God and Qabalah

SweetIsTheTruth

billv said:
Personally I like most of the ideas presented around Kaballistic thought, but not the idea that this is really just a system based on old biblical texts or myth.

I don't think the Qaballah is a system based on old biblical texts. For instance, the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament differs markedly from what the Christians teach about the Old Testament. Whether you define 'biblical' from a Jewish or Christian standpoint would impact your views greatly.

As far as myth, I could never discount anything simply because it is myth. There is a reason the most popular movies involve some nobody guy saving the day and getting the girl in the last few minutes. We all like heroes and the myth of the hero is exceedingly powerful to us.


billv said:
I realize that the Kaballah and it's varients are from a Jewish heritage, but do they presuppose a belief in YHVH?

Define YHVH however you choose. Call it Jehovah or call it Amun. The principle is the same.

billv said:
I know there are references to many angelic and elemental spirits as well. Are these references just allegorical, to personify aspects of mind, or are they to be taken as objective, existing entities?

The same debate rages on endlessly in pagan circles. Are the dieties part of our psyche or do they exist separately outside of ourselves? Why do you limit yourself to only two choices, being either allegory or literal existence? It sounds like you are bogged down in dualistic thinking which may well offer you wholly false choices. Can you escape these dualistic possibilities and jump into polyvalent logic and thereby have 3 choices;

1. deities are allegory and don't exist
2. deities do exist
2. 1 & 2 are both true and not true at the same time

billv said:
For example, in Robert Wang's book he talks about "suspending disbelief" when it comes to these things in his book, yet later he seems entrenched in the ideas surrounding deities, archangels, etc...

Perhaps it would be better to drop all ideas of gods, goddesses, archangels, etc., from your own mind. Would seeing them as powers, energy currents or archetypes sit better with you? See them however you need to see them to make it fit for you.

billv said:
I'm really having a difficult time with this as I am agnostic with a strong lean toward outright atheism.

Then you are exactly as you need to be. It might be fun to walk both sides of the issue at the same time, ie, believe in deities at the same time you believe in no deities. Interpret what you read from both standpoints simultaneously.

billv said:
Yet, I still see value in the system from a psychological/self-development perspective.

Hmmmmm, you might find the book "Personality, Divination and the Tarot," by Carl Sargent to be interesting. He interprets the cards of the deck strictly from a psychological standpoint, using the Marseilles deck. It's very easy to see how this is possible. Our subconscious does not speak in words nor rationally. It speaks in pictures, archetypes & dreams that often don't make sense from a rational standpoint on the face of it. We might find ourselves walking down a street naked in a dream. Underneath that, we might also fear we are exposing too much of ourselves in some area of our waking life. Rational logic may be in a dream, but might not be obvious on the surface of the dream.

billv said:
I also remember Alistair Crowley talking about how it is best to use the religion you grew up with as the basis for working in magickal endeavors, even if you had renounced it's dogma/beliefs because it provides a model for study. This is confusing to me. Do you have to believe in God to be successful in Kaballistic/Qabalalistic studies?

I have the utmost respect for Crowley. However, those who have negative experiences with their religion of origin might best not use that religion for study. I don't personally believe you must believe in dieties to be successful or learn the Qaballah.

Crowley's Devil shows a huge penis. The letter associated with it is 'ayin', meaning eye. The reference is to the eye of the penis. The symbol of Crowley's 15th trump is of a power or energy current that wishes to unite/mate with everything, much like a horny goat. I don't claim to understand it fully. However, I do feel I can easily grasp the concept expressed in the card. I have been horny before. It might even make me think of a mote in one's eye. Perhaps someone in an abusive relationship stays in the relationship because they truly see themselves as deserving abuse. The mote in their eye of deserving the abuse keeps them chained to the other person in the relationship, much like people are shown in chains on the 15th trump in many decks. Being willing to unite/mate with everything can indeed be a dark thing, if you lack the knowledge or care so little to chain yourself to an abuser. Being willing to unite/mate with everything could also be a light and not dark thing, if you choose to NOT unite/mate with abusive people. Perhaps being willing to unite/mate with everything could also be a neutral thing. Maybe you and a friend are just horny and mutually agree to address it for just one night. I don't claim any sentence in this paragraph represents any understanding of Qaballah, deities, ayin, the 15th trump or anything else. Many might view what I have written as pure bunk. I have clearly leaped from the ayin of the penis to mote in one's eye, which is not even the same type of eye. This is how I presently see, interpret and understand 'ayin' at this time, whether correct or not.

