(O) Crowley's QBL, Sources, and Magical History (was Gematria...) (fwd)
catherine yronwode
> Kn...@aol.com wrote:
> # Actually, I think, Crowley received his copy of *Liber 77* from
> # Allen Bennett...
> what
> you have inaccurately referred to as "Liber 77" is what Crowley
> called, and which I have referenced as, "Sepher Sephiroth" (a
> different book than "Liber 777") is what was given to him by
> Allan Bennett as described in Regardie's introduction:
>
> The third volume included here is "Sepher Sephiroth",
> ... Originally, the book
> was started by Allan Bennett, one of the Golden Dawn
> adepts who took Crowley under his wing to ground him
> in the fundamental processes of Magic, Qabalah, and
> meditation....
Notice Regardie's spurious premise that the kabbalah is a "process"
(like meditation or magic), something which a student can perform as an
activity. In other places, cited previously in usenet, Crowley and his
followers referred to the kabbalah as "a language" and "a technique." It
is none of these. The kabbalah, which means "that which is received," is
a body of Judaic mystical writings. It is not a method (technique), nor
an action (process), nor a way of speaking (language).
> "Sepher Sephiroth" consists of hundreds of Hebrew
> words selected from several sources that are listed
> in the front of the text.
>
> HARA NOTE: Crowley credits the following
> sources in the front of this text --
>
> Allan Bennett (started it)
> George Cecil Jones (ed. asst.)
> "a Jewish scribe" (ed. asst.)
A nameless "Jewish scribe" my ass. Puhlease! This must be consdered pure
fabrication until proven otherwise!
> Fra. Lampada (math asst.)
> Gerald Rae Fraser (math asst.)
> Soror NN (ed. asst.)
> "three separate scholars" (proof check)
> "Von Rosenroth's Qabalistic Dictionary"
> (included all of his text)
> special commentaries in "Siphra Dtzenioutha",
> "Idra Rabba Qadisha" and "Idra Zuta Qadisha",
> those given in "Liber 777", and those found
> by Bennett and Crowley (included all of that
> text; inclusive of some extractions from
> "the Hebrew Scriptures which appeared
> to those adepts to be of magical
> importance")
A true kabbalist would known that according to kabbalist tradition, ALL
of the Hebrew Scriptures are of "magical" importance. These poseurs just
picked and chose a few lines to ad a hint of "Jewish flavour" to their
hermetic stew.
_____________________________________________
> paraphrase from same source as above,
> editorial note in "Sephir Sephiroth
> sub figura D [Gk] (o' a'rithmos)",
> presumably written by Crowley.
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> END NOTE FROM HARA
>
> Most of the words are from the Old Testament and a couple
> of non-Zoharic texts translated by McGregor Mathers under
> the title of "The Kaballah Unveiled", from the Latin
> edition of Knorr von Rosenroth.
The English edition of Von Rosenroth's 1600s book "Kaballah Denudata"
(The Kabbalah Uncovered) appeared in full (not as extracted by Mathers)
in 1894, i believe, according to G. Scholem's exhaustive "Kabbalah."
Crowley, cited previously in usent, recommnded this full edition over
the Mathers redaction called "The Kabbalah Unveiled."
> These words were arranged
> according to their numerical value by Bennett. The process
> and additional words were continued by Crowley after he
> had interited the book from his mentor.
> __________________________________________________________
> Ibid., introduction.
> ----------------------
>
> thus it appears that Crowley drew not only from Golden Dawn
> members but also from whatever translations he could obtain
> of the Zohar ("[The Book of] Splendor"). for information
> about the Zohar I now turn to a reliable scholar on kabbalah
> to describe the specific portions of the sources referred to
> above:
In what follows and what is above , i think the word "portion" has been
misused or misunderstood by hara. It does not mean "section" or
"chapter." It means a verse from Scripture. When hara writes that he is
turning to Scholem's book "to describe the specific portions of the
sources" he makes little sense because he does NOT describe the
"portions." I will explain his error below.
In the meantime, the reader needs to know that Gershom Scholem (whom
hara is about to quote) gives the manuscript and printing history of the
Zohar at length and describes its contents as numbering more than 20
types of commentary and exegesis of Scripture (of which gematria,
notiqarion and such are only a few). He also explains that as compiled
for its earliest printings, the Zohar contained within it works by
another hand or hands than the presumed author, Moses de Leon. In
listing the contents he covers one of the subsidiary parts as:
> "Siphra Dtzenioutha"
> *Sifra de-Zeni'uta* ("Book of Concealment"), a kind
> of fragmented commentary on the portion *Bereshit*,
> [a previous section of the Zohar - hara]
See above: "portion" does NOT mean "section of the Zohar." It is a
specifically Jewish term for a Biblical text. There are "daily portions"
to be read and studied. This teaching method has also been used (in
imitation of Judaism?) by certain Christian sects in whose churches a
weekly "verse" is given out for memorization by the congregation and and
to be commented upon by the preacher.
When Scholem writes: "commentary on the portion *Bereshit*" he means
"commentary on the verse in Scripture that opens with the word Bereshit
('In the Beginning')" -- thus, more broadly, "commentary on the opening
of the Book of Genesis."
In plain English, for non-Jewish readers, what Scholem was saying is:
"The Book of Concealment is a fragmented commentary on the opening verse
of the Book of Genesis that commences with the daily portion 'In the
beginning.'" He is NOT saying that The Book of Concealment is a
commentary on an earlier section or chapter ("portion") of the Zohar!
