truth that rises above mythology and other limited paradigms.
So far the alternative gematrias have indeed proved to be nothing more
than systems of word association, or go little further than "proving"
the discoverer is Crowley's successor! E.'.Q.'. on the other hand has
shown itself capable of considerably more than this, a situation that
cannot be entirely due to the superior ability of its exponents!
Since writing the above I have become familiar with the work of David
Allen Hulse, whose unpublished work on English gematria is a major
exception to the above rule. Though not extending to a magical
methodology in itself - as yet - the system he uses is the simplest of
all, the ABC series numbered 1 to 26, which the discoverers of E.'.Q.'.
had tried and not found of interest, my own researches also failed to
find anything of interest in this schema. Hulse on the other hand, and I
take my hat off to him for it, came at the problem from another
direction, as may be seen in his "Key of it All" which I cannot
recommend to highly, and got first class results from what had seemed to
some of the best qualified persons in this field to be an unlikely
schema. Having surveyed and examined many alternative methods of English
gematria it is my belief that more is to come, and that the serial order
applied to ABC and its odd numbered permutations (of which "family"
E.'.Q.'. is an honoured member) is likely to be the most fertile area
for future discoveries.
Q. What simple proofs can you present that E.'.Q.'. is a valid solution
to the Qabalistic puzzles of the Book of the Law?
A. Simple proofs are many, though in their enthusiasm E.'.Q.'. writers
have often assumed the reader will find them for themselves, and have
concentrated on other more technical aspects. These following are among
the simplest and most "accessible" indicators of E.'.Q.'.'s astonishing
ability to detail Thelemic principles exactly without mindbending
calculation or peculiar spellings!
Many Thelemites are accustomed to writing "Love is the law, love under
will" as three 93's. The value of LOVE IS THE LAW, LOVE UNDER WILL by
E.'.Q.'. is 279 or 3x93. Similarly "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the law" = 386 which is 2x193.
The second chapter of the Book of the Law, gives the number of "Had" as
eleven, the value of HAD in E.'.Q.'..
The phrase STRANGE DRUGS from AL has the value 143, the same value as
the phrase DISTANT DRUG in Liber VII. This is a striking example of the
accuracy of the gematria system, involving not only AL but the entire
Class A literature.
The Book of the Law injoins us to exceed by delicacy and drink by the
eight and ninety rules of art. DELICACY = 98 by E.'.Q.'., no other
reason has ever been presented for the number of "rules of art".
The Thelemic Pentagram rituals frequently attribute Babalon to West and
Water, while Aiwass/Aiwaz is frequently attributed to the direction of
Air. BABALON = 65 = WATER, AIWAZ = 36 = AIR. Accordingly E.'.Q.'.
derived ritual corresponds closely with traditional ritual in this
obvious respect and in others less obvious, without any necessity to
squeeze round pegs into square holes by selective spelling or other
contortions.
The Counting Well process (briefly, value of word a times number of
letters in word b and vice versa) produces other startling proofs.
AZURE % LIDDED = 718 Note eleven letters and initials AL, the next word
is "Woman", thus the initials ALW, which are the first three letters of
the E.'.Q.'. Order & Value. Note also that the phrase "O Azure-Lidded
Woman" starts with the letters O.A.Z., which letters have the E.'.Q.'.
values of 7.1.8.
ABRAHAD % ABRA = 418 (Crowley's "Hebrew" system gives the same value).
AUM % HA = 93 (this word seals the book).
SUN % MIDNIGHT = 666, this number is traditionally associated with the
Sun and with the "Solar Phallic" current of which "The Beast" is the
embodiment. There are important keys in this equivalence, relating to
Khephra, results magick and the IVth house of astrology, the enemy
naming ceremony and much else.
[BABALON % BABALON = 910, 91 is a significant number, with or without
considerations of the Hebrew system, since it is the sum of the numbers
one to thirteen, and the value of 13x7. The E.'.Q.'. value of BABALON is
65, 65 + 91 = 156, the value of Babalon in Crowley's "Hebrew" system.]
These simple proofs are outside the realm of coincidence and are
unmatched by any alternative system. Neither Achad or Crowley produced
results of this quality or quantity with their qabalistic analyses,
simply because they lacked the tools, no alternative gematria schema has
come close either. It is not a matter of "my qabalah is better than
yours", though many responses to E.'.Q.'. have been based on such a
petulant attitude. The "English Qaballists" have done considerable
research into all alternatives which have been put forward, and have
often tried harder to extract sense from them than the proposers of the
alternatives themselves. The vital thing to bear in mind is a qabalah is
a ritual language, and any proposed system that does not produce a
magical system is not a qabalah, whatever else it might be. I see no
reason to reject the possibility of further numerical systems within the
Book of the Law, but this is no argument against making use of the only
one so far to produce practical results!
for more information see:
http://members.aol.com/kiblah1/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/7770/
Kn...@aol.com
ja...@kiblah.demon.co.uk writes:
<< A L W H S D O Z K V G R C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
N Y J U F Q B M X I T E P
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >>
MsMa...@aol.com
ja...@kiblah.demon.co.uk writes:
> 93 all,
Hello,
I am a novice at this and am trying hard to grasp at least some of what
your saying. I used your system to work out the number of a word, and was
surprised to have it work out to 93 ( what you signed off with) can you
explain the meaning of this number? it happens to be the total of my new
wiccan name, I chose, without any knowledge.
Many Thelemites are accustomed to writing "Love is the law, love under
will" as three 93's. The value of LOVE IS THE LAW, LOVE UNDER WILL by
E.'.Q.'. is 279 or 3x93. Similarly "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the law" = 386 which is 2x193.>>>
Does 93 mean Love? Law? Will?
also, someone told me that 777 meant 'a wall' can you enlarge this
explanation ? again, I was told it was my name number.
SUN % MIDNIGHT = 666, this number is traditionally associated with the
Sun and with the "Solar Phallic" current of which "The Beast" is the
embodiment. There are important keys in this equivalence, relating to
Khephra, results magick and the IVth house of astrology, the enemy
naming ceremony and much else>>
This is an extrememly intriguing paragraph.
This 'Beast' who I thought I knew recently <smile>
how does that realte to a 'Solar Phallic'???
when you say the 4th house of astrology ( something I am familiar with) are
you referring to the IC? (the root) Where can I find this enemy naming
ceremony? since I was intuiting that was my destiny .......to name him.
I know I'm totally naive .......but I wouldn't have these numbers
unless........
who is HAD ? 11 is promenant in my charts too, of course my numerology has
nothing to do with magick,as far as I know. just when I began to study, 5
kept coming up over and over, and I wondered what it meant. later finding out
it is the
Golden Mean Number. It is my karma and projection numbers. the Eastern chart I
do
has a 9 placement chart.
Please I am an EXTREMELY SLOW reader, and learn better by mentor. If you are
willing to pass some info along, perhaps others reading will benefit from it
also.
Blessed Be,
XSamantha
Grrr
wrote:
>in the strict sense this is quite true on account of the cultural
>divide between Hebrew and English languages, yet there is no reason
>that this places one system (that which arises within a culture
>that apparently identifies these numbers and letters) in a more
>exalted position with respect to another (as that which doesn't
>or merely has to be seen this way; note that 'A' in English is
>often used as a 'top quality' or 'best performance' and that this
>can be translated quite easily, see my _Liber Gematria_:
Isn't the english word "at" derived from Aleph & Tau?
That's what I thought, anyway.
Also, talking of alphabets, a while ago I came across the alphabet of
daggers. I was thinking "there has to be some sort of pattern behind
the expression of this alphabet", so I ended up spending hours looking
for the slightest trace of a common theme, between the letters of this
alphabet, and their corresponding kabalistic value.
Can somebody please tell me, was I wasting my time?
richard sprigg
>
> In a message dated 12/16/98 10:47:32 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
> ja...@kiblah.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> > 93 all,
>
> Hello,
> I am a novice at this and am trying hard to grasp at least some of what
> your saying. I used your system to work out the number of a word, and was
> surprised to have it work out to 93 ( what you signed off with) can you
> explain the meaning of this number? it happens to be the total of my new
> wiccan name, I chose, without any knowledge.
>
> Many Thelemites are accustomed to writing "Love is the law, love under
> will" as three 93's. The value of LOVE IS THE LAW, LOVE UNDER WILL by
> E.'.Q.'. is 279 or 3x93. Similarly "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
> of the law" = 386 which is 2x193.>>>
>
> Does 93 mean Love? Law? Will?
By Greek Gematria Thelema (will) is 93, as is Agape (love).
>
> also, someone told me that 777 meant 'a wall' can you enlarge this
> explanation ? again, I was told it was my name number.
777 has several explanations. See 'sepher sephiroth' for some hebrew
gematria on the number.
>
> SUN % MIDNIGHT = 666, this number is traditionally associated with the
> Sun and with the "Solar Phallic" current of which "The Beast" is the
> embodiment. There are important keys in this equivalence, relating to
> Khephra, results magick and the IVth house of astrology, the enemy
> naming ceremony and much else>>
>
> This is an extrememly intriguing paragraph.
> This 'Beast' who I thought I knew recently <smile>
The beast is not a person, in the sense that joe smith is a person.
see "The vision and the Voice" for some explication.
> how does that realte to a 'Solar Phallic'???
Solar/Phallic: Macrocosm/Microcosm
> when you say the 4th house of astrology ( something I am familiar with) are
> you referring to the IC? (the root) Where can I find this enemy naming
> ceremony? since I was intuiting that was my destiny .......to name him.
> I know I'm totally naive .......but I wouldn't have these numbers
> unless........
>
> who is HAD ?
Had is the principle of going, the irreducible point in the cosmogony of
Thelema. The compliment is Nu, the infinite circumference.
Had is the heart of every star.
11 is promenant in my charts too
The number of Magick, according to Crowley.
, of course my numerology has
> nothing to do with magick,as far as I know. just when I began to study, 5
> kept coming up over and over,
See "the book of Thoth" for fives in general, and the TOL attributions.
Loosely speaking, five is a number of struggle: this is not unusual if
you are initiating change.
richard sprigg
> >divide between Hebrew and English languages, yet there is no reason
> >that this places one system (that which arises within a culture
> >that apparently identifies these numbers and letters) in a more
> >exalted position with respect to another (as that which doesn't
> >or merely has to be seen this way; note that 'A' in English is
> >often used as a 'top quality' or 'best performance' and that this
> >can be translated quite easily, see my _Liber Gematria_:
>
> That's what I thought, anyway.
>
> Also, talking of alphabets, a while ago I came across the alphabet of
> daggers. I was thinking "there has to be some sort of pattern behind
> the expression of this alphabet", so I ended up spending hours looking
> for the slightest trace of a common theme, between the letters of this
> alphabet, and their corresponding kabalistic value.
>
> Can somebody please tell me, was I wasting my time?
Not of necessity: sometimes it takes a while, though.
What gematria did you use, BTW?
Grrr
wrote:
>Grrr wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Dec 1998 16:35:03 -0500, ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >in the strict sense this is quite true on account of the cultural
>> >divide between Hebrew and English languages, yet there is no reason
>> >that this places one system (that which arises within a culture
>> >that apparently identifies these numbers and letters) in a more
>> >exalted position with respect to another (as that which doesn't
>> >or merely has to be seen this way; note that 'A' in English is
>> >often used as a 'top quality' or 'best performance' and that this
>> >can be translated quite easily, see my _Liber Gematria_:
>>
>> Isn't the english word "at" derived from Aleph & Tau?
>> That's what I thought, anyway.
>>
>> Also, talking of alphabets, a while ago I came across the alphabet of
>> daggers. I was thinking "there has to be some sort of pattern behind
>> the expression of this alphabet", so I ended up spending hours looking
>> for the slightest trace of a common theme, between the letters of this
>> alphabet, and their corresponding kabalistic value.
>>
>> Can somebody please tell me, was I wasting my time?
>
>Not of necessity: sometimes it takes a while, though.
>What gematria did you use, BTW?
Sorry. I didn't make that clear at all, did I?
Actually, I used the directional paths upon the Tree of life.
jake stratton-kent
>Hello,
93 Ms Magi,
>I am a novice at this
;-) so are we all,
> and am trying hard to grasp at least some of what
>your saying.
I apologise for any over specialised terminology,
> I used your system to work out the number of a word, and was
>surprised to have it work out to 93 ( what you signed off with) can you
>explain the meaning of this number?
the use of 93 in letters/emails is as an abbreviation: 93 at the
beginning is short for 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the
Law', 93 93/93 at the end for 'Love is the law, love under will'. 93 is
the value, in Greek gematria, of the word 'Thelema' meaning 'Will' and
of the word 'Agape' meaning 'Love'. The quoted phrases are a general
statement of 'the Law of Thelema', they are from 'The Book of the Law',
which was 'received' by Aleister Crowley in 1904, and which constitutes
the chief Holy Book of 'the Aeon of Horus' - or New Aeon.
Old style kabbalah generally involved interpretation of (Hebrew) Holy
Books, in this 'Aeon;' the Holy Books are in English, and so we are
accustomed to speaking of 'English Qaballa'.
> it happens to be the total of my new
>wiccan name, I chose, without any knowledge.
that is a remarkable 'coincidence',
>
>
> Many Thelemites are accustomed to writing "Love is the law, love under
>will" as three 93's. The value of LOVE IS THE LAW, LOVE UNDER WILL by
>E.'.Q.'. is 279 or 3x93. Similarly "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
>of the law" = 386 which is 2x193.>>>
>
>Does 93 mean Love? Law? Will?
see above,
>
>
>also, someone told me that 777 meant 'a wall' can you enlarge this
>explanation ?
I'm not familiar with this interpretation, in the Greek and Hebrew
number dictionaries I have no 'wall' is mentioned.
777 is generally held to be symbolic of the path of the 'Flaming Sword'
down the Tree of Life, since the combined values of the paths the sword
traces is 777.
> again, I was told it was my name number.
curious
>
>SUN % MIDNIGHT = 666, this number is traditionally associated with the
>Sun and with the "Solar Phallic" current of which "The Beast" is the
>embodiment. There are important keys in this equivalence, relating to
>Khephra, results magick and the IVth house of astrology, the enemy
>naming ceremony and much else>>
>
>This is an extrememly intriguing paragraph.
>This 'Beast' who I thought I knew recently <smile>
????
>how does that realte to a 'Solar Phallic'???
briefly:
666 is the value of the Square of the Sun, and of various Greek and
Hebrew Names connected with the solar force. This far predates Crowley
etc. Crowley associated the ideas Sun-Male-Phallus with each other, and
'Solar-Phallic' is a term he used fairly often. However Thelema is a
'broad church' and not all interpretations are 'Solar-Phallic'.
>when you say the 4th house of astrology ( something I am familiar with) are
>you referring to the IC? (the root)
yes, the position of the Sun at Midnight - in Horary Astrology this
position represents 'the End of the Matter'. In magick the fourth house
may represent 'the outcome' of a given operation.
> Where can I find this enemy naming
>ceremony?
a description of it appears in 'The Book of the Law', it is a powerful
ritual, and not to be undertaken lightly.
It is very easy to misunderstand the text, which must be read 'between
the lines' and requires a personal relationship with the text, rather
than an authorative interpretation by another. This is true of the Book
of the Law as a whole, as well as of this passage.
> since I was intuiting that was my destiny .......to name him.
???
>I know I'm totally naive
who isn't?
>.......but I wouldn't have these numbers
>unless........
>
>who is HAD ?
a central figure in the Book of the Law. I recommend you acquire a text
of this and discover whether it has any meaning for you.
> 11 is promenant in my charts too, of course my numerology has
>nothing to do with magick,as far as I know.
;-)
> just when I began to study, 5
>kept coming up over and over, and I wondered what it meant. later finding out
>it is the
>Golden Mean Number.
uh huh
>It is my karma and projection numbers.
> the Eastern chart I
>do
>has a 9 placement chart.
????
>
>Please I am an EXTREMELY SLOW reader, and learn better by mentor.
;-) avoid Jake 'Unreasonable, irresponsible, irrational' Stratton-Kent.
He has dodgy Pluto aspects like you wouldn't believe!
>If you are
>willing to pass some info along, perhaps others reading will benefit from it
>also.
true, also writing helps me organise my data, thankyou.
all the best.
93 93/93
JSK.
The Gnostic Alchemical Church of Typhon-Christ
http://members.aol.com/kiblah1/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/7770/
All events and institutions other than those
portrayed in this Journal are fictitious
richard sprigg
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 05:09:23 GMT, richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Grrr wrote:
> >>
> >> On 14 Dec 1998 16:35:03 -0500, ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >divide between Hebrew and English languages, yet there is no reason
> >> >that this places one system (that which arises within a culture
> >> >that apparently identifies these numbers and letters) in a more
> >> >exalted position with respect to another (as that which doesn't
> >> >or merely has to be seen this way; note that 'A' in English is
> >> >often used as a 'top quality' or 'best performance' and that this
> >> >can be translated quite easily, see my _Liber Gematria_:
> >>
> >> That's what I thought, anyway.
> >>
> >> Also, talking of alphabets, a while ago I came across the alphabet of
> >> daggers. I was thinking "there has to be some sort of pattern behind
> >> the expression of this alphabet", so I ended up spending hours looking
> >> for the slightest trace of a common theme, between the letters of this
> >> alphabet, and their corresponding kabalistic value.
> >>
> >> Can somebody please tell me, was I wasting my time?
> >
> >Not of necessity: sometimes it takes a while, though.
> >What gematria did you use, BTW?
>
> Sorry. I didn't make that clear at all, did I?
> Actually, I used the directional paths upon the Tree of life.
The dagger system I first encountered in 418, and have always taken it
straight to the enochian alphabet.
Converting from there to hebrew can be an interesting exercise, though I
have never bothered with a TOL attribution.
As I have noted in the past, I avoid gematria as much as possible: I
find it leads me into positive orgia of mysticism.
>
.Nisaba Merrieweather
jake stratton-kent <ja...@kiblah.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<tIlxnAAY...@kiblah.demon.co.uk>...
> the use of 93 in letters/emails is as an abbreviation: 93 at the
> beginning is short for 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the
> Law', 93 93/93 at the end for 'Love is the law, love under will'. 93 is
> the value, in Greek gematria, of the word 'Thelema' meaning 'Will' and
> of the word 'Agape' meaning 'Love'.
> > it happens to be the total of my new
> >wiccan name, I chose, without any knowledge.
>
> that is a remarkable 'coincidence',
<grin> In the 21v or 22 years that I've been magical, I've lived in three
separate regions. All my adult life (longer than my magical life) I have
maintained post office boxes as my "public" addresses, in each of these
regions in turn.
In all three cases, I held post office boxes in a single post office
regardless of any (or no) local house-moves.
In all three cases, my postal address has commenced: "P.O. Box 93..."!
And I'm not even Thelemic.
--
.Nisaba Merrieweather
nis...@tac.com.au
Jon Browne
<kt...@sympatico.ca> writes
>The dagger system I first encountered in 418, and have always taken it
>straight to the enochian alphabet.
You're older than I thought, then.
--
Jon
hara
Shawn Ogden reviews hara's points on the variability of QBL:
#> I think these are important points to make. We are in a sense,
#> dealing with a kind of ignorance that doesn't allow for the
#> intermixing of systems. I think this is the best course of action,
#> because you don't limit yourself to just one type or derivation.
american qabalah <american@(nospam)qabalah.com>:
# It is not my place to disallow anything. Do whatever you want, mix and
# match whatever you feel like, and best of luck to you.
ok, and when people have done that, they've mixed and matched NAMES
too, and applied some of those they came across which they were
generalizing to what they were doing. at that point the co-opted
names no longer applied to the original phenomenon which had
apparently inspired them.
you say 'do what you want', but then you go on to say that 'those
have *have* done what they wanted were wrong to use terms to
describe what they did that were previously applied to other
contexts. this is part and parcel of syncretic collage, and what
you appear to be arguing for below is a cementation of language,
a DISALLOWING of the usage of esoteric language for personal
purposes in the construction of novel or reflected systems.
# My point is that Qabalah is Jewish.
but you are making your point very badly, especially by ignoring
the fact that I have selected *spelling* to differentiate the
various QBLs and you have either overlooked or merely never
spoken to it. instead you merely repeat your assert that there
is no QBL but Jewish QBL and this has the name "Qabalah". you
do not describe why it is that Scholem (whom *both* of us have
cited as a reliable authority on the history of kabbalah) wrote
a book called _Kabbalah_ rather than _Qabalah_ as you have it.
if you want to be taken seriously then you ought to begin by
expanding on your assertion rather than perpetuating a shouting
match. the relevant issues involved here are what the possible
meanings for "qabalah" may be, whether spelling (in English, I
realize that transliteration generates variation here) can be a
useful taxonomical delineator, what qualities a system of thought
and symbol and practice (?) must have to be considered qabalah,
and whether there is anything that compares in any way to what
you are referring to when you say "Qabalah" which is Jewish.