Likewise, the Justice trump is Lamed, or the ox-goad. The ox-goad was used to keep animals walking a straight line when tilling the fields. Likewise, the Justice trump, representing facing the consequences of one's actions, is an ox-goad within itself. If I run away at the first sign of conflict, then my action of running away will teach others certain subjects are not up for discussion or else I will run away. In seeing that my action of running away cuts off & limits communication in my relationships, and therefore, weakens my relationships, the consequences of the running away from conflict will serve to steer me, or goad the ox that is me, in a direction other than running away. Of course, I must first be able to see the action of running away is causing a breakdown in communication. If I have a mote in my ayin that prevents me from seeing running from conflict leads to breakdown in communication, I won't get the lesson of the ox-goad. Were that the case, I would clearly have chosen 'flight' in the false dichotomy of 'fight or flight' and elevated 'flight' to the level of a God. Truly in such a case, I would be treating the 'flight' response as a God, obeying the urge to flight as a first course of action in many, if not all, cases. If you were constructing your own Qabalistic tree, what would you name the urges to 'fight or flight?" Would they be gods, angels, demons or would they be something in between? Maybe we could name them the Leaver and the Soldier or the Scaredy-Cat and the Boxer. What would they look like to you? Where would you place them on your Tree?

Also, you might wish to look into other religions outside of Judaism or Christianity in your pursuit of Qaballah. If you are familiar with Crowley, his book "777" will be helpful in this. I am learning/interpreting Qaballah from the religious standpoint of the ancient Egyptians. For me, Amun is JHVH, in the sense of being 'the hidden one" (as in zero not four). This allows me to pursue the study without any biases I might have picked up being raised in Christianity. Many of the gods of the ancient Egyptians were personified concepts, such as Thoth=thought & Ma'at (Justice trump)=Justice, underlying order, doing what is right, etc. I am not saying adopting the religion of the ancient Egyptians will solve this for you. What I am saying is, understanding religions outside of Judaism or Christianity, then superimposing that understanding onto the Qaballah, might allow you to proceed without getting bogged down in your religion of origin. Jesus and Osiris both died and were resurrected. Isis was as much of a personal savior as Jesus was. Jesus, Isis and Kwan-Yin were all known as deities of compassion. See the common archetypes in the underlying myths and carry on. Ultimately, I don't know that it will matter whether you view them as allegorical, real or something else entirely.
 

billv

SweetIsTheTruth said:
Perhaps it would be better to drop all ideas of gods, goddesses, archangels, etc., from your own mind. Would seeing them as powers, energy currents or archetypes sit better with you? See them however you need to see them to make it fit for you.

SweetIsTheTruth, first of all let me thank you so much for your in-depth and thoughtful reply. Your comments on Crowley and around the various systems is very informative. I really believe what you state above is where I'm at right now, and that is where I guess I need to be, if that makes sense.

When it comes to this type of study, I feel somewhat like child pretending to be a brain surgeon sometimes. I do believe that I'm well-grounded in reality and that I am old enough to start to challenging myself to improve, and to explore my inner world. Some demons that I am bound to encounter might as well be real even if they are not real to anyone else, since they cause me real trouble and I have to deal with them in my reality. I have never personified them or identified them symbolically before, although I'm sure that they will be formidable. However, every card contains it's opposite energy as well. Every enemy/demon inside of me is an aspect of me, and my ability to let them have control over me is only as strong as I allow it to be.