Furthermore, he makes clear that this chapter *Sifra de-Zeni'uta* ("Book
of Concealment") is a supplementary comment on the portion *Bereshit* --
not the full or original commentary. Some editions of the printed Zohar
text (e,g, the Cremona edition, per Scholem) insert *Sifra de-Zeni'uta*
into the main text at the *Bereshit* portion, others, like Scholem, feel
that due to its "fragmented" literary style, it is the work of a second
author and should be printed separately in terms of pagination.
> in short
> obscure sentences, like an anonymous Mishnah [the
> teaching of rabbi or other noted authority on
> Jewish laws - hara], in five chapters....
> __________________________________________________
> _Kabbalah_, by Gershom Scholem, Dorset Press,
> 1974; p. 214.
> --------------------------------------------------
> "Idra Rabba Qadisha"
> *Idra Rabba* ("The Greater Assembly"), a description
> of the gathering of Simeon b. Yohai [the main figure
> of the Zohar - hara] and his companions, in which
> the most profound mysteries are expounded concerning
> the revelation of the Divine in the form of *Adam
> Kadmon* ("Primordial Man"). It is of a superior
> literary construction
As i understand Scholem's opinions, he merely indicates here that
because of the "superior literary construction" of the chapter *Idra
Rabba* ("The Greater Assembly"), it is more probably the work of the
author Moses de Leon than, for instance, the "fragmented" and "obscure"
*Sifra de-Zeni'uta*, which is probably not.
> and the most systematic
> discourse found in the Zohar. Each of the companions
> says his piece and Simeon b. Yohai completes their
> pronouncements. At the end of this solemn assembly
> three of the ten participants meet with an ecstatic
> death....
> ___________________________________________________
> Ibid., pp. 214-5.
> -------------------
>
> "Idra Zuta Qadisha",
> *Idra Zuta* ("The Lesser Assembly"), a description
> of the death of Simeon b. Yohai and his closing
> words to his followers before death, a kind of
> kabbalistic parallel to the death of Moses. In [sic]
> contains a companion discourse to that in the *Idra
> Rabba*, with many additions.... This portion
> concludes the Zohar....
> _____________________________________________________
> Ibid., p. 215.
> ---------------
In his misunderstanding of the word "portion," hara has omitted (with
ellipses) the NAME of the portion that "concludes the Zohar." It is, for
the record, according to Scholem, the portion *Ha'azinu* from
Deuteronomy.
Scholem's description of the contents of the Zohar notes that "The main
part of the Zohar [is] arranged according to the weekly portions, up to
and including the portion *Pinhas*. From Deuteronomy there [are] only
[the portions] *Va-Ethannan*, a little on *Va-Yelekh* and *Ha'azinu*."
To put this in perspective, according to Scholem, although the Zohar
contains many non-scriptural stories, the "MAIN PART" consists of
commentaries on the daily portions of Scripture from Genesis onward
partially into Deuteronomy, plus a commentary on the first chapter of
The Song of Songs (this chapter is unnamed per se, and is referred to by
Scholem as ZHfols 61D-75b), plus a chapter called *Raza de-Raxin* ("The
Secret of Secrets") on psyiognamy and chiromancy that derives from the
portion *Yitro* in the Book of Exodus, plus that "fragmented" secondary
comment on the portion *Bereshit* called *Sifra de-Zeni'uta*. One might
think that had the author of the Zohar lived long enough, he might have
produced metaphycial and magical commentaries on every portion or verse
of the Scriptures. But the Zohar is not the totality of kabbalah, by any
means -- it is just one book!
> "Von Rosenroth's Qabalistic Dictionary"
> The Christian mystic Chr. Knorr von Rosenroth... made
> a Latin translation of important parts [of the Zohar],
> particularly the *Idrot* and the *Sifra de-Zeniuta*,
> in his large work *Kabbala Denudata* (Sulzbach, 1677;
> Frankfort, 1684), and most of the quotations from the
> Zohar or translations of those pieces which appeared
> in other European languages were taken from here,
> together with all the mistakes of the original
> translator, e.g., the works of S.L. Mathers, *The
> Kabbalah Unveiled* (1887); Paul Vulliaud, *Traduction
> integrale du Siphra de-Tzeniutha* (1930).
> _____________________________________________________
> Ibid., p. 240.
> --------------
>
> I have no idea if Rosenroth's "Qabalistic Dictionary" refers
> to _Kabbala Denudata_, but Regardie appears to be implying
> this in his introduction quoted above.
I think it must.
> #> don't expect much citation or historical analysis from Crowley,
> #> however, as he tends to let the reader presume that he either
> #> originates or 'reveals' the subject matter without reference
> #> to specific sourcing....
>
> # Harumph!!! There is plenty there if you know what you are
> # reading....
>
> that is entirely the problem. for example, in the 'editorial
> note' to which I referred above Crowley had those sections of
> the Zohar abbreviated without reference to the expansions for
> the abbreviations! (to be found on the subsequent page if one
> was resourceful). also, it is not clear in the text who the
> editor *is* (presumably Regardie edited the entire composite,
> but Crowley wrote the text of this note, since he refers to
> himself in the third person as 'Frater Perdurabo' and 'Fra P').