# If you really want to understand Qabalah, study it as a
# facet of Judaism as a whole.
that's one take on it, yes, and you have asserted it several
times, but you haven't provided explanations for it, support
for it, relevant sources who agree with your perspective,
explanations for why Hermetics aren't sufficient sources (I
am not here asserting that they are, but want to know where
you think they are failing to generage a QBL golem).
# That's not ignorance, it's context. Ignorance is when one
# ignores something, like, say, context.
it is your assert that it is context. the challenge to you
is explain why it is a *necessary* context. granted that
most if not all that is today associated with QBL may be
found in Judaism, explain why there can't be universals or
transcontextualized QBLs created by Christians, Buddhists,
or Satanists. if you agree that there can, what do *you*
think that these should be called? if we have a variety of
spellings for QBLH, why not utilize them to differentiate
the most common derivations of this universal?
hara
"occult" (Tim) <american@(nospam)qabalah.com>:
#>#> ...stay away with the attempts of gentile europeans to enterpret
#>#> a thoroughly Jewish system. This includes Crowley and Eliphas
#>#> Levi.
here I enter into a more thorough QBL-philosophic investigation.
*IS* it 'a system'? is it without exception Jewish? what the limits
of QBL? is it possible that some contributions to it have been from
outside Jewish culture? my questions are about the absoluteness of
the claim and an analysis of the subject matter.
#># while the history of kabbalah (cf. Scholem for a decent overview) is
#># such that it does appear (esp. by this name) to have been a Jewish
#># mystical construct, the discussion of the numerolinguistic systems
#># of divination prevalent within Hermetic history which have been at
#># least in part *inspired* by this body of work (Luria et al) should
#># include those who contributed to it. this does indeed include such
#># individuals (however unreliable they may be at history, citation or
#># even composition) as Aleister Crowley and Eliphas Levi.
#># "occult" <american@(nospam)qabalah.com> writes:
#> Qabalah does not simply "appear" to be Jewish, it is unequivocally
#> Jewish.
ah but you ignored my main point in favor of qbling. by acknowledging
the general Jewish origin of kabbalah I made plain the limitations of
my knowledge as well that I understood it may be possible that all
that is associated with it may not originate in Judaism. the origin
of gematria (the original focus of this discussion prior to the
tangent which Tim/occult has inspired here) still appears to be
somewhat clouded, and I have seen no sourcing or citation to beef
up the extensiveness of his claims.
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com>:
# I am with Occult (Tim) on this one, [hara] In your attempt to be
# scholastically inclusive, you come across as outright dismissive of the
# actual history of the subject. The Kaballah *IS* Jewish in root, origin,
# core, and sum.
ROOT: I am unsure from where the roots of what has become the kabbalah
have been derived. in at least one case (gematria) there is
some scholarly dispute as to ROOTS; that neither you nor Tim
knew about this doesn't lead me to trust your absolute claims
about how completely the subject of kabbalah (does a prefacing
'the' before a capitalized 'Kabbalah' somehow pin down what we
should and should not include in the subject? I've always
been confused by this usage into thinking that 'the Kabbalah'
must be the title of some book or other -- which in fact it
sometimes is, but not those which are central to Jewish
mysticism).
I am functioning as a philosopher here, not an historian and
not as a Kabbalist, Jewish scholar, etc. the exhortations of
those who are categorical deserve challenge, however idiotic
they may seem, however basic they may appear to those who have
'superior knowledge'. I am not trying to be dismissive, I am
asking upon what basis are these categorical claims being made
and why is it that apparent exceptions or ambiguities in the
subject about which I am aware aren't being represented. the
failure to address these points leads me to doubt those who
make the categorical claims. I hope you see my logic.
ORIGIN: generally I am agreed as I said above. however, the question
must be asked: what constitutes 'a kabbalah'? where should
it be said to originate? is a specific type of QBL the only
type? are the first authors of a type of material the only
authors? if a style of mysticism is developed, does this
make the original authors the owners of that style, the most
authoritative, or does it make them the originators of THEIR
style and the authorities of their specific legacy? if there
are others who create something comparable, should they be
dismissed outright or should their work be compared without
bias as regards its qualities and characteristics? all I
hear from Tim/occult is dismissal. I don't think that I have
offered such categorical rejection in my text (even if I
leave room for doubt in an area which may be, by those who
have a greater knowledge of the subject matter, considered
'decided' -- it may be that these are not philosophers and
have decided without sufficient cause).
CORE: where what has come first to be called kabbalah is concerned
I strongly agree. that about which I was first asking and
which Tim/occult was disputing as relevant to the subject,
however, is a *different* core (an alternative, perhaps one
with universalist aims, perhaps those without sufficient
development to warrant comparison -- I don't know yet).
where does the core of a multi-faceted, globally-inspired
mystical corpus having origins of Jewish culture yet
expanding beyond it by some assessments truly reside? how
can these boundaries and identifications be made easily?
why make them? what are the consequences of failing to
make them?
SUM: I suspect that this is merely a tautological claim, and I
want to showcase this in the series of exchanges on the
subject of QBL and kabbalah here. if one defines kabbalah
as Jewish in sum, then of course by definition the kabbalah
is Jewish in sum. if one understands that kabbalah may
have manifestations comparable to it outside Jewish culture,
then the claim that it (kabbalah) is Jewish in sum is only
defensable if one dismisses these alternatives as not
kabbalah (and here I have called for the criteria for these
dismissals and received no response as yet, interestingly
enough) or that they *are* in fact Jewish. given the surprise
with which I have met how many beautiful and imaginative
things were created by Jews, I would not be entirely surprised
to learn that even Hermetic QBL is created by Jews, but I
have not been informed of this yet.
where does the 'sum' end and why? what qualities are they
which must be present in order to call something 'kabbalah'?
if Jewish context is one of these, then what happens if all
the other criteria except Jewish culture have been met? why
in this case should we not call the alternative a kabbalah
of a different sort? do Jews ever refer, speaking
universally (and perhaps loosely), to other systems of
mysticism as 'kabbalahs'? I wouldn't be surprised if this
were the case, since I've seen its like in the mystical
expressions of the cultures which I've studied.
# The fact that a couple of French and British Gentiles
# wrote about it in the 19th and early 20th centuries means
# nothing in terms of its history or utility....
here we agree. I think that European occultists have for
years been talking about "qabalah" as if it were something they
have understood and (re?)created, and I am wondering when what
they have created ought be considered something comparable
to the Jewish original rather than merely dismissed outright.
#># note that we are here dealing with the historical and Hermetic
#># cultures, not with the Jewish (or arguably many other cultural)
#># mystics from whom these Hermeticists have been inspired. it is
#># as rational to say that one should go to the sources for Jewish
#># kabbalah as it is to say go to the sources for Hermetic qabalah.
#># dismissing the more modern on account that it was inspired by an
#># older body of work is ridiculous, however.
#> You're undermining how important a proper understanding of Jewish
#> culture, philosophy, and theology is to a comprehension of the spirit
#> and nuances of Qabalah. This is an anti-intellectual approach.
I'm not undermining it, Hermeticists have been undermining it in the
creation of an alternative (Christian from what I can tell, but
mostly syncretic) for a long time. I'm merely asking when it ought
be taken seriously. you say never, I say why not?
'anti-intellectual' isn't in my Bible, sorry. if you can provide
some sort of rational definition for this term which describes how
I am proceeding with this inquiry, I'd be happy to see it and
respond. right now I take it as ad hominem and ignore it.
# What you suggest is not only anti-intellectual, it is also,
# presumeably unintentionally, an anti-Semitic approach....
I find no grounds for this assessment. neither have I sought
to undermine Jewish culture, nor slander or abuse any culture.
in fact I was trying to see if dismissing Hermetics (what I
would call 'anti-Hermetic' if I had more information and could
make a case for it) was warranted. again, until you can
explain why my continued and respectful questions qualify for
what I consider to be ridiculously unrelated characterizations
of my 'approach', I'll consider them ad hominem and ignore them.
# It appears to partake of the anti-Semitism of those who have
# appropriated Jewish mysticism for their own purposes, while
# stripping it of its cultural and theological basis in the
# process of rendering it a "module" in their role-playing game
# version of (Aryan, Gentile) "mage-hood."
when does the genericizing of a mystical or religious path
become 'disrespectful appropriation'? when the sources are
not admitted? this sourcing issue appears to be very common
without regard for any particular culture in Hermeticism. I
notice that many Hermetic authors don't bother to provide
references for their claims, but not all authors do. mystics
may be even more likely to omit this scholastic approach.
denigrating an alternative (rival?) culture's development of
a mystical corpus in apparent mimicry of that from which it
derives its impetus (Christianity appears to have arisen out
of Jewish culture unless I am misinformed) seems to me to be
very disrespectful. I have noticed that this is the attitude
of a number of "kabbalists", some of whom are Jewish. I am
asking why this is perpetuated and why it is justified. if
these questions are dismissed as themselves disrespectful, I
hope you can understand why I fail to take the objections to
my own creations in reflection of Hermetic qabalists seriously.
#># the writer to whom I am responding here is talking about Jewish
#># kabbalah, a body of diagrams and ideas which are associated with
#># a longstanding tradition of writings and mystics. these are
#># indeed identifiable, and writers like Scholem have performed
#># a helpful service by analyzing their basics for us to pursue if
#># we have further interest. one may also find social connections
#># online to mystical lineages (of variable quality no doubt) that
#># presume to afford an instruction on kabbalah in its modern form.
notice how I am sourcing the mystical heritage, how I am referring
the interested to valuable information sources on the kabbalah.
I don't think this is a sign of "anti-Semitism" and I dislike
intensely being associated with such things.
#> You mentioned Scholem as a source. I trust you are referring to
#> Gershom Scholem, whose book, "Kabbalah", on page 203 of the Meridian
#> paperback version, says the following:
#>
#> "...the activities of French and English occultists _contributed
#> nothing_ and only served to create considerable confusion between the
#> teachings of the Kabbalah and their own _totally unrelated
#> inventions_...To this category of _supreme charlatanism_ belong the
#> many and widely read books of Eliphas Levi...Papus...and ... Aleister
#> Crowley...all of whom had an _infinitesimal knowledge of Kabbalah_
#> that did not prevent them from drawing freely on their imaginations
#> instead." (emphasis mine)
#>
#> So your own sources are contradicting you.
as I have said elsewhere, Scholem is a good source on kabbalah.
I didn't say that he was a good source on qabalah (which I am
saying is a different animal, inspired by kabbalah).
# That quote from Scholem is central to this debate.
ok, if it is central, then I will address it more directly. Scholem
here describes "inventions" which he says are "totally unrelated"
to the teachings of kabbalah. and yet these individuals called
their inventions "qabalah", so it was at least related by name.
they attempted to utilized numerological systems such as gematria
and notariqon and so it was related by virtue of numerolinguistics.
they took as their hierophant and qabalistic dogmatist a man by
the name of Luria (Isaac?), whose writings on the kabbalah are
apparently very influential in Jewish mysticism, so it was related
inasmuch as their understanding of Luria was in any way proximate.
I agree with the criticism that Hermetic qabalah was in its origins
a skeleton reflection of the Jewish originals, but this is hardly
a criticism which can be used to dismiss outright whatever was made
from them. Christianity could be dismissed in its origins for
the same reasons (as could many progenetic cultural developments),
but this would be unfair. The same could be said about Buddhism
(that it should be dismissed because it reflected the original
Hindu cosmology and retained many of the old Indian cosmological
presuppositions like karma).
# ...I think, [hara], that you should consider it very seriously
# before going on further about the "modern" Kaballah.
what do you think my questions here *are*? they are serious
evaluations and questions about what should and should not be
considered 'seriously'. when I hear simplistic dismissals
of that which I know to have at least a hundred years of
history (Hermetic qabalah, however blotchy or unbelieveable),
I begin to wonder what Tim/occult and you are trying to
achieve aside from a SQUELCHING of the philosophic inquiry.
instead I would prefer that which I have come to associate
with Jewish intellectualism: a pleasant suspension of that
certainty which is so important to so many for their own
reasons and an imaginative dissection of the philosophic
bases of the discussion. if this can't be accomplished
(and I've met many kabbalists and qabalists who could not
ever enter into this kind of discussion, which I used to
find disturbing and hilarious, but am somewhat saddened),
then that's fine. but please don't smear my character.
# ...you seem to be saying that as far as you are concerned,
# only the Kaballah of 19th century hegemonic Gentile European
# hermeticists was "modern" and as if what you dismissively call
# "the Jewish Kaballah" were a mere thing of the past.
I used the phrase 'Jewish QBL' and maybe 'Jewish kabbalah' to
set into stark evidence the categories I was delineating for
Tim/occult and which I described very plainly early on. these
he and you have decided to ignore in favor of castigating me.
I *equate* kabbalah with Jewish QBL and only use the descriptive
for those who begin the tired assertions that the only *kind*
of QBL is Jewish (which is tediously dogmatic without some sort
of followup bases of support).
# Furtermore, as Scholem points out, these late 19th century hermetic
# folks... (Eliphas Levi, Papus, et al) and ... (Crowley,
# MacGrethor-Mathers et al) were about as well-versed in Judaism
# as they were in Hinduism, Sufiism, and Taoism. That is to say --
# not [at] all.
I think this is an overstatement and I want to call you on it.
Crowley referenced the I Ching and Tao Teh Ching (Legge) and
Patanjali in his explications of Taoist and Yogic philosophy
and mysticism. 'Not at all' means he was one of those
orientalists without even a remote connection to the subject.
your extemism, like Tim/occult's leads me to wonder who well
you have covered the subject of kabbalah if you make such
ill-founded claims about Hermetics. thus I ask additional
questions to see upon what you are basing your claims.
# Their interpretations of the Kaballah (and their flagrant
# attempt to extricate it from Judaism) were not the product
# of advanced scholarship but of cultural warfare in which
# the peoples who had been conquered by European imperialism
# were made to yield up not only their natural resouces and
# national treasures, but also their religious beliefs and
# their systems of mysticism.
NOW we're getting into the real issues. granted that many
of these Hermeticists tried to pass off what they were
writing about as if they were scholars, and that they did
base some of what they knew upon referring (though not
sourcing of course) to scholarly texts of their day.
the question becomes: when they set out to catholicize the
mysticism of all religions into a syncretic collage that I
have identified as Hermeticism (this syncretism and
eclecticism appears to be very common and has inspired the
Christian and Neopagan communities profoundly), when did
they go "too far"? because they failed to source their
inspiration? because they co-opted the language for their
own purposes (the religious of many cultures do this, as
evidenced by the terms 'messiah'/'kristos' in the develop-
ment of Christianity and 'atman'/'anatman' in the origin
of Buddhism)?
when does this become religious rivalry for the purposes
of human commonwealth (granted based on some charlatanry)
rather than nefarious culture-stealing? who owns cultures?
what are the proper limitations of absorption and collage?
# The leaders of what you call "modern lineages" of Kaballastic
# scholarship were hegemonically inclined European (Christian)
# charlatans who earned their renown and income by popularizing
# snippets of captured cultural beliefs, which they understood
# poorly if at all. They had a vested interest in promoting
# the mysticism of other cultures as "exotic," "spooky," and
# "weird." To attract followers, they grossly misinterpreted
# and "improved" upon the religio-magical systems of these
# diverse conquered cultures, claiming the discovery of a
# unified theory of cross-cultural esotericism. Crowley's
# pathetically laughable attempt to "correlate" the Chinese
# I Ching with the Jewish Kaballah is my favourite case in point.
if it is your favourite case in point, then please make this
case for us. dredge up his 'pathetically laughable attempt'
for us and explain why this supports you. I don't remember
that it does. I suspect that he was merely fabricating a
catholic catch-all, and that it was done with some logic and
reference to both mystical systems. how would you have done
it differently, if you have a superior understanding than did
Crowley did?
I agree that there were indeed orientalists who did what you
are saying, but I'm unsure that your description really
applies to Crowley, since he appears to have been using the
academic resources available to him at the time and was
interested in fabricating a universal system of mystical
endeavor clearly stated as such in his writings (cf. Liber 31).
#># whether this person intends such a thing or not, many
#># occultists have been bitten by QBL-fundamentalism in which they
#># assert that nothing other than Jewish kabbalah is the 'real
#># thing'. this continues an unresolved dispute between Jewish
#># and Hermetic (the latter often Christian in character at its
#># greatest extreme, often syncretic at its best) mystics as regards
#># what is the 'real' QBL (a term I use to designate the whole of
#># kabbalistic/Jewish, qabalistic/Hermetic/Christian, and
#># cabalistic/New Age/popular types, with no necessary cultural
#># limitation of which I am aware).
# Is it "fundamentalism" to tell the truth about history?
history isn't that clear-cut, I think. we base our analysis of
what constitutes 'real things' on the criteria we are using to
form that analysis. without stating the criteria, we merely
espouse a fundamentalism. it is THIS which is anti-
intellectual, as it bases itself not on reasoned hypotheses,
but on the strength of an assertion.
Tim/occult and you appear to me to be fallaciously arguing with
straw men here. you cannot tell any 'truth about history'
by virtue of taxonomical rigification around the term 'qabalah'.
you're merely formalizing a dogmatism. you have not explained
why the conventions I outlined above are insufficient, how they
fail to take into account the varieties of things which describe
themselves as 'qabalah' or 'kabbalah' or 'cabala' but without so
much of the confusion and dogmatism which contestants favor.
# You yourself leave room for doubt about the sincerity of
# your syncretism when you begin a post by stating that the
# Kaballah "appears to be" Jewish. What is so repulsive to
# you about it actually BEING Jewish?
here's my text verbatim:
#># while the history of kabbalah (cf. Scholem for a decent
#># overview) is such that it does appear (esp. by this name)
#># to have been a Jewish mystical construct,
nothing repulsive, I'm merely being careful in my assertions
until I have more data. I have heard a variety of very
exclusive and categorical claims surrounding this subject,
and I'm being cautious so as not to make any errors or be
persuaded by fundamentalists. I hope you see the value of
my approach and how I have indicated sources (Scholem)
who are obviously reputable in this subject area. I have
not heard the vast continuum of criticism surrounding his
work that I remember being voiced by kabbalists and
qabalists, however, and this gives me pause. I like to
be cautious and skeptical and I hope to encourage like-
minded circumspection. if I understate a point based on
my ignorance, please forgive my admitted caution without
projecting antagonistic motives.
# Why call a person who insists that it IS Jewish a
#"fundamentalist"?
because of the lack of evidence offered in support of the claim.
because of the clear evidence of nonJewish sources on subjects
approximating to this terminology. because of the repetition of
the claim without addressing the underlying presumptions that
are challenged in response. basically, because of the manner in
which this insistence is being made (hegemonic terminological
control, dominating intellectual positions, etc.).
# ...why do you waffle and waver over whether the Kaballah is --
# or merely "aopears to be" -- Jewish?
it is not as simple as this, as I hope I have explained. I was
talking about the vast corpus of text which affiliates or is in
some way related to the term "kabbalah". not all of it is
Jewish and not all of it is claimed by Jewish mystics. to
group it all together and all it of Jewish origin is surely a
mistake. to dismiss all alternatives which come close to an
approximation or comparable mystical endeavor as 'not qabalah'
also seems extreme. I think "(esp. by this term)" in my text
was sufficiently plain.
# Don't you see how disrespectful and anti-Semitic that sounds?
I don't fear sounding disrespectful or anti-Semitic. if I backed
down on my questions merely because they may give the semblance
of anti-anything or disrespect, I would not be true to my
philosophic spirit, cowed by association with untoward accusation.
# And why do you insist that anyone who castigates Crowley,
# Papus, Eliphas Levi et al as poor sources for study of
# the subject is a "fundamentalist"?
I don't, I just think that it ought to be done responsibly,
rather than from overstatement and dogmatism.
# I am all in favour of One World Anarchy and Lord knows i
# appropriate the bright and shiny things of any culture
# that interests me. An ethnic Jew, i last night decorated
# my beautiful Yule Tree with you and got so drunk
# on Kahlua that you took me upstairs and lovingly tucked
# me in bed where i could gaze upon my altar, at the center
# of which is a bronze statue of Siva. I enjoy the benfits
# of syncretism, but i don't claim that Yule "appears to be"
# Northern European or that Siva "appears to be" Indian. I
# KNOW they are....
I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject and would
only ask for references so that I may become so knowledgeable
as you. thanks. I've had many people tell me how much they
"KNOW" and this didn't convince me that they were right.
# This debate on Kaballah is not about "fundamentalism" --
# it is about standing up for the cultural roots of a system
# of mystical thought that you are fully entitled to study
# and enjoy and contribute to....
these questions are a part of my study. please forebear them
rather than meeting them with bluster.