I'm getting off-topic here, but I thank you again for the post, I really enjoyed it!

Bill V
 

BodhiSeed

Bill,
I am reading "God is a Verb," which is a more orthodox view of Kabbalah, as well as "Chicken Qabbalah" which is more an unorthodox book for those into tarot, Golden Dawn, magick, etc. Perhaps this second book might be the direction you're looking in?

Bodhran
 

venicebard

SweetIsTheTruth said:
Define YHVH however you choose. Call it Jehovah or call it Amun. The principle is the same.
Oh really. Define It how we choose? I hope based in some part on what it actually is. In truth, the spelling yud-heh-vav-heh conveys a very powerful mechanism for affecting reality: it is based on the divine creative power manifesting as procreation in man. Yod as 10 is the male desire to join with the female (10 meaning joined hands), vav as 6 is the six directions of space, specifically the space within the female for the male (both psychologically and physically), and the two hehs, each 5 in Hebrew, are the hand of each given as covenant to the other -- just as heh is the letter added to Abram to make Abraham and mark the greater Covenant.

(I'm sure the name Amun conveys its own meaning, which is distinct.)
Are the dieties part of our psyche or do they exist separately outside of ourselves? Why do you limit yourself to only two choices, being either allegory or literal existence? It sounds like you are bogged down in dualistic thinking which may well offer you wholly false choices. Can you escape these dualistic possibilities and jump into polyvalent logic and thereby have 3 choices;

1. deities are allegory and don't exist
2. deities do exist
2. 1 & 2 are both true and not true at the same time
Yes, though I would have put it somewhat differently, this strikes close to the mark methinks. To pose as either/or the god's presence within and without assumes a discrete separation, that of Cartesian dualism. In reality, within and without must interact in order for one even to decide to move an arm and then actually move it, so Cartesian dualism is, I think you call it, a 'red herring'.

The world is made of matter shaped by thought-forms. Gods are powerful thoughtforms. Hence gods are powerful beings in the shaping of matter. Period.

[The way the 'gulf' between inner and outer is bridged, by the way, is quite interesting. The soul is what Thomas Aquinas called man's 'substantial form' -- not to be confused with the conscious identity or awareness or self inhabiting said form, as I see it. This is the upright form of an individual, ruled by the upward impulse or imperative on the central vertical axis of the body. It is this impulse in relation to without, but there is another entity, called (for valid reasons) the aia, which is the next step in the progress of a unit and constitutes that same impulse or axis in relation to within. Without and within are easily definable: the former is forward or towards the outer horizon, the latter back, meaning back towards oneself -- the inner horizon (inner counterpart to the outer). Whatever happens within has an effect on the aia, which is the axis of man's upright form in relation to its indwelling conscious doer, and since the aia coincides precisely with the soul, that effect already has thereby been conveyed to the soul, which is that same axis, only in relation to what extends out from it. (Buddha in his 'anatta' doctrine explained that the conscious self or identity is not 'out there somewhere' [amongst the 5 skandas normally taken to be the whole of reality], which Theravada doctrine has misinterpreted to mean there is no self, which undoes, essentially, the reform the Buddha was trying to instill into Hinduism of its belief that the end goal is to be dissolved back into the Whole, no-longer an individual [or something like that].)]
 

venicebard

venicebard said:
The world is made of matter shaped by thought-forms. Gods are powerful thoughtforms. Hence gods are powerful beings in the shaping of matter. Period.
I should have added that if you have any familiarity with Jungian psychoanalysis or sex magic or some other 'depth perception' of the human psyche, it becomes apparent that there are entities in the psyche that develop a certain autonomy of action, and indeed some enter the psyche with that autonomy of action already inherent in them, as for example gods of whom one is taught by others. These 'complexes', then, affect not only us but, if Jung's 'synchronicity' is taken into account (which my own experience proves the folly of discounting), external reality as well.