> one must decipher the sourcing and discover the actuality of
> its virtue or fault (he didn't mention Mathers, for example).
Well, he (or Bennett?) DID mention Mathers actually, plus a fictional
person he calls "Mathers' Jew," whom he (Crowey or Bennett) proposes to
send "back to the ghetto." It's in the book '777'. No kidding.
> it is this which I am attempting here for the benefit of those
> who would like to take a deeper glimpse into Crowley's
> gematric system (his 'qabalah', according to his editors and
> fans -- I'm still analyzing to see what a qabalah is and
> whether he has one or can be said to be a 'qabalist';
> something I reserve for discussions in Usenet rather than for
> the Occult Elist on account of its flamish heat and abstruse
> detail :>).
Crowley wouldn't have known "a kaballah" if it hit him over the head. He
had read the English translation of Von Rosenroth's fragmented 17th
century Latin compilation of texts (centered on the Zohar, which is only
one of hundreds of kabbalistic books of scriptural exegesis and magical
commentary written by Jews between the fall of the Roman empire and the
present day).
Having read Von Rosenroth, it seems that Crowley chose to concentrate on
merely one of several letter-number codes that kabbalistic exegetes had
applied to the Bible (namely, gematria, to the exclusion of notarikon
and temurah, both of which he openly mocked in the book "777") and he
ignored (or was unable to understand?) the totality of the kabbalah's
interpretive scriptural material that also includes
physiognamy
chiromancy
astrology
spiritual exegesis of the daily portions of scripture
contemplation of the Merrkabah (chariot) vision of Ezikiel
instructions in prayer, both devotionary and as a means to
accomplish beneficent and maleficent magical outcomes
wonder-tales concerning the magical use of the names of God to
perform miracles
meditations on the Names of God
several schematic systems for understanding the cosmos (e.g.
numerous "tree of life" diagrams)
fictionalized and historical records of Socratic-style dialogue
between Rabbis (theological teachers) and their students
angelology
demonology
speculations concerning the arrival of a Messaiah (including but by
no means limited to the cultish belief that a man named Shabettai ben
Zevi (who died in 1672 after a forced conversion to Islam in 1666) was
or had been the Anointed One
speculations on the transmigration of souls
theories about the ability of the souls of the dead to split into
"sparks" that could reincarnate in several places at once or could enter
already ensouled living people as "Ibburs" (similar to the new age
concept of "walk-ins")
doctrinal disputes concerning the nature of God or the Godhead
abstruse theological points such as the manner in which God -- if
he was "all" -- could have made *physical* room for the universe when he
created it (he did so by compressing himself a bit, according to the
Lurianic tzim-tzum school of kabbalah, which was opposed by other
schools, of course, and did not represent a monolithic "kabbalistic"
viewpoint)
and so forth and so on.
Furthermore, Crowley, in his attempt to "universalize" the tiny snippet
of letter-manipulation that he had selected from one of the several
letter-corresponce systems of kabbalah, grabbed one (of DOZENS) of
versions of "tree of life" schematics and then applied to this composite
fragment of mystical Judiaism the same misguided "Egyptian" origin that
Blavatsky the Theosophist had, and manufactured a spurious "table of
correspondences" between Judaic scriptural terms and Egyptian gods! Not
content with this, he took James Legge's flawed and mis-translated
version of the Chinese I Ching and gave "tree of life" correspondences
to it as well, creating a Chinese-Hebrew (or Confucianist-Judaic) hybrid
that could not sustain itself. He and his pals also added the Italian
card game tarocchi, under its Golden-Dawnesque guise as a "system of
divination" to the stew-pot, propagating the riduculous formula Tarot =
Rota = Tora(h), and thus equating the principle Jewish holy books with a
cosmic "wheel" (of fortune or divination) and with a form of idle play.
This is neither THE kabbalah nor "a" kaballah.
Hara wrote:
> I'm still analyzing to see what a qabalah is
But in fact, hara's very notion of "a" kabbalah makes no sense to me.
What *is* "a" kabbalah, pray tell?
Do Thelemites such as hara presume that every culture or religion or
national group can have "a" kabbalah, just like every culture has a
"language"? If so, what is "the kabbalah of the Taoists"? What is "the
kabbalah of the Yorubans"? What is "the kaballah of the Mayans"?
If every culture, nation, or religion, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, can
have "a" kabbalah, can every one also have a "Book of the Dead"? How
about a "Popul Vuh"? How about a "Tales of Coyote"?
What is "the Popul Vuh of the Jews"? What is "the Book of the Dead of
the Norwegians"? What is the "Tales of Coyote of the Cathars"?
I believe that Crowley's purported Thelemic universalism, a British
Empire universalism that picked and chose a passage here and a diagram
there, defamed the creators of these sampled passages ("send him back to
the ghetto" said Crowley/Bennet/Regardie/whoever in "777"), and then
tossed the sample into a series of equivalency tables along with sampled
passages from other cultures and religions that it equally disrespected
is not "universal." It is merely an Orientalized species of the same old
Christian spiritual hegemony we pagans see all around us, a hegemony
that creates nothing but merely acquries through appropriation the
cosmologies, creativity, and mysticism of conquered peoples.
> # Yes, we Magikans adore self-aggrandisement and ego-inflation,
> # which is why Unkle Al joined so damn many occult organizations
> # and boasted of so many grades and degrees.