# but will *NOT* be permitted to claim as your own
# (Gentile) cultural heritage.
I have but a pittance of heritage and don't much care about
what I have. however, I *do* have a logical mind, and I
would like to bring it to bear on this subject, thanks.
#>#> Second, learn the Hebrew alphabet. Gematria is intended for use
#>#> with the hebrew alphabet,
#>#
#># this is less and less the case as the term 'gematria' is applied
#># for usage in any linguistic context which allows a defined set
#># of alphabetics.
# Here i jump ship and side with [hara] -- Gematria is a Jewish
# system of thought that can be applied to any alphabet....
once it is applied to another system of thought and language,
once another corpus concretizes around it, though it be called
by the same name (is it? there appear to be rough spelling
differentiations as I have contended), should it still be
called Jewish? or should it be differentiated from the
original? if Jews got gematria from elsewhere should it be
called 'isopsephia' rather than 'gematria'? why? did the
Jews who co-opted this (if indeed it was co-opted, I have not
heard a definitive response on it yet) make the same mistake
as Crowley and Levi et al? when shall we break with resistance
to this social co-option and call it a new tradition using
different meanings for the same words (compare 'Jesus Christ')?
#># I therefore contend that Hebrew-centrism where gematria is
#># concerned is a mere fundamentalism which need not be regarded
#># seriously aside from those who are tradition-bound or who find
#># the history of the practice to be important to their studies.
#># one might as well start with one's *own* language (this is my
#># own preference, as this is what Jews and others did ;>) and
#># proceed from there.
#># the correlation between numbers
#># and mythology (mystical or no) is not unique to the Jewish, and
#># qabalistic progressions
#True... but the "meaning" of the correlation will vary by culture.
I agree stongly here and do not hear that you are contradicting me.
# ...there is no "plain old western numerology." It derives from
# Jewish gemntria.
which appears to derive from previous sources. it is a kind of
global web, it seems. who has ownership rights? it was Tim's/
occult's overgeneralizations which set me to asking more
questions. you have corrected him as regards this subject. I
don't think that there are as many black and white answers on
this subject as is presumed. so I ask questions.
#># there is no reason to perpetuate a stark divide between the
#># numerological systems devised and promulgated by expositors
#># such as Agrippa and other europeans and qabalah. it is only
#># a classist and elitist 'hi/lo magic' mentality which breeds
#># it, from what I can see, and I aim to forge them securely
#># together into a modern version which draws from all sides.
# Well, hooray for your syncretist playlist -- just don't forget
# who wrote the danged tunes when you are typesetting the
# label-copy, okay?
it is done in religions all the time. that don't make it right,
but it does entitle us to ask whether those what sung the song
were the originals, even if they are *presumed* to have been so.
.
#cat yronwode, stationary Jew
hara, the philosophical inquirer :*
american qabalah
>too, and applied some of those they came across which they were
>generalizing to what they were doing. at that point the co-opted
>names no longer applied to the original phenomenon which had
>apparently inspired them.
If you are referring to my "quibbling" about your incorrect use of the root
word "QBL" ("to receive") as a noun in place of a correct term - like
"Qabalah" or "Kabbalah" - which is accepted by scholars, I was making a
point.
The point is that if you don't even know enough about the field of study
(and culture) from which you're borrowing to get the name right, then you
can't be trusted on more important opinions. It's not a small point, it
indicates a dismal lack of knowledge of the subject. I think that's a big
point. Don't you?
You are welcome to use "QBL" to denote your own invented system which
borrows from Qabalah. Don't let my opinions about it stop you. God bless
you for it. Or Satan, or whomever you want. Just don't confuse your system
with the original. I assure you, few others will.
But I must say, it's tantamount to renaming witchcraft
"To-Cast-A-Spell-Craft". Honestly, it's dumb. Not just any kind of dumb,
either. We're talking the drool-cup-attached-to-your-chin kind of dumb.
Yours,
Tim
High Priest,
American Society of Tocastaspellcraft
=============
hara wrote in message <75oqnc$m...@bolt.sonic.net>...
american qabalah
>
>but you are making your point very badly
Qabalah is Jewish. Three words. Live with it. There isn't any other way
of saying it. Even if it were possible for me to have made a three-word
point badly, the point itself is still completely true. Why are you so
opposed to the concept of a Jewish Qabalah? Do the Jews frighten you that
much?
Go ahead, say it with me:
"Qabalah is Jewish."
It will be good for you.
># If you really want to understand Qabalah, study it as a
># facet of Judaism as a whole.
>
>that's one take on it, yes, , and you have asserted it several
>times, but you haven't provided explanations for it, support
>for it, relevant sources who agree with your perspective,
No, it's not "one take on it". It's a fundamental rule of scholarly
investigation specifically applied to the field in question. It's a
universally accepted principle of study. Surely you don't need explanations
and support for something so basic. If you do, might I recommend taking a
grade-school class that requires its students to write a research paper. To
say that it's "one take on it" is to say that the scientific method is "one
take" on how to conduct proper scientific research.
And here again, for the third time, you have completely missed my point and
read opinions into it which aren't there. And, as is your modus operandi,
you have embarked on yet more convoluted, verbiage-soaked tangents in an
apparent attempt to contradict opinions you falsely believe me to hold.
Exactly whom are you arguing with at this point?
I have neither disagreed nor agreed with practically any of the opinions you
have shared.
In fact, frankly, I couldn't care less about them. They're your own
inventions and, as such, you are entitled to them without criticism. Only
when you exalt your inventions over the facts of history do you open
yourself up to criticism.
Go ahead, say it with me:
"Qabalah is Jewish."
The only explanation I can find for how you could have totally missed what I
am saying - over and over again - and read so much into it that simply
wasn't there is that (1) you're either extroardinarily dense, or (2) you are
purposely misreading me - over and over and over again. Either way, it's a
waste of my time.
Now here's a novel idea - since neither one of us seems to be convincing the
other of a god-damned thing, why don't we move on to something more
productive for both of us.
Fondly,
Tim
================================
american qabalah
><< A L W H S D O Z K V G R C
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
>
> N Y J U F Q B M X I T E P
> 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >>
And your last name?
american qabalah
93 93/93 at the end for 'Love is the law, love under will'. 93 is
the value, in Greek gematria, of the word 'Thelema' meaning 'Will' and
of the word 'Agape' meaning 'Love'.
<<
I wonder what the gematria for the Hebrew words for "love" and "will" are.
And if they are different than 93, or different from each other, how does
one reconcile the differences? What about the gematria for the Arabic words
for the same? And, furthermore, do these differences, if they exist,
reflect negatively on Crowleyan magick?
That is one of the reservations I have about numerology. First, there are
so many systems out there that, depending on which one you use, you can
basically make any word or phrase say just about anything you want.
Shit, I have read about probably a dozen different world leaders whose names
have been pulled this way and that way to add up to 666. Howdy Doody is
probably the antichrist according to some book out there.
You know, you've probably seen it before:
"John Travolta"%("cocaine"+"Malibu Barbie")
-------------------------------------------------------- = 666
("ukelele"^"gefilte") / cosine("filet o' fish")
So what have we accomplished? It's a game of fours. All it tells me is
that the guy running the numbers has too much free time.
And if you persist on believing that, even though the numbers don't add up
the same in different systems, they magically signify the same thing, it
seems to me that you would have to construct a complex system of
correspondence.
I mean hell, for the amount of brainpower it takes to make my name signify
the same thing in all the various English, Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic
gematrias, I might was well work out a grand unified theory of physics. One
could say that the differences in each language's gematria are signifying a
different aspect of me as a complex physical and spiritual being - but in my
opinion that's a cop-out.
Please comment. I'm not trashing numerology, it's an honest problem I face
when looking at it. Forgive my attempt at a humorous jab at it - I am of
the belief that truth can stand up to a beating.
In other words, if the gods can't take a joke then we are all fucked.
Tim
american qabalah
>to say where it exactly it all began and what is truly culturely unique.
So
>I just work with it as being Mesopotamian/Mediterrean and call it a day.
I agree on the "calling it a day" part.
However, regardless of its roots - because few belief systems spring up
ex-nihilo - it is in essence and historically a Jewish system of mysticism.
Please don't read anything into that other than what I said. I'm not
exalting Jews over anyone else, and I'm not saying that you are not free to
syncretize to your heart's content.
On the count of three, let's all syncretize our watches. Ready, set...
Cheers,
Tim
octinomos
% However, regardless of its roots - because few belief systems spring up
% ex-nihilo - it is in essence and historically a Jewish system of mysticism.
and judaism in in essence and historically nothing
but a rewrite of egyptian mysticism.
because judaism springs up ex-nihilo, let's not
forget that it's really an Egyptian system.
_____________________________________________________________________
dennes for valid addr: remove the sign and divide by cxi
I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods
of men. Curse them! Curse them! Curse them! With my Hawkąs head
I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross. -LL iii.49-51
octinomos
% "John Travolta"%("cocaine"+"Malibu Barbie")
% -------------------------------------------------------- = 666
% ("ukelele"^"gefilte") / cosine("filet o' fish")
prove it.
Bill Heidrick
<american@(no)qab(spam)alah.com> wrote:
>Go ahead, say it with me:
>
>"Qabalah is Jewish."
>
>It will be good for you.
So Kabbalah is Jewish? Cabala, Qabalah and variations are Jewish on
the mother's side? Is that such a problem?
>Go ahead, say it with me:
>
>"Qabalah is Jewish."
By orthodox standards, having a Jewish mother, ok.
For that matter, Christianity is Jewish in origin. On the basis of
Abraham and influence on the Prophet, Islam is Jewish. These are
influences, properly deserving of more memory and respect than they
get. It's not a reason to be upset either way. Should we avoid the
use of fire and the wheel because the ethinc group that invented them
theoretically has a proprietory interest if you go to extremes with
such a notion? Should we avoid painting because nobody has a rock
with a permission on it from the caves in Spain?
A gift to the culture of the world need not be taken back just because
somebody in the 50th or 100th generation gets a little possessive.
93 93/93
Bill
catherine yronwode
> nagasiva wrote:
> > american qabalah wrote:
> Qabalah is Jewish. Three words. Live with it. There isn't any other
> way of saying it. Even if it were possible for me to have made a
> three-word point badly, the point itself is still completely true.
> Why are you so opposed to the concept of a Jewish Qabalah? Do the
> Jews frighten you that much?
I have had this kind of conflict with tyagi myself. He is not racist. I,
his chosen partner, am Jewish. But he seems unwilling to form opinions
about Judaism or the history of the Jews or Jewish mysticism. I once
found myself having to work far too hard (in my opinion) to convince him
(after three days of reading from "The Cult of Jung" by Noll) that C. G.
Jung was specifically and directly anti-Semitic, that Joseph Campbell
was anti-Semitic, that the Volkish neo-Pagan pseudo-Mithraic movement in
early 20th century Europe was anti-Semitic, that Switzerland condoned
the wholesale theft of Jewish bank accounts during WW II, and that
Volkswagen et al used Jews as slave labour during WW II.
> ># If you really want to understand Qabalah, study it as a
> ># facet of Judaism as a whole.
> >
> >that's one take on it, yes, , and you have asserted it several
> >times, but you haven't provided explanations for it, support
> >for it, relevant sources who agree with your perspective,
>
> No, it's not "one take on it". It's a fundamental rule of scholarly
> investigation specifically applied to the field in question. It's a
> universally accepted principle of study. Surely you don't need
> explanations and support for something so basic. If you do, might I
> recommend taking a grade-school class that requires its students to
> write a research paper. To say that it's "one take on it" is to say
> that the scientific method is "one take" on how to conduct proper
> scientific research.
I agree with you, Tim. The problem seems to be that tyagi is engaged in
fence-sitting to the point of apparent obtuseness. I think that at this
point, his suport for the French and British "hermetic" movement of the
late 19th and early 20th centuries has simply blinded him to the facts:
He wants the same validity granted to these "hermetic" reworkings of
kaballah as is given to the Jewish lineage -- and then he wants to
excuse himself from study of Jewish kaballah, Jewish culture, and Jewish
mysticism. He partakes of discussions on a Sufi (Islamic) e-list, posts
regularly about Hindu yoga, Satantism, Christianity, and the O.T.O. --
but he cannot seem to take time to study the relevenace of Jewish
thought to several of the traditions he follows.
Bill Heidrick said:
> Christianity is Jewish in origin. On the basis of
> Abraham and influence on the Prophet, Islam is Jewish. These are
> influences, properly deserving of more memory and respect than they
> get.
Right on.
But Bill goes on to say:
> It's not a reason to be upset either way. Should we avoid the
> use of fire and the wheel because the ethinc group that invented
> them theoretically has a proprietory interest if you go to extremes
> with such a notion? Should we avoid painting because nobody has a
> rock with a permission on it from the caves in Spain?
Bill seems to have the same problem that tyagi has -- he sees a Jew or
two asserting the primacy of the Jewish tradition in regard to hermetic
French and British kaballism and he assumes that the Jews have gone to
or may go to "extremes" and/or are being "proprietary" and requiring
"permission" for use of their ideas.
Not so.
This same problem periodically tears apart bit.listserve.blues-l --
black folks post that the blues are African-American in root (true),
follwed by aggreived white guys saying that these "proprietary" notions
are "extreme."
<metaphor>
Yes, Eric Clapton plays the blues...but he did not invent the genre.
Even when he drops his rock'n'roll speediness and electric
instrumentation and does an "unplugged" album, he is still an
interpreter, not an African-American blues musician of the early 20th
centiry.
As far as i can see, you are asking tyagi to say "the blues are
African-American" but he won't do it. He replies by asking, "What do you
mean by the blues?" and then tries to convinve us that if he spells it
"blues" he is referring to Robert Johnson and if he spells it "bluez" he
is referring to Eric Clapton and and if he spells it "bluex" he is
referring to Led Zeppelin -- and since Led Zeppelin and Eric Clapton are
not African-American, then there is no proof that the blues originated
with African-Americans
</metaphor>
> The only explanation I can find for how you could have totally
> missed what I am saying - over and over again - and read so much
> into it that simply wasn't there is that (1) you're either
> extroardinarily dense,
He's not dense. I think he is studying the inane popularizations of
Jewish mystical thought and the pathetic Pseudo-Egyptian "Orientalisms"
of the late Hermetic movement to the extent that he has been hindered
from discovering the pleasures of true Judaism and true Egyptology.
He's like a friend of mine who heard me singing "I Bid You Goodnight" by
Joseph Spence and the Pindar Family and blurted out, "Hey! JERRY sang
that! That's a Dead song!" When i pulled out a tape of the original, she
could not get her mind around it. All she could say was, "WOW! This is
just like JERRY'S version!"
<metaphor>
Jews are not asking Bill or tyagi to get "permission" to study the
kaballah (or to spell it any particular way) -- but i for one am asking
them to admit that Jerry didn't write that song. He got it off a 1961
Nonesuch compilation called "Real Music of the Bahamas."
Maybe if they can concede that point, they can understand what you and i
meant when we said that to sing it in a convincing manner it is
necessary to pay attention to the history of African culture and music
in the diaspora -- and not to study only the recordings of a
heroin-addicted folkie from Palo Alto.
</metaphor>
Tyagi wrote:
> >granted that
> >most if not all that is today associated with QBL may be
> >found in Judaism, explain why there can't be universals or
> >transcontextualized QBLs created by Christians, Buddhists,
> >or Satanists.
<metaphor>
The blues cannot be "created" by Irish harpists, Balinese Gamelon
players, or British guitar virtuosos. It already WAS created -- by
African-American musicians in the vicinity of Tutwiller, Mississippi,
circa 1900-1903. The assignment of creators' credits is a matter of
respect as well as history. (That's spelled r-e-s-p-e-c-t. Find out what
it means to me.)
If Irish harpists et al want to have a go at playing the blues, no one
is going to stop them. They don't need the "pemission" of
African-Americans. But the name "blues" *means* something -- and most
folks know this. For instance, when Creole (African-American/French)
cajuns from Louisiana play the Mississippi guitar blues on the
accordian, THEY give it another name -- "zydeco" -- so why can't the
Irish harpists call their stuff "Celtic 12-Bar" instead of trying to
convince us that their tunes are "transcontextualized blues created by
Irish harpists."
</metaphor>
> >if you agree that there can, what do *you*
> >think that these should be called? if we have a variety of
> >spellings for QBLH, why not utilize them to differentiate
> >the most common derivations of this universal?
Because nobody can be bothered to keep track of these variant spellings
but you.
catherine yronwode,
who loves tyagi dearly and sends many kisses with this post
Lucky Mojo Curio Co: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
The Lucky W Amulet Archive: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
Sacred Sex: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html
The Sacred Landscape: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
Freemasonry for Women: http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
check out news:alt.lucky.w for discussions on folk magic and luck
Bill Heidrick
On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 23:50:29 -0800, catherine yronwode
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>But Bill goes on to say:
>
>> It's not a reason to be upset either way. Should we avoid the
>> use of fire and the wheel because the ethinc group that invented
>> them theoretically has a proprietory interest if you go to extremes
>> with such a notion? Should we avoid painting because nobody has a
>> rock with a permission on it from the caves in Spain?
>
>Bill seems to have the same problem that tyagi has -- he sees a Jew or
>two asserting the primacy of the Jewish tradition in regard to hermetic
>French and British kaballism and he assumes that the Jews have gone to
>or may go to "extremes" and/or are being "proprietary" and requiring
>"permission" for use of their ideas.
Every point of view highlights some things and obscures others.
Kabbalah came to view outside Judiasm primarily during secondary
diaspora from Spain -- 15th century in the main and smaller earlier
occasions. At that point, notions of what was then called Kabbalah
(in contrast to Sod, Raz, Chokmah Nestora, Merkabah and other names)
started to enter non-Jewish culture. Since that time it has bred many
children, often named simlarly and sometimes simply appropriated to
other approaches, e.g. Elizabethan sermons often made use of gematria.
The earlier forms clearly borrowed from many cultures. The very word
"Gematria" is Greek, not Hebrew. The Epistole of Barnabus used Greek
Gematria in the 2nd century e.v.(a.d.) to expound a portion of the
Septuagint to early Christians. Aspects of Merkabah can also be seen
in Ancient Egypt and Babalonia. The Alexandrine influence seems to be
present in early Jewish anticedents to Kabbalah, bringing with it
other notions from a variety of cultures.
There are active, Jewish schools of Kabbalah, in the sense of fully
Jewish and focused in a particular sub group within the larger Jewish
community.
It's a wealth, not an exclusive possession of any one ethnic group or
tradition. Some few, including one of the good people posting here,
view it as the latter. I don't, but I do consider that Kabbalah is
properly Jewish in nature and choose to use other spellings to
indicate less traditional applications.
>Jews are not asking Bill or tyagi to get "permission" to study the
>kaballah (or to spell it any particular way) -- but i for one am asking
>them to admit that Jerry didn't write that song. He got it off a 1961
>Nonesuch compilation called "Real Music of the Bahamas."
Nobody known wrote that song, taking the metaphor to Kabbalah.
Judiasm concentrated it, focused it and shaired it. It's not like
Jack Kennedy ripping of Kalil Gibran on the line: "Ask not what your
country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". It's
more like hearing and then applying to what you yourself know.
93 93/93
Bill
octinomos
% >
% >but you are making your point very badly
%
% Qabalah is Jewish.
"The Jewish glyphs -- and even their language, the Hebrew -- are not
original. They are borrowed from the Egyptians, from whom Moses got
his Wisdom; from the Coptic, the probable kinsman, if not parent of
the old Phoenician and from the Hyskos, their (alleged) ancestors,
as Josephus shows in his 'Against Apion,' I., 25."
--Blavatsky "The Secret Doctrine" Vol. I, p. 115, footnote.
ed note: live with it.
Kevin M. Tuck
<much good stuff snipped>
>>Yes, Eric Clapton plays the blues...but he did not invent the genre. Even
when he drops his rock'n'roll speediness and electric instrumentation and
does an "unplugged" album, he is still an interpreter, not an
African-American blues musician of the early 20th centiry.... As far as i
can see, you are asking tyagi to say "the blues are African-American" but he
won't do it. He replies by asking, "What do you mean by the blues?" and then
tries to convinve us that if he spells it
"blues" he is referring to Robert Johnson and if he spells it "bluez" he is
referring to Eric Clapton and and if he spells it "bluex" he is referring to
Led Zeppelin -- and since Led Zeppelin and Eric Clapton are not
African-American, then there is no proof that the blues originated with
African-Americans.<<
...and...
>>The blues cannot be "created" by Irish harpists, Balinese Gamelon players,
or British guitar virtuosos. It already WAS created -- by African-American
musicians in the vicinity of Tutwiller, Mississippi, circa 1900-1903. The
assignment of creators' credits is a matter of respect as well as history.
