Ql'pp'th/Shells and Kabbalistic Evil (was Beg. Enoch)
naga...@yronwode.spamcom
shalom alechem, my kin.
uncited:
>>> Your understanding of and opinions about Jewish Kabbalah seem to be
>>> based solely on Gershom Sholem's work.... This explains why you
>>> insist that the qlippoth are "evil" in the Jewish Kabbalistic
>>> system.
interesting.
>>> ...Sholem believed that the Gnostics influenced Jewish mysticism,
>>> which then gave rise to Kabbalah, thus his interpretations of Jewish
>>> Kabbalah were influenced by Gnosticism and the Christian concepts of
>>> good and evil.
I'm not sure I follow the logic of this suggestion. perhaps you're saying
that Scholem's *exposure* to concepts of Kabbalah's relation
to Gnosticism and Christian concepts of good and evil predisposed
him toward biases which were inaccurate, and modern kabbalists are
discovering this? if so, could you explain other authorities which alike
support a referral to Scholem? he seems pretty popular today.
>>> Sholem's theories were left unchallenged for a few generations.
ahh, the old 'Lost Key' wind-up.
>>> Currently, however, modern Jewish Kabbalists
>>> are not as supportive of Sholem's theories as modern Christian or
>>> Hermetic Qabalists. But regardless of the opinions of modern
>>> Kabbalists/Qabalists, the fact is that Sholem's theories are
>>> intertwined with Christian concepts, thus his theories do not
>>> reflect strict Jewish theology.
Casey Sheldon:
>> Can we get some sources? My curiosity is piqued. Kaplan seems to
>> have the same views in many regards... Are you saying that anyone
>> who believes in the Kabbalistic concepts of evil ascribes to the
>> theory that Kabbalah has its roots in Gnosticism, and as a result,
>> their theories would be considered intertwined with Xtian concepts?
Jeffrey Burton Russell (a Christian) seems to think there were dualist Jews
believing in 'hara' (a personal evil) as well as some who regarded at least
one being (take your pick, Shaitan, Samael, others) as 'wholly
antagonistic to humans', even an attempted rival of the divine. the
actuality does not appear to be as clear-cut as someone is portraying it.
>> Strict Jewish theology is an odd phrase to use, too.
yes, I thought so too.
>> Some very strict Rabbis don't even believe in the Kabbalah. Are
>> we talking about strict Kabbalistic Jewish theology, or what?
how can we tell when our theology becomes strict? will our actions become
more extreme and prone to error?
>> ...I just want to define terms....
good luck. I'll try to help. :>
Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume) writes to Casey:
> I agree. Kaplan's views on Samael, the Klippoth and "The Serpent" are
> in line with Gershom Scholem's. The shells or "husks" of the klippoth
> were created when the original vessels were broken. They are the
> discarded "shards" so-to-speak. Everyone agrees that they are trapped
> in Asshia (the physical "olam" or world).
lovely, though I have found exceptions to the last who speculate that the
kleppah or qlippot are underworld roots, extending into Malkuth or that
Malkuth is made up of Her former glory's fragments, spotted, as it were, or
interfused with shell fragments and nodes of qlippotic energy, intelligence,
and influence. probably on the outskirts of occultsville, but you did say
"everybody". :> if I run across the
details I will be sure to pass them on to the interested.
> Therefore they interact with us as demonic forces.
that 'demonic' word. :> to me it means 'displaced, treated with fear and
loathing by conventional theurges'. those entities have a big question mark
on them inasmuch as my own path leads me into conflict with the mystical
values of these paths in all their
extremities.
> There is some vestige of divine sparks trapped
isn't the divine sparks concept Gnostic?
> among them which will be redeemed in the end time.
so there is to be some kind of 'end time'? I think we can start narrowing
down the types of people who follow such a theology and eschatology.
> ...BpH has some radical idea he (she) wants to put across and
> has to shove traditional concepts aside in order to promote
> the revision.
oh? I've seen that often enough here. :>
<details of personal grumbling omitted>
> ...I think [BpH's] best approach ...would be to ....