>
> I agree that mages seem to like and to explore self-aggrandizement
> and ego-inflation,
Not all of us.
> but I would echo some of Crowley's better text
> on this matter by saying that it must be prefaced by study
Yep. He's a great example of THAT! ;-)
> as well
> as an exploration of meditation and yogic disciplines (generic
> integrative activities) lest it merely become a self-explosion and
> one become a magnet for social reprobation.
>
> how many occult organizations did he join, exactly? I'm aware of
> the Golden Dawn of his day and then there was a fabled conscription
> into the OTO (on account of his supposedly publishing its most
> important secret in _Book of Lies_ chapter 36). he also created
> with a couple of others the Order of the Silver Star (A.'.A.'.),
> but this is something which should never, according to most of
> the initiates of organizations that bear this name, draw the kind
> of notoriety and grandeur that you describe above.
He also undertook Freemasonic initiation, i have been told, both in
Mexico and under the expelled Mason Jonathan Yarker whose "degree mill"
was notorious for conferring grand titles without warrant or charter.
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
check out news:alt.lucky.w for discussions on folk magic and luck
hara
hara (ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com) about Crowley's text:
>> "Sepher Sephiroth" (a different book than "Liber 777") is
>> what was given to him by Allan Bennett as described in
>> Regardie's introduction:
>>
>> The third volume included here is "Sepher Sephiroth",
>> ... Originally, the book
>> was started by Allan Bennett, one of the Golden Dawn
>> adepts who took Crowley under his wing to ground him
>> in the fundamental processes of Magic, Qabalah, and
>> meditation....
catherine yronwode (c...@luckymojo.com):
> ...The kabbalah... is a body of Judaic mystical writings.
yes, I think that in general this has been agreed many times.
the Kabbalah, i.e. Jewish kabbalah, includes a body of Jewish
mystical, magical, and other types of writings. it also appears
to include more than this. what more I am attempting to learn,
as well as how this is similar or differs from other QBLs (such
as Christian cabala, Hermetic qabalah, and Thelemic qaballa).
> It is not a method (technique), nor an action (process),
> nor a way of speaking (language).
actually, the way that Crowley and Regardie speak of qabalah,
it does have these significances, but more to the point, my
understanding from reading parts of Scholem's text _Kabbalah_
is that Jewish kabbalah includes these processes, and
'the Kabbalah' is a general way of referring to the Jewish
tradition that includes processes, techniques, and types of
expression.
thank you for your correction to my read of Scholem. I'll
archive both our texts and hope that the seriously interested
will pursue direct reference, offering additional input on
our analysis where it is warranted.
>> ...it appears that Crowley drew not only from Golden Dawn
>> members but also from whatever translations he could obtain
>> of the Zohar ("[The Book of] Splendor")....
>> above:
> ...the Zohar is not the totality of kabbalah, by any means
> -- it is just one book!
to be sure, nor is "777" the totality of Hermetic qabalah.
>> it is this which I am attempting here for the benefit of those
>> who would like to take a deeper glimpse into Crowley's
>> gematric system (his 'qabalah', according to his editors and
>> fans -- I'm still analyzing to see what a qabalah is and
>> whether he has one or can be said to be a 'qabalist';
>> something I reserve for discussions in Usenet rather than for
>> the Occult Elist on account of its flamish heat and abstruse
>> detail :>).
> Crowley.... had read the English translation of Von
> Rosenroth's fragmented 17th century Latin compilation
> of texts (centered on the Zohar, which is only one of
> hundreds of kabbalistic books of scriptural exegesis
> and magical commentary written by Jews between the
> fall of the Roman empire and the present day).
> Having read Von Rosenroth, it seems that Crowley chose
> to concentrate on merely one of several letter-number
> codes that kabbalistic exegetes had applied to the Bible
> (namely, gematria, to the exclusion of notarikon and
> temurah, both of which he openly mocked in the book "777")
my impression is that Crowley was focussing on a text (whose
translation he had available, perhaps the best he could find?)
known to be central to Jewish kabbalah (along with, what, 3
or 4 others?) in his attempt to construct his Hermetic
qabalah. his decision not to consider as 'reliable' or
revelatory the systems of temurah or notariqon are interesting
and, I think, reasonable (something which we could discuss in
a divination thread), though he doesn't do these systems justice
in the text to which you refer and seems merely to mock them.
> and he ignored (or was unable to understand?) the totality of
> the kabbalah's interpretive scriptural material that also
> includes physiognam[?], [cheiromancy], astrology, spiritual
> exegesis of the daily portions of scripture, contemplation of
> the Merrkabah (chariot) vision of Ezikiel, instructions in
> prayer, both devotionary and as a means to accomplish
> beneficent and maleficent magical outcomes, wonder-tales
> concerning the magical use of the names of God to perform
> miracles, meditations on the Names of God, several schematic
> systems for understanding the cosmos (e.g. numerous "tree of
> life" diagrams), fictionalized and historical records of
> Socratic-style dialogue between Rabbis (theological teachers)
> and their students angelology demonology speculations
> concerning the arrival of a Messaiah (including but by no
> means limited to the cultish belief that a man named Shabettai
> ben Zevi (who died in 1672 after a forced conversion to Islam
> in 1666) was or had been the Anointed One, speculations on
> the transmigration of souls, theories about the ability of
> the souls of the dead to split into "sparks" that could
> reincarnate in several places at once or could enter already
> ensouled living people as "Ibburs" (similar to the new age
> concept of "walk-ins"), doctrinal disputes concerning the
> nature of God or the Godhead, abstruse theological points
> such as the manner in which God -- if he was "all" -- could
> have made *physical* room for the universe when he created
> it (he did so by compressing himself a bit, according to the
> >Lurianic tzim-tzum school of kabbalah, which was opposed
> by other schools, of course, and did not represent a
> monolithic "kabbalistic" viewpoint), and so forth and so on.
a beautiful broadside of Jewish kabbalah. I don't think that
Crowley ignored all these things, but he did seem to separate
them from what he was labelling "qabalah", and this does seem
very strange. one can find, for example, text such as you
mention above in his _Book Four_.