(That's spelled r-e-s-p-e-c-t. Find out what it means to me.)<<
Congratulations on a well written and thoughtful post, Catherine. I enjoyed
it very much. One thing comes to mind in reading it, however. It seems to me
that based on your logic, Co-Masonry is not "real" Freemasonry, but rather
an interpretation of Masonry. It would therefore be considered completely
irregular, even by your own standards.
I am not necessarily advocating this postion, but it does seem to follow
from what you have written above.
On the other hand, if we grant that while one group may invent a particular
practice (whether musical or magical), this does not necessarily mean that
all others who follow in their footsteps are less genuine than the original
tradition. Eric Clapton has made significant contributions to music,
Co-Masonry has made significant contributions to Freemasonry and
Hermeticism, and (the point of this post) Hermetic Qabalah has made
significant contributions to The Path of Return. Each is valid and no less
so because of their place in time or space.
Seasons greetings and happy new year.
In L.V.X.,
Kevin
Bill Heidrick
On 27 Dec 1998 19:00:37 GMT, heid...@well.com (Bill Heidrick) wrote:
No I didn't. Some joker is playing with redirection again.
>BARRY BOUWSMA ... other gibberish not by me.
93 93/93
Bill
Bill Heidrick
On 27 Dec 1998 22:37:50 GMT, heid...@well.com (Bill Heidrick) wrote:
>GREGORY ANDRUK IS A FORGING ... Nope, I didn't write this one either.
Apparently some difficient person has discovered how to re-direct his
email by fiddling with the headers.
93 93/93
Bill
Polar Bear
: 93,
: 93 93/93
: Bill
Hi Bill,
Yeah, he's done the same to me. Thankfully he was dumb enough to do it
to two different people. But he can't even do it right. He's got
my "organization" wrong, and he missed out my .signature.
Doofus.
God Bless,
Colin.
--
Believers will be given the power to perform miracles:
They will drive out demons in my name; they will speak in strange tongues;
if they pick up snakes or drink any poison, they will not be harmed;
they will place their hands on sick people, and these will get well.
-- Mark 16:17-18
Polar Bear
: 93,
: On 27 Dec 1998 22:37:50 GMT, heid...@well.com (Bill Heidrick) wrote:
:>GREGORY ANDRUK IS A FORGING ... Nope, I didn't write this one either.
: Apparently some difficient person has discovered how to re-direct his
: email by fiddling with the headers.
Well Bill, here's the headers from your own posting:
From heid...@well.com Tue Dec 29 11:12:58 1998
From: heid...@well.com (Bill Heidrick)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,soc.culture.jewish,alt.gothic,news.software.nntp,microsoft.public.fr.windows98,rec.pyrotechnics,alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick
Subject: Re: "QBL" as an invention distinct from Qabalah - was "QBL and its Character"
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:33:59 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth Networks News
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <368806b3...@news.well.com>
References: <19981215015138....@send103.yahoomail.com> <754teb$81e$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <75oqnc$m...@bolt.sonic.net> <75q09e$4eh$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <crMkAQbSW.SvgykY...@news.well.com>
Reply-To: Bill Heidrick <heid...@well.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: korea-176.ppp.hooked.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Path: id4.nus.edu.sg!ocean.singnet.com.sg!dahlia.singnet.com.sg!mango.singnet.com.sg!newsfeed.attap.net!newsvr.cyberway.com.sg!news1.kddnet.ad.jp!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!europa.clark.net!128.32.206.55!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news2.best.com!news1.best.com!noos.hooked.net!206.80.6.11.MISMATCH!its.hooked.net!not-for-mail
Xref: id4.nus.edu.sg news.admin.net-abuse.email:223988 soc.culture.jewish:142303 alt.gothic:194055 news.software.nntp:16920 rec.pyrotechnics:45543 alt.magick:65151 alt.magick.tyagi:3681 alt.pagan.magick:5992
And here's the headers from the forger:
From heid...@well.com Tue Dec 29 11:06:42 1998
Message-ID: <crMkAQbSW.SvgykY...@news.well.com>
Supersedes: <36869d4...@news.well.com>
Subject: Re: "QBL" as an invention distinct from Qabalah - was "QBL and its Character"
From: heid...@well.com (Bill Heidrick)
Approved: mr...@concentic.net
References: <19981215015138....@send103.yahoomail.com> <754teb$81e$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <75oqnc$m...@bolt.sonic.net> <75q09e$4eh$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: 27 Dec 1998 22:37:50 GMT
X-Server-Date: 27 Dec 1998 22:37:52 GMT
Organization: http://dpinc.ml.org
X-No-Archive: mr...@concentic.net
Authenticated-User: mr...@concentric.net
X-Trace: dpinc.ml.org (mr...@concentric.net)
Baby-Ticklegoth: Mixy
NAMBLA: Proud Member
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,soc.culture.jewish,alt.gothic,news.software.nntp,microsoft.public.fr.windows98,rec.pyrotechnics,alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick
NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.new-york-41-42rs.ny.dial-access.att.net [12.79.10.109]
Lines: 24
Path: id4.nus.edu.sg!ocean.singnet.com.sg!dahlia.singnet.com.sg!mango.singnet.com.sg!newsfeed.attap.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!typhoon.stlnet.com!cyclone.i1.net!newsfeed.enteract.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!193.174.75.110!news-was.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-ber1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news.uni-weimar.de!news.booms-edv.de!news-out2.newsnerds.com!uppssnewspub03.moswest.msn.net!uppssnewspub04.moswest.msn.net!forums.poweroft.com!tsu3.intowson.com!k12.towson.md.us!newsborg.towson.edu!netcom.ca!fer
ret.ocunix.on.ca!iswest.net!fluffy.meow.org!newsfeed.concentric.net!mrsam!ml.org!dpinc.ml.org!well.com!heidrick
Xref: id4.nus.edu.sg news.admin.net-abuse.email:223925 soc.culture.jewish:142226 alt.gothic:194002 news.software.nntp:16871 rec.pyrotechnics:45537 alt.magick:65146 alt.magick.tyagi:3680 alt.pagan.magick:5982
If I'm reading this correctly, our forger is "mr...@concentric.net"
Oh.. and he's apparently a proud member of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
Hmmm..
hara
shalom alechem, my kin.
"american qabalah" <american@(no)qab(spam)alah.com>:
# One can certainly modify or invent a system of correspondence between
# traditional Gematria and our alphabet, but since western numerology
# has done such a thorough job of this already, then if one is
# analyzing English words for numerological significance, why not use
# western numerology?
I find it interesting to bring to bear as many different kinds of
numerolinguistics as I can think of and to consider what types
would seem logically necessary and/or elegantly pleasing.
also, if one wishes to elaborate on one's favorite cosmology and
metaphysical concepts and visions within this context (as,
for example, Kenneth Grant has done with regard to his very
peculiar collage of mystical reflections), then it can be helpful
to consider carefully systems whereby this has actually been done
successfully before (has it ever been done under the name
'qabalah', however unsubstantiatable or ridiculously suggested?).
# If you don't, you will have to reinvent the wheel of a system
# of correspondence between a numerological system intended for
# Hebrew words, written with Hebrew letters using a non-digital
# number system, and our alphabet.
my queries about Hebrew numerolinguistic systems were in part an
attempt to understand their dynamics, what might give them
added significance to those who use and have been using them.
I think re-inventing the wheel is sometimes a very valuable
project, as it makes it plain the same types of problems which
must have faced those who first generated or accepted the
systems which have become standards. I've been able to see
more clearly at times, when starting from a similar intellectual
position as those in the past, what motivated the selection of
certain ideas or geometric constructs. creating my own tarot
deck, for example, has proven to be a very instructive task.
and of course I think we agree that getting to know the people
who made historical selections, coming to know their lifestyle,
history and tastes is of great importance also.
# ...it's easier to rely on the work that's already been done.
it is not always easier for me to do so, but I'm beginning to
think that this may be somewhat peculiar to me. I usually find
that I learn a system best by posing questions to it -- sometimes
these questions are taken as disrespectful of the system or the
people who created it, which is not in any way my intent.
# ...The main point of my initial post was intended not to
# discourage the intermingling of esoteric systems for one's
# personal benefit, but rather to encourage respect for the
# heritage of the culture that has given the world such an
# amazing theosophical and mystical system of beliefs as
# Qabalah - and encourage a scholarly and organic approach
# to the study of the occult in general, a field of study
# which can become very convoluted and unscientific.
I think we agree very much in this, yes.
# ...Crowley, Eliphas Levi, etc. I was pointing out that their
# work regarding the subject of Qabalah is not taken seriously
# by at least one scholar, who, incidentally, is the man
# considered by many to be the world's leading authority on the
# subject.
a very important point, I agree. if I were to take the opposite
side of the issue for the moment, since you have phrased it this
way and appear to be familiar with these individuals at least in
part, I would ask you these questions (and I consider them to be
the relative comparables to those I asked previously):
of what 'work' do you speak? what should and should
not be called "qabalistic" which may be attributed
to turn of the century writers and mystics? I gather
from recent readings (and review) that Mathers passed
on a poorly translated work that contains many problems
and from others (BHeidrick I think) I have heard that
he may even have falsely assumed the guise of transla-
tor at times. Crowley's text seems at times to almost
equate 'qabalah' with gematria (something which Scholem
says of a few Spanish kabbalists if memory serves). by
what criteria should we say that these people named
above have done *any* real "work regarding the subject
of qabalah" rather than mouthings, charlatanry, etc.?
# I personally enjoy the writings of Crowley, Levi, Regardie,
# and Mathers -
do you think that any of their writings (Regardie goes on and on
about it in some of his texts) should be called 'qabalistic'?
are you aware that any of these people had realistic connections
with Jews who were familiar with the longstanding oral and
mystical tradition?
# whether or not they were charlatans (and I will not opine on that
# subject),
would you say why you will not venture your opinion? I have many
times exclaimed about or seriously suggested the possibility of
the charlatanry of all manner of individual here, though I don't
expect to be followed into the flames. :>
# they are at the very least immensely entertaining and quite clever. I
# regard Crowley's essay on demonology in my preface to the Goetia as a
# cornerstone of modern western occult philosophy.
wonderful, that gives us an important ground from which to proceed with
more substance. I'll post in response to this elsewhere with some
questions on the essay after having reviewed it, if you are amenable.
thanks for your patience and peace be with you,
hara
shalom alechem, my kin.
ja...@kiblah.demon.co.uk (jake stratton-kent):
# Old style kabbalah generally involved interpretation of (Hebrew) Holy
# Books, in this 'Aeon;' the Holy Books are in English, and so we are
# accustomed to speaking of 'English Qaballa'.
here I put in on the other side of the issue, since nobody else is
helping me out with the more controversial (hehehe, I'll try to
understand this one way or another, and I know JSK can take it :>):
but why call it 'English Qaballa'? why use the word 'Qaballa' at
all rather than coming up with a different name for it which will
avoid confusing cultural mystical identifications?
# 666 is the value of the Square of the Sun, and of various Greek and
# Hebrew Names connected with the solar force. This far predates Crowley
# etc. Crowley associated the ideas Sun-Male-Phallus with each other, and
# 'Solar-Phallic' is a term he used fairly often. However Thelema is a
# 'broad church' and not all interpretations are 'Solar-Phallic'.
isn't it true that Crowley's esoteric preferences tended to be the
solar-phallic, however? and doesn't this coincide rather pointedly
with the German (cf. Ordo Templi Orientis, whose secret documents
contain solar-phallic emphases and whose origin is German) mystical
ideas of race purity, aryan white supremacy, and a general attempt
to wipe out or appropriate everything Jewish? was Crowley one of
these people? does he have a biggotted and, according to Eisler's
terminology, a 'Dominator' agenda?
if any of this is true, shouldn't we be careful about what to
accept from this author, shouldnt' his work be considered strongly
suspect and heavily biased in favor of gross evils? is it
possible that everything Crowley touched is subtlely neonazi
in character and his secret societies are nefarious mind-
numbing desecrators of human compassion and clear reason?
333
hara
shalom alechem, my kin.
"american qabalah" <american@(no)qab(spam)alah.com> re kabbalah:
# However, regardless of its roots - because few belief systems spring
# up ex-nihilo - it is in essence and historically a Jewish system of
# mysticism.
agreed.
# I'm not exalting Jews over anyone else, and I'm not saying that
# you are not free to syncretize to your heart's content.
what is the most responsible and respectful way to syncretize
from world mystical systems and cultures? how can it done while
still playing with the ideologies, value-systems, religious
beliefs and internal psychospiritual models and still retain an
attitude of honor for that from which we might draw? what names
shall we provide to that which we create which simultaneously
calls attention to the fact that what we've made is a novelty
and that we have drawn on the important work of others whose
traditions gave specific identifiers?
peace be with you,
hara
catherine yronwode
> ja...@kiblah.demon.co.uk (jake stratton-kent):
>
> # Old style kabbalah generally involved interpretation of (Hebrew)
> # Holy Books, in this 'Aeon;' the Holy Books are in English, and so
> # we are accustomed to speaking of 'English Qaballa'.
Whom do you mean by "we"? Surely not "we" Jews!
> but why call it 'English Qaballa'? why use the word 'Qaballa' at
> all rather than coming up with a different name for it which will
> avoid confusing cultural mystical identifications?
I've been suggesting a new term for it, too. Like rock'n'roll...it
ain't really the country blues. I leave it to the Thelemites to devise
that name. We Jews will retain the use of the "old style" monicker.
> # 666 is the value of the Square of the Sun, and of various Greek
> # and Hebrew Names connected with the solar force. This far predates
> # Crowley etc. Crowley associated the ideas Sun-Male-Phallus with
> # each other, and 'Solar-Phallic' is a term he used fairly often.
> # However Thelema is a 'broad church' and not all interpretations
> # are 'Solar-Phallic'.
>
> isn't it true that Crowley's esoteric preferences tended to be the
> solar-phallic, however? and doesn't this coincide rather pointedly
> with the German (cf. Ordo Templi Orientis, whose secret documents
> contain solar-phallic emphases and whose origin is German) mystical
> ideas of race purity, aryan white supremacy, and a general attempt
> to wipe out or appropriate everything Jewish?
See also the genesis of Carl Gustav Jung's theory of the "collective
unconscious" (for reference, i recommend highly "The Cult of Jung," by
Noll). Jung based his theory of "archetypes" and "the collective
unconscious" on the case of a patient in an insane asylum whom he dubbed
"The Solar Phallus Man." This fellow claimed to have visions of the sun
with a phallus swinging from it. From this, Jung made two false claims
(see Noll for documentation):
1) That the Solar Phallus Man was his own patient.
(He was not; he was seen and treated by a psychiatric colleague of
Jung's who was a drug addict and who later committed suicide.)
2) That the man's visions were identical with ancient Mithraic
symbolism which the patient, having been confined, could not have known,
and which Jung himself only found years later in the first translation
of a Mithraic ritesinto German (and English).
(The Mithraic rite in question had been translated into both German
and English prior to the patient's incarceration -- and not just in some
dusty scholarly journal, either -- but by G. R. S. Meade, in magazines
and in a popular edition readily available to anyone in the
Theosophical-Rosicrucian occult sub-culture of the time. Jung in fact
owned a copy of one of the several editions of this Mithraic rite.
The point Noll makes here is two-fold: first, Jung was certainly a
plagiarist, a falsifier, and a liar -- but his promotion of "Aryan"
Mithraic "solar phallicism" marks him as a racist, which is a greater
evil. Noll effectively connects Jung's interest in the "solar phallic
cult" of Aryanism with a Volkish determination to remove "semitic"
(Jewish) religious practices and attitudes from the culture of the
"Germanic" (Aryan) people, of whom he considered himself a member. Jung
was not alone in this -- the entire Volkish Movement was filled with
such hate agendas, as can be seen by the Nazis, who drew much from Jung
and other Volkish theorists.
> was Crowley one of these people?
Noll does indeed draw links between Crowley's O. T. O. and the Volkish
Movement. Read the book.
> does he have a bigoted and,
> according to Eisler's terminology, a 'Dominator' agenda?
I cannot comment on this. I have been told by some of his admirers that
Crowley was above such petty "agenda" making... but i think the REAL
answer could only be found by learning how Crowley treated Jews, and
spoke of Jews in real life, and how respectfully he dealt with Jewish
mysticism.
> if any of this is true, shouldn't we be careful about what to
> accept from this author,
I think many of us are already "careful" in that regard.
> shouldn't his work be considered strongly
> suspect and heavily biased in favor of gross evils?
"Suspect"? Perhaps. Gullibly influenced by the racist agenda of the
Volkish Movement? Perhaps. No one has asserted a link between Crowley
and organized anti-semitism. I have provided a taste of where such
documentation can be found in Noll's book, but that book was about JUNG,
not Crowley; it is up to Thelemites or their antagonists (of which i am
neither) to perform the thorough research needed to see whether Crowley
was a dabbler in syncretism who gobbled Jung's "Solar Phallus Man" whole
or whether he was also, like Jung, an avowed anti-semite.
> possible that everything Crowley touched is subtlely neonazi
> in character
I think you mean "proto-Nazi." Neo-Nazi refers to the period after the
fall of the Third Reich, at which time Crowley was near-dead or
completely dead.
> and his secret societies are nefarious mind-
> numbing desecrators of human compassion and clear reason?
The use of over-the-top descriptors like "everything Crowley touched"
and "neferious mind-numbing descrators" indicates to me that you are
trying for levity. I personally don't see much humour in this subject.
Sorry.
I also don't think you want anyone to seriously comment on these loaded
questions, even if they manage to strip them of their pseudo-humourous
wording.
However, these questions, in less cutesy language, might run something
like this (and i shall append my relies):
"Was Crowley an anti-semite? Did he have a bigoted agenda?"
The answers are, to me, unknown at present. The hints in Noll's books
are merely leads. Someone needs to follow them up.
"If he was an anti-semite, shouldn't we be careful about what to accept
from this author?"
The "if" is unproven.
"If he was an anti-semite, shouldn't the accuracy of his scholarly work
be considered strongly suspect and potentially heavily biased in favor
of anti-semitism or pro-'Aryanism'?"
The "if" is unproven, but the lack of accuracy in his scholarly work is
already apparent. Whether this is due to anti-semitism per se or simply
another egregious instance of his era's widespead inndulgence in
"orientalism" and hegemonic appropriation of the cultures of conquered
peoples, i have not the slightest clue.
"If he was an anti-semite, is it possible that some of what he wrote is
subtlely racist in character and his secret societies are tools designed
to decrease tolerance among the races and religions of humanity and to
decrease human compassion?"
The "if" is unproven, and the proof would have to be in the pudding.
Thus i would rephrase the question further: "Are Thelemites notably
anti-Jewish?" So far, i think the ones i have met in usenet have had a
less-than-expected understanding of what constitutes Jewish religious
mysticism and some of them have also indicated that think they can
appropriate Jewish mysticism for themselves because we "old style" Jews
aren't using it anymore. This is not "evil" per se, merely naive
arrogance to the point of annoyance. Thus, if Crowley had set about to
encode some sort of "agenda" in his secret societies, it would be, as
best i can determine from the membership of those societies whom i have
met in usenet, an agenda of promoting ignorance and incuriousity,
whereby followers would be left in the dark about the sources Crowley
plagiarized and parodied and about the people who still use these
materials in their own religious mystical practices.
catherine yronwode
Lucky Mojo Curio Co: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
The Lucky W Amulet Archive: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
Sacred Sex: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html
The Sacred Landscape: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
Freemasonry for Women: http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
Comics Warehouse: http://www.luckymojo.com/comicswarehouse.html
catherine yronwode
> american qabalah wrote:
> > Qabalah is Jewish.
> "The Jewish glyphs -- and even their language, the Hebrew -- are not
> original. They are borrowed from the Egyptians, from whom Moses got
> his Wisdom; from the Coptic, the probable kinsman, if not parent of
> the old Phoenician and from the Hyskos, their (alleged) ancestors,
> as Josephus shows in his 'Against Apion,' I., 25."
>
> --Blavatsky "The Secret Doctrine" Vol. I, p. 115, footnote.
Blavatsky was a racist and a fraud. Read "Madame Blavatsky's Babboon"
for a thorough dissection of her falsity, charlatanry, racism, and lack
of usefulness as a factual source for anyone interested in the history
of any person or any subject, including her own life.
> ed note: live with it.
Octinomos is not the "editor" of anything. He is simply a troll, or, as
we say outside of usenet, a shit-stirrer.
catherine yronwode
>
> "american qabalah" <american@(no)qab(spam)alah.com> re kabbalah:
> # However, regardless of its roots - because few belief systems
> # spring up ex-nihilo - it is in essence and historically a Jewish
> # system of mysticism.
>
> agreed.
Amen!
> # I'm not exalting Jews over anyone else, and I'm not saying that
> # you are not free to syncretize to your heart's content.