> [admit that they have] a "different" less traditional, even
> radical, approach to the problem of evil and the klippoth.
if it isn't just warmed-over Grant or somebody. novel concepts
described as such are more interesting than those which
masquerade as Ye Olde Anciente Wisdome.
but say, Gnome, haven't you read the QBL40 FAQ? you seem a
prime candidate to add to it. ok then, here's Poke's answer
for the record to the FAQ -- 'Kabbalah only after 40?
Whassat about?' or something of the type:
Carroll 'Poke' Runyon (gnome...@aol.com):
The real reason why the old rabbis were reluctant to teach
kabbalah to younger men was not that the system lacked
morality, but rather that it tended to transcend the
simplistic concept of "one personal, judgmental GOD" and
replace it with a more profound but less accessible
philosophical appeal to goodness and right-living based on
universal harmony. Less perceptive students ... often
mistake this neo platonic impersonality of god as some sort
of kabbalistic 007 license to kill. Crowley actually
encouraged this attitude. What we now call the "Hermetic
Qabalah" (G.D., Thelemic, etc.) is in fact less "moral" and
more tolerant of "evil" than "Jewish Kabbalah" in its
traditional forms.
thanks Poke!
> preliminary statement in Aryeh Kaplan's *Meditation and Kabbalah*:
> "This book contains Divine Names. Do not take it into the bathroom or
> any other unclean place."
my Muslim kin's repugnance at having The Holy Book too low seems
reflected here in a similar Jewish repugnance at contact between
it and bodily wastes. is there a connection between soil and bodily wastes?
ground-level and bathrooms? what is being rejected, exactly?
isn't it interesting that the Abyss or Ql'pp'th are sometimes directly
associated with Adam Kadmon's *bowels*? and it is demonic!
I was amused recently to discover recommendations FOR placement of
I Ching (sacred text to many Chinese and more), and this also fell
within the theoretical system from which the recommendation came --
keep in a dry, Yang-drenched place. presumably the argument could
be made that it was so heavily Yin-filled that it was important to
maintain it with a fresh supply of Yang. another way of looking at
it, however, is that its structure as it typically comes to us (of
late more and more Taoist versions popularly!) is Confucian and of
a particular Yang-flavour (patriarchal, socially-codifying, etc.).
this is the contention of more than one scholar of I Ching I've recently run
across, and as Wiggy was recently mentioning with respect to the methods for
deriving hexagrams, there has been a
great deal of change with respect to the text and its cultural envelope over
time. my point here, however, is that the
recommendation was FOR something, rather than against. compare
the ascriptions of good luck against the warning of bad luck,
for example, in a variety of cultures). is this a mark of its
POLAR nature, compared to the dualisms which produce fear of
soil and bodily concerns as substances not suited for bibles?
what is the nature of evil? is it simply the Caustic? (a cyclone or disease
is caustic) or is it that which intends Us ill (i.e.
focussed on the doings and imaginings of some group (often of religious, but
not always, at times the whole of our species or that of all sentient
beings)?
the so-called "Problem of Evil" is very old, and its character,
as an issue in the philosophy of religion, is worthy of thorough
study. the typical student never considers the range of possible
meanings for the term 'evil', for example, and there are lovely
examples of people defining their terms and setting out what
they consider to be a log of the world's expression or concept
of it, sometimes a catalogue of its travesties in a good many
demonological and satanistic references (from Russell mentioned earlier to
Carus, Ansgar Kelly, and Messadie').
ultimately, whether or not there is some duplicity on the part of the
species human, what is evil is by and large opposed by homosapiens, through
law and action. its persistence is a function of perversion, lies, and
deceit in the guise of goodly and trustworthy behaviour, and its victims are
always the innocent and faithful. where it may be found is always where we
least expect, they say. small wonder why.
peace be with you,
hara
special "ql'pp'tic sig" follows:
--------------------------------------------------------
So we'll go to the top of the toppest blue space,
The Official Katroo Birthday Sounding-Off Place!
Come on! Open your mouth and sound off at the sky!
Shout loud at the top of your voice, 'I AM I!
ME!
I am I!
And I may not know why
But I know that I like it.
_Three cheers_! I AM I!'"
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel),
"The Big Birthday Book", aka "Happy Birthday to You",
---------------------------------------------------------
END