In other words, gods do have their own personalities. And a god's awareness and wishes and so on are a composite of those of his worshipers, presumably.
 

venicebard

billv said:
A less religiously-slanted system would probably be a more comfortable fit for me, tho, because I keep bumping up against the religious connotations associated with Qabalah.

Regarding my beliefs, I'm not a hard/fast atheist, although I'm very entrenched in the "I don't know" realm, and have doubts.
I was raised atheist but became Gnostic (opposite of agnostic) as an adult. But I should reply to your concerns seriously (unlike my two preceding posts), as I have had to overcome the same feelings myself only more so.
billv said:
Sometimes the religious connotations do get in my way, but I am willing to accept them as allegorical or as personifications of energy that really have nothing to do with biblegod, who I find intellectually and morally disgusting - probably because it is obviously a magnification of man's emotions and biases into the form of a deity, written to control and strike fear. (Just my comments, not trying to convince others of my views on this!)
Think of it like this -- and I only came fully to this view a few days ago! Suppose a gnosis takes place, in 12th-century Provence/Languedoc, wherein the true nature of the One Ruling Principle of things is discovered. It turns out to be the power inherent in the divine Form, Adam Qadmon: Upright Sentience as Form or Idea in the Platonic sense, teleologically causing all that is by drawing all to Itself, not by doing anything in the sense we do things but by being that which all that is seeks. The One Form is in a sense indifferent to us, but no individual or unit of existence can be indifferent to It: therefore It both creates and rules all that is. The Form or Idea of Upright Sentience is all knowledge in a sense, being knowledge's Form, and since all that is seeks It, progresses towards It, it follows some have reached It and are of the type Adam Qadmon themselves. It would be these selves that have reached the Ideal that would be the agents or agency in the present for that Ideal, which Itself is eternal.

Seeing this, the Kabbalists used the militantly monotheistic nature of Judaism as a tool whereby to entrench this Form in the minds of all who would thereafter seek within Judaism the deeper reality explaining the symbolic and historic acts recorded in the Torah. In other words, the thing shared by the transcendental God ain sof of the Kabbalists and the yod-heh-vav-heh of Torah is singularity or uniqueness. But as a result, the Kabbalist must then understand all 'acts' of God and powers resident in 'Him' as those inherent in the fact that all that is seeks 'Him' (It, being neither male nor female but both/neither).

A Torah-scroll-repairing friend of mine told me once that the concept God in Torah is more like this transcendental causative principle than a personality, although of course such an interpretation paints as symbolic some of the acts and words attributed to 'Him'.

Such a 'God', though, ultimately does transcend any particular religion. Yet there may well be certain religions (or a certain religion) that best reflect (best reflects) that now-understood (and Platonic in character) One Form, this Form being probably what Plato meant by his term 'world soul'.

This relates to the Gnostic view (mine, for example) by separating-out the concept of the demiurge-creator whose creation is an action from the Great Creator, so to speak, that is the One Form. For the demiurge-creator is US! We are the guilty ones, not 'God': the mess we have made of the world merely reflects our lack of skill in seeking the One Form.

Finally, much can be gained by pursuing the structure of speech and the letters of the alef-bet, but not in a vacuum. The letters can only be fully understood when seen in the larger context of ancient alphabets generally: a deeper tradition of letters, even, than that preserved in Kabbalah's remnants alone can be grasped when insular Keltic bardic tradition is invoked and combined with Merkabah 'mysticism' concerning same (as laid out in Sefer Yetzirah). Then the extremely simple phonetic principle on which the whole scheme is based becomes transparent and the Hebrew vowel-equivalents leap forth out of the chaos. And the deeper tradition thus unearthed does indeed show that the Name, yod-heh-vav-heh, embodies great power: it is the power that expresses itself in man as procreative power, in the loins, but in Adam Qadmon as creative power Itself, resident in the head (meaning instead of being confined to the loins It reaches all the way to the top, permeating the entire Form). [Indeed that deeper tradition even demonstrates it is the remnant of much greater knowledge of the workings of nature than that of modern science, in that it unifies what moderns see as separate fields . . . but that's another story.]