>
> what is the most responsible and respectful way to syncretize
> from world mystical systems and cultures?
I think that the most responsible way is to retain all references to
original writers and to make very clear all cultural-ethnic ascriptions.
It's kinda like retaining the creator credits on a piece of music --
Eric Clapton credited Skip James for the composition of "I'm So Glad"
and won points with a lot of blues fans. Led Zeppelin credited every
blues song they ripped off to THEMSELVES -- and deserve every nasty
remark any blues fan has ever flung their way.
> how can it done while
> still playing with the ideologies, value-systems, religious
> beliefs and internal psychospiritual models and still retain an
> attitude of honor for that from which we might draw?
One key concept here is your term "playing." Can one "play" with
another's culture or religion while showing it "honour"? My
cognitive-dissonance-o-meter is tingling.
> what names
> shall we provide to that which we create which simultaneously
> calls attention to the fact that what we've made is a novelty
> and that we have drawn on the important work of others whose
> traditions gave specific identifiers?
Appending the term "neo" -- as in "neo-tantra" -- is useful to avoid
confusion between a indigenous system and a syncretic one.
"Neo-kaballism" sounds good to me to describe the Golden Dawn style
kaballism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Sar Draconis
>
> (octinomos) wrote:
>
> > american qabalah wrote:
>
> > > Qabalah is Jewish.
>
> > "The Jewish glyphs -- and even their language, the Hebrew -- are not
> > original. They are borrowed from the Egyptians, from whom Moses got
> > his Wisdom; from the Coptic, the probable kinsman, if not parent of
> > the old Phoenician and from the Hyskos, their (alleged) ancestors,
> > as Josephus shows in his 'Against Apion,' I., 25."
> >
> > --Blavatsky "The Secret Doctrine" Vol. I, p. 115, footnote.
>
> Blavatsky was a racist and a fraud. Read "Madame Blavatsky's Babboon"
> for a thorough dissection of her falsity, charlatanry, racism, and lack
> of usefulness as a factual source for anyone interested in the history
> of any person or any subject, including her own life.
>
> > ed note: live with it.
Hmn. A surprising attitude for a lady with theosophical connections.
But then the TS always was a society of freethinkers, and no one
specified what you had to think of Madame Blavatsky when you associated.
>
> Octinomos is not the "editor" of anything. He is simply a troll, or, as
> we say outside of usenet, a shit-stirrer.
>
Taammuz
been influenced by the Thelemic movement. Apparently his already warped
views incorporated the prophecies of the third chapter of Liber Al to mean
himself and his warped agenda. It was his own folly to believe that the
catastrophic transformation of humanity going on in this century would be
overseen and manipulated by one nation or tribe. Crowley's own manifesto
Liber Oz is all the spiritual license the allies would have needed to go
and put down the unruly minority of Europeans worried about their pedigree.
It also seems careful to note that alot of the senior officials of the
O.T.O. then and now are Jews and when push came to shove Hitler sent all of
those he could to the death camps too.
Furthermore, I think that Thelemic ideals of separitism and equality are a
matter of choice that is, to sanctify and protect the right to choose one's
mate, home, creed or law, God, and if one so chooses, race. Yet, the right
to choose conversly to any of these is also held to be sacrosanct. By our
school of ethics these rights are to be militantly protected, which if I
understand it, is the principal task of the O.T.O.
To understand Qabalah is to understand that the codification is NOT of
human making. It is a misunderstanding to presume that it was an invented
cipher for one to communicate some deliberately encoded material. Qabalah
is a medium of human/divine communication (the word comes from the Hebrew
root QBL which means 'to receive') the Solar-Phallic references you
referred to were discovered by Rabbis long ago when in meditation they
added up those words and behold!, they had the same value: 666. These
codifications are arranged and transmitted by a higher intelligence to
humans who are, as such, initiates of this Art.
So if we didn't call it Qabalah, I dont know what we'd call it...maybe an
exotic form of prayer?
Admiddettly, old Uncle Al seems to have been something of a misogynist and
a bigot, and his homosexual orientations have never been a mystery to
anyone who's read his poetry.However according to dogma he had the right to
be an elitist asshole if he wanted to and to face the consequences of such
actions. It is important to understand that he did not write The Book of
the Law, but RECIEVED it and in it, the holy cipher of the English Qabalah
was discovered . I agree that much of the literal magickal insructions in
Crowley's writing's, followed by rote, could be very damaging. However I do
maintain the conviction that the Class A documents were the work of a
higher intelligence than Crowley's and defy any criticism of them based on
his human personality, nor will I submit to any interpretational debate as
to religious or philosophical meaning held in them. Crowley's obvious
ignorance of English Qabalah stands as the best evidence that he did not
author these books. The English Qabalah has unveiled a wealth of Goddess
oriented Thelemic doctrine. I'm sure if Crowley encountered some of today's
scarlet women hed have peed his pants. Like all people, Crowley built his
worldview out of his upbringing and his environment, but that does not
represent the totality of Thelema, as his heirs, it is our responsibility
to go even further to face the truth of our selves and our ethics.
"Compassion is the vice of kings:"
"veil not your vices in virtuous words: these vices are my service; ye do
well, &
I will reward you here and hereafter."
Taammuz-93
richard sprigg
>
> I've been suggesting a new term for it, too. Like rock'n'roll...it
> ain't really the country blues. I leave it to the Thelemites to devise
> that name. We Jews will retain the use of the "old style" monicker.
Liber AL instructed Crowley to devise Englsh *Gematria*, not Kabbalah.
The original MSS being in English, this is only common sense. That
gematria would refer to Thelemic works in English.
>
> > # 666 is the value of the Square of the Sun, and of various Greek
> > # and Hebrew Names connected with the solar force. This far predates
> > # Crowley etc. Crowley associated the ideas Sun-Male-Phallus with
> > # each other, and 'Solar-Phallic' is a term he used fairly often.
> > # However Thelema is a 'broad church' and not all interpretations
> > # are 'Solar-Phallic'.
> >
> > isn't it true that Crowley's esoteric preferences tended to be the
> > solar-phallic, however? and doesn't this coincide rather pointedly
> > with the German (cf. Ordo Templi Orientis, whose secret documents
> > contain solar-phallic emphases and whose origin is German) mystical
> > ideas of race purity, aryan white supremacy, and a general attempt
> > to wipe out or appropriate everything Jewish?
(snip of excellent discussion of Jung)
>
> The point Noll makes here is two-fold: first, Jung was certainly a
> plagiarist, a falsifier, and a liar -- but his promotion of "Aryan"
> Mithraic "solar phallicism" marks him as a racist, which is a greater
> evil. Noll effectively connects Jung's interest in the "solar phallic
> cult" of Aryanism with a Volkish determination to remove "semitic"
> (Jewish) religious practices and attitudes from the culture of the
> "Germanic" (Aryan) people, of whom he considered himself a member. Jung
> was not alone in this -- the entire Volkish Movement was filled with
> such hate agendas, as can be seen by the Nazis, who drew much from Jung and other Volkish theorists.
That Jung was anti-semitic is not surprising: Those sentiments were
widespread across europe from East to West, particularly in the
nationalist movements.
It should be noted that the US was also not immune: The original reason
for making movies in Hollywood was the blatantly anti-semitic
establishment in the east.
>
> > was Crowley one of these people?
>
> Noll does indeed draw links between Crowley's O. T. O. and the Volkish
> Movement. Read the book.
>
> > does he have a bigoted and,
> > according to Eisler's terminology, a 'Dominator' agenda?
>
> I cannot comment on this. I have been told by some of his admirers that
> Crowley was above such petty "agenda" making... but i think the REAL
> answer could only be found by learning how Crowley treated Jews, and
> spoke of Jews in real life, and how respectfully he dealt with Jewish
> mysticism.
He had a number of Jewish assistants, and always wrote of Jewish
mysticism with great respect. His strongest words of censure are largely
reserved for the protestant christians of England.
>
> > if any of this is true, shouldn't we be careful about what to
> > accept from this author,
>
> I think many of us are already "careful" in that regard.
Excellent advice: Uncle Al himself notes that uncritical acceptance of
any idea is foolish. (Not that he did not on occasion fall into the
trap)
>
> > shouldn't his work be considered strongly
> > suspect and heavily biased in favor of gross evils?
>
> "Suspect"? Perhaps. Gullibly influenced by the racist agenda of the
> Volkish Movement? Perhaps. No one has asserted a link between Crowley
> and organized anti-semitism. I have provided a taste of where such
> documentation can be found in Noll's book, but that book was about JUNG,
> not Crowley; it is up to Thelemites or their antagonists (of which i am
> neither) to perform the thorough research needed to see whether Crowley
> was a dabbler in syncretism who gobbled Jung's "Solar Phallus Man" whole
> or whether he was also, like Jung, an avowed anti-semite.
I have seen no evidence of direct or implied anti-semetism in his
writings: given his tendency to call a spade a fucking shovel this would
suggest to me that he was not anti-semetic, even during a time when such
an attitude would have been acceptable.
From a thelemic POV, I cannot see how anti-semetism can be congruent
with Liber AL.
As to swallowing some things whole, Crowley did at times do this,
notably with the writings of Burton.
>
> > possible that everything Crowley touched is subtlely neonazi
> > in character
>
> I think you mean "proto-Nazi." Neo-Nazi refers to the period after the
> fall of the Third Reich, at which time Crowley was near-dead or
> completely dead.
Much is made of Fuller's influence on Hitler, and his blitzkrieg
strategies, but he had broken with Crowley some years before.
>
> > and his secret societies are nefarious mind-
> > numbing desecrators of human compassion and clear reason?
>
> The use of over-the-top descriptors like "everything Crowley touched"
> and "neferious mind-numbing descrators" indicates to me that you are
> trying for levity. I personally don't see much humour in this subject.
> Sorry.
>
> I also don't think you want anyone to seriously comment on these loaded
> questions, even if they manage to strip them of their pseudo-humourous
> wording.
>
> However, these questions, in less cutesy language, might run something
> like this (and i shall append my relies):
>
> "Was Crowley an anti-semite? Did he have a bigoted agenda?"
>
> The answers are, to me, unknown at present. The hints in Noll's books
> are merely leads. Someone needs to follow them up.
Crowley saw himself as a prophet: all prophets have a bigoted agenda,
though not, I do not believe in the sense that you mean.
>
> "If he was an anti-semite, shouldn't we be careful about what to accept
> from this author?"
>
> The "if" is unproven.
But the question is valid: the reader should beware of accepting
anything from *any* author, From Abra Melin to Zachariah.
>
> "If he was an anti-semite, shouldn't the accuracy of his scholarly work
> be considered strongly suspect and potentially heavily biased in favor
> of anti-semitism or pro-'Aryanism'?"
>
> The "if" is unproven, but the lack of accuracy in his scholarly work is
> already apparent. Whether this is due to anti-semitism per se or simply
> another egregious instance of his era's widespead inndulgence in
> "orientalism" and hegemonic appropriation of the cultures of conquered
> peoples, i have not the slightest clue.
Most of his work related to dead cultures (Egypt, Greece).
It is worth remembering that in the 1920's the Hebrew language was
guttering: most of european jewry spoke Yiddish or the vernacular.
It is only in the past 50-odd years that the language has become strong
and vibrant again. He went to the sources that he could obtain most
readily. As a goyim, he would have been denied many sources.
>
> "If he was an anti-semite, is it possible that some of what he wrote is
> subtlely racist in character and his secret societies are tools designed
> to decrease tolerance among the races and religions of humanity and to
> decrease human compassion?"
>
> The "if" is unproven, and the proof would have to be in the pudding.
> Thus i would rephrase the question further: "Are Thelemites notably
> anti-Jewish?" So far, i think the ones i have met in usenet have had a
> less-than-expected understanding of what constitutes Jewish religious
> mysticism
Why would you expect different?
The *average* thelemite is not dissimilar to the average anything else.
You clearly have little understanding of Thelema, yet I do not consider
you an anglophobe.
The Intolerant thelemite is less a thelemite than one who follows their
will along another path, be it judaism or any other.
and some of them have also indicated that think they can
> appropriate Jewish mysticism for themselves because we "old style" Jews
> aren't using it anymore. This is not "evil" per se, merely naive
> arrogance to the point of annoyance.
I assume you refer to the Kabbalah itself, not gematria.
The TOL is a useful symbol, rather like the circle or the cross.
I find young magicians get too attatched to all symbols: They will
learn, or not.
Thus, if Crowley had set about to
> encode some sort of "agenda" in his secret societies, it would be, as
> best i can determine from the membership of those societies whom i have
> met in usenet, an agenda of promoting ignorance and incuriousity,
There are many Crowleyites: Ignoring AC's advice to avoid being too
partial to any one author, they take his every word as gospel.
The Thelemite has only one focus, to find his or her true will and
follow it. Knowledge of the self is a reflection of knowledge of the
external universe. To find and follow the true will entails a broad
understanding of many things.
> whereby followers would be left in the dark about the sources Crowley
> plagiarized and parodied
You clearly feel threatened by AC using all that he was given or found,
and in most cases acknowledged, and seem to contrast this with the
"purity" of Judaism.
I suggest that not all of the holy books of Judaism are so pure, and
that many were assembled by plagiarization, assimilation and theft.
This in no way invalidates the purity of the message.
Judaism has survived as a living faith by a process of slow and constant
change.
The threat to Judaism is more likely to come from the older and larger
jewish heresies, Christianity and Islam.
richard sprigg
>
> (octinomos) wrote:
>
> > american qabalah wrote:
>
> > > Qabalah is Jewish.
>
> > "The Jewish glyphs -- and even their language, the Hebrew -- are not
> > original. They are borrowed from the Egyptians, from whom Moses got
> > his Wisdom; from the Coptic, the probable kinsman, if not parent of
> > the old Phoenician and from the Hyskos, their (alleged) ancestors,
> > as Josephus shows in his 'Against Apion,' I., 25."
> >
> > --Blavatsky "The Secret Doctrine" Vol. I, p. 115, footnote.
>
> Blavatsky was a racist and a fraud. Read "Madame Blavatsky's Babboon"
> for a thorough dissection of her falsity, charlatanry, racism, and lack
> of usefulness as a factual source for anyone interested in the history
> of any person or any subject, including her own life.
Possibly. I have been trying to read one of her books for the past
thirty years, and I still go to sleep inside the first 15 pages.
If you have actually waded through one you have my respect for
unwavering perseverance.
The sources of hebrew language are open to debate, and frankly quite
irrelevant.
The probable source is early sumerian, if only because it is from the
same area, and the extant sources are earlier.
It is known that the Canaanite deity was 'AL', but whether this is a
coincidence, or an adoption, and if so from whom to whom is a matter of
debate for scholars of dead words.
How much of the Law was lost when Cyrus sent the Israelites home from
Babylon?
If some had to be rewritten, how much?
How accurate was the rewriting?
Was there any babylonian influence?
The real question is:
Does it matter if the Israelites copped whole chunks from ancient Canaan
or Babylon or Sumer?
Not a jottle or a tit.
octinomos
% (octinomos) wrote:
%
% > american qabalah wrote:
%
% > > Qabalah is Jewish.
%
% > "The Jewish glyphs -- and even their language, the Hebrew -- are not
% > original. They are borrowed from the Egyptians, from whom Moses got
% > his Wisdom; from the Coptic, the probable kinsman, if not parent of
% > the old Phoenician and from the Hyskos, their (alleged) ancestors,
% > as Josephus shows in his 'Against Apion,' I., 25."
% >
% > --Blavatsky "The Secret Doctrine" Vol. I, p. 115, footnote.
%
% Blavatsky was a racist and a fraud. Read "Madame Blavatsky's Babboon"
% for a thorough dissection of her falsity, charlatanry, racism, and lack
% of usefulness as a factual source for anyone interested in the history
% of any person or any subject, including her own life.
In _Magick Without Tears_, Crowley explains how Blavatsky was only
the forerunner of a 'guide for mankind' whose 'Law of Thelema' would
essentially save the whole human race from abject spiritual anarchy:
"The Black adepts boast openly that they have triumphed all along the line.
Their formula has attained the destruction of all positive qualities.
It is only one step to the stage when the annihilation of all life and
thought will appear as a fatal necessity. The materialism and vital
scepticism of the present time, its frenzied rush for pleasure in total
disregard of any idea of building for the future, testifies to a condi-
tion of complete moral disorder, of abject spiritual anarchy.
The White School has thus been paralysed. We are reminded of the spider
described by Fabre, who injects her victims with a poison which paralyzes
them without killing them, so that her own young may find fresh meat.
And this is what is going to happen in Europe and America unless some-
thing is done about it, and done in very short order.
The Yellow School could not remain impassive spectators of the abomina-
tions. Madame Blavatsky was a mere forerunner. They, in conjunction
with the Secret Chiefs of the White School in Europe, Chiefs who had
been compelled to suspend all attempts at exoteric enlightenment by the
general moral debility which had overtaken the races from which they
drew their adepts, have prepared a guide for mankind. This man, of an
extreme moral force and elevation, combined with a profound sense of
worldly realities, has stood forth in an attempt to save the White School,
to rehabilitate its formula, and to fling back from the bastions of moral
freedom the howling savages of pessimism. Unless his appeal is heard,
unless there comes a truly virile reaction against the creeping atrophy
which is poisoning them, unless they enlist to the last man under his
standard, a great decisive battle will have been lost.
This prophet of the White School, chosen by its Masters and his brethren,
to save the Theory and Practice, is armed with a sword far mightier than
Excalibur. He has been entrusted with a new Magical formula, one which
can be accepted by the whole human race. Its adoption will strengthen
the Yellow School by giving a more positive value to their Theory; while
leaving the postulates of the Black School intact, it will transcend them
and raise their Theory and Practice almost to the level of the Yellow.
As to the White School, it will remove from them all taint of poison of
the Black, and restore vigour to their central formula of spiritual al-
chemy by giving each man an independent ideal. It will put an end to
the moral castration involved in the assumption that each man, whatever
his nature, should deny himself to follow out a fantastic and impracti-
cable ideal of goodness. Incidentally, this formula will save Physical
Science itself by making negligible the despair of futility, the vital
scepticism which has emasculated it in the past. It shows that the joy
of existence is not in a goal, for that indeed is clearly unattainable,
but in the going itself.
This law is called the Law of Thelema. It is summarized in the four
words, 'Do what thou wilt.'"
--------end of excerpt from Chapter 8: The Three Schools of Magick.
ed note: Thanks be to God that their work was not in vain.
Humanity has been set free and Thelema thrives.
There's even a Thelemic Golden Dawn.
Stefan Kapusniak
[posted/mailed as requested in .sig]
In talk.religion.misc, ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (hara) wrote:
>what is the most responsible and respectful way to syncretize
>from world mystical systems and cultures? how can it done while
>still playing with the ideologies, value-systems, religious
>beliefs and internal psychospiritual models and still retain an
>attitude of honor for that from which we might draw?
The unaccustomed thought came to me that perhaps you ask those
things you wish to incorporate into your syncretism whether
such incorporation pleases them, and if not leave them out.
I don't know whether this does anything to change the way
a syncretisation (is that a word?) would be seen by the
members/followers of those cultures/systems you combined
elements from, but it I think this offers a possible place to
start from.
Perhaps weaving the telling of the story of how we did
the asking of each of the elements for their consent into
our system as a deeply important and integral part of it.
I admit I feel a bit dubious as to whether this can be seen
as _cultural_ respect tho' -- thinking of cultural respect
as respect for the original _context_ rather than respect for
the elements themselves.
what names
>shall we provide to that which we create which simultaneously
>calls attention to the fact that what we've made is a novelty
>and that we have drawn on the important work of others whose
>traditions gave specific identifiers?
I think you have to give new things their own names, yes
indicative of their heritage, but still names that belong
to them if they have become new things.
Catherine's neo-* idea seems reasonable, but it feels a
bit artificial to me, and I rather suspect that in the
longer run the neo will tend to erode away and fall off
leaving the original name...
Anyway those are my rather crazy thoughts this morning (-;
>peace be with you,
Yourself also.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Walter5
Taammuz wrote:
> It also seems careful to note that alot of the senior officials of the
> O.T.O. then and now are Jews and when push came to shove Hitler sent all of
> those he could to the death camps too.
>
Hear, hear! Crowley's successor as O.H.O. of the O.T.O., Karl Germer spent two
years in a Concentration Camp. The Nazis hated Masons, and attempted to
eradicate THEM as well.
> By our school of ethics these rights are to be militantly protected, which if
> I
> understand it, is the principal task of the O.T.O.
>
To support and defend the Universal Freedom of Humynkind? That's how *I*
interpret it.
> Admiddettly, old Uncle Al seems to have been something of a misogynist and
> a bigot, and his homosexual orientations have never been a mystery to
> anyone who's read his poetry.