> Furthermore, Crowley, in his attempt to "universalize" the
> tiny snippet of letter-manipulation that he had selected
> from one of the several letter-corresponce systems of
> kabbalah, grabbed one (of DOZENS) of versions of "tree of
> life" schematics and then applied to this composite fragment
> of mystical Judiaism the same misguided "Egyptian" origin
> that Blavatsky the Theosophist had, and manufactured a
> spurious "table of correspondences" between Judaic
> scriptural terms and Egyptian gods!
I didn't get the sense that the book "777" was a successful
universalist approach, and I understand from Regardie (who
edited the text of _777 and Other Qabalistic Writings of
Aleister Crowley_), as well as from faint memories of
Crowley's text, that Crowley was dissatisfied with it.
where I think that Crowley succeeds more readily is in his
"Sepher Sephiroth", which is why I have tried to focus on this
text rather than "777" which I personally dislike. one of the
appendices to "777" (A) also seems to provide a clearer glimpse
into his vision of what he was attempting to achieve. Bill
Heidrick fairly recapitulated the main points as to Crowley's
definition of qabalah in his own posts on the subject here,
but I'll try to restate based on a direct reference to the
text from my library. Crowley asserts that "Qabalah is: --"
(a) A language (as described earlier)
(b) A terminology
(c) A system of symbolism
(d) An instrument for interpreting symbols whose
meaning has become obscure, forgotten or
misunderstood
(e) A system of classification of omniform ideas
(f) An instrument for proceeding from the known
to the unknown
(g) A system of criteria by which the truth of
correspondences may be tested with a view
to criticizing new discoveries in the light
of their coherence with the whole body of
truth.
____________________________________
end of rough quote, 777, Appendix A.
------------------------------------
"777" and "Sepher Sephiroth" were his attempt to generate
the above, and I think he succeeded, though in the case of
the former, unconvincingly, and in the case of the latter,
solely with respect to a reference for numerolinguistics for
Hebrew language. it remained for others to take this
achievement and Crowley's other text further and possibly
into an universalist application (e.g. look at the EQ tradition,
though I think that they specialize in Thelemic religious
slant and have selected their preferred divinatory fundament
based on its results rather than on some conventional order,
as jake stratton-kent has clearly explained).
> Not content with this, he took James Legge's flawed and
> mis-translated version of the Chinese I Ching....
as I have asked about his selections for Hebrew sources,
what did he have available to him that you would suggest
he should instead have consulted? I'd got the impression
that Legge, like Budge whom Crowley also consulted, was
considered authoritative at the time Crowley was writing
and researching. am I misinformed? if so, please offer
corrections and specify what Crowley blatantly ignored.
> and gave "tree of life" correspondences to it as well,
> creating a Chinese-Hebrew (or Confucianist-Judaic) hybrid
> that could not sustain itself.
I think you've missed the point of the universalist QBL
(to what Crowley aspired in his Hermetic qabalah): to
syncretically weave the symbols and concepts of the
mystical, mythological and magical cultures of the world
into a single correspondence system from which magicians
could draw to conduct their rituals and personal meditations.
if you feel that it could not sustain itself (I have
remarked on Crowley's weaving of this Lurianic Tree of
Life and the elements of the I Ching myself and proposed
an alternative or two to it which may be found in the
Hollyfeld Archive), then I invite you to critique it
and offer up your own suggestion. at least you could
point out the specifics of what "could not sustain
itself" is comprised so that we could ascertain the
substance of your criticism.
> He and his pals also added the Italian card game tarocchi,
> under its Golden-Dawnesque guise as a "system of divination"
> to the stew-pot, propagating the riduculous formula Tarot =
> Rota = Tora(h), and thus equating the principle Jewish holy
> books with a cosmic "wheel" (of fortune or divination) and
> with a form of idle play.
this seems to confuse the history somewhat, since, if I'm
not mistaken, Crowley inherited the occult tarot-Hebrew
association which others in the Golden Dawn (or previous with
de Gebelin or someone like him?) had constructed (apparently
publishing with some blinds that Crowley quite rationally
corrected). did Crowley derive the TARO/ROTA/TORA (what about
ORAT, dammit? :> it makes a lovely expressive signifier,
doesn't it?), or wasn't that around before him too?
I think that such formulae are important to magical work and
writings and its sequencing provides important implications
that reflect the mysteries as the Hermetics and other mystics
expound upon them.
> This is neither THE kabbalah nor "a" kaballah.
that is correct, it is, however, Hermetic qabalah.