Now here I disagree. Crowley was not a Misogynist, although he said very nasty
things about Womyns. Crowley was not an Anti-Semite, although he was not above
using anti-semitic epitaths vitriolically against those who he thought had
wronged him (see some of the letters he wrote about Isreal Regardie). He was
not a Nazi, and in fact appears to have some contact with the Home Office in
the latter years of WWII, although he wrote for the German Propagandist
"International" here in Amerika during WWI. What our dear old Uncle Al
*actually* was, IMNSFHO, was simply a Misanthropist. He hated people pretty
much more or less evenly, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual
preference or philosophy. Some days, I can't blame him myself. I'm not a Racist
or an anti-Ethnicist, but I *do* work a service position for Immigration, and
have to deal with stupid (to me, at least, who has to hear and answer them)
questions in bad English all day, every day, with courtesy & a smile. I love
Humanity, but man, do I hate people.
Blessed Beast!
Walter Five
333
E6!
ja...@kiblah.demon.co.uk:
#> 93 all,
MsMa...@aol.com:
# ...can you explain the meaning of this number [93]? it happens
# to be the total of my new wiccan name, I chose, without any knowledge.
'93' means 'hello', 'how are you?' and 'greetings, I am offering to
you the means by which you may identify me with one of the cult of
Aleister Crowley, but without any indication of my interest in its
principles or techniques.'
'E6' is a response to such cultrash, indicating 'hello, I recognize
that you have become enslaved to the cult masquerading as Thelemic
and I proclaim openly my opposition to its currents.'
# Many Thelemites are accustomed to writing "Love is the law, love
# under will" as three 93's. The value of LOVE IS THE LAW, LOVE
# UNDER WILL by E.'.Q.'. is 279 or 3x93. Similarly "Do what thou
# wilt shall be the whole of the law" = 386 which is 2x193.>>>
you have begun the dissemblage of the weakness of the cult -- it
perpetuates cultspeak without sound basis and expects to be taken
seriously. those who use '93' and '93/93/93' sully and destroy
that about which they are supposed to be interested. for more on
the subject, consult _Magick Without Tears_, letter 18, on
Thelemic Greetings.
# Does 93 mean Love? Law? Will?
Thelema/Agape; instances of will and love in Greek, using the
conventional gematric (1-9;10-90;100-whatever) and Greek alphabet.
did Crowley discover this correspondence? if so, it is to his
lasting credit and he has over-used it to his advantage.
# also, someone told me that 777 meant 'a wall' can you enlarge this
# explanation ? again, I was told it was my name number.
there's a problem with how you're going about this. first, you are
not informing us of the system by which you or others have arrived
at this value. you have not said whether these were translations
or transliterations from another language from which the value was
obtained.
the reason that all of this is important is that any number can
mean *anything* using a variety of different numerolinguistic
schema, and there is some controversy as to whether or not it
is of any value to compare and contrast words and their values
using different LANGUAGES, let alone using different systems
of derivation.
E6/6/6 and blessed beast!
333
hara
american qabalah:
#> Qabalah is Jewish. ....
#> Why are you so opposed to the concept of a Jewish Qabalah? Do the
#> Jews frighten you that much?
this is the last time I will address ad hominem remarks in this
exchange. I think the concept of kabbalah (Jewish QBL) is perfect,
beautiful, and original. I have no problems with it. these are your
projection. I am attempting to ask questions on both sides of this
issue, and I hope you see this. now I'd like to focus on QBL,
which is a name I'm using for "universalist QBLH which transcends
cultural restraints" in the same way that I have used 'sufism' to
imply sufism which is a type which extends beyond Muslim Sufism and
'zen' implying that universal extending beyond Zen Buddhism.
note that I have, in each of these cases, asked questions and
proposed my imaginings of these without claiming anything about
their priority, authority or authenticity aside for those
individuals who may create and/or develop these. my intent
has always been to pay tribute to the original sources (by
examining with scrutiny what these were and explicating them
accurately without vague references). you can find my text on
these subjects in the Hollyfeld Archive, especially that which
is contained in the Avidyana directories.
my lovely one, catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> :
# ...[hara] seems unwilling to form opinions about Judaism or
# the history of the Jews or Jewish mysticism....
I disagree with the analysis of our interaction described after
this text and would rather leave it for personal interaction
offline. what is quoted here, however, is probably somewhat
accurate. I have learned that those who are participants in
a religion or culture are not always the best to take as the
final authorities so much as good leaders on reference from
which to draw out philosophic exchange. I am therefore rather
hesitant to form opinions about a subject about which I know
very little, and I am hesitant to take the assertions of those
who merely make them as the basis from which to approach the
subject about which we are speaking. I rather prefer those
who will take the time to at least provide a reference (e.g.,
'consult Scholem, who says on page 452 of his _Kabbalah_,
that there is no such thing as anything other than Jewish
Qabalah', but I haven't seen this from you or Tim/american.
when I consulted Scholem (whom we've apparently agreed is an
authority in the field) on the matter of whether all QBL is
Jewish he seemed to support the assertion that the kabbalah
is not Jewish in "root, origin, core and sum". he indicates,
as others have mentioned in this forum, that there were
influences upon its construction outside Judaism, that there
are resemblances between key kabbalistic texts to texts of
other religious (notably Gnostics if memory serves), and that
there is a thing which Scholem calls 'Christian Kabbalah'.
he appears to accept this and differentiate it from 'Kabbalah'
by which I presume he means the original Jewish construction.
please address this. I am sorry that I have to bring it up
in response to ad hominem, but that appears to be the most
substance which those arguing against me (or with me when I
switch sides and assist the discussion that way ;>) can muster.
american qabalah:
#>#> If you really want to understand Qabalah, study it as a
#>#> facet of Judaism as a whole.
nagasiva:
#># that's one take on it, yes, , and you have asserted it several
#># times, but you haven't provided explanations for it, support
#># for it, relevant sources who agree with your perspective,
#> No, it's not "one take on it". It's a fundamental rule of scholarly
#> investigation specifically applied to the field in question. It's a
#> universally accepted principle of study....
your claim was exclusive. I asked about support for its exclusivity,
not about the already agreed value of such a procedure when looking
at Jewish QBL (kabbalah).
# [hara] is engaged in fence-sitting to the point of apparent
# obtuseness....
having only recently approached this subject with any serious
research (returning to it actually, but I tend to learn more
from human beings than books), I think that fence-sitting is
an inaccurate characterization of cautious philosophic inquiry
where all the facts have not been produced and generalizations
without apparent basis are being made. I omit the rest of
your ad hominem paragraph as inaccurate since I have not formed
opinions as to who is 'a good source' on these subjects aside
from having agreed on authors like Scholem as regards kabbalah
(Jewish QBL).
# [hara] partakes of discussions on a Sufi (Islamic) e-list, posts
# regularly about Hindu yoga, Satantism, Christianity, and the O.T.O. --
# but he cannot seem to take time to study the relevenace of Jewish
# thought to several of the traditions he follows.
again a mere ad hominem and also inaccurate. I do not regularly
engage discussion about yoga of any type. the rest frequently
cross my email and/or Usenet palate. I have devoted study time
in proportionate amounts in response to the respect that *I*
have been shown when inquiring about the subject matter and
when I could find those who were interested in suspending their
certainties in the spirit of common inquiry and philosophic
exploration. I just haven't run across any QBLists or Jews
who shared this spirit. I'm hoping that you and/or Tim or
others will be able to join me in it, however, once the ad
hominem stops and the more rational discussion continues.
# Jews are not asking Bill or tyagi to get "permission" to study the
# kaballah (or to spell it any particular way) -- but i for one am asking
# them to admit that Jerry didn't write that song. He got it off a 1961
# Nonesuch compilation called "Real Music of the Bahamas."
Jerry didn't write that song. He got it off a 1961 Nonesuch
compilation called "Real Music of the Bahamas" which I believe
that I've heard a few times. Christians and Hermetics didn't
create the kabbalah (Jewish QBL), what they got they obtained
from Jewish sources whose esoteric interests spanned a broad
range of philosophic systems. even some of the Christian QBL
appears to have been created by Jewish converts (according to
Scholem), along with input from writers like Pico de la Mirandola.
#># if you agree that there can, what do *you*
#># think that these should be called? if we have a variety of
#># spellings for QBLH, why not utilize them to differentiate
#># the most common derivations of this universal?
# Because nobody can be bothered to keep track of these variant spellings
# but you.
great, then I'll use parenthetical identification until it is
completely understood (e.g. Jewish QBL (kabbalah), Christian
QBL (cabala), Hermetic QBL (qabalah)) or abandon the
parantheticals altogether if I get tired of them.
# catherine yronwode,
# who loves [hara] dearly and sends many kisses with this post
that was very kind of you. :*
back at ya, my love
blessed beast!
hara
catherine yronwode
>
> catherine yronwode wrote:
> >
> > Blavatsky was a racist and a fraud. Read "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon"
> > for a thorough dissection of her falsity, charlatanry, racism, and
> > history of any person or any subject, including her own life.
> Hmn. A surprising attitude for a lady with theosophical connections.
You may have me confused with another "lady." I am not a member of the
Theosophical Society, nor have i ever been.
catherine yronwode
Lucky Mojo Curio Co: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
The Lucky W Amulet Archive: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
Sacred Sex: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html
The Sacred Landscape: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
Freemasonry for Women: http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
Sar Draconis
>
> Sar Draconis wrote:
> >
> > catherine yronwode wrote:
> > >
> > > Blavatsky was a racist and a fraud. Read "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon"
> > > for a thorough dissection of her falsity, charlatanry, racism, and
> > > lack of usefulness as a factual source for anyone interested in the
> > > history of any person or any subject, including her own life.
>
> > Hmn. A surprising attitude for a lady with theosophical connections.
>
> You may have me confused with another "lady." I am not a member of the
> Theosophical Society, nor have i ever been.
>
> catherine yronwode
Oh so sorry. I thought for a moment you belonged to the one that was
headquartered in Ohai. But now I see my mistake.
So sorry once again.
Bill Cleere
>
> [posted/mailed as requested in .sig]
>
> In talk.religion.misc, ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (hara) wrote:
>
> >what is the most responsible and respectful way to syncretize
> >from world mystical systems and cultures? how can it done while
> >still playing with the ideologies, value-systems, religious
> >beliefs and internal psychospiritual models and still retain an
> >attitude of honor for that from which we might draw?
I'm coming in late on this, but I have to compliment whoever
started this thread on asking a very thoughtful and pertinent
question.
> The unaccustomed thought came to me that perhaps you ask those
> things you wish to incorporate into your syncretism whether
> such incorporation pleases them, and if not leave them out.
>
> I don't know whether this does anything to change the way
> a syncretisation (is that a word?) would be seen by the
> members/followers of those cultures/systems you combined
> elements from, but it I think this offers a possible place to
> start from.
>
> Perhaps weaving the telling of the story of how we did
> the asking of each of the elements for their consent into
> our system as a deeply important and integral part of it.
At the least, this act takes our appropriation out of the
category of professorial treatment, in which everything
has only relative value (i.e., relative to what I need to
finish a dissertation or get a monograph published.)
In a more positive way, what Stefan is suggesting is more
important than just a method of "covering ourselves" and
being respectful. It necessitates a *response* on our
part, which then asks for a response from the "keepers" of
the tradition. This is the only way something new can
come about, and the only way all of us can be changed.
> I admit I feel a bit dubious as to whether this can be seen
> as _cultural_ respect tho' -- thinking of cultural respect
> as respect for the original _context_ rather than respect for
> the elements themselves.
>
> what names
> >shall we provide to that which we create which simultaneously
> >calls attention to the fact that what we've made is a novelty
> >and that we have drawn on the important work of others whose
> >traditions gave specific identifiers?
>
> I think you have to give new things their own names, yes
> indicative of their heritage, but still names that belong
> to them if they have become new things.
That's it. The act of giving names is the essence of
creativity. There is nothing arbitrary about names.
> Catherine's neo-* idea seems reasonable, but it feels a
> bit artificial to me, and I rather suspect that in the
> longer run the neo will tend to erode away and fall off
> leaving the original name...
I agree. Nobody wants to be called "neo". Those things
that are being named are going to have to like their new
names. If the right names are found, perhaps we can
return to that state of being in which everything talked,
animals and even stones, because their true names were
known.
> Anyway those are my rather crazy thoughts this morning (-;
>
> >peace be with you,
>
> Yourself also.
>
> -- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Pax vobiscum.
-- Bill Cleere
Status: res. LoyolaNet. Expect.destin. Fumat pro Soc.
Ammar Al-Omary
Greetings;
I've been following this interesting discussion for some time and
I have a few comments to make.
1- Not all of Gemataria is number based. The Notariqon for example
relies on condensing sentences into words or expanding words into
sentences (e.g. Marlboro "Men Always Remember Ladies Because Of Romance
Only")
2- Regarding the comment that using the different methods of Gemataria
to make a word mean anything; In 777 Crowley writes something to the
effect of : One can argue that with Gemataria one can anything out of
nothing but the Qabalist retorts that with these methods One did create
Everything out of Nothing.
I believe that the fact that you can derive any number from any other
number is a foundation of Gemataria rather than a weak point. It is not
about WHETHER you can derive two words from each other but HOW which
will indicate to you the sort of link or realtion the two ideas bear.
3- Regarding the comment that words in different languages have
different numerical values; any multi-lingual person can tell you that
languages do not differ from each other merely by words and grammar, but
also by the mode of thinking they operate upon (i.e. if you want to
speak Arabic you have to THINK Arabic. Simply knowing Arabic words and
grammar does not enable you to automatically translate English into
Arabic). So the difference in Lingual-psychology might very well reflect
upon Gemataria. I would certainly be astonished if it didn't.
And by the way in Arabic Gemataria LOVE=10 and WILL=86 or 41.
Peace out
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
____________...oooOOO---occult@hollyfeld.org---OOOooo..._____________
To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe" to occult-...@hollyfeld.org
To unsubscribe yo...@email.com send "unsubscribe yo...@email.com"
http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven/elists/occult.phtml
hara
shalom alechem, my kin.
ja...@kiblah.demon.co.uk (jake stratton-kent):
#># Old style kabbalah generally involved interpretation of (Hebrew)
#># Holy Books, in this 'Aeon;' the Holy Books are in English, and so
#># we are accustomed to speaking of 'English Qaballa'.
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (hara):
#> but why call it 'English Qaballa'? why use the word 'Qaballa' at
#> all rather than coming up with a different name for it which will
#> avoid confusing cultural mystical identifications?
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com>:
# I've been suggesting a new term for it, too. Like rock'n'roll...it
# ain't really the country blues. I leave it to the Thelemites to devise
# that name. We Jews will retain the use of the "old style" monicker.
now that I have reviewed the EQ system in more depth I would
recommend that its name be taken from the series of letters
used in the numerolinguistic evaluation:
in his 'EQ FAQ', jake provided it as:
# A L W H S D O Z K V G R C
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
#
# N Y J U F Q B M X I T E P
# 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
so that its name should perhaps be "ALWHSDO" or "ALNY".
compare "AIQ BEKR".
I leave the racist agendae and the analysis of Crowley
for a separate thread.
peace be with you,
333
ja...@kiblah.demon.co.uk (jake stratton-kent):
#># 666 is the value of the Square of the Sun, and of various Greek
#># and Hebrew Names connected with the solar force. This far predates
#># Crowley etc. Crowley associated the ideas Sun-Male-Phallus with
#># each other, and 'Solar-Phallic' is a term he used fairly often.
#># However Thelema is a 'broad church' and not all interpretations
#># are 'Solar-Phallic'.
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (333):
#> isn't it true that Crowley's esoteric preferences tended to be the
#> solar-phallic, however? and doesn't this coincide rather pointedly
#> with the German (cf. Ordo Templi Orientis, whose secret documents
#> contain solar-phallic emphases and whose origin is German) mystical
#> ideas of race purity, aryan white supremacy, and a general attempt
#> to wipe out or appropriate everything Jewish?
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com>:
# See also the genesis of Carl Gustav Jung's theory of the "collective
# unconscious" (for reference, i recommend highly "The Cult of Jung," by
# Noll). Jung based his theory of "archetypes" and "the collective
# unconscious" on the case of a patient in an insane asylum whom he dubbed
# "The Solar Phallus Man."....
# The point Noll makes here is two-fold: first, Jung was certainly a
# plagiarist, a falsifier, and a liar -- but his promotion of "Aryan"
# Mithraic "solar phallicism" marks him as a racist, which is a greater
# evil. Noll effectively connects Jung's interest in the "solar phallic
# cult" of Aryanism with a Volkish determination to remove "semitic"
# (Jewish) religious practices and attitudes from the culture of the
# "Germanic" (Aryan) people, of whom he considered himself a member. Jung
# was not alone in this -- the entire Volkish Movement was filled with
# such hate agendas, as can be seen by the Nazis, who drew much from Jung
# and other Volkish theorists.
#> was Crowley one of these people?
# Noll does indeed draw links between Crowley's O. T. O. and the Volkish
# Movement. Read the book.
sorry, but with a pretty careful scan of a few chapters, a review
of the scanty table of contents and index I found no reference to
OTO or Crowley. I remember you reading something like that to me
but I don't know how to return to that text. if you could point
me in the right direction I'd be happy to continue a scan and
then put the text into the thread for review. thanks.
333
Bill Heidrick
On 31 Dec 1998 06:39:15 -0500, ele...@hotmail.com ("Ammar Al-Omary")
wrote:
>1- Not all of Gemataria is number based. The Notariqon for example
>relies on condensing sentences into words or expanding words into
>sentences (e.g. Marlboro "Men Always Remember Ladies Because Of Romance
>Only")
Nope. Technically, "Gematria" means approaches involving number and
manipulation of number corresponding to letters, words and groups of
words, exclusively. Gematria is a Greek word, used also for the same
thing in Hebrew and more generously applied to other systems of
number-letter correspondence with other alphabets, ancient and modern.
Notariqon is quite different, does not involve number directly and
amounts to working with anagrams, initial, final and medial, as well
as reverse anagrams.
Temurah is a type of crypography, involving paired substitution of
letters, one for another. There are 24 main forms of Temurah in
traditional Kabbalah.
Where you understand "Gematria", it may be that you are considering
Kabbalah (also spelled in English "Qabalah", "Cabala", "QBLH", "QBL",
and a variety of other ways, some of which may imply particular ethnic
or other traditions. Qabalah, to take one variant of the spelling,
includes Gematria, Notariqon, Temurah, Literary Criticism, Mysticism
and many other things.
>2- Regarding the comment that using the different methods of Gemataria
>to make a word mean anything; In 777 Crowley writes something to the
>effect of : One can argue that with Gemataria one can anything out of
>nothing but the Qabalist retorts that with these methods One did create
>Everything out of Nothing.
True, Gematria never proves anything. It's a vehicle for rhetoric,
meditation, mnemonics, confidence building and an intellectual
equivalent to rhyme.
>I believe that the fact that you can derive any number from any other
>number is a foundation of Gemataria rather than a weak point. It is not
>about WHETHER you can derive two words from each other but HOW which
>will indicate to you the sort of link or realtion the two ideas bear.
True, to a point. The mechanism of the particular manipulation does
carry some value in itself. However, elementary associations by one
particular method or mechanism do tend to constitute a group of
relations that would be consistent from one person to another. That
latter aspect makes gematria a cultural tool. Otherwise it would be
just a puzzle exercise.
>3- Regarding the comment that words in different languages have
>different numerical values; any multi-lingual person can tell you that
>languages do not differ from each other merely by words and grammar, but
>also by the mode of thinking they operate upon (i.e. if you want to
>speak Arabic you have to THINK Arabic. Simply knowing Arabic words and
>grammar does not enable you to automatically translate English into
>Arabic). So the difference in Lingual-psychology might very well reflect
>upon Gemataria. I would certainly be astonished if it didn't.
>And by the way in Arabic Gemataria LOVE=10 and WILL=86 or 41.
Also a good point. When you consider simple methods of gematria and
temura (less effective with noteriqon), you get a similar effect.
That's what I mean when I say "cultural tool". There is a body of
significance, potentially shaired by everybody who uses a particular
technique in a particular language. One comences to think with
numbers having significance instead of words.
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
heid...@well.com
catherine yronwode
> #># Crowley associated the ideas Sun-Male-Phallus with
> #># each other, and 'Solar-Phallic' is a term he used fairly often.
>
> ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (333):
> #> isn't it true that Crowley's esoteric preferences tended to be the
> #> solar-phallic, however? and doesn't this coincide rather pointedly
> #> with the German (cf. Ordo Templi Orientis, whose secret documents
> #> contain solar-phallic emphases and whose origin is German) mystical
> #> ideas of race purity, aryan white supremacy, and a general attempt
> #> to wipe out or appropriate everything Jewish?
The O. T. O. has "secret documents...whose origin is German"? Can you
substantiate this or cite a reference? What are these documents? How is
their German "origin" explained?
> catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com>:
> # Noll effectively connects Jung's interest in the "solar phallic
> # cult" of Aryanism with a Volkish determination to remove "semitic"
> # (Jewish) religious practices and attitudes from the culture of the
> # "Germanic" (Aryan) people, of whom he considered himself a member.
> # Jung was not alone in this -- the entire Volkish Movement was filled
> # with such hate agendas, as can be seen by the Nazis, who drew much
> # from Jung and other Volkish theorists.
>
> #> was Crowley one of these people?
>
> # Noll does indeed draw links between Crowley's O. T. O. and the
> # Volkish Movement. Read the book.
>
> sorry, but with a pretty careful scan of a few chapters, a review
> of the scanty table of contents and index I found no reference to
> OTO or Crowley.
I stand corrected: the references Richard Noll makes in "The Cult of
Jung" are to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (of which Crowley was
a member) and not to the O. T. O. (which Crowley founded). Noll compares
the agenda and form of the G. D. with a Swiss Volkisch group that
studied "Aryan" occultism including "Mithraic" solar-phallus worship,
and then conducted initiatory secret ceremonial magick rites in which
they used talismans, costumes (including Bishops' miters), and so forth.
The book also contains a couple of references to W. B. Yeates (a
colleague of Crowley's in the G. D.) and to the cultural "elitism" of
the G. D. and the Volkisch Movement in contrast to the inclusiveness of
other neo-pagan movements. There is also much mention made of Blavatsky,
the Theosophical Society, G. R. S. Meade, and others with whom Crowley
corresponded or was familiar, but there is no mention of Crowley per se.
The book concludes with an examination of Stephen Flowers and the racist
elements within Asatru and Satanism, and with Noll's conclusion that
such neo-pagan racialism is a modern extension of the Volkisch Movement.
I think my confusion of the O. T. O. with the G. D. in my earlier post
arose because of your statement above that the O. T. O. had "secret
documents...whose origin is German." There is a "German origin" story
for the G. D. that, as i understand it, relates that a German woman
named Frau Sprungli [sp?] gave MacGregor Mathers textual material and a
warrant or charter that formed the basis for the G. D. rite. When you
wrote above that the O. T. O. had "secret documents...whose origin is
German." i just mentally crossed that G. D. story over to the O. T. O.
However, as i said above, this still leaves me wondering about those
mysterious O. T. O. "secret documents...whose origin is German": How do
they relate to the "solar phallic" issue? How you know they are
"German"? Who in Germany gave them to Crowley?
catherine yronwode
Lucky Mojo Curio Co: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
The Lucky W Amulet Archive: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
check out news:alt.lucky.w for discussions on folk magic and luck
jake stratton-kent
In message <1998122920...@bolt.sonic.net>, hara
<ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com> writes
>49981229 IIIom
>
>shalom alechem, my kin.
93 Tyagi,
here is a reply for you, or for the list, as you please. Some of this
has been on my mind of late anyway.
BTW You may want to check out the eq-list if only to see what you make
of it. There is tons of hardcore occult stuff on it, and AFAIK there is
nothing like it going on anywhere else.
>
>ja...@kiblah.demon.co.uk (jake stratton-kent):
># Old style kabbalah generally involved interpretation of (Hebrew) Holy
># Books, in this 'Aeon;' the Holy Books are in English, and so we are
># accustomed to speaking of 'English Qaballa'.
>
>here I put in on the other side of the issue, since nobody else is
>helping me out with the more controversial (hehehe, I'll try to
>understand this one way or another, and I know JSK can take it :>):
>
tee hee, oh yas!
>but why call it 'English Qaballa'? why use the word 'Qaballa' at
>all rather than coming up with a different name for it which will
>avoid confusing cultural mystical identifications?
>
;-) ok, and while we're at it, let's stop calling the Golden Dawn stuff
'qabalah'. Folks might easily think we mean 'Kabbalah', which is
something utterly different.
It is important to note that Kabbalah shares with EQ the element of
textual exegesis so conspicuously absent from the GD system of similar
name. ;->
I grant you that the EQ title is not terribly informative, it is not,
IMO terribly misleading either.
When folks ask what is meant by the term the exposition often includes
the term 'Astrologically Timed Tantric Worship In English' and Tantra of
course also has a strong 'alphabetic mystery' involving mantra etc. as
well as a strong astrological element. This aside, no claim that EQ is
an authentic branch of Kaula practice is implied by the 'A.T.T.W.I.E.
gloss.
>
># 666 is the value of the Square of the Sun, and of various Greek and
># Hebrew Names connected with the solar force. This far predates Crowley
># etc. Crowley associated the ideas Sun-Male-Phallus with each other, and
># 'Solar-Phallic' is a term he used fairly often. However Thelema is a
># 'broad church' and not all interpretations are 'Solar-Phallic'.
>
>isn't it true that Crowley's esoteric preferences tended to be the
>solar-phallic, however?
some of his 'esoteric' writings (degree instructions etc.) are,
at least IMO. OTOH I personally don't believe the Class A literature
shares these characteristics. When the Class A does promote the Solar-
Phallus it is only as 'the visible object of worship' (this is readily
establishable from in text ref's), thus (again IMO) the Solar-Phallic
cult is an exoteric 'front'!
> and doesn't this coincide rather pointedly
>with the German (cf. Ordo Templi Orientis, whose secret documents
>contain solar-phallic emphases
along with Fraternitas Saturni - and alleged satanic groups who consider
women 'brood mares'?
Nothing connects to EQ there, such misogynistic male supremacy
conflicts entirely with its basic tenets. The same is true as regards
the Class A, IMO. AC's reception of AL precedes his involvement with the
OTO, and most of the rest of the Class A originates before his real
involvement with that order began. I agree that some aspects of neo-
templarism in germany were proto-Nazi, I don't think the OTO were at
that end of the spectrum - though overlaps did exist.
Personally in that era I'd have had any known Prussian police spy shot
on general principles. Church father or not. ;-)
> and whose origin is German) mystical
>ideas of race purity, aryan white supremacy, and a general attempt
>to wipe out or appropriate everything Jewish? was Crowley one of
>these people?
not IMO, he made absurdly xenophobic statements on occasion - though
often with a touch of pastiche at least in his in later years (mocking
the values of middle England perhaps).
>does he have a biggotted and, according to Eisler's
>terminology, a 'Dominator' agenda?
>
AC was happy to be buggered by black men - this does not exclude him
holding racist beliefs, but might make him unpopular with the KKK
>if any of this is true, shouldn't we be careful about what to
>accept from this author, shouldnt' his work be considered strongly
>suspect and heavily biased in favor of gross evils?
right along with Blavatsky and Lovecraft?
> is it
>possible that everything Crowley touched is subtlely neonazi
Nietzchean on occasion, but though Nietzche's ideas were appropriated by
the Nazis there is no doubt he would have despised the entire mindless
collectivist bunch of 'em. As did AC, whose attitude to the Nazis was
summed up in one patriotic jingoistic phrase 'Monty will hit 'em for
six'
>in character and his secret societies are nefarious mind-
>numbing desecrators of human compassion and clear reason?
>
this has often been suggested - with such supporting evidence as AC's
'disciple' Fuller's invite to Hitlers 40th birthday - solely due to
Fuller's status in the development of armoured warfare. Liddell Hart -
another mechanised warfare pioneer - received a signed picture from
Guderian, a commander of the Panzerwaffe. No sensible historian would
suggest that Liddell Hart was sympathetic to the German regime on that
basis.
There is no doubt in my mind that Liddell Hart and JFC Fuller were
patriotic servants of the Crown, who despised the Nazis. Again, Spare
was invited to paint for a Nazi client, and refused point blank.
That the Nazis admired these men is besides the point, they all despised
the Nazis.
Hail Zhukov!
93 93/93
JSK.
The Gnostic Alchemical Church of Typhon-Christ
http://members.aol.com/kiblah1/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/7770/
All events and institutions other than those
portrayed in this Journal are fictitious
Alexander Maclennan
>>
> The O. T. O. has "secret documents...whose origin is German"? Can you
> substantiate this or cite a reference? What are these documents? How is
> their German "origin" explained?
Crowley`s Autohagiography on p765 gives an account of the founding of
the OTO in nineteeth century Germany by Kark Kellner. It was a
derivative of freemasonry with gnostic catholic and martinist
elements. By 1912 it had been written about in the masonic journal
oriflamme and had branches in several countries.
In 1912 Crowley had been visited by the then head of the OTO Theodor
Reuss who accused him of publishing their central secret as the Star
Sapphire in the Book of Lies. Crowley apparently convinced him
that he had reached the secret matter independently.
Reuss then admitted him to the OTO and made him its head in the UK
Crowley largely rewrote their rituals after this.
There is some doubt about Crowley`s account of this as in 1912 when it
is said to occur, the Book of Lies was not yet published.
The Sprengel lady and her cypher manuscript are widely thought to have
been entirely fictional and concocted by some of the founding fathers
of the GD as a foundation myth.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
richard sprigg
>
> I stand corrected: the references Richard Noll makes in "The Cult of
> Jung" are to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (of which Crowley was
> a member) and not to the O. T. O. (which Crowley founded). Noll compares
> the agenda and form of the G. D. with a Swiss Volkisch group that
> studied "Aryan" occultism including "Mithraic" solar-phallus worship,
> and then conducted initiatory secret ceremonial magick rites in which
> they used talismans, costumes (including Bishops' miters), and so forth.
> The book also contains a couple of references to W. B. Yeates (a
> colleague of Crowley's in the G. D.)
A co-member. He and Crowley detested one another.
See "moonchild" for a rough outline of his feeling for Yeats.
Given the time and place, and the membership of the GD, it would be
surprising if there were not a solid number of individuals who, by
today's standards, would be unacceptably racist.
Bill Heidrick
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:36:03 -0800, catherine yronwode
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>The O. T. O. has "secret documents...whose origin is German"? Can you
>substantiate this or cite a reference? What are these documents? How is
>their German "origin" explained?
The older rituals were written in various places, including Germany
and Switzerland, particularly likely would be at Lugano.
>I stand corrected: the references Richard Noll makes in "The Cult of
>Jung" are to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (of which Crowley was
>a member) and not to the O. T. O. (which Crowley founded).
Crowley didn't found OTO. He joined it in the 19'teens. OTO was
founded as a branch off from the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor by Karl
Kelner toward the end of the 19th century. It got the name "Ordo
Templi Orientis" in the early 20th century, when it was led by Theo.
Reuss.
>I think my confusion of the O. T. O. with the G. D. in my earlier post
>arose because of your statement above that the O. T. O. had "secret
>documents...whose origin is German." There is a "German origin" story
>for the G. D. that, as i understand it, relates that a German woman
>named Frau Sprungli [sp?] gave MacGregor Mathers textual material and a
>warrant or charter that formed the basis for the G. D. rite. When you
>wrote above that the O. T. O. had "secret documents...whose origin is
>German." i just mentally crossed that G. D. story over to the O. T. O.
Westcott of the Golden Dawn and Theo. Reuss of the OTO did correspond
with each other. Reuss had a secretary with a similar name to
Frauline Springle, but likely that was not the same person.
>However, as i said above, this still leaves me wondering about those
>mysterious O. T. O. "secret documents...whose origin is German": How do
>they relate to the "solar phallic" issue? How you know they are
>"German"? Who in Germany gave them to Crowley?
Reuss.
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
Clothes Rod
<kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>catherine yronwode wrote:
>
>>
>> I stand corrected: the references Richard Noll makes in "The Cult of
>> Jung" are to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (of which Crowley was
>> a member) and not to the O. T. O. (which Crowley founded). Noll compares
>> the agenda and form of the G. D. with a Swiss Volkisch group that
>> studied "Aryan" occultism including "Mithraic" solar-phallus worship,
>> and then conducted initiatory secret ceremonial magick rites in which
>> they used talismans, costumes (including Bishops' miters), and so forth.
>> The book also contains a couple of references to W. B. Yeates (a
>> colleague of Crowley's in the G. D.)
>
>A co-member. He and Crowley detested one another.
>See "moonchild" for a rough outline of his feeling for Yeats.
>
>Given the time and place, and the membership of the GD, it would be
>surprising if there were not a solid number of individuals who, by
>today's standards, would be unacceptably racist.
In a way, you could say it was inevitable. It takes strong beliefs to
bother with any sort of power, magickal or political or economic or
social etc. You don't find apathy, as my grandmother used to say, in
the captains of industry.
--
A copper blade
Infinitely many strings.
richard sprigg
>
> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 22:58:55 -0500, richard sprigg
> <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >catherine yronwode wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I stand corrected: the references Richard Noll makes in "The Cult of
> >> Jung" are to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (of which Crowley was
> >> a member) and not to the O. T. O. (which Crowley founded). Noll compares
> >> the agenda and form of the G. D. with a Swiss Volkisch group that
> >> studied "Aryan" occultism including "Mithraic" solar-phallus worship,
> >> and then conducted initiatory secret ceremonial magick rites in which
> >> they used talismans, costumes (including Bishops' miters), and so forth.
> >> The book also contains a couple of references to W. B. Yeates (a
> >> colleague of Crowley's in the G. D.)
> >
> >A co-member. He and Crowley detested one another.
> >See "moonchild" for a rough outline of his feeling for Yeats.
> >
> >Given the time and place, and the membership of the GD, it would be
> >surprising if there were not a solid number of individuals who, by
> >today's standards, would be unacceptably racist.
>
> In a way, you could say it was inevitable.
In a christian country, where the culture was to regard Jews as
"christ-killers" anything else would be amazing.
It takes strong beliefs to
> bother with any sort of power, magickal or political or economic or
> social etc. You don't find apathy, as my grandmother used to say, in
> the captains of industry.
Indeed not.
Thomas Edison
Henry Ford
Joe Kennedy
Uniroyal
Just to stay on topic.
Welcome back, O renascent one.
Bill Nelson
:
: Path: id4.nus.edu.sg!ocean.singnet.com.sg!dahlia.singnet.com.sg!mango.singnet.com.sg!newsfeed.attap.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!typhoon.stlnet.com!cyclone.i1.net!newsfeed.enteract.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!193.174.75.110!news-was.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-ber1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news.uni-weimar.de!news.booms-edv.de!news-out2.newsnerds.com!uppssnewspub03.moswest.msn.net!uppssnewspub04.moswest.msn.net!forums.poweroft.com!tsu3.intowson.com!k12.towson.md.us!newsborg.towson.edu!netcom.ca!f
er
: ret.ocunix.on.ca!iswest.net!fluffy.meow.org!newsfeed.concentric.net!mrsam!ml.org!dpinc.ml.org!well.com!heidrick
Everything after the newsfeed.concentric.net!mrsam is forged, as it is
different than the path to my site.
It does not appear to be too bright a forgery - although the person is
getting a bit better. The earliest posts did not have anything after
!mrsam.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
R Brzustowicz
> catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com>:
> # See also the genesis of Carl Gustav Jung's theory of the "collective
> # unconscious" (for reference, i recommend highly "The Cult of Jung," by
> # Noll). Jung based his theory of "archetypes" and "the collective
> # unconscious" on the case of a patient in an insane asylum whom he dubbed
> # "The Solar Phallus Man."....
>
>
....
> # Noll does indeed draw links between Crowley's O. T. O. and the Volkish
> # Movement. Read the book.
>
> sorry, but with a pretty careful scan of a few chapters, a review
> of the scanty table of contents and index I found no reference to
> OTO or Crowley. I remember you reading something like that to me
> but I don't know how to return to that text. if you could point
> me in the right direction I'd be happy to continue a scan and
> then put the text into the thread for review. thanks.
>
>
Noll's two books on Jung make grand claims but do not stand up well to
careful reading.
A good, though somewhatr defensive, discussion, is
Author: Shamdasani, Sonu
Title: Cult Fictions: C. G. Jung and the Founding of Analytical
Psychology
Publisher: Routledge
Year: 1998
Pages: 121p.
ISBN/Price: 0-415-18614-5 Trade Paper $17.99
It is also worth comparing what Noll does with the Henry
Murray/Christiana Morgan
material with the way it is handled in
Author: Robinson, Forrest G.
Title: Love's Story Told: A Life of Henry A. Murray
Publisher: Harvard University Press
Year: 1995
Pages: 496p.
Illustration: Illustrated
ISBN/Price: 0-674-53929-X Trade Paper $18.95
and
Author: Douglas, Claire
Title: Translate This Darkness: The Life of Christiana Morgan
Publisher: Simon & Schuster Trade
Year: 1993
Pages: 480p.
ISBN/Price: 0-671-70378-1 Trade Cloth $25.00
The latter is undfortunately out of print, but is available in many
libraries.
Noll, in his amazed discovery of Jung's contacts with various esoteric
movements (he prefers to look only at the most disreputable, though they
are
also the least immediate) is a sort of Nesta Webster of the history of
psychology.
rb
sole...@oath.com
> From: ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (333)
> [...]
> E6!
Wasn't that the hex code of the byte written by the FORMAT utility to all
data bytes on a floppy diskette in the IBM PC world?
> '93' means 'hello', 'how are you?' and 'greetings, I am
> offering to you the means by which you may identify me with
> one of the cult of Aleister Crowley, but without any
> indication of my interest in its principles or techniques.'
<Grin>
> 'E6' is a response to such cultrash, indicating 'hello, I
> recognize that you have become enslaved to the cult
> masquerading as Thelemic and I proclaim openly my opposition
> to its currents.'
Hah! Though I don't actually use 93, I doubt I'm enslaved to the cult
masquerading as Thelemic. I mean, it could be, but it's a pretty damned
ethereal cult, seeing as how I don't appear to hold any membership cards.
For that matter, I don't know any secret handshakes, except, of course, for
the ones I've made up over the years. When I start my own
cult...<ahem>...when I start my own ORDER, I'll probably use the secret
handshakes I've developed.
But I guess the most successful enslavement would be that of which I was
not aware, so perhaps you can help me evaluate whether or not I am enslaved
to the cult masquerading as Thelemic.
(That's a gauntlet you see before you, by the way.)
By the way, WHY is E6 a symbol which means all this?
Best regards,
185
P.S. How have you been, Fr. Nigris? I think it's good to see you active
again <Grin>. I take it your ISP has finally stabilized its service -- or
you've gotten new service? Did you make it to Nutmeg this year? I didn't.
Love is the law, love under will.
Solemnus, P.M.S.L. 185, W.W.B.D.
sole...@oath.com
Please send FILE ATTACHMENTS to sole...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/8813/
(There are no pop-up banners at this Geocities site)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
lloyd keane
one has any knowledge of Jung's primary writings. In Collected Works 7
Jung states (par.385) "Freemasonry...legendary Rosicrucians, theosophy,
and so forth are the feeble substitutes for something that were better
marked up in red letters on the historical casualty list. The fact is
that the whole symbolism of initiation rises up, clear and unmistakable,
in the unconscious contents." Jung distrusts the effectiveness of
initiatory societies since he felt they could not facilitate the necessary
psychological transformation. I agree the there must be a powerful shift
in psychological paradigms in order to receive true initiation and this is
one of the point Crowley was attempting to get across to both members of
the OTO and the AA. Anyway, just an unfocused ramble from one who is
voraciously reading both Uncle Al and Jung and becoming more demented on a
daily bases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LLOYD K. KEANE
Graduate Student: Department of Religion
CARLETON UNIVERSITY
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Email address: lke...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
richard sprigg
>
> On 31 Dec 1998 06:39:15 -0500, ele...@hotmail.com ("Ammar Al-Omary")
> wrote:
>
> >2- Regarding the comment that using the different methods of Gemataria
> >to make a word mean anything; In 777 Crowley writes something to the
> >effect of : One can argue that with Gemataria one can anything out of
> >nothing but the Qabalist retorts that with these methods One did create
> >Everything out of Nothing.
>
Sure was.
No-thing, defined as the limitless, unformed possibility.
> But the will it has become, "is", in all absolute, "nothing"
And no-thing remains the same.
Grrr
wrote:
>2- Regarding the comment that using the different methods of Gemataria
>to make a word mean anything; In 777 Crowley writes something to the
>effect of : One can argue that with Gemataria one can anything out of
>nothing but the Qabalist retorts that with these methods One did create
>Everything out of Nothing.
NO! The will of God was NOT created OUT OF "nothing".
But the will it has become, "is", in all absolute, "nothing"
>Peace out
O.K.
333
E6!
sole...@oath.com:
# Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (333):
#> E6!
# Wasn't that the hex code of the byte written by the FORMAT
# utility to all data bytes on a floppy diskette in the IBM PC world?
thanks for mentioning it.
#> '...one of the cult of Aleister Crowley....'
#> 'E6' [indicates] 'hello, I
#> recognize that you have become enslaved to the cult
#> masquerading as Thelemic and I proclaim openly my opposition
#> to its currents.'
# ...a pretty damned ethereal cult, seeing as how I don't appear
# to hold any membership cards.
membership cards are not necessary in cults. these are usually
reserved for fancy elite orgs with hi profiles like the Church
of Satan. one can become enslaved to a cult simply through
participation. the best cults merely take over your life and
siphon off the money and time. they are parasitic of mind
and body -- in short, of will.
# For that matter, I don't know any secret handshakes, except,
# of course, for the ones I've made up over the years....
again, an extraneous addition proffered by masonic and quasi-
masonic organizations or seriously covert operations.
# ...so perhaps you can help me evaluate whether or not I am
# enslaved to the cult masquerading as Thelemic.
lessee, you didn't offer "93" at the outset, so the signs are
good so far.
# (That's a gauntlet you see before you, by the way.)
::picking it up, offering it back to you accepting your challenge::
# By the way, WHY is E6 a symbol which means all this?
stand on your head. ;>
Invoke me under my stars.
Love is the law, love under will.
blessed beast!
333
PS (personals sent to private email)
catherine yronwode
>
> Noll's two books on Jung make grand claims but do not stand up well to
> careful reading.
I hear what you are saying, but i don't see any substantiation.
Noll quotes directly from Jung's anti-Semitic writings.
How do such direct quotes "not stand up well to careful reading"?
What would *better* stand up well to careful reading?
[list of other books snipped]
> Noll, in his amazed discovery of Jung's contacts with various esoteric
> movements (he prefers to look only at the most disreputable, though
> they are also the least immediate) is a sort of Nesta Webster of the
> history of psychology.
I don't think that Noll's book is an account of his "amazed discovery"
of anything. It seems very straightforward and factual, not breathless
or sensationalistic.
By the way, Noll's material on Jung's unprofessional, false, and immoral
appropriation of the work of his late collegue Honegger re: "The Solar
Phallic Man" was more "amazing" to me than that Jung had links to the
Volkisch Movement.
Noll documents the affair of "The Solar Phallic Man" quite well, despite
the attempt to hamper him conducted by the Jung family. The Library of
Congress holds photocopies of Honneger's clinical papers and will not
release them to anyone without permission of the Jung family, although
the route by which Jung came into possession of them is not legally
clear. This is not Noll's fault, but is the result of the damage done to
historical scholarship by recent Supreme Court decisions that "protect"
controversial private papers on deposit in public archives. I hope that
someone has the nerve and the inventiveness to photocopy 5000 copies of
these clinical papers and send them to every public library in the
Midwest as a donation, so that scholars can actually read them rather
than speculate about their contents or allude to them cryptically for
fear of prosecution.
At this point i think the subject matter has drifted far from the
original topic (the kaballah) and i propose that further discussion, if
any, might be conducted in one of the alt.psychology.* newsgroups.
catherine yronwode
catherine yronwode
>
> First of all Noll's book is highly questionable and does not hold up
> if one has any knowledge of Jung's primary writings.
But Noll is QUOTING Jung's own words. Are you saying that this technique
-- direct quotation -- produces "highly questionable" results? If so,
how can ANY scholarship be less "questionable"?
catherine yronwode
Sar Draconis
>
> 333 wrote:
>
> > catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com>:
> > # See also the genesis of Carl Gustav Jung's theory of the "collective
> > # unconscious" (for reference, i recommend highly "The Cult of Jung," by
> > # Noll). Jung based his theory of "archetypes" and "the collective
> > # unconscious" on the case of a patient in an insane asylum whom he dubbed
> > # "The Solar Phallus Man."....
> >
> >
> ....
> > # Noll does indeed draw links between Crowley's O. T. O. and the Volkish
> > # Movement. Read the book.
> >
> > sorry, but with a pretty careful scan of a few chapters, a review
> > of the scanty table of contents and index I found no reference to
> > OTO or Crowley. I remember you reading something like that to me
> > but I don't know how to return to that text. if you could point
> > me in the right direction I'd be happy to continue a scan and
> > then put the text into the thread for review. thanks.
> >
> >
> careful reading.
>
> movements (he prefers to look only at the most disreputable, though they
> are
> also the least immediate) is a sort of Nesta Webster of the history of
> psychology.
>
Dear rb,
In his 1996 Gnosis interview, the alchemist Trojani reports that he knew
that Jung had contacts with practicing (i.e., "laboratory") alchemists.
My best,
SAR
richard sprigg
>
> membership cards are not necessary in cults. these are usually
> reserved for fancy elite orgs with hi profiles like the Church
> of Satan. one can become enslaved to a cult simply through
> participation.
Which includes devout opposition.
sole...@oath.com
Tyagi is CCed on the reply.
> From: ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (333)
> [...]
> > ...a pretty damned ethereal cult, seeing as how I don't
> > appear to hold any membership cards.
>
> membership cards are not necessary in cults.
For once in my Life, I was NOT being literal. Sorry to confuse.
> the Church of Satan. one can become enslaved to a cult
> simply through participation. the best cults merely take
> over your life and siphon off the money and time. they are
> parasitic of mind and body -- in short, of will.
Ah, then I *am* a member of one cult -- the alt.magick newsgroup.
> > For that matter, I don't know any secret handshakes,
> > except, of course, for the ones I've made up over the
> > years....
>
> again, an extraneous addition proffered by masonic and quasi-
> masonic organizations or seriously covert operations.
I guess I forgot to add the ':-)'.
> > ...so perhaps you can help me evaluate whether or not I am
> > enslaved to the cult masquerading as Thelemic.
>
> lessee, you didn't offer "93" at the outset, so the signs are
> good so far.
Ah, but I DO use the traditional Thelemic exchanges; I simply refuse to use
the numerical shorthand.
Odd, when you consider that I've adopted doing exactly that with my own
name. Hmm...
Actually, that's not so odd, since the number *is* the name, whereas '93(s)'
is (are) shorthand for the phrase(s). Not the same beast at all.
> > (That's a gauntlet you see before you, by the way.)
>
> ::picking it up, offering it back to you accepting your
> challenge::
But all you've said is that "...the signs are good so far...". That's
okay, I'll take the gauntlet back anyway -- might need to slap myself with
it later. I'd be inclined to believe regular application of such a measure
might be instrumental in counteracting the effects of cultic influence.
> > By the way, WHY is E6 a symbol which means all this?
>
> stand on your head. ;>
Cute. I missed it completely. Pretty darned cute. This thread suddenly
has serious deja vu qualities; have we had this exchange before?
>
> PS (personals sent to private email)
>
Yeah, I guess that was an inappropriate use of the newsgroup; sorry.
Best regards,
185
Love is the law, love under will.
Charles Farquhar
richard sprigg wrote:
> 333 wrote:
>
> >
> > membership cards are not necessary in cults. these are usually
> > reserved for fancy elite orgs with hi profiles like the Church
> > of Satan. one can become enslaved to a cult simply through
> > participation.
>
> Which includes devout opposition.
Which brings up the question, does devout opposition of some support the
believers in a cult? If the answer to the first question is yes, then
does the conflict encourge stronger cultic behavior (i.e. more
disconnected from mainstream paths)?
Charles
benedicthassell
>Technically, "Gematria" means approaches involving number and
>manipulation of number corresponding to letters, words and groups of
>words, exclusively. Gematria is a Greek word, used also for the same
>thing in Hebrew and more generously applied to other systems of
>number-letter correspondence with other alphabets, ancient and modern.
>
>Notariqon is quite different, does not involve number directly and
>amounts to working with anagrams, initial, final and medial, as well
>as reverse anagrams.
>
>Temurah is a type of crypography, involving paired substitution of
>letters, one for another. There are 24 main forms of Temurah in
>traditional Kabbalah.
>
>Where you understand "Gematria", it may be that you are considering
>Kabbalah (also spelled in English "Qabalah", "Cabala", "QBLH", "QBL",
>and a variety of other ways, some of which may imply particular ethnic
>or other traditions. Qabalah, to take one variant of the spelling,
>includes Gematria, Notariqon, Temurah, Literary Criticism, Mysticism
>and many other things.
<snip>
>Gematria never proves anything. It's a vehicle for rhetoric,
>meditation, mnemonics, confidence building and an intellectual
>equivalent to rhyme.
I've also been following this thread with some interest but, alas, little
comprehension.
I still don't understand what Gematria (etc) is for.
What has it got to do with the will?
What has it got to do with magick (defined as manipulation of reality in
accordance with will)?
What is it used for?
Please excuse my ignorance.
Is there a web-page that explains the above in fairly simple terms?
I also do not undersatnd the furore surrounding the historical/cultural
origins of gematria/qabalah etc.
Why is this important?
--
Ben H
richard sprigg
Oppression and suppression have a tendency to support the coherence of
the oppressed/suppressed group. This applies to political, social and
religious groups.
More to the point, an Individual who defines their existence by opposing
any specific group or ideal, will inextricably entwine their destiny
with that of the target group.
Hoover and "Reds" is an example.
>
> Charles
richard sprigg
>
> I've also been following this thread with some interest but, alas, little
> comprehension.
> I still don't understand what Gematria (etc) is for.
Gematria of a word will have a value, which implies that other words of
the same value are related. This may involve meditation on the (often
disparate) meanings. It may also lead to a chain of concepts.
Thus Thelema (by greek Gematria) is 93. Agape is also 93. This
establishes a possible connection between love and will.
> What has it got to do with the will?
Not a lot. It can be a useful signpost.
> What has it got to do with magick (defined as manipulation of reality in
> accordance with will)?
> What is it used for?
>
> Please excuse my ignorance.
> Is there a web-page that explains the above in fairly simple terms?
Gematria is simple to learn, but different systems have different
values.
>
> I also do not undersatnd the furore surrounding the historical/cultural
> origins of gematria/qabalah etc.
> Why is this important?
Qabbalah has it's source in Jewish mysticism.
Hermeticists adopted the symbology over a number of years for purposes
other than the original, deriving correspondences and attributions that
have nothing to do with the original system.
The renascence of the hebrew language in the past 50 odd years has given
rise to a number of traditional qabbalistic mystics, who view with some
ascerbity what they see as the hijacking of their culture.
Any cultural group tends to view being treated in the same way as a dead
culture with a jaundiced eye.
To truly comprehend traditional qabbalah, it is important to understand
the cultural source from which it sprang. This is not always easy, but
it is possible.
To understand the hermetic interpretations of qabbalah it is necessarry
to read the major works on the subject by magical authors.
R. Brzustowicz
Didn't you just get through criticizing tyagi/hara/&c for his methods of
direct quotation?
rb
catherine yronwode
Yeah, but i didn't call that method "questionable," merely noting that
it was disingenuous in that it forced me to recapitulate material online
that he had alread read and acknowledged offline.
catherine yronwode
hara
shalom alechem, my kin.
hara (ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com):
#> what is the most responsible and respectful way to syncretize
#> from world mystical systems and cultures?
catherine yronwode (c...@luckymojo.com):
# I think that the most responsible way is to retain all references to
# original writers and to make very clear all cultural-ethnic ascriptions.
that makes alot of sense to me. it would also be valuable to discern
to what ends one was putting the material, as well as within what
context and to explain how that might be different from that of the
original. of course we're talking about scholarly desires -- the
practical folks don't always bother to credit or even skeptically
analyze the source of what they find useful.
#> how can it done while
#> still playing with the ideologies, value-systems, religious
#> beliefs and internal psychospiritual models and still retain an
#> attitude of honor for that from which we might draw?
# ...Can one "play" with another's culture or religion while
# showing it "honour"?
I think one can employ intellectual perspectives and magical
and mystical tools to one's own ends without dishonoring them or
the culture from which they come, yes. some of it would be
providing credit where credit is due, some of it would be the
respectful treatment of the psychotechnologies (e.g. methods of
meditation) so engaged and communicated. admiring the source
rather than deprecating or omitting it would be a start, coming
to some understanding during the course of experimentation what
goals and personal qualities of the mystical discipline there
may be (study of the context of the source would be valuable here)
would also be important.
#> what names
#> shall we provide to that which we create which simultaneously
#> calls attention to the fact that what we've made is a novelty
#> and that we have drawn on the important work of others whose
#> traditions gave specific identifiers?
# Appending the term "neo" -- as in "neo-tantra" -- is useful to avoid
# confusion between a indigenous system and a syncretic one.
it is unfortunate that this linguistic identifier has been used,
in many modern writings, as a means of dismissal, though this is
certainly not the case across the annals of history. how often
has the novel cultural usage been so identified? what I'm asking
here is something like whether Neoplatonists described themselves
as such as they arose. and what about the Neopythagoreans? I do
notice that very many Neopagans identify as 'Pagans', though they
have an abiding desire to appear ancient (perhaps we all do).
I think that Scholem did a service to us in his usage of prepended
characterization ("Christian Kabbalah") and I will continue to use
his method and my spelling variations, as well as specifying my
"universalist QBL" hypotheses when describing Christian cabala and
Hermetic qabalah until I come to discover that that to which these
refer do not deserve the names. I would of course agree that
changing NOTHING in the label is charlatanry and deceptive.
# "Neo-kaballism" sounds good to me to describe the Golden Dawn style
# kaballism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
a very worthy suggestion. inasmuch as it may not even be a kind of
qabalism, I think there is an argument to be made that even this is
too complimentary (since it may not approach a Christian cabala and
may really serve as a kind of magical filing system of association).
my intent is to continually contrast these against one another as I
learn about each, asking those who promote them to assist me in this
and to see whether even Scholem's usage is overly-complimentary (as
you have suggested offline) -- something which is quite possible.
peace be with you,
hara
G Leake
># My point is that Qabalah is Jewish.
>
>but you are making your point very badly
Qabalah is Jewish.
*wait, wait, this is far too simplistic considering the plethora of
inconsistent spellings--personally I think in roman letters the following
representation, i.e. "QBL", is much closer to the hebrew original. And
simply saying "Qabalah is Jewish. " is far too simplistic as well--are you
talking pre-Lurianic or post--and then there's other people like Carlos
Suares--he's certainly Jewish, but he certainly has his own take--
--
____________________________________________________
Never let your mind wander from the fact that your Qabalah is not my Qabalah; a good many of the things which I have noted may be useful to you, but you must construct your own system so that it is a living weapon in your hand.
-Aleister Crowley, _Magick Without Tears; Letter # F, 8/23/43_
George Leake, D.H.M.
benedicthassell
>> I still don't understand what Gematria (etc) is for.
>
>Gematria of a word will have a value, which implies that other words of
>the same value are related. This may involve meditation on the (often
>disparate) meanings. It may also lead to a chain of concepts.
>Thus Thelema (by greek Gematria) is 93. Agape is also 93. This
>establishes a possible connection between love and will.
Aha!
Thanks for this Richard.
Gematria depends, then, on assigning a numerical value to phonetic symbols
(i.e. letters).
Consistent spelling must play an important role then. (No pun intended).
Do letters in greek (or hebrew, or whatever is used for Gematria usually)
only have one sound associated with them?
Because in English 'e', for example, can be pronounced in many different
ways so I would question the assigning of one number to the letter symbol.
Personally I don't know how significant I would consider correspondences
between words to be.
An interesting meditation method though.
I was experimenting recently by picking words at random out of a book and
meditating on the correspondences between them.
Also I was having a go at the Tarot major arcana.
It seems that words or images from anywhere will do.
Could be wrong, of course.
I'll keep experimenting.
--
Ben H
333
E6
sole...@oath.com:
#># ...so perhaps you can help me evaluate whether or not I am
#># enslaved to the cult masquerading as Thelemic.
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (333):
#> lessee, you didn't offer "93" at the outset, so the signs are
#> good so far.
sole...@oath.com:
# Ah, but I DO use the traditional Thelemic exchanges; I simply
# refuse to use the numerical shorthand.
as have I.
# Odd, when you consider that I've adopted doing exactly that
# with my own name. Hmm...
# Actually, that's not so odd, since the number *is* the name,
# whereas '93(s)' is (are) shorthand for the phrase(s). Not
# the same beast at all.
this is my point entirely. if you consult Crowley's text on
Thelemic Greetings you will find that these particular quotes
(DWTW.../LITL...) were *Crowley's* Thelemic Greetings and
they have been taken up in a manner which abandons their
former discipline. a better choice would be "Hail Satan!"
as I see it, or "blessed beast!".
# I'd be inclined to believe regular application of such a measure
# might be instrumental in counteracting the effects of cultic
# influence.
opposing cult-behavior within the cult can be liberational for
all concerned.
#> stand on your head. ;>
# Cute. I missed it completely. Pretty darned cute. This thread suddenly
# has serious deja vu qualities; have we had this exchange before?
possible, I've occasionally entered into the contrast between
Thelemic religion, Thelemic cult and Thelemic philosophy in a
variety of forums. ;>
333
richard sprigg
>
> richard sprigg wrote:
>
> >> I still don't understand what Gematria (etc) is for.
> >
> >Gematria of a word will have a value, which implies that other words of
> >the same value are related. This may involve meditation on the (often
> >disparate) meanings. It may also lead to a chain of concepts.
> >Thus Thelema (by greek Gematria) is 93. Agape is also 93. This
> >establishes a possible connection between love and will.
>
> Aha!
>
> Thanks for this Richard.
>
> Gematria depends, then, on assigning a numerical value to phonetic symbols
> (i.e. letters).
> Consistent spelling must play an important role then. (No pun intended).
Sometimes. Variations may also be important, if they are deliberate, or
appear to be so.
> Do letters in greek (or hebrew, or whatever is used for Gematria usually)
> only have one sound associated with them?
Um. Both are used. Greek has had a few alphabets with differing amounts
of letters. I recall it started with 27 and fell to 24 by the time the
gospels were collected. Greek has two "E" letters, two "O" letters as
well as equivalents of the english: seven vowels. There are also letters
that are only expressed in english by combinations "Th", Ph", "Ps" and
more. Finally, the initial "H" in Greek is denoted by an apostraphe.
thus Hermes is 'ermes. Other than this there are enough grammatical odds
and ends to drive a man to drink.
Hebrew has no vowels, they are imputed by the way the letters are
aranged, which can lead to some interesting discussions on
pronunciation. Further to this, two letters may have the same sound in
certain situations, and can legitimately be exchanged for gematria
purposes, if the writer wants to insert a specific value.
> Personally I don't know how significant I would consider correspondences
> between words to be.
> An interesting meditation method though.
I frankly find it too seductive: I find it too easy to lose a week or
two in meditation without any real purpose but for the fun of the chase.
>
> I was experimenting recently by picking words at random out of a book and meditating on the correspondences between them.
> Also I was having a go at the Tarot major arcana.
Have you looked into Alt.Tarot? the FAQ is excellent, and JK has a depth
of knowledge and experience you will not commonly encounter.
> It seems that words or images from anywhere will do.
Yup.
sole...@oath.com
Tyagi is CCed on the reply.
> From: ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (333)
> [...]
> > Odd, when you consider that I've adopted doing exactly that
> > with my own name. Hmm...
> >
> > Actually, that's not so odd, since the number *is* the
> > name, whereas '93(s)' is (are) shorthand for the phrase(s).
> > Not the same beast at all.
>
> this is my point entirely. if you consult Crowley's text on
> Thelemic Greetings you will find that these particular quotes
> (DWTW.../LITL...) were *Crowley's* Thelemic Greetings and
> they have been taken up in a manner which abandons their
> former discipline.
I note with some humor that sounding out the acronyms as you have presented
them (DWTW/LITL) suggests that Thelemites "Do Too Little". Was that
intentional?
> a better choice would be "Hail Satan!" as
> I see it, or "blessed beast!".
Sure.
I haven't yet reached a stage where I can embrace your interpretations on
this matter. However, as always, I respect your right to pursue them as
you perceive them. My admiration for your tenacity in the matter is on an
upswing again, after some period of indeterminable direction. Perhaps your
intermittent access to the Internet has played a role in this? An "Out of
sight, out of mind" sort of thing, perhaps. When one tastes only the hot
pepper, one does not often gain an appreciation for the sauce in which it
is cooked. To see only a part of your crusade can leave the uninitiated
somewhat disenchanted, and, I suspect, most people are uninitated to your
perspective on the issues. :-)
> > I'd be inclined to believe regular application of such a
> > measure might be instrumental in counteracting the effects
> > of cultic influence.
>
> opposing cult-behavior within the cult can be liberational
> for all concerned.
Motivations for your crusades, perhaps?
> > > stand on your head. ;>
> >
> > Cute. I missed it completely. Pretty darned cute. This
> > thread suddenly has serious deja vu qualities; have we had
> > this exchange before?
>
> possible, I've occasionally entered into the contrast between
> Thelemic religion, Thelemic cult and Thelemic philosophy in a
> variety of forums. ;>
Well, I meant the E6/93 relationship specifically, but, yes, you *have*
been known to find gauntlets in the oddest places.
Best wishes, my black brother.