>> I'm still analyzing to see what a qabalah is
> ..."a" kabbalah makes no sense to me. What *is* "a"
> kabbalah, pray tell?
as I said, that is what I am trying to ascertain. however,
I can indeed explore my developing hypotheses as they
are arising in my mind in response to this and previous
discussions as well as the brief reading I have done in
the area of Hermetic qabalah and academic reflections of
Jewish kabbalah (although I think some authors like
Halevi were original to the English language, I could be
mistaken).
there are a number of very important suggestions above,
by Crowley and by you (which I also saw in _Kabbalah_),
from which to choose in explicating the substance of
what I am calling a universal QBL. it would seem that
sectarian interests would fall by the wayside, such that
religious elements would have to be left behind to their
particular context or made permeably generic.
it was Crowley's contention in Liber 31 that such a thing
could be accomplished (thus 'Thelema') and yet he still
appears to desire a retention of some religious language and
theology which he has passed down to Thelemic culture through
an over-obsession on his particular VSL -- that which I tend
to call the Evul Book (_Liber Al vel Legis_).
making these elements generic would merely mean describing
them in much the same way that you have done for Jewish
kabbalah but in a way that allows for plugging in any
religious knowledge/mythos set for the purposes that may be
described as a foundation underlying all instances of QBLH
(e.g. Jewish kabbalah, Christian cabala, Hermetic qabalah).
taxonomizing the TYPE of material of a religious nature
should be relatively easy. you have done the bulk of it
above as had Scholem in his analysis of Jewish kabbalah.
in a universal QBL these would be variables that would be
defined by the religious who put the universal into use.
the NONreligious elements (which I would call the more
fundamental and scientific elements) would of course
not depend upon any religious ideological substructure
in order to be employed by the magician. systems of
divination like gematria are obvious examples here, as
are any other occult sciences/arts which are the subject
of study by Hermetic and other magicians (i.e. astrology,
alchemy, etc.).
> Do Thelemites such as hara presume that every culture
> or religion or national group can have "a" kabbalah,
> just like every culture has a "language"?
not in the sense of having a 'Jewish culture', no. but in
the sense that Crowley and others (even I above) have
described, weaving a global mystical and magical cloth of
immense value.
> If so, what is "the kabbalah of the Taoists"?
we may be able to identify this if we look closely. there
are probably numerolinguistic elements of Chinese mysticism,
for example. they use the 'Square of Saturn' as do other
cultures, for magical purposes, and it would not be at all
surprising if they associated certain ideographs (alas I
gather that they do not have something which corresponds to
an 'alphabet' from which to construct a simple gematric)
with numbers. asking the question in this way allows me to
suggest, however, that the Taoist variation on the universal
QBL would likely draw on such texts as the _Tao Teh Ching_
(attributed to Lao Tzu), the _Inner Chapters_ (largely
constructed by Chuang Tzu if my sources are reliable), and
_I Ching_ (attributed variously to Fu Hsi or the Yellow
Emperor and others).
I'm sure it would also draw on or attempt to render greater
insight into the _P'a Po Tzu_ (sp?) (attributed to Chang Tao
Ling) and what is called 'the Taoist Canon', and integrate
all manner of ideas and symbols from taoist alchemy.
but as you can see, this is merely an extrapolation of the
hypotheses about which you have asked -- ones which I am
only in the beginning stages of formulating (and building
on writers like Crowley, who attempted to apply 'the method
of science in achieving the aims of religion').
it is possible that 'a QBL' will only apply to a generic for
esoteric transmission of virtually any sort, the specific
culture in question fleshing out any portion the potential
areas which humans have demonstrated are a part of it.
> What is "the kabbalah of the Yorubans"?
> What is "the kaballah of the Mayans"?
someone better acquainted than I would have to answer this
based on considering the Yoruban or Mayan religious cultural
selections for the universal QBL which I have suggested above.
> If every culture, nation, or religion, Jewish and
> non-Jewish alike, can have "a" kabbalah, can every one
> also have a "Book of the Dead"?
this is already happening. There is a "Tibetan Book of the
Dead", for example, as well as a Wiccan (Neopagan?) variation.
how successful they are should be based on the obvious
elements and objectives, the structural and motivational
facets of the original, from what I can see. if the original
was the construction of a particular individual or group and
they have defined what they are setting about to achieve, so
much the better. in each case the general type would best be
represented by the name of the original (the Kabbalah, _The
Book of the Dead_, etc.) until and unless someone sets forth
the universal that could be said to encompass it in some way
(at which point the original would be honored as the first of
its important specific type, like the first piece of an art
movement or the first sect of a religious culture).
> How about a "Popul Vuh"?
> ...What is "the Popul Vuh of the Jews"?
I don't know enough about this, though it is in my library
and I would have to dig to find it. I think that you can
get the gist of my response by my text above combined with
a thorough analysis of the work in question.
> How about a "Tales of Coyote"?
this would appear to be unique in type, though if another
culture developed a body of tales about a figure by that
name (probably would work best if it were similar to the
Coyote from the text you are mentioning), then it might be
defensible.
> What is "the Book of the Dead of the Norwegians"?
I got the impression that the variation was along religious
lines (Egyptian=> Egyptian religion of the time; Tibetan=>
Tibetan/Tantric Buddhism/Vajrayana; Wiccan=> whatever sect
of Neopagan set about trying to construct one).
> What is the "Tales of Coyote of the Cathars"?
probably non-extant unless some neoCatharic sect developed
which integrated Coyote somehow. again, unlikely.
> I believe that Crowley's purported Thelemic universalism,
> a British Empire universalism that picked and chose a
> passage here and a diagram there, defamed the creators of
> these sampled passages ("send him back to the ghetto" said
> Crowley/Bennet/Regardie/whoever in "777"), and then tossed
> the sample into a series of equivalency tables along with
> sampled passages from other cultures and religions that it
> equally disrespected is not "universal."
I would be inclined to agree, and I think it can be much
improved as I have indicated throughout this discussion. his
"777" seems too difficult a task to achieve on the basis of
the small number of categories he admitted to his system (we
might compare it to the 'Enneagram system' of personality
analysis, or to numerological systems which admit only of
9/10 numbers for all definitive analysis. what he tried to
achieve was simply too much for the system he used, and it
is quite possible that he realized this.
on the other hand, I think that "Sepher Sephiroth" is a very
good start and has become a seed to which others have added.
> It is merely an Orientalized species of the same old
> Christian spiritual hegemony we pagans see all around us,
> a hegemony that creates nothing but merely acquries through
> appropriation the cosmologies, creativity, and mysticism
> of conquered peoples.
and conquering peoples, if the appropriation of such cultural
elements as the Chinese (or the Christian) are of any indication.
was Crowley following the tack you have assessed, or was he
more indiscriminate as regards the sources from which he drew?
inasmuch as he was selective and drew from numerous cultures,
it is difficult to ascribe more than syncretic and eclectic
taste to his Hermetic activities.
>> # Yes, we Magikans adore self-aggrandisement and ego-inflation,
>> # which is why Unkle Al joined so damn many occult organizations
>> # and boasted of so many grades and degrees.
>>
>> I agree that mages seem to like and to explore self-aggrandizement
>> and ego-inflation,
>Not all of us.
very true. there is a very strong current of asceticism within the
Hermetic culture, some of which can be seen in such extreme texts
as _Liber Jugorum_ or the attachment which Crowley had for yoga
asanas (postures) and their maintenance. it is interesting to
contrast such figures as Crowley and Dee and Agrippa against one
another for their mystical and religious elements as well as their
power-grasping and obsession with controlling the cosmos.
unless the two are balanced off one another -- self-discipline being
balanced with self-aggregation -- then ultimately the individual is
doomed to dessication or explosion. Jungian psychologists have alot
to say of value here in their expressions about individuation and
the role of the ego in the development of the personality. I have
also found value in transpersonal psychologists (due to their
integration of the mystical) such as Maslow.
hara
--
ty...@houseofkaos.abyss.com (emailed replies may be posted); cc me replies;
http://www.abyss.com/tokus; http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocatSPELLS.html
Kjetil Fjell
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Just a short note, in order to clear up some misunderstandings regarding
John Yarker:
catherine yronwode wrote:
>and under the expelled Mason Jonathan Yarker whose "degree mill"
>was notorious for conferring grand titles without warrant or charter.
John Yarker remained a member in good standing of the U.G.L.E. until his
death. He was
however expelled from the legitimate Supreme Council in England.
Yarker's
reputation is somewhat ill-deserved, as there is no doubt that Yarker
literally spent all his money and ruined himself in running all the
various organisations he inherited or revived from or with such notables
such as McKenzie, Westcott and others.
Love is the law, love under will.
Best wishes
Kjetil
John E.Papa John Mayer
>Notice Regardie's spurious premise that the kabbalah is a "process"
>(like meditation or magic), something which a student can perform as an
>activity. In other places, cited previously in usenet, Crowley and his
>followers referred to the kabbalah as "a language" and "a technique." It
>is none of these. The kabbalah, which means "that which is received," is
>a body of Judaic mystical writings. It is not a method (technique), nor
>an action (process), nor a way of speaking (language).
Mmmm.....while you are quite right technically, I believe I *can* see a
justification for calling QBL a process.....a language, however, does not
apply, since obviously Hebrew is the language referred to.....a technique?
Well, perhaps. One could possibly call "practical QBL" a technique. It is
also a code or cypher.....actually, no need to go too deeply into the
possibilities, but it could even be referred to as a way of life.
Well done, however, to limit the scope, at least for beginners, since
too wide an explanation will confuse all but those who have lived it.
And all else you have said here is certainly true. You go, friendgirl!
Love,
Papa John
John E."Papa John" Mayer
Magick*Musick*Mayhem
papa...@vnet.net chi...@ix.netcom.com
If it don't hurt a little bit, it ain't rock & roll!
G Leake
>Notice Regardie's spurious premise that the kabbalah is a "process"
>(like meditation or magic), something which a student can perform as an
>activity. In other places, cited previously in usenet, Crowley and his
>followers referred to the kabbalah as "a language" and "a technique." It
>is none of these. The kabbalah, which means "that which is received," is
>a body of Judaic mystical writings. It is not a method (technique), nor
>an action (process), nor a way of speaking (language).
papa...@vnet.net (John E."Papa John" Mayer) wrote:
Mmmm.....while you are quite right technically, I believe I *can* see a
justification for calling QBL a process.....a language, however, does not
apply, since obviously Hebrew is the language referred to.....a technique?
Well, perhaps. One could possibly call "practical QBL" a technique. [snip]
*this is one reason why I'm constantly warning people from using such
absolutist terminology when it comes to QBL--because in some ways,
Catherine is entirely right, and John I certainly cannot argue with.
*not only is it perfectly obvious to me that Regardie and Crowley are
talking about 2 different but connected things just by the words they use
to describe QBL (how can we say Regardie's use of the term process is
spurious in his own context--maybe it is problematic when he speaks of
Crowley, but then again, can anyone entirely speak authoritatively of the
Inner Life of any other person?), but there's the very sticky issue of who
or what is at the other end of the ciphers--originally the sephira were a
channel to Yahweh--I have little doubt Crowley viewed QBL quite
differently in this regard, in fact his perception of The Universe
involves a pantheon of Gods, not a single angry male god. Regardie is
another story altogether. In any case, the problem still remains, who has
access to the Inner Gnostic Life of other people authoritatively enough to
speak on anything more than very general terms.
--
____________________________________________________
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.
John E.Papa John Mayer
>channel to Yahweh--I have little doubt Crowley viewed QBL quite
>differently in this regard, in fact his perception of The Universe
>involves a pantheon of Gods, not a single angry male god.
This is close, but allow me to remind you that AC wrote (Magick
w/o Tears?) that only those who have passed the Abyss can
truly be considered monotheists, and that we poor fools on the
south side of it must, for practical purposes, remain polytheists.
>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_
Oh yes, great quote!
Will
richard sprigg
originally the sephira were a
> channel to Yahweh--I have little doubt Crowley viewed QBL quite
> differently in this regard, in fact his perception of The Universe
> involves a pantheon of Gods, not a single angry male god.
Yet he also notes, in several places, that all gods are symbols, and
cautions the student not to confuse symbol and substance.
remember that the perfect and the perfect are none.
"I am a god of war and vengeance"
Jewish Kabbalah is a system: it includes methodology, symbology and
much, much, more.
Hermetic Kabbalah is really just the bare bones of the symbology with a
bunch of other attributions tacked on.
Marduke
together is drawing close. This seemed like a suitable medium to Use , But
You all sound like kings of the hill here. Let's try to get something done,
aside from namecalling , arguing with ourselves (Uh talesin) where is the
foundation here?
Can We try to find some sort of middle ground?
I am just a son of a god :)
Marduk
James Morris
richard sprigg wrote in message <3695B0...@sympatico.ca>...
>G Leake wrote:
SNIP
>
>Yet he also notes, in several places, that all gods are symbols, and
>cautions the student not to confuse symbol and substance.
>remember that the perfect and the perfect are none.
>
>"I am a god of war and vengeance"
>
this thread. As a Pagan (Celtic, mostly) I believe that it is important to
understand as many points of view as possible and I was wondering if you
could clarity the above point. Does it mean that even the God Head (Yaweh)
is a symbol or only the gods on the way to the God Head?
richard sprigg
(Personal POV)
All gods are symbols, as are all veils and paths.
Consider JHVH: Legend says that properly pronounced (vibrated) this word
will destroy the universe.
It is thus a symbol for the logos of creation in the Judaic system. It
is thus a symbol of great power, but no more God itself than the letters
DOG when written or spoken will instantly start running around and
barking.
octinomos
% richard sprigg wrote in message <3695B0...@sympatico.ca>...
% >G Leake wrote:
% SNIP
% >
% >Yet he also notes, in several places, that all gods are symbols, and
% >cautions the student not to confuse symbol and substance.
% >remember that the perfect and the perfect are none.
% >
% >"I am a god of war and vengeance"
% >
% Excuse a person with limited (if any) worthwhile knowledge butting in on
% this thread. As a Pagan (Celtic, mostly) I believe that it is important to
% understand as many points of view as possible and I was wondering if you
% could clarity the above point. Does it mean that even the God Head (Yaweh)
% is a symbol or only the gods on the way to the God Head?
the first verse in the siva samhita reads:
"The Jnana [Gnosis] alone is eternal; it is without beginning or end;
there exists no other real substance. Diversities which we see in the
world are results of sense-conditions; when the latter cease, then this
Jnana alone, and nothing else, remains."
-------
so to answer your question, Yaweh would himself be one of the
diversities in the world which is not real. only illusory.
-------
and in verse 64 of chapter 1, we read:
"Maya (illusion) is the mother of the universe. Not from any
other principle has the universe been created; when this Maya is
destroyed, the world certainly does not exist."
_____________________________________________________________________
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 Hawk's head
I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross. -LL iii.49-51
John E.Papa John Mayer
>Excuse a person with limited (if any) worthwhile knowledge butting in on
>this thread. As a Pagan (Celtic, mostly) I believe that it is important to
>understand as many points of view as possible and I was wondering if you
>could clarity the above point. Does it mean that even the God Head (Yaweh)
>is a symbol or only the gods on the way to the God Head?
Yes.
Hmmm.....that wasn't at all helpful. My apologies. First, how do you
know *you* are real, and not a symbol? You're not the same person
you were five minutes ago, are you? Haven't you learned some new
thing, experienced some event, learned some new fact? So what you
*call* "you" is just a marker for an evolving presence, yes? Until you
*experience* the god you mean by the name you list, it can't be anything
but a symbol, a marker for one of your ideas/concepts. And even then
ya just might be foolin' yerself.
"Nobody loves me but my mother,
And she could be jivin' too!"
---B.B. King
